HuskerGBR
-
Posts
512 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Articles
Media Demo
Posts posted by HuskerGBR
-
-
Like I said I have no problem with his firing. He did do something and not nothing, but it was the least amount possible.
We're quibbling over minutiae. Saying he did something is technically correct. It is like giving a village a task of moving a mountain, and having the man who owns the largest excavator move one grain of sand.
We can go over this all day. The bottom line is, Paterno didn't do what he should have done. End of story.
I agree and I have gone into this more then I would have liked to. I am passionate about the law and being innocent until proven guilty. As Mr. Paterno did fulfill his legal obligation...it doesn't mean we have to like the law and I am glad that PA got it changed in 2007. The authorities need evidence that Mr. Paterno knew more, but until then he is innocent. If Mr. Paterno wanted to he could get a good lawyer and sue the state for wrongful termination. Either way it makes me sick and I am done talking about it...I would be going after everyone involved if I was the attorney general.
Your continued defense of Paterno is baffling. He has ZERO claim for wrongful termination. None. And if he has any honor whatsoever he wouldn't even try to file such a claim.
You are also confusing reasons for termination and evidence necessary to convict in a court of law. These are not the same thing.
This continued mantra of "Paterno fulfilled his legal obligation" is disgusting. It is the defense of a coward, and if that's how JoePa thinks children should be defended, he was never EVER the kind of man who should be responsible for shaping young lives.
Really? Do you have a reading comprehension problem? The law at that time says he fulfilled his legal obligation and I also said that doesn't mean we have to like it. Where in any of my posts am I defending the man??? In fact, I said I would go after everyone involved, did I not? I really don't know wtf your problem is, because we are on the same side in the whole thing. The thing I can't stand is you guys all thing you are judge, jury, and F@#$$%% executioner.
I am not confusing anything so don't tell me I am. I might be wrong that he could sue, but if he is fired for this scandal (which don't give me a bullsh!t story that he wasn't) and he is found of no wrong doing...isn't that wrongful termination? I have seen crazier things and a good lawyer could find something there.
-
Like I said I have no problem with his firing. He did do something and not nothing, but it was the least amount possible.
We're quibbling over minutiae. Saying he did something is technically correct. It is like giving a village a task of moving a mountain, and having the man who owns the largest excavator move one grain of sand.
We can go over this all day. The bottom line is, Paterno didn't do what he should have done. End of story.
I agree and I have gone into this more then I would have liked to. I am passionate about the law and being innocent until proven guilty. As Mr. Paterno did fulfill his legal obligation...it doesn't mean we have to like the law and I am glad that PA got it changed in 2007. The authorities need evidence that Mr. Paterno knew more, but until then he is innocent. If Mr. Paterno wanted to he could get a good lawyer and sue the state for wrongful termination. Either way it makes me sick and I am done talking about it...I would be going after everyone involved if I was the attorney general.
-
I think what some people are saying is you can't PROVE in a court of law that Mr. Paterno knew anything except for what he was told by detectives/district attorney in 1998 (which there is no record of those detectives or the district attorney saying anything to Mr. Paterno about that investigation, which would be hard to fathom Mr. Paterno didn't know anything about it...but you still have to prove it) and then the GA in 2002.
I can stop you at that first sentence. Because you do not need to prove anything beyond what you've written right here to know that Paterno had an obligation to cry to high heaven that something was horribly, dreadfully wrong based on that alone, right there. Joe Paterno had the biggest voice on that campus, the highest podium from which to declaim, and he did nothing.
That right there is why he got fired.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/09/us-usa-crime-coach-law-idUSTRE7A86WS20111109
This is a link that describes the law at the time. The law was changed in 2007. "A subordinate can discharge his mandatory reporting responsibility by reporting to his boss." So Mr. Paterno did fulfill his legal obligation...moral obligation is a whole different subject. I have no problem with him getting fired and my post was mostly about what Mr. Paterno did know. According to his grand jury report he was never made aware of the specifics of what happened according to the GA. He only found out when he read the grand jury report.
