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.

That being the case, I guess we can just go ahead and repeal all the rest of the civil rights legislation? That is just childish. You are distorting my point entirely and intentionally. Much of the civil rights act was needed and still makes sense. You do remember the "back of the bus", business not serving or allowing blacks, etc.? Please show me evidence of similar, current, bigotry perpetrated on members of the GLBT community. You know, like a business that has a sign that says "Gays not welcome or served here". Would you like a standard double queen room, king sutie, or one of the gay rooms out back? I'm not seeing it if it's there I guess. Does anyone have certifiable evidence of a gay person being terminated simply for being gay? I do remember, and that's why I made the post. You asserted that "protected status classes of people are a joke, No law is going to change a persons bigotry. At best, it will only adjust how they implement it." My post was intended to contradict that idea by forcing you to think about instances where protected classes were necessary and had an impact. If I misunderstand your position, I apologize, but I don't see how that's childish.

Proof for the bolded statement? This was one of the questions that didn't really seem to be answered very well at all in the hearing process was exactly where the proof was that this indeed WAS a widespread problem. I'm not convinced the law was necessary. The law doesn't 'restore' any rights. The individuals HAVE those rights already. The law tries to ADD a preferential status based on a choice. Again, knapp, that's YOUR read on it, that it was 'restoring' rights, and that he's saying it should be OK to take away their rights. He did NOT say that in his testimony. That's you putting words in his mouth based on his testimony. Ultimately, you're stating your opinion on it, and trying to say it as fact, when it's anything but. Purely anecdotal evidence from talking personally to people who allege they weren't hired based on their sexual preference, or weren't promoted, or were harassed. And regarding the fact that they do have those rights already - yes, they do. They are inalienable rights, but those rights can be taken away. You seem to be alleging that nobody is taking away rights from gays. On the same vein, you could allege that nobody is taking away rights from women, that the basis of Sex/Gender is useless in discrimination law because women already have the right to work, and earn the same wage for that work, as men. But if you think that those rights - which these women already have - are not being taken from them, you're living in a fantasy world. Discrimination laws exist for a reason. Nobody randomly picked some silly bases and said, "Let's throw these in here." Shop owners have the right to run their business without being robbed. So let's do away with laws prohibiting robbery, right? Of course not, because despite their right, people rob stores. This "there's no need for this law" is a pollyannaish worldview that is unsupported by reality. You may not see the need for these laws, but thankfully you're not the one making the decisions on them. knapp- Please see my response to Stigori above. I believe the pollyannish view is that these protected status classes do any good at all. Sure they may keep an employer from listing the real reason they may have fired someone but they do virtually nothing to keep these people from being fired or not hired. If an employer wants you out of their employ, they will make it so whether it is for some bigoted, hateful reason or if it is legitimate. IMO, protected status classes of people are a joke, No law is going to change a persons bigotry. At best, it will only adjust how they implement it. That being the case, I guess we can just go ahead and repeal all the rest of the civil rights legislation?

You sure think you know a lot don't you Is anything I said above factually incorrect? If so, please let me know so I can re-evaluate. Yes, there is factual inaccuracy in your post, namely the implication that sexual behavior between members of the opposite sex is natural, and that sexual behavior between members of the same sex is unnatural. In truth, homosexual behavior is not uncommon in the natural world. A quick survey of the animal kingdom would show many species that engage in bisexual or homosexual behaviors to one degree or another. Bonobos, for example, happen to be both among humanities closest living relatives, and notoriously prone to engage in same-sex activities. Further, the idea that a 'gay gene' might be found to explain entirely a person's sexual preference is inconsistent with the variation in sex-partner selection in different cultures throughout history. Instead, while genetics play a role, sexual practices are, in large part, learned social behaviors. Note that saying that sexual preference is largely social in nature is not the same as saying it is a choice.

Sipple would have just looked at him and said "Well, I don't know..."

The idea that publishers see no benefits from the secondary market is simply not true. Every time some kid trades in three or four old games for one new one, the publisher sees an extra sale. This happens all the time. What also happens frequently is that someone gets a gift certificate or birthday check for half the cost of a new game, or some parent decides they can justify spending $20 or $30 on entertainment instead of their kid, but not the full $60. In each of these cases, the ability to trade in a game allows the retailer to move another unit when otherwise they would not have, increasing sales for the publisher. Unless I mistook your position, you don't seem to think that games should have any secondary value. Why should games be unique in this regard when compared to all other physical media? Publishers of CDs, DVDs, books, art prints, magazines, board games, etc have all managed to toil on despite their products having intrinsic value on the secondary market. What is it about games that makes these markets, which have existed since mankind first began producing goods, an existential threat for games?

