Enhance

This quote, from former Republican Chief Justice Warren Burger, has always stood out to me. "In retirement in 1991, Burger said that the Second Amendment “has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.” “The very language of the Second Amendment,” wrote Burger, “refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires. … The Framers clearly intended to secure the right to bear arms essentially for military purposes.”

Just Devil's Advocate a bit, Rhule was a very popular and highly thought of college football coach when he left Baylor. And if Trev had any sort of prior relationship or knowledge of Rhule, it would make absolute sense to have him on a list of candidates, particularly since Rhule's tenure at Carolina wasn't going swimmingly. And maybe he wasn't on the list, but when news broke that he had been fired from Carolina, I had two different and unassociated friends (both of whom cover college football professionally) text me and say Nebraska should put him near the top of their coaching board. So, in the CFB world, I think a lot of eyebrows raised and light bulbs turned on when he became an option.

Yeah... pretty telling. Imagine finding out your son killed people at a gay bar and one of your initial concerns/comments is trying to determine if he was gay himself. Yikes. It also doesn't help that this murderer's mother has a history of alcohol dependence/abuse and a severe personality disorder. It doesn't excuse his choices, but it paints a pretty clear picture of how we ended up where we did.

I like to the think the founding fathers would've expected modern day politicians to debate and make adjustments to the Constitution as needed, the 2nd Amendment being no exception. They had the foresight to effectively acknowledge that problems in the future might require solutions that resulted in changes, provided there was enough desire to do so. It is unlikely any of them foresaw the challenges of modern day gun technology and modern day violence. Imagine any of us trying to set policies about modern day weapons that would be relevant 300 years from now. Probably not going to be very effective. That's why I've been a proponent of significant gun reform for some time. I just genuinely don't believe it's going to happen so long as the NRA and gun lobbyists wield their current financial and cultural power.

Agreed. Somewhat tangentially related, your post reminded me of the 'rebuild' narrative that's been fairly prevalent. To some degree, yes, I do think Nebraska needs a sort of ground-up approach to becoming a successful program again. However, I also think that in today's college football world, you can get a program back on track with the right coach in just one recruiting cycle. This team could easily be bowl eligible next year, and divisional contenders/winners the following year. It's absolutely achievable with the portal. Obviously, I'm not saying that it will happen. But I don't think they're 4-5 years out from being relevant. Relevancy can come at you fast with the right people in place.

I don't want to go off on too much of a tangent, but after watching the absolute s#!tshow that was the Darrell Brooks Waukesha trial over the last few months, I'm inherently skeptical of things that might be utilized as a defense later on. I'm curious if this is a strategy by the defense team to make the defendant ultimately more sympathetic, particularly towards the community of people he targeted. Regardless though, the backstory I've read on that kid so far... pretty awful. Parents with mental health issues/alcohol abuse, an unstable childhood, victim of relentless bullying in his childhood (including what sounds like a particularly vindictive online parody website specifically created to bully him). Obviously doesn't excuse his choices, but does explain them.

I've never bought into the transphobic hype surrounding JK. If she's guilty of anything, it's more poor word choice and the narrative framing for her opinion on women and trans people. She's a passionate advocate for women and has found a lot of meaning in that throughout her life. A lot of people made it a point to say they were going to trash/burn her books. Power to 'em. I still reread the entire series every few years and love them.

He's also a KU grad and a KU homer. Think we can move on from this goob.

A guy with no clear Nebraska ties and a relatively small Twitter following spreading rumors about what Nebraska is offering contractually. Sorry, M.A., this isn't directed at you. But I trust 1-ply toilet paper more than that guy.

That money isn't guaranteed if Rhule takes another job. Rhule had offsetting language in his Carolina contract that stated Carolina could recoup most if not all of their buyout losses if he got another job, so that's probably what the snag was related to. Rhule is sitting on a $40 million cash cow. He would want to make comparable guaranteed money from whomever hired him. It would be completely illogical to throw away the $40 million in exchange for a contact with a lower guaranteed base salary and higher incentives.

