knapplc

There's a forum for threads about other schools. You can find a discussion about the Pinkel DWI there. A little looking around before posting is a good thing. If it's not Husker-related, it doesn't belong here. Pretty simple concept. Further, I have PM'd you in the past about issues with your posts. If you don't read those PMs, that's nobody's fault but your own.

It's a good thing this incessant harping on chat doesn't sound at all like a petulant child whining because they aren't getting their way.

I can say that any adult writing that sign should know what it means, and if they don't they're not smart enough to be a relevant voice in the public discourse.

I want to know why we don't have more pics of this yet. What is going on, UNL crew? Cina, get back over there and fire up the power converters on your cell phone and get us some pics. I am not tipping if this is the kind of service I can expect in this thread.

No obviously it was made by an adult, I am saying he has no clue what it means. Who knows who gave it to him to hold but they shouldn't have given it to him. He shouldn't even be there. I think children should be children and not indocturinated into any movement until much older!! Then the kid is extraneous to the discussion, because the term was put on the sign by an adult, as we all agree. So an adult, who knows the term "tea bagger," wrote the sign. Thus matthew's argument remains valid. I'm glad we got that cleared up.

Since when?

Well, now we have a controversy. Someone needs to get over there and get more pics. Skip a class if you have to. Let's get on this, people.

So you're conjecturing that the kid actually made the sign? Looks like grown-up workmanship to me.

It's as underwhelming as you've been expecting. Looks like it's set up next to Burger King in the Union.

http://rivals.yahoo....id=201111190029 That was the RichRod era. Totally different ball game now. I'l see that and raise you that we beat them under the Callahan era. Meaning......? Meaning that you site the RichRod era as a handicap and I site the Callahan era as a 4 limb amputation and we beat them. How does that apply to the conversation? That Alamo Bowl predates the RichRod era, and this 5-game losing streak. I'll agree on the "4 limb amputation," but I don't think any of that applies.

The reason I withhold too much vitriol from Boise St. is the fact they were born in that second-tier conference. I'm sure today they wish they were geographically closer to the Center of Power in college football instead of out there in B.F.E., but they are where they are. So you can't blame them for that. However, the other shoe waiting to drop in the Boise State saga is, what happens when Chris Petersen leaves. They have had very limited success without him running the offense. When he goes, do they sustain what he built?

http://rivals.yahoo....id=201111190029 That was the RichRod era. Totally different ball game now. I'l see that and raise you that we beat them under the Callahan era. Meaning......?

And this kind of information coming out is EXACTLY why you suspend her for the rest of the year. Legal wrangling can be explained away with technicalities, and we probably all agree that our courts don't really need to be bogged down with felony prosecutions of the 65-year-old and/or with Lauren Cook, but the fact is that only having her sit out two games in no way mitigates the very real questions people have with the way this was handled. With just a two-game suspension, even if it's not the case, it seems like we've become a "win at all costs" program. And that is NOT the image we want.

The guy who was hit agreed with allowing her into pretrial diversion, though. Also, key piece of information left out of the above post: However, I will say the same thing I said about Lauren - I don't really think society needs to be protected from this 65-year-old woman by putting her through a felony trial.

I agree that it was a poor choice to have her play right away after the diversion ruling came out. Two games is not enough of a suspension.

I agree with that, especially the bold part.

I'm watching the same games you're watching. I'm also seeing that those teams you've mentioned, Kansas, Missouri, and Colorado, have been the products of fleeting success. The sun shines on every dog's ass some days, as the old saying goes. It's nearly impossible for a school to always be bad - although Iowa State, K-State, Kansas and Missouri sure have tried. Sure, those games you mention happened. And at the time, for that brief window they were good, those were "big" games. But those days in the sun lasted a few years, and now they're gone. I'm going to post some facts. Stop me when I'm being "arrogant." Colorado Nebraska leads the all-time series 49-18, with two ties. In the past 20 years, the best overall stretch in the series, Nebraska has gone 15-4-1 against the Buffaloes. Colorado has been ranked eight times in that 20-year period, the last time being 2002. At one time in our history, Nebraska won 18 straight games (68-85). Kansas Nebraska leads the all-time series 91-23-3. In the past 20 years, the best overall stretch in the series, Nebraska has gone 18-2 against the Jayhawks. Kansas has been ranked three times in that 20-year period, the last time being 2007. At one time in our history, Nebraska won 36 straight games (69-04). Kansas State Nebraska leads the all-time series 78-15-2. In the past 20 years, the best overall stretch in the series, Nebraska has gone 15-5 against the Wildcats. Kansas State has been ranked eight times in that 20-year period, the last time being 2002. At one time in our history, Nebraska won 29 straight games (68-97). Missouri Nebraska leads the all-time series 65-36-3. In the past 20 years, the best overall stretch in the series, Nebraska has gone 16-4 against the Tigers. Missouri has been ranked five times in that 20-year period, the last time being 2010. At one time in our history, Nebraska won 24 straight games (79-02). For the most part, over the past 50-ish years, these teams have not just been bad, but very bad. Bad enough that we've gone more than a decade straight beating the hell out of each of them. These are not good teams, and it is not "arrogant" or "revisionist" to say so. Further, the success of each of these teams, with Colorado being the exception, can largely be traced to ONE good coach. Once that coach goes.... so goes the program. But even the exception has faltered, as we've seen Colorado plummet to the depths of college football suckitude.

I think we belong more than the Big East winner, whoever that is.

This is why you don't riot and damage property in the information age. Cameras everywhere are capturing your image. Gonna be really hard for these guys to get off with photo evidence... More pics HERE

More facts are continuing to come out. And none of them are good for Sandusky, Paterno or Penn State.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/preview?gid=201111190029 That was the RichRod era. Totally different ball game now.

Sure, they've built a nice program from basically nothing, and they seem to have done it in the right way, so there's a lot to admire there. But the incessant "disrespect" card being played in every conversation gets tiresome. The fact is that they haven't earned a spot on the big stage yet, and they won't until they join a "real" conference and play a tough schedule like the other big boys. Sure, they've had a great record the past few years. But tell me, which team wouldn't playing these SOS's in the past ten years? 2001 - 98 2002 - 112 2003 - 103 2004 - 78 2005 - 98 2006 - 90 2007 - 113 2008 - 94 2009 - 96 2010 - 81

What we know? Like the fact that JoePa let an accused predator have access to his campus and facilities for more than a decade without performing the due diligence of reporting and allowing an investigation to come to a conclusion? That kind of fact? What other facts do you need to come to a conclusion that, at the very least, this was badly mishandled by Penn State, and specifically by Paterno?

Welcome to your 50s, Maudfather. You old man, you.

Wait, what? You mean Devaney right? Osborne didn't have to get us Back from anything, he was handed a Dynasty No, I mean Osborne. He was "handed a dynasty" and held the status quo with it for more than a decade. He didn't improve upon what Devaney gave him, he regressed. But he was a first-time head coach, and that's not unexpected. Kinda like someone we have now....