There are a couple of issues with this argument, the first being that you are making an unfounded assumption that everyone that bought the game used would have bought the game new if it hadnt been available used. That's not really the case. Most people who buy a used game would spend their money on something else if they had no alternatives for lowering a game's price point. A second is that places like Gamestop, in the long run, make extra money for publishers. By letting consumers trade games in for store credit they are, in essence, defraying a portion of the cost of new games, leading to additional sales and generating new revenue for the publishers. Publishing companies simplify and ignore the role the secondary market plays in driving the gaming business because the secondary market makes a convenient scapegoat for things like the online pass. In reality, online passes and the increasing tendency to nickel-and-dime the user to death with DLC stem from the publishers desire to exploit additional sources of revenue, and to pay for the increasingly complicated and expensive online services.

Why would you try to re-interpret them? This is a guy that took time out of his day, to travel to a city he doesnt even live in, to lend his name to an effort to preserve discrimination. When he says something bigoted, I see no reason not to take his words at face value.

Texas isnt the bogeyman here. If you read the letter from Perlman, he mentions that Nebraska enjoyed the support of ALL of the Big12 AAU universities, which would include Texas. Which only makes sense. It's in Texas interests to protect the other schools in their conference, and, as one of the schools on the low end of the totem pole, NU could be relied on to vote against kicking out other low performing schools. Schools like Kansas and Missouri, both of whom still share a conference with Texas, and both of whom are probably among the most likely to be next on the chopping block. This desire not to lose an ally is, more than anything, why the Big12 schools all voted to support NU. As for what changed, if you read between the lines of Perlman's email, what changed was NUs acceptance to the Big10 and the subsequent expectation of an increase in resources and prestige. If the AAU didnt get rid of NU now it was going to get very difficult to do so in the future. And as Perlman said, there are those in the membership who want to see AAU membership shrunk, probably to consolidate research dollars between a smaller number of universities. That's the most likely reason why NUs recent accomplishments and trajectory were completely ignored - the AAU wasnt concerned so much with the quality of the institution as they were with trimming numbers. Unfortunately this also means that NU probably doesnt get back in soon, if at all. Not only would they have to show they are better candidates than all the other schools waiting for admission, a lot of the shot-callers wont want to be admitting other members anyway, let alone a member they went through the trouble of kicking out. TBF, some people here don't seem to be as upset as they should be. This copuld have a significant impact on future research funding, which is honestly more valuable to the school than the football team is.

if colorado wasnt a rival beforehand, they certainly became a rival when the wheels fell off in 2001 and they spent the night running up the score and laughing about it on the sidelines. if you ask people from outside the state exactly when nebraska football went tits-up, most of them will point to that 2001 colorado game. it was a thorough humiliation on the national stage, and every year nebraska should be focused on getting vengeance. just because colorado doesnt have a very good record this year is no reason to waste a perfectly good oppurtunity to kick them when they're down. yes, nebraska might hold a massive lead in the head-to-head wins category. i dont think that matters much. colorado has been pretty competitive since the mid-nineties, coming within a field goal of winning like five games in a row before finally beating NU in 01. and they are 4-4 against the huskers since.

The refs could use some improvement. 58 passing plays for OU and NO HOLDING penalties??? WTF??? How could the OU quarterback throw an underhand toss to OLineman (#77) five yards behind the line, between the tackles and not get an intentional grounding call??? But I'm over it. It was a great game, but some of the officiating just makes me want to puke. it was tough to see because of the angle on the replay, but it looked to me like OU was trying to set up a screen pass and Jones threw the ball down a couple yards short of the back. there's no doubt it was intentional, but there was an eligible receiver right there. on the block in the back, did they actually call that on gomes? i can't find a replay, but during the game it looked to me like one of the other nebraska blockers came crashing down after the punt was fielded and hit someone in the back. didnt catch the number and i cant find the replay, but when i watched it during the game i got pretty fired up thinking it was being called on gomes, but after the replay i cooled off quick assuming the refs blamed it on the wrong guy