Linemen are perhaps one of the most difficult position groups to forecast. I would personally consider star ratings mostly based on potential, and with linemen it's even moreso, because very few of them come into college with the right weight or sound technique. It's probably the one position group that requires the most development on the field and off. There are also a lot of guys who come into college weighing 250, 260, or 270, but then they need to be 290 or 300 and figure out how to play at that weight and maintain it. It's a pretty big task and I think that's something Nebraska has quite frankly failed at. It's hasn't been so much about the the talent identification piece. I think Nebraska has recruited some guys that could've turned into all-conference caliber linemen. But, these kids get here, get into the system, get the weight, get onto the field and... get pushed around. That's just pure coaching, culture, and development.

I believe this would be a difficult selling point for any new HC, just based on the coaching industry and how the free market works in general. The typical CFB coaching bonus structure is maybe a 5% bonus for X, a 10% bonus for Y, etc. Coaches won't sign a contract that's heavily incentive based, and universities likely wouldn't be able to attract a coach if they tried that strategy... because then another university would just swipe in with the guaranteed money and get the guy they want.

I believe it, if and only if Trev communicated to MJ how this process was going to go, and I would expect (hope) he did. We don't really know what kind of conversations they had behind closed doors and how candid they were/weren't with one another. It's entirely possible that Trev level-set from the beginning that he wanted MJ to focus on the team, and that if he was interested in the HC position, they would evaluate and discuss once the season neared an end or wrapped up. MJ's also not a dumb man. He would've known that Trev would be conducting a full and thorough search in the process. That's Trev's job.

Fickell has been nothing short of outstanding at Cincy. He's 57-17, he and his staff appear to be good recruiters, and he preaches about the LOS being your team's greatest strength. You'll probably need to Google his schemes if you're interested in that. Defensively their "base" is a 3-3-5 but, like any good defense, they mix & match. Offensively, they run a balanced up-tempo offense mostly out of shotgun. No clue on his staffing decisions. My advice is to not get caught up in that stuff too much and just trust that whomever the new HC is puts together a staff that he thinks gives him the best opportunity to win. It is highly likely that he'd bring at least a portion of his current staff with him. It is rare that a new HC build a staff of people he hasn't worked with before or had coach for them before.

IMO he didn't do enough of the little things right. I can only speculate as to what that entailed, but based on the stories that came out and the performances we saw on the field, it's clear that the culture, attention to detail, and leadership just wasn't where it needed to be. Who really knows. There also could've been a measure of apathy and dejection that set in some point. Year after year of failures on the field, the mounting pressure. It was also probably a little embarrassing/humiliating to be in a situation where you probably should be fired, everybody knows it, but instead half your staff is going to be fired and you're going to get one more shot. We all basically knew he was part of the problem.

I mean shoot, yesterday we had people calling Trev just about every thing short of a f'in loser because of unsubstantiated contract compensation rumors. So, him pre-emptively being called a massive failure is on brand at this point. Maybe we should just start making stuff up. It might actually end up being more level-headed and logical.

Even. Better. The people who posted on page 666 are the ONLY people who get to participate in the next mega HC coaching search thread.

lmfao what

I agree, although the vetting process for what gets published in more traditional media formats is typically more stringent than what one is capable of peddling on social media. A lot of the things these whackos find and share on social media is not going to be something you see on any nightly newscast or in your Sunday paper. So, the questions end up becoming a) what do we think is more harmful than not and b) what should we do about it. That's ultimately where a lot of the consternation surrounding social media lays, in my opinion.

It affects all of us. Some people arrested and convicted of violent crimes have been found to have social media accounts littered with propaganda from various content providers and even elected politicians.

No I get that. I don't doubt whom James is talking about in his tweet. I just think his narrative surrounding suppression is disingenuous/inaccurate. Twitter is still going to be very much involved in the suppression business... they're just redefining what that means. I'm completely unsurprised that more liberally minded people are upset about the account reinstatements, though.

Not sure Elon would agree with James' interpretation here. Sounds like suppression could very much be a 'thing' depending on how negative/hateful one's tweets are, no?