bhamHusker

And you're going to fuss at others for overreacting?

Yes, and on this message board the height my computer showed was under 800 people (less than 1% of Memorial Stadium capacity)....and that was this past Saturday morning with people looking for "news". I think significantly less than that actually post. I have no idea if it's actually representative or not.....but I know the negativity I read on Huskerboard toward Pelini is not shared by the other Husker groups I am part of. Forum posters, regardless of the subject matter (video games, sports, software products, etc.), have always seemed to have had the delusional notion that their opinions are representative of the population at large, and it's almost universally not the case.

Look, I think there are plenty of legitimate criticisms for the guy. I just don't see this as one. I've yet to see anyone give a good example of him being a dick to the fans. I've seen plenty of vague claims that he's antagonized the fans, but I can't get a single concrete example other than some years-old audio of him privately venting about a *subset* of the fans that were, in fact, being dicks. Criticisms of what he has (or hasn't) put on the field lately are legitimate, I'm just looking for some evidence of what seems to me to be mythical hostility towards the fanbase.

How is he a dick to the fans exactly? He may not be warm and fuzzy enough for some of you, but that's not being a dick. I'm not talking about an old scrap of audio when he was privately venting about the douches in the stadium that were booing his team at half time and didn't stick around for the come back. We've all had those moments venting about a friend, parent, child, spouse, boss, employee or whatever that we'd be ashamed of if they were recorded and played publicly. I've asked this before and still haven't gotten a meaningful answer. Aside from getting on his knees and kissing your ass at the coffee shop, what exactly do you expect him to do differently? Edit: Again, I started a reply and had to step away to take care of some business. This has been discussed a bit more, and I should learn to check the thread's progress before submitting when I've done that, but the question stands. My reference to the leaked audio was made before I saw Knapp bring it up later in the thread, luckily he was prescient enough to address it for me hah

If Mora goes to Washington, I think it would be hilarious if UCLA went after Coach O.

nevermind - misread a post.

What exactly do you want him to do to embrace the fans? I'm probably not as tuned in to things in Lincoln since I haven't lived there in forever, and I haven't been able to get back for a game in a couple of years (which is hard on me since I used to try to get back for a couple each year at least). I try to stay connected, though, and I read the sports sections of both papers' websites daily, I listen to local radio from Omaha and Lincoln regularly, and I read this forum (and others) every day. That said, maybe I'm missing something, but I've just never felt - even with the audio leaked - that he was hostile to the fans at large in the way that I often see him portrayed. In this regard, he doesn't seem to me to be any different than what I see at other programs. To be clear, I've been pretty critical of Bo and his staff for the last couple of years, but this just isn't one of the criticisms I have. I've been ambivalent about the coaching situation lately, and see a lot of fair arguments from both sides. A decision has been made to stick with him, though, so all of the arguments for or against him being replaced are irrelevant to me at this point. I'm not asking this as an opportunity for another round of piling on the staff; there are enough of those threads already. I'm just genuinely curious and would like to know what are your (or anyone else that wants to chime in) expectations of the coaching staff when it comes to "embracing the fans" satisfactorily? Edit: I had to step away for a meeting while writing this, and "da skers" asked a similar question that I didn't see until after I finished this message. Is your criticism actually that he's not warm and fuzzy enough with you when you approach him at the coffee shop?

It doesn't really matter ultimately, but for what it's worth, Eichorst's predecessor Kirby Hocutt hired Golden.

So for equivalent compensation, he could be at College Station or in sunny SoCal coaching at one of the most revered schools in CFB history. Tough choice.

You mean like it's been for the last 8+ weeks?

i thought he made both? he did. mwj98 is confused.

If you have access to WatchESPN/ESPN3, you should be able to watch the game there.

I don't mind Sharpe at all, but I've never really been wowed by him. He's certainly an upgrade to Rose's awful play-by-play. Living in Birmingham, I used to listen to most games on streaming audio dating back into late 90's, but since the move to the B1G and the expanded TV coverage, I rarely listen to the radio play-by-play anymore. I regret not having the radio broadcast on now just for Davison's reaction.

