Chimpsmack

Name some of them. Nebraska isn't alone in this, and we've also beaten teams the 2nd time around who beat us the first time. I can only think of teams who haven't done it. Florida vs. FSU in '96 IIRC, Nebraska vs Texas, Texas A&M, Washington. Alabama LSU last year. Wisconsin MSU last year. off the top of my head, Clemson beat Va Tech twice last year, and G. Tech beat Clemson twice a couple years earlier. maryland beat west virginia twice about ten years ago. auburn beat SC twice in 2010. I think I remember Michigan state beat USC twice in the late 80s. I don't think it's really that uncommon for the better team to win both games, but it is harder than winning one game only. statistically speaking, when you look at the probability of two joint events, the probability is always lower than that of either individual event. if team a is good enough to win 3 out of 4 games against team b, then the odds of winning 2 consecutive games against them are 9/16, which is just better than a coin flip. it doesnt mean that there is any kind of mojo working against the team that won first, it's just a result of there being a large random factor in the game of football that ensures the best team doesnt always win.

I typically enjoy Silver's statistical analyses, but he is off the mark here. The B1G may not stand to gain much from absorbing the Rutgers and Maryland fan bases, but I don't think that was the point. Rutgers and Maryland may not turn on a lot of TV sets, but Ohio State, Nebraska, Penn State and Michigan do. This move gets them into those markets on a regular basis, and, in the long term, it will likely increase fan interest in those areas. The opportunity for the B1G to showcase it's biggest brands in new markets is more important than the fanbases associated with the new schools.

No one is less happy with a loss than the players. It's a huge emotional letdown. Making them sit down in front of a crowd so the press can needle them about every little mistake they made is barbaric. I really used to get a kick out of when Martinez refused to even do pressers, and I'd applaud now if he just told the reporters to get bent.

I doubt it was lightning in a bottle. It was just something that, with the right coaches, was within the potential of the program, right up until conference expansion, retirement and changes in recruiting killed it off.

That list is pure fantasy. Not a single one of those guys (barring maybe Tressel, who most programs would consider poison) has any reason to come here. For any coach to be a realistic possibility, you have to be able to answer why they would want to come to Nebraska, where the fanbase is somehow not satisfied with 9/10 win seasons, despite being located in one of the worst areas of the country in terms of recruiting. And no, money is not the answer, because other programs have just as much of it, and are more willing to pay than NU.

didnt he already use up all his eligibility down at Florida?

I see people mention Chris Peterson a lot. If Chris Peterson ever wanted to make a change, he would pretty much have his pick of what's available. Why would he choose Nebraska, with it's inherent recruiting disadvantages? The same goes for any highly desireable coach. How does Nebraska convince them to come to Lincoln, when every year there are open jobs at universities in better locations and where it is easier to win?

I think Peters is intentionally ignoring the fact that there have been huge changes in college football between the 90s and now. A lot of the changes have hurt Nebraska badly, and while I'd like to see NU competing for a national championship year in and year out, things are only getting harder. I doubt NU football will ever again be what it was. So I'll take 9-10 wins a year, on average, with the understanding that some years will be a game or two more or less successful. Peters, on the other hand, needs something to talk about on his radio shows, so I think he's likely to be more aggressive in public.

Personally, I would not find that acceptable. I have no interest in seeing the government provide the religious with any additional privileges, or set further restrictions on the rest of society, based on what is acceptable according to Christian religious dogma.

When looking at the crime statistics for the country as a whole, it is normal that specific locations might remain dangerous or even become more dangerous, even though the overall statistics show massive decreases in crime

Unprecedented drops in crime rate began, basically, in 1991 and continue up to the present day. Mostly due to decline in crack epidemic and increasing rates of incarceration. Access to guns and changes in gun laws had almost no effect in either direction. Decent explanation: http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittUnderstandingWhyCrime2004.pdf

That would be great, but is there any reason for the schools to agree to give up their scheduling power? Personally, I don't think the answer is taking autonomy away from the schools, but to provide an incentive for playing big games. Right now, the risk of playing a game against a non-conference opponent that has a chance of beating you is much higher than the benefit of a win. If strength of schedule were a meaningful stat it would go a long way to encouraging better matchups.

I honestly didn't think he was any more talented than Heard or Abdullah. Not worth the 5 star rating, that's for sure. I agree with this, I wasn't all that impressed with his carries last year. It seemed like he spent a lot of time fooling around instead of trying to get the ball up the field, and he seemed amazingly small for a college player. It might have just been me, but I would have liked to see him take a redshirt, although if what's been said about his impatience is true there was no chance of that.

Faith doesn't necessarily have to be blind. Faith traditions generally generate a mountain of evidence to support them, and while this evidence is not empirical, it's not accurate to say it's absent. So it is possible to examine it critically and come to the conclusion that a faith tradition is reasonable with the understanding that different people give different amounts of weight to different types of evidence. I, personally, don't agree with the religious in terms of the value of their faith evidence, their logical methods or their conclusions, I don't think it's fair to assume they make their decisions entirely without consideration.

In evidence-based decision making, every piece of empirical evidence is taken into consideration, and weighed on it's own merit. The evidence collects, and is continually evaluated as to whether, in it's totality, it meets the burden of proof. As new evidence is uncovered, ideas are modified or discarded on the basis of increased understanding. Among scientists, there is a concept known as the Sagan Standard, which states that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Religious claims, by their very nature, are generally among the most extraordinary possible. And yet, there is a substantial lack of evidence for faith-based claims. So, while I can't speak for everyone, I guess what I would be looking for is any piece of empirical evidence that any religious tradition is true. As a starting point.