knapplc

This is a joke.

These are the only qualified guys I can think of for RB coach: Ahman Green Calvin Jones Correll Buckhalter Dahrran Diedrick Dan Alexander Derek Brown IM Hipp Jeff Kinney Kenny Clark Mike Rozier Roger Craig Roy Helu

I'm sure that depends on the person. I certainly don't have lingering psychological torture from a belief in hell. I can't think of a single Christian I know who really focused on it. I'm sure some do, but I have no idea what the percentages are. Near as I can tell, hell at any church I ever attended was given about as much focus as Santa's list of who's naughty or nice, and that we should "be good, for goodness' sake!" I just don't have any animosity towards Christians or the Christian establishment that I was a Christian all those years. I think they were beneficial in making me who I am today.

I was a protestant. Here's a question, though. How would you feel if you were to find out that a priest or pastor or rabbi was teaching your daughter that Hell is a real place and that she will go there if she does not accept authority or dogma X, Y, or Z? About the same as I feel about teaching them about Santa Claus.

I wonder if former Catholics are more prone to be anti-religion. I was raised Lutheran and I have zero angst towards my former faith. In fact, I think they do the world a service, and I hope they stick around a long time. I see a lot of former Catholics who are very strongly anti-religion, while those protestants I know who dropped their faith seem to view it as mostly a non-issue. Is that just my anecdotal experience, or have others noticed this as well? The stated purpose of organized religion is to do good in the world. It's not a lot different purely as an organization than a football team. The problem comes when you have a person in authority who misuses that authority for nefarious purposes. If a football coach does this, it's a shame and we all think poorly of him, but it pretty much ends there, because his gig is to coach football. If a pastor/priest does something bad to a person, it seems like so much greater a betrayal, because they're in a position whose sole purpose is to help/comfort/support/teach people. Abuse is the polar opposite of what a priest is supposed to be, which is why I feel people take it so much harder when a pastor/priest mucks up their lives.

Do we really want Jeff Sims here, or do we want him to stay at Fort Scott and continue to feed us players? I'd almost rather have him stay where he is. It would be a better long-term benefit to us.

That list is bunk. It measures "prestige" more than anything, and prestige is a poor way of choosing your school. A far more realistic (and respected) ranking can be found HERE.

tl/dr

I don't think anyone here would assert that Bo is a perfect coach. Like every human, Bo has flaws. Those flaws sometimes exhibit themselves on a grand stage, sometimes in a big way. It is not unrealistic for people to comment on those flaws, or the missteps Bo makes. Some people may even go so far as to not like those flaws. Doesn't make them bad fans or unrealistic, it just means they observe things that Bo has done that aren't correct, and would like to see him fix.

I gotta tell ya, I haven't seen that. I've seen Cotton take a TON of heat over the last two years. And I don't recall the post where someone wanted him as Co-OC, but I'll guarantee that's a tiny minority.

I don't like the look-at-the-sideline thing either, but I'll gladly get over my dislike if it becomes an ingredient in a productive offense. One thing to note is, that method of running an offense is predicated on getting the play in quickly - one of my biggest gripes over the last few years. If we simply get the play in and get the guys lined up with 12-15 seconds left on the play clock, that'll be an improvement.

That's a good question. I would imagine it would be difficult to find out. I'm sure many programs don't publish this kind of information, because frankly they probably have very little to be proud of academically. Judoka - that's a good question.

I'm going to the Baylor game tonight or I would have loved to figure out a way to see this. Guy has to be a great speaker.

I'll probably give Beck a pass for the first year because of the difficulty of the schedule and the fact that he's taking a new position. After that, honeymoon's over. However, during his first year I expect to see: The offense overall progressing through learning. Mistakes we see in game one should not show up in game seven. Plays MUST get into the huddle in a timely manner. That starts first series, first game. His position (QB or RB or whatever he ends up with) must not be mental, have fumble-itis, or appear bewildered in games. Again, first series, first game. Those are a few very basic things he must do right away, new to the gig or not. Regarding "Callahan guys".... I think there may have been a couple of posts you missed where Cotton has taken some heat lately. A couple thousand, actually. To imply that Watson and Gilmore are taking flak only because they are Callahan guys is completely untrue. People have been ragging on the positions that had issues this year - QB, WR and O Line.