It's not exactly uncommon. The coaches are heavily restricted to how much time they can spend coaching up the players. They can't spend the entire off season training a player, but an independent coach for hire like Calhoun can. QBs with the means to do so often seek training from QB gurus because it gives them an edge.

junior I think half the time they look up stats for Kenny Bell and don't realize they're looking at the stats for Alabama player instead.

Memorial Stadium, Lincoln NE (first was vs. Indiana in 1975) Legion Field, Birmingham AL (vs. Alabama in 1978) Jordan-Hare Stadium, Auburn AL (vs. Auburn in 1982) I was planning to add the Southern Miss game in the Superdome to the list this year, but USM was broke and needed cash, so.... I was planning to add Neyland Stadium to the list, too, but that's been postponed at best.

For me, this might be the funniest part of this thread considering how you pissed and moaned last year when I referred to you as a "religious conservative."

I didn't say that at all, if you would read the whole statement I even said that I was using the royal "your" not JJHusker specifically. Read the whole post, not just part of it. But I'm the one with reading comprehension issues, apparently.

Please enlighten me as to which specific religions hold specific beliefs and teach that there are specific groups of people who that religion doesn't like. I'm not looking for "this televangelist" or "that church over there on the corner" or this handful of radical people that obviously are not acting according to what their religion teaches. I'm talking a specific religion that, from top to bottom, holds this belief. Or are you referring to individuals who may be acting outside the tenets of their claimed religion? Yes, I'm trying to make a point but I am also very serious. Is there a religion that claims to not like blacks? or Muslims? or gays? I'm not familiar with any. That's kind of the beauty of religion... a group can warp it to mean anything they want it to mean, especially when you generalize laws like this. I can say that my views, as a devout Pastafarian, don't allow me to rent an apartment to a Christian. And also, as a side note, why I never understood the religious impetus behind a gay marriage ban. Just because YOUR sect of Christianity wants gays to burn in hell, doesn't mean that ALL do. WTF? Are you outside your friggin mind or are you just too biased to know what the hell you're talking about? Not only does my sect of Christianity (Catholicism) not want to see gays burn in hell, they do not WANT to see anyone burn and I am not aware of any other Christian religion that wants it either. If somebody wants that, then they ain't Christian. Me thinks you have no grasp whatsoever of the huge difference between warning people about what type of behavior may lead them on a path to hell and wantonly condemning them there. There is room for debate with the secular community about what may constitute sinful behavior but there is no room for a blatant bullsh#t lie like you just posted. 99.995% sure that his use of "your" was in the impersonal, general sense, not in the you, JJHusker1, sense. Don't let that get in the way of you feeling all persecuted and put upon, though.

Lighten up, guys. The kind of people that gather like a pack of schoolboys to whisper their creeper fantasies about the lesbian couple moving in typically aren't even cognizant of the issues they have. The ones that think nothing of telling other people about it certainly aren't. I just hope that my daughters, whether they grow up to be straight or gay, never have to live around people like that. No offense.

Yep. It annoys me that this mythological fantasy is on the History Channel in the same way that it annoys me that Firefly is on the Science channel. Fiction is fun and all, but it doesn't belong on channels that are ostensibly for history or science documentaries. That said, the History Channel is so far gone with crap like Ancient Aliens and reality show BS that this garbage more or less fits in now. I would be nice if they'd change their name to a more honest one like "The bullsh#t Channel."