"As my grand jury testimony stated," Joe Paterno said in the statement, "I was informed in 2002 by an assistant coach that he had witnessed an incident in the shower of our locker room facility. It was obvious that the witness was distraught over what he saw, but he at no time related to me the very specific actions contained in the Grand Jury report. Regardless, it was clear that the witness saw something inappropriate involving Mr. Sandusky. As Coach Sandusky was retired from our coaching staff at that time, I referred the matter to university administrators."
Mr. Paterno wasn't charged and the grand jury report didn't implicate him in any wrongdoing. At this point in time, we only know that he was informed of the 2002 incident. Yes, he should have done A LOT (I repeat A LOT) more and morally I don't know how someone doesn't do more.
Like I said I have no problem with his firing. He did do something and not nothing, but it was the least amount possible.
-
Stai was the speaker. He was a wealth of information in my opinion. Kind of told it like it is. Very little coach speak. Here are a few quick bullet points of some of his discussions:
1. As a Graduate manager he works a lot with the scout team in preparing the team to simulate our opponent's offense. Also, works with the line during the Summer. Does other stuff as well of course.
2. Talked about "DAT" discipline, attitude and toughness. Seems like they are really preaching it to the team espically after the game last week. Stressed that they need to be very focused this week due the issues at Penn State. Penn State will come out and play hard with Joe Pa's firing and all. We need to match their intensity.
3. He said both the coaches and players over looked Northwestern. It falls on the coaches to be prepared and they were not.
4. Defense is really going at it hard this week. Bo very unhappy from last week's performance.
5. Expect more player rotations this week using the younger guys. Not only at O-line, but other positions as well like RB and WR.
6.Mentioned that QB draws and screen plays maybe used more in the near future.
7. Briefly praised right side of line ( M. Jones and Long) along with Caputo. He said Long will end up being a very good player as he is only a sophmore right now.
8. Mentioned that ARod was sick last week, but that is not an excuse for his play.
9. Mentioned that Yoshi is one of the toughest players on the team. Almost tore his pinky finger off in the Fresno State game.
10. Ben Cotton also tough. Torn tricep and gimpy back, but playing through it.
11. Overall team is pretty nicked up, but so is everyone else at this point in the season. Nature of the beast.
12. Penn State overall might be the best D we will face. Mentioned that they are very fast.
I am sick and tired of this line from Bo and company. How many years in a row will they overlook an opponent and lose (ISU or TxTech 2009) or almost lose (SDSU last year)?
Enough is enough. Once or twice in a coach's early career is understandable, but after that it should be a wake up call. You can't take a week off, there are no "gimme" games in college football. Anyone can beat anyone on any given Saturday.
Winners don't make excuses, they make plays.
Exactly!
And why the media and a large contingent of fans continue to give Bo a pass for such egregious performance year after year (over looking unranked teams) is beyond me. It's like we're scared to piss Bo off.....scared we're going to lose him. It's no wonder he treats the fans and media like horse dung.
Seriously - "over looking a team" is right up there with "quitting" as the ultimate insult in football, and Bo's teams are making a habit of it. If TO can't have a serious conversation with Bo on this and put him on notice, then get prepared for worse.
Yes, I'm sick and tired of this crap. Bo's teams are a reflection of him: Immature, hot/cold and inconsistent.
No disrespect, but could you please just stop. We get it already...you don't like Bo.
-
1
-
-
im merely looking at it from a legality perspective. and for the record, how are you to know that paterno allowed the man on campus? how do you know that he didnt ask him to leave and he just didnt have the authority to make him leave?
seriously there are so many holes and yet people are willing to condemn a man that before a week or so ago was consider a great man and a man that would do nothing wrong. im not saying that paterno is innocent or guilty because at this point there is no way to know.
to me it is clear that the mob mentallity of follow the leader has taken over the college athletics world right now.
can ANYONE show me PROOF of a reason that paterno should have been fired? if you can then i am wrong. if not then how can you condemn him?
This has nothing to do with "mob mentality." I suppose by this definition expecting the sun to rise in the east is "mob mentality."
If you don't know enough to make a judgment in this case, you have your head in the sand.