Agree with this very much (aside from the buffoons part - I am a dolt, not a buffoon). Shawn Watson was never the problem at Nebraska. Bill Callahan and Steve Pederson were. Watson is a position coach, and yes he has flaws (not getting plays in on time, not coaching up his position, not calling a good game sometimes, etc) but even Pelini Christ Superstar calls bad plays, has trouble getting his defensive play calls in, etc. No coach is perfect. Watson isn't, and was never expected to be. The biggest sin of Shawn Watson at Nebraska is that he didn't properly fit in to our program. That's not a knock against him - tons of coaches wouldn't fit in here. Doesn't mean they're bad coaches or bad guys. As information flows glacially from the front office, it's becoming more clear that Shawn Watson's career arc at Nebraska went something like this: Hired by Callahan as a position coach, with upward mobility implied. Watson progressed to QB/OC coach. Callahan got fired, and Watson (and Gilly) stayed on to provide that continuity link that Turner provided when Solich was fired. Watson did his job with varying degrees of success and helped the team transition to Bo in his first year. That process over, Watson was allowed to begin looking for another gig, which he did. Watson didn't find a new gig, and was retained for 2010. The transition project being more than fully complete, Watson is now moving on with Bo's blessing. Why should Bo not be happy with Watson? To the best of my knowledge, Watson has never been a burr in the saddle during Bo's tenure. I presume they knew the entire time what Watson's role was (continuity bridge), Watson performed that duty admirably (note the unusually low number of transfers after Callahan's departure/Bo's hire), and Bo should, justifiably, feel indebted to Watson. On the field I have issues with Watson - hence the Dr. Cox running in the streets .gif when it became abundantly clear Watson was leaving. But my angst with Watson ends at the white chalk line. Anywhere else, he seems like a good dude, and I wish him nothing but success.

Agreed, in part. The dying would kind of suck, too. Depends on how I go. But the unknown is scary, and can't be discounted.

Whether you adhere to the Big Crunch theory or the various forms of the entropy theories, you're right - most any scientifically plausible theory of the universe's fate ends poorly for humans.

Dropped Chalk Snopes is an invaluable resource.

This is the thread in which we'll discuss Ron Brown the Football Coach. For a riveting discussion on other aspects of Coach Brown's life and character, CLICK HERE.

You are correct. I was merely questioning Knapp's use of constitutional rights when referring to free speech and Ron Brown's actions. I then brought up separation of church and state to prove my point that religion cannot enter the governed public domain (ala public school). Under the United States Constitution, the treatment of religion by the government is broken into two clauses: the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. Both are discussed in regard to whether certain state actions would amount to an impermissible government establishment of religion. Such as religion (and anything pertaining to it) in public schools. So your whole angst against Ron Brown is not that he's "pushing his religion" on you, it's that he gives speeches in public schools in which he mentions God. Sorry, but this is not a government endorsement of religion, and there is nothing wrong with Coach Brown's mentioning his faith in such a speech. In order for Brown to be in the wrong you'd have to show that he was actively proselytizing to an unwilling audience. When you have that evidence, as in direct quotes where Brown was trying to convert or suborn his audience, we can talk. Until then, you're failing under the First Amendment, which does not prohibit any and all conversations of God or faith or religion in a government building, or in any particular government-sponsored arena. That dollar bill in your pocket says "In God We Trust." Your congresspersons open their sessions with prayer. These are just some examples submarining your point. You may question all you like. But it's still constitutionally protected. Out of curiosity, did you read the entire Wikipedia page from which you pulled the bold lines, or just the part that you felt supported your point?

He was worth seeing. He shoots straight. He's been through the wringer and there is no BS in his delivery.

They return Chris Polk, but they're going to start a Sophomore or a R-Freshman at QB most likely. I would hope that the team is highly motivated to put another beating on them this year. I would also hope we don't have another 2010 Texas game.

He's still underpaid.

That's hardly a point in Beck's favor. Brown had a terrible career at Nebraska - not a single rushing TD.

That would be funny, but content posted on a message board is inherently public domain. No copyright = no linkback.