The word you're looking for is spouses. It is not a hard concept to grasp. Women are wives, men are husbands - even if when there are two of the same sex in the union. Referring to them as wives is degrading. As for the topic, I hope that the SCOTUS does the right thing, but I'm not confident that it will happen. The hard-line conservatives on the court are a predictably against marriage equality, Kennedy is on the fence and seems to be afraid of the issue. I think the moderate to liberal justices are pretty reliably in favor of it, but Ginsburg asked some questions today that raised an eyebrow or two. So the term "wife" is degrading? If I understand the arguments in U.S. v. Windsor correctly, Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defines marriage as the legal union between a husband and a WIFE. Edie Windsor seeks the same marital deduction as a surviving husband or WIFE would receive following the death of Thea Spyer. She is already a spouse of Thea Spyer (or partner, or whatever you want to call her). She wants the rights of a husband or WIFE. How could the term “wife” be demeaning? That’s what Ms. Windsor seeks. On a final note, it’s difficult to persuade people to your point of view when you act like a smarmy douchebag. You might consider adopting a different tone. I don't think bhamHusker may have known the facts of the case that is in front of SCOTUS. It can reasonably be inferred that you may have been making a shot at gay couples trying to call a male spouse a "wife," even though I don't think that was your intent. Now that is out of the way ... In the simplest terms, they hope to get the DOMA language erased. Most of the benefits are conferred on "married" couples. They are trying to change the definition of "marriage" from DOMA's bigoted view to a view that makes marriage open to gay couples for federal and interstate purposes. They are not trying to be eligible as "wives" per se, they are trying to show that language is discriminating and should be changed. I was fully aware of the details of the case vs. DOMA, however neither this discussion nor the broader impact of whatever decision SCOTUS makes is limited simply to the plight of Edie Windsor. Prop 8 was before the SCOTUS yesterday as well, and the broader point of employment benefits that NUance raised extends well beyond the specifics of the DOMA case since neither woman was an employee of the government (Windsor's suit addresses federal inheritance taxes). When referring to the court's aversion to placing more people "on the gov't dole" NUance's description of these people as "wives" certainly seemed loaded to me. Since there are nearly equal numbers of men versus women employed by the federal government, we're talking about large set of mixed genders, and using wives as a blanket description for them would be demeaning to at least half of them. I, justifiably imo, took exception to that characterization. NUance, you'll note in my original post that I didn't say that the term wife was inherently demeaning ("women are wives, men are husbands"). My exception was to the apparent blanket use of the term, which seemed to be demeaning. If that wasn't your intent (and given your response, perhaps it was not not), then by all means you have my apology. Understand that when I read it, your one line of text didn't indicate that you were narrowly referring only to the plight of Mrs. Windsor and that point wasn't really relevant to her case anyway (see above). There was nothing smarmy or douchebaggish about the point I raised or the way I raised it - a shade confrontational perhaps, but not overly so. What's up with the name calling?

The word you're looking for is spouses. It is not a hard concept to grasp. Women are wives, men are husbands - even if when there are two of the same sex in the union. Referring to them as wives is degrading. As for the topic, I hope that the SCOTUS does the right thing, but I'm not confident that it will happen. The hard-line conservatives on the court are a predictably against marriage equality, Kennedy is on the fence and seems to be afraid of the issue. I think the moderate to liberal justices are pretty reliably in favor of it, but Ginsburg asked some questions today that raised an eyebrow or two.

Hope I set the DVR for that? Hmm.... If not, it will repeat at least a couple of times this evening and overnight.

That's part of the problem with the perception - people remember turnovers when they're perceived to have been game changers (whether or not they actually were is always debatable). That's an emotional response to the turnovers, when what's deserved is objectivity. All turnovers cost us points opportunities - so do lots of other things that we don't get nearly as worked up about. This kid's body of work is too good to get too overwrought about a handful of fumbles. Everyone that touches the ball will have a turnover at times. Cross had two in one game, and our QB had 16 on the year and lost half of them (I mention his here because most were on rushes rather than sacks). Even Burkhead, a much more experienced RB, managed to cough one up in his limited number of carries. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's not a problem - it's something that needs the attention of him and his coaches plus a lot of work between now and kickoff. I'm just saying that I think he gets too much crap for being "fumble prone." As a running back, he's got some work to do, but it's not as bad as some seem to think. As a punt/kick returner, he needs to get it sorted or let someone else with better hands do the job. I think he's the kind of guy that will do what it takes to get this fixed, so I'm just not that concerned about it.