•1994-97: According to the grand jury report, Sandusky engages in inappropriate conduct with three boys he met separately through The Second Mile. One boy was 7 or 8, another was 10 and the third was 12 or 13. According to the report, the now-grown men said Sandusky engaged in inappropriate conduct ranging from touching to outright sexual encounters.•1998: Penn State police and the state Department of Public Welfare investigate an incident in which the mother of an 11-year-old boy reported Sandusky had showered with her son and may have had inappropriate contact with him. In a June 1, 1998, interview with investigators, Sandusky admits showering naked with the boy, admitting it was wrong and promising not to do it again, the grand jury report says. The district attorney decides no charges will be filed and the university police chief closes the case, according to the grand jury.•1999: Sandusky retires from Penn State after coaching there for 32 years, but retains full access to the campus and football facilities.•2000:Sandusky showers with a young boy and tries to touch his genitals during overnight stays at the coach's house, according to the now 24-year-old man's testimony in the grand jury report.•2000: Tim Calhoun, a janitor at the Lasch Football Building on the Penn State campus, tells his supervisor and another janitor he saw Sandusky performing oral sex on a young boy, according to the grand jury report. A second janitor reports he saw Sandusky and a boy leave a shower room and walk out of the building hand in hand. No one reports the incident to university officials or law enforcement, according to the grand jury.•March 2, 2002: According to the grand jury report,a graduate assistant tells coachhe saw Sandusky in the locker room shower the night before, performing a sex act on a young boy he estimated to be 10 years old.•March 3, 2002: Paterno reports the incident to Athletic Director, saying the graduate assistant had seen Sandusky "fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy," according to the grand jury. Later, the assistant is summoned to a meeting with Curley and Senior Vice President for Finance and Business. The assistant later tells the grand jury he told Curley and Schultz he saw Sandusky and the boy engaged in a sex act, but Curley and Schultz told the grand jury they had not been told of such an allegation. Instead, Curley said he had the impression the conduct amounted to non-sexual "horsing around." Schultz said he couldn't remember details, but seemed to recall that "Sandusky might have inappropriately grabbed the young boy's genitals while wrestling," according to the grand jury.Sandusky's locker room keys are confiscated, he is told not to bring his Second Mile participants to campusand the incident is reported to the charity, but no law enforcement investigation is launched, according to the grand jury.•2002: The Second Mile learns of the shower incident. Curley tells the charity that "the information had been internally reviewed and that there was no finding of wrongdoing," The Second Mile said in a statement Monday.•2005 or 2006: Sandusky allegedly befriends another Second Mile participant whose allegations would form the foundation of the multiyear grand jury investigation.•2006 or 2007: A wrestling coach at the high school where Sandusky was volunteering allegedly surprises Sandusky and the boy "lying on their sides, in physical contact, face to face on a wrestling mat." Sandusky tells the coach the two were working on wrestling moves, the coach tells the grand jury. Sandusky allegedly begins to spend more time with the boy, taking him to sporting events and giving him gifts, including golf clubs, a computer, cash and clothes. During this period, according to the grand jury report, Sandusky performs oral sex on the boy more than 20 times, and the boy performs oral sex on him once.•2008: The boy's mother calls the high school to report her son had been sexually assaulted, and the principal bars Sandusky from campus and reports the incident to police. The investigation reveals 118 calls from Sandusky's home and cellphone numbers to the boy's home.•November 2008: Sandusky informs The Second Mile he is under investigation and he is removed from all program activities involving children, according to the charity.•September 2010: Sandusky retires from The Second Mile, according to the grand jury.This is an excerpt from this article. The two underlined portions are my emphasis. The second underlined segment shows that PSU authorities, and specifically Joe Paterno, took the allegations of these incidents seriously enough to take action to curb Sandusky's access. It is a clear statement that they - and specifically Joe Paterno - knew he was involved in nefarious acts.
You ask for "proof" that Paterno should have been fired. The two underlined segments alone are more than enough to fire Paterno because he did not report specifically what he heard to the police, Child Social Services or any other external authority immediately. The fact that he never reported these things to an external authority is not only grounds for termination, it is disgraceful. Shameful. Horrible. Indefensible.
The fact that Sandusky was never personally barred from access to campus, athletic facilities or contact with the team also means Paterno had to be fired. Joe was in charge, to a degree sufficient to have Sandusky immediately and permanently barred on his word alone. He knew, or had every reason to know, that Sandusky was involved in heinous acts. Failing to take every conceivable action to ensure the safety of his players, kids on campus, and every child involved in Second Mile is an unforgivable abrogation of his duties as a leader of young men.
