husker98

And I am just stating what I know about the tradition with no snark. I prefer simple as well. But the people in power might not, so I go along with it because I genuinely trust Scott's vision for the program. For now anyway.

I believe they have talked with McBride on the subject. However considering your strict views on the tradition it would have been better that they speak with monte kiffin, as he is the traditions founding defensive coordinator. For the purest form of the tradition you must consult him.

Traditions evolve as each coach and team contribute to it, in some cases drastically. I guess I don't see the harm here.

Did I Say Nike? It could be Russell athletic or Reebok for all I care. I just want a different outfitter that's not what we have now. I don't expect them to be perfect mind you before you jump to that conclusion too. With adidas and Nike having their skeletons jump out of the closet I wonder about UA and what they are like as an outfitter

I really wish we would drop adidas. Their involvement in the basketball scandal has soured me on them a lot.

I think some of the posters here forget how much football changed during the solich era. Solich was slow to respond to the rise of the spread offense and some of the aforementioned cracks in his tenure were this. But he did after 2002 try to address the changes going on by bringing in Bo and I'm sure given more time his offense would have changed too, like it has at Ohio. It wasn't all Frank's fault, some of it was, but not all of it. I still feel the same way I did today as I did then, that it was an enormous mistake.

I agree. But if we were gunna do it 2002 should have been when. Not 2003 off a 9 win season. Timing and appearance are everything and we failed hard at all of it when we fired both 9 win coaches.

Yes please! We as fans could learn a great deal from this game. Although I think I would prefer it happened 2 or 3 years from now.

Must be a good article judging by the responses

History vehemently disagrees. And has the mass graves to back it up. Super powers fall all time. The Soviet union proves that. That was the entire reason for the history lesson. I do not and am infuriated that he did. Or infuriated at who ever convinced him to do it.

A lot of people said the same thing about the Roman Empire and it military too. Yet they still suffered defeat and lost everything. Britain falls into this category as well in the revolutionary war. They also lost to tribal Africans armed with spears in south Africa in the 1800s. I would agree with you. Who would invade us? A country so large and powerful. China and Russia both would tell you a several stories of those who have tried. You never know who until it happens. I'm just pointing out history and it's pattern to repeat it's self. And how we seem on pace to repeat those mistakes again. We ban guns because a couple hundred people die over these past few years we open the door for possibly many many times that to die in an invasion like the Romans and so many other countries did by banning their peoples right to defense. People must consider everything, every possibility before jumping to conclusions. Answers to tough issues are rarely so easy and expense free. There is always a price to pay.

The Romans didn't limit their capacity when the invaded germania. They lost at the teutoberg forest all the same. Nazi Germany held nothing back when they invaded the Soviet union. 20 million dead Soviets later the a red flag was hoisted atop the Reichstag. The Soviets invade Afghanistan and send a formidable modern army to lock down the country. 80,000 dead later they leave. Invasions are defeated all the time in history if the population possesses the will and resources to resist.

Yet we failed in Vietnam. We continue to struggle in Afghanistan. No military is undefeatable. History is full of such examples. So this argument holds more weight than you think.

I feel reading this thread it's important for some historical context to expand our thoughts on this. Sorry it's kinda long and grammar sucks cuz I'm on my phone A. The second amendment is the result of the revolutionary war. An army comprised of of backwoods hicks and city slickers took the guns they owned. Formed militias. And over several years defeated the army of a world superpower in great Britain to establish this country. This had a profound effect on the early years of the US and it's defense policy as it fully expected to have to fight Britain and the other colonial powers on the continent again and they expected these militias to play a huge role in those possible wars for survival thus the right to bear arms and form a militia was enshrined in the constitution. An added point on those militias. The firearms they wielded were of a military grade comparable to the British firearms. Some where of an even higher quality. This wasn't lost on congress either, seeing it as an advantage that they didn't have to buy these arms and that their owners where already proficient in their use. Fast forward to today and the second amendment is essentially the plan B in the event the US military is defeated and our foes have made it to our shores. In this doomsday scenario it's expected the citizens will take up and continue the fight red dawn style. That is why the AR and other near modern weapons remain for sale and must continue to be. For added context on weapons control and it's track record we turn to the Roman Empire who dabbled in it. During the Republic it was a roman citizens right to defend himself. City state warfare was common at the time. And this would ultimately be a huge advantage to the Romans during the invasions of Hannibal barca who's 30,000 ish army struggled to take roman towns that raised these armed citizens into units for the cities defense. Now we fast forward to the 400s AD. At an unknown time a roman emperor banned the citizens from the right to bear arms, likely out of fear of revolt over high taxes and corruption or perhaps economic mismanagement. This comes back to haunt them during the barbarian invasions of the 300s and 400s. Contrary to popular belief of hundreds of thousands of barbarians spilling into the empire archeology now suggest it was probably closer to 20 to 30 thousand in a tribe with maybe 5 to 10 thousand being warriors. Ultimately the result was predictable. The Unarmed roman citizens fared badly. It got so bad in Moesia (modern day Bulgaria) that the province was essentially depopulated do too raiding. It's believed tens if not hundreds of thousands died in the ensuing carnage. Over the ensuing decades large swaths of land would be lost, untold numbers of unarmed citizens butchered by these small bands of barbarians who would set up their own kingdoms on the ashes. Until a new emperor took the throne named Majorian. He was a brilliant military strategist and recognized his army could no longer protect all these towns and cities and reclaim lost land. So he reinstated a citizens right to bear arms to protect what they had left and he concentrated his army and reclaimed vast swaths of the empire until he was betrayed and killed. The ban on personal arms was reinstated not long after, and the western empire fell a few decades later with the east to follow within a millennia. There are many reasons rome fell, but the ban on the right to bear arms played a Big role in why so many cities fell and so many citizens where easily killed. Then add in that some of the biggest proponents of gun control have been murderous dictators and it becomes very in appealing. That being said we need to do a better job in mental healthcare and research because that has been the common pattern in all of these horrible incidents. We got to do something, but history definitely advises against rash overreaction.

What happens between commercial breaks is a well guarded broadcasters secret....... On another note any chance we can get Mark banker to be color next season? Then we can have another bankerisms thread but minus the crap defense.

I cringed a little.

Easy. Rutgers is located in the fertile recruiting grounds of New Jersey. UCONN by contrast Is located in the barren recruiting wasteland of Connecticut. Recruiting areas played an unheralded role in expansion decision making.

Instead of being hungry to talk huskers i'm now hungry for food. Thank you.

The other husker fan mindset is that all d-lines should be like the 4-3, penetrating and aggressive. These same husker fans also fail to realize that there are other schemes, like the 3-4 where the d-lines job isn't to make plays in the back field, but rather consume double teams, clog the middle to force the play out side, where the 4 linebackers (who where atrocious last year, minus gafford) are suppose to make plays. John's 3 men out of 11 did what was asked. It's not their fault the other units didn't perform and that the DC was hired out of a mental asylum. Too lazy to go back through my posts but i did defend Parrella during the season while not really sticking up for the rest of the staff so i kinda fall in to that here.

Gunna just leave that example here. Many, many, many more..... too many really.

Ah thank you, that's what I vaguely remember. I don't know which method I favor but either is fine so long as we get a better result.

I think you had to earn the black shirts under Bo too? Anyway sounds good to me.

They should have expelled this kid. I know free speech and all but bad press like this is gunna get used against on the recruiting trail in all sports. Kick this idiot out and send a statement with action.

Same but add all the jucos imo. There isn't one I don't see playing and most are positions of need.

Yes please. That would be amazing.