The only reason people are complaining that Paterno was fired is due to his status as a football coach. If he were a regular joe, nobody would care that he was fired. His celebrity, and his celebrity alone, is all that makes people think he should still be employed.
I think what some people are saying is you can't PROVE in a court of law that Mr. Paterno knew anything except for what he was told by detectives/district attorney in 1998 (which there is no record of those detectives or the district attorney saying anything to Mr. Paterno about that investigation, which would be hard to fathom Mr. Paterno didn't know anything about it...but you still have to prove it) and then the GA in 2002. We can speculate sure. I believe Mr. Paterno knew more about it then he is saying which is why that sick f@@@ Sandusky retired in 1999 . After the incident in 1998, the detectives eavesdropped on two conversations that the mother of the victim had with that POS(I will refer to that man by these initials from now on). It should have been stopped right here, but the detectives should have got a recording. Then the district attorney at the time, Ray Gricar (who flat out disappeared in 2005...very odd circumstances), decided not to press criminal charges. Note-these are police officers and the district attorney. The detectives and DA never mention that they told Mr. Paterno anything about this incident, but I find it hard to believe that Mr. Paterno didn't know about the investigation...but until proven we can only speculate on this.
So in 2000, a janitor observed another incident and for some reason a report is never filed by the janitor or his supervisor who was told of the incident. So Mr. Paterno may have never known about this incident and there is no proof that he did. We may never know, because the janitor, a Korean War Veteran, has dementia and is unable to give a testimony.
The last account on University property was in 2002. This was the GA's account. He told Paterno who in turn told his superior, Tim Curley, the very next day and reported a version of the GA's account. At some point, and it is not clear exactly when, Mr. Paterno, Gary Schultz (senior VP for finance and business, also oversees campus police) and Curley had a meeting which I believe came before Schultz and Curley talked with the GA. One and a half (I REPEAT ONE AND A HALF) weeks later the GA was called in to have a meeting with Curley and Schultz. The GA gave his account to them and then doesn't hear back from Curley until two weeks later. Curley then told the GA that the POS's keys to the locker room were taken away and that Second Mile was notified. According to testimony, the GA and Curley said that the POS was not banned from the facilities. Schultz testified that Spanier (the university president) approved of banning the POS from bringing children into the locker room. How is this appropriate action either? The GA was never questioned by anyone else. Note-The GA also never said anything about this to any other authorities until he was pulled before a grand jury in December 2010.
The grand jury found that Schultz and Curley made materially false statements under oath and that portions of their testimony are not credible. Spanier also seems to be playing the plausible deniability card based on his testimony, but that is speculation on my part.
Now Mr. Paterno was only indicated in having knowledge of the 2002 incident. I hope that nobody disagrees that he did not take appropriate action. Mr. Paterno is not the only one to blame. According to testimony, Mr. Paterno is one of the lowest people in this that you could blame. What gets me is he had a chance to do something noble and nail that POS, but instead passed the buck (which he might have done in case he was wrong...which there would have been major repercussions legally if Mr. Paterno was). I do not know what the law in Pennsylvania is on reporting this, since Mr. Paterno reported it to his superiors...I will look into that and see what I can find.
Don't mistake me for condoning anything that Mr. Paterno did or failed to do. I believe that he was the head coach and knew more then what is in that grand jury report...he needs to be subpoenaed and the authorites need to find out what he actually knew. They need facts to support theories and not theories to support facts, which the general public is guilty of in a lot of cases.
-
College football is about money. Greed and good morals NEVER go together. That is why I don't watch as much football as I used to and I see one day I might just stop watching all together. I wish it was about love of the game, but unfortunately it isn't. I am kinda disgusted with the whole landscape of college football.
-
Bo doesn't need to go. I don't know how anyone could even say that with a straight face.
I don't really know Bo on a personal level, but I don't think I would like him all that much if I did. He seems rather whiny and I think he creates his own drama. He gets all pissy about some of the dumbest things imo. If he doesn't stop it then he WILL have a heart attack or stroke at a fairly young age. He has gotten better though. I don't think he is really changed...he is who he is for better or worse.
I wonder about his recruiting a little bit...he pulls in some good talent, so why aren't we seeing them on the field? Fisher, Thorell, or Cassidy can't be your best players at their positions, right? Are guys not getting developed?
Then I wonder if he has favorites...I never thought he did, but it sure seems like he likes to play the starters and that is it. That is why we are seeing so many problems this year imo. When these guys should have been getting playing time, they were sitting on the bench and only Haag, Gomes, etc were playing. He has no idea of how to create depth and he wastes years on players by not redshirting them...oh look we got that freshman in for 2 plays and now you get to sit and I just wasted your redshirt for that year.
Then I wonder about practice...is there something missing in his practices? Why can't that defense make a simple tackle? Are the young guys not allowed to get enough quality reps? I always say you only as strong as your weakest link and I have always felt this team needs to build depth and have schemes to where you can just reload the next guy. Easier said then done, I know. So then I also start thinking, maybe he puts too much stock into practice? I have said it before, but I wonder if some guys are practice warriors and then you get them into the game and they underperform.
These are just thoughts and if I ever got to sit down with Bo...I would ask him these sorts of things, because I don't know what the thought process or just the process in general is. I would like to know what he is seeing in other words. But saying he needs to go is just mind-boggling in my honest opinion.
From what I understand something like 80% of the practice snaps go to the guys they want to start that week. So with that much practice time devoted to starters (especially in positions where the same guys start every game of the year) and then those starters all play 85-90% of the game snaps as well... you aren't exactly doing a good job getting depth ready to play.
That is what I was afraid of...I know you want your starters to get the majority of reps, but it doesn't seem like it does much to prepare for the future. I am not a coach, so I don't know how you would go about it to create solid depth at positions. I do, however, believe that the freshman should have their own practice area with lower coaches just working on straight fundamentals...unless those freshman are good enough to work with the "varsity" guys. I just hope Bo figures out a way to prepare the young guys.
-
Bo doesn't need to go. I don't know how anyone could even say that with a straight face.
I don't really know Bo on a personal level, but I don't think I would like him all that much if I did. He seems rather whiny and I think he creates his own drama. He gets all pissy about some of the dumbest things imo. If he doesn't stop it then he WILL have a heart attack or stroke at a fairly young age. He has gotten better though. I don't think he is really changed...he is who he is for better or worse.
I wonder about his recruiting a little bit...he pulls in some good talent, so why aren't we seeing them on the field? Fisher, Thorell, or Cassidy can't be your best players at their positions, right? Are guys not getting developed?
Then I wonder if he has favorites...I never thought he did, but it sure seems like he likes to play the starters and that is it. That is why we are seeing so many problems this year imo. When these guys should have been getting playing time, they were sitting on the bench and only Haag, Gomes, etc were playing. He has no idea of how to create depth and he wastes years on players by not redshirting them...oh look we got that freshman in for 2 plays and now you get to sit and I just wasted your redshirt for that year.
Then I wonder about practice...is there something missing in his practices? Why can't that defense make a simple tackle? Are the young guys not allowed to get enough quality reps? I always say you only as strong as your weakest link and I have always felt this team needs to build depth and have schemes to where you can just reload the next guy. Easier said then done, I know. So then I also start thinking, maybe he puts too much stock into practice? I have said it before, but I wonder if some guys are practice warriors and then you get them into the game and they underperform.
These are just thoughts and if I ever got to sit down with Bo...I would ask him these sorts of things, because I don't know what the thought process or just the process in general is. I would like to know what he is seeing in other words. But saying he needs to go is just mind-boggling in my honest opinion.
-
How pathetic of a fan showing did we have today? At least there weren't any boos (that I could hear on tv) but my goodness, you couldn't hear anybody making any noise whatsoever besides the students on the television set; someone that was there, is that how it sounded live? I saw Bo even pleading to the crowd to make some noise - in the 4th quarter Northwestern had a 3rd or 4th down and they cut to a shot of a few older gentlemen sitting down looking around, seemingly oblivious to anything game-related.
GET OFF YOUR DADGUM REAR END AND MAKE SOME NOISE! And everyone that left with over 2 minutes left down 10? That's pathetic.
[/rant]
That is a big crock. Hell I could hear the crowd counting down the play clock watching the game on TV. To blame the fans for poor coaching is to buy into the argument that its the fans fault for that piss poor coaching. And who blames the fans? Pelini. Pelini because he doesn't know what he is doing 1/2 the time yet. Pelini...because he is still a young, inexperienced hothead that is a poor loser and lashes out at everyone and every thing when it hurts. Now...I have to say that "losing" when he knows he shouldn't, seems to have brought him down a notch or 2 when it comes to dealing with the press conferences after the game. He seems to have settled down a little. The more calls he get's for his head on a platter...the more humble he will become, I believe.
Oh...and by the way...just because you are a polite cusser ("dad gum") doesn't mean that you aren't a prick. And just because a few fans leave early doesn't make them pathetic. It just means they have better or other things to do. Hell...I dont sit around in a theater and watch a movie that I don't like. They paid for their tickets, they can leave anytime they want.
You whiney little fans that cry like this after a loss need to get some balance in your pathetic little lives. And for those of you that want the "blue hairs" to leave so that you can get their tickets, remember...if it wasn't for those blue hairs...you wouldn't have a team to whine about. Snot nosed little punks. lol
Sometimes I think that the best thing that could happen to Nebraska would be for it's football team to go back to the pre-Devaney era of indifference...THEN...we would see who the REAL fans are. Future blue hairs no doubt.....
This is probably the best thing I have read all week. Some of you people are pretty pathetic and that goes for people on both sides of arguments (the sunshine pumpers/haters arguments or the real fan/bandwagon fan). I probably wouldn't invite many of you "real" fans or "haters" into my tailgate. This is something I wanted to get off of my chest after reading some things on this board. You said things better then I could Bob +1.
-
So far I love the BIG. I love the teams we have played and I feel like it is a very good fit for Nebraska.
-
Should the team be worried about Penn State? Yeah, they should be worried about every game. If you go into a game expecting to win, you're gonna play flat.
Should we fans be worried about Penn State? No. Penn State's offense is the worst excuse for an offense I have seen since '09 Nebraska and their defense hasn't played any good offenses. I think this game is gonna be pretty lopsided in favor of us.
I agree with you, but I just want to add that if players go into a game expecting to win just by showing up...then they will play flat. All championship teams going in to a game expect to win, but they know they have to be focused and humble. I think you were basically saying that though, right? All in all...good post. I agree with everything you said
-
I can't believe anybody even gets up before 11:00 on a Saturday.
I have a 1yr old. I haven't slept past 7:30am since 10/14/10.
Wait until you're old enough you have to get up and pee 2-3 times a night. When its 4 or 5 am you finally just decide to start your day then because it takes an hour to fall back asleep.
Are you talking about yourself da skers? If so, then I think you are allowed to post whatever you like and be as cranky as you want to be in that post
-
Big XII
North W/L PCT South W/L PCT
Iowa State 3-4 .429 Baylor Bears 4-2 .667
Kansas Jayhawks 2-5 .286 Oklahoma Sooners 6-1 .857
Kansas State Wildcats 7-0 1.00 Oklahoma State Cowboys 7-0 1.00
Missouri Tigers 3-4 .429 Texas Longhorns 4-2 .667
Texas A&M Aggies 5-2 .714
Texas Tech Red Raiders 5-2 .714
3 teams below .500, 7 teams above .500, 3 above .750, and 2 at 1.000.
SEC
Eastern W/L PCT Western W/L PCT
South Carolina 6-1 .857 Alabama 8-0 1.00
Georgia 5-2 .714 LSU 8-0 1.00
Florida 4-3 .571 Arkansas 6-1 .857
Vanderbilt 4-3 .571 Auburn 5-3 .625
Kentucky 3-4 .429 Ole Miss 2-5 .286
Tennessee 3-4 .429 Mississippi State 3-4 .429
4 teams below .500, 8 teams above .500, 4 teams above .750, and 2 teams at 1.000.
ACC
Atlantic W/L PCT Coastal W/L PCT
Clemson 8-0 1.00 Virginia Tech 7-1 .875
Wake Forest 5-2 .714 Georgia Tech 6-2 .750
Florida State 4-3 .571 Miami 4-3 .571
NC State 4-3 .571 Virginia 4-3 .571
Maryland 2-5 .286 Duke 3-4 .429
Boston College 1-6 .143 North Carolina 5-3 .625
3 teams below .500, 9 teams above .500, 3 teams at or above .750, 1 team at 1.000
Pac 12
North W/L PCT South W/L PCT
Stanford 7-0 1.00 USC 6-1 .857
Oregon 6-1 .857 Arizona State 5-2 .714
Washington 5-2 .714 UCLA 3-4 .429
Oregon State 2-5 .286 Arizona 2-5 .286
California 4-3 .571 Utah 3-4 .429
Washington State 3-4 .429 Colorado 1-7 .125
6 teams below .500, 6 teams above .500, 3 teams above .750, 1 team at 1.000
BIG
Legends W/L PCT Leaders W/L PCT
Michigan State 6-1 .857 Penn State 7-1 .875
Nebraska 6-1 .857 Wisconsin 6-1 .857
Michigan 6-1 .857 Purdue 4-3 .571
Iowa 5-2 .714 Illinois 6-2 .750
Northwestern 2-5 .286 Ohio State 4-3 .571
Minnesota 1-6 .143 Indiana 1-7 .125
3 teams below .500, 9 teams above .500, 6 teams at or above .750, 0 teams at 1.000
As a whole it looks like the BIG is very competitive with lots of good teams...just no stand-out team.
-
I learn more on this board then I did in college. The sad part is I actually do mean that...man I could have saved a lot of money. Never been to Bronco Stadium, but I have to say no way on that one. Good to see Kyle Field getting some love though...great place to catch a game.
-
Yes vote with your hearts and be honest. So far the comments and the votes are pretty interesting.
-
You are correct. But I think you know very well that people won't see it that way. They see Bo saying you should act a certain way. Then they see his actions like the way he talks to the media, yelling in the face of players, and swearing. So what they are going to see is "do as I say, but not as I do."
Indubitably. Which is why people annoy me.
I was trying not to say it, cause I didn't want to influence the poll. Thanks a lot Dude
-
Oh good. I was wondering when we'd get a chance to discuss this topic.
I didn't know this topic has come up considering the media was just talking about on Friday, October 14, 2011. I only brought it up, because they were talking about it on the radio station and then I read the article that I linked in this thread. Just thought it would be interesting to see the results of a poll.
Bo's sideline demeanor doesn't make his opinion any more or less valid. It's entirely unrelated and irrelevant to the issue of booing college athletes.
So I take it your vote is "other." But I see that there are no votes in the other category. If you wish to participate then that is fine. If you don't, then I am sure there are other threads that might catch your interest. Oh and what they were talking about on USC and Schick & Nick was about Bo saying you fans should act this way, but then he has a well known persona of blowing his top. So in a way it is very related and I thought this might make for an interesting poll.
In no way is it related. It's an ad hominem attack. If Bo was a well known as someone who went around booing college athletes at athletic events, then turned around and said he was against it, then they'd have a point.
You are correct. But I think you know very well that people won't see it that way. They see Bo saying you should act a certain way. Then they see his actions like the way he talks to the media, yelling in the face of players, and swearing. So what they are going to see is "do as I say, but not as I do." You can clearly see what I am talking about in the comments section of the KETV link I have in here. I was putting it into a poll on huskerboard to see what people thought.
-
1
-
-
Oh good. I was wondering when we'd get a chance to discuss this topic.
I didn't know this topic has come up considering the media was just talking about on Friday, October 14, 2011. I only brought it up, because they were talking about it on the radio station and then I read the article that I linked in this thread. Just thought it would be interesting to see the results of a poll.
Bo's sideline demeanor doesn't make his opinion any more or less valid. It's entirely unrelated and irrelevant to the issue of booing college athletes.
So I take it your vote is "other." But I see that there are no votes in the other category. If you wish to participate then that is fine. If you don't, then I am sure there are other threads that might catch your interest. Oh and what they were talking about on USC and Schick & Nick was about Bo saying you fans should act this way, but then he has a well known persona of blowing his top. So in a way it is very related and I thought this might make for an interesting poll.
-
Oh good. I was wondering when we'd get a chance to discuss this topic.
I didn't know this topic has come up considering the media was just talking about on Friday, October 14, 2011. I only brought it up, because they were talking about it on the radio station and then I read the article that I linked in this thread. Just thought it would be interesting to see the results of a poll.
-
Here is the link. http://www.ketv.com/...559/detail.html
I put in a poll to judge what the opinions are on this topic. I have heard a lot of different opinions on the radio stations like USC on 1620 The Zone and I just wanted to know what Huskerboard thought. This is my first poll, so it might not be very good...let me know how to make a better poll next time. As always, keep it civil and friendly
. -
You know now that I think about it, I was kind of an a-hole when I was a student.
The difference is that I'll bet that you never would have dreamed of lobbing obscenities at some elderly people being helped to their seats. There is absolutely no excuse for that behavior. The university needs to get a grip on their students instead of looking the other way and chuckling about it. I'm absolutely ashamed that this behavior is being not only tolerated, but embraced as some sort of twisted badge of honor by the people who live in Wisconsin. I expect better of the people that live in my state.
I can assure you the university is very concerned about it and active in combating it.
Wow I had no idea it was like this. I love that your stadium is loud and a bit crazy, but I would never participate in such chants. Anyways, I have talked with a lot of great Badger fans and I don't think this kind of behavior in that letter is indicative of the whole fan base. I will say...anyone comes up to me and yells A&&hole in my face will probably get knocked the F- out. It's more them being in my face more then calling me an A-hole. People call me that all the time and it doesn't bother me.
Edit- Oh and I am still a fan of the Badgers no matter how the fan base acts. I like how you guys play football.
-
I've been a "sort of" fan of the Lions ever since Schlesinger played for them, but I've never really gotten into NFL football. Last year I wanted to watch every game Suh played in but it seemed like only 2 or 3 were televised on basic cable. This year I've already been able to watch 4 of 5, so I almost feel like a real fan now. It's nice to see some other Huskers playing for them too.
I am kind of in the same boat as you. I don't care much for NFL football, but I am a huge fan of certain players. I was a fan of Joe Montana, Jerry Rice, Barry Sanders, and Suh. I also thought Jahvid Best was a great pickup and then I like to watch former Husker players play in the NFL. Suh has been so great to watch...I am still not a hardcore fan or a bandwagon fan, but I have no problem cheering the Lions on.
-
Taylor Martinez Dirk Chatelain, the talented young quarterback writer who finds himself at the center of controversy, much of it of his own making.
Bo Pelini Lee Barfknecht, the wise old mentor who has his young player's coworker's back.
Who you support in this little drama says a lot about where your loyalties lie.
So what does it say about someone who thinks both sides are being childish and you wish you invested in tampons for the state of Nebraska, since it seems everyone is having that time of the month? Just a hypothetical question.
Without saying you're right or wrong, since it's your theory, you're probably the best person to answer it. What does it say to you?
Maybe it says that I am starting to mellow out as I get older and I wish people would just get along. We love Nebraska...lets cheer em on, keep it civil, and enjoy the ride
Edit- oh and I never did like the OWH anyways, but it's a personal preference.
-
1
-
-
Taylor Martinez Dirk Chatelain, the talented young quarterback writer who finds himself at the center of controversy, much of it of his own making.
Bo Pelini Lee Barfknecht, the wise old mentor who has his young player's coworker's back.
Who you support in this little drama says a lot about where your loyalties lie.
So what does it say about someone who thinks both sides are being childish and you wish you invested in tampons for the state of Nebraska, since it seems everyone is having that time of the month? Just a hypothetical question.
-
2
-
From Penn State Fan
in Husker Football
Posted
Yeah it sure looks like I was defending him
. I was asking for prudence in this situation. Get all of the facts, then make an informed decision. But you have your head stuck so far up your ass you can't even see what I am talking about. While I am at it lets just go for a ban. I think quite a few of you on this board are some of the dumbest f'ing people on the planet. Some of you think you are the greatest fans in the world, but you are pretty pathetic pieces of sh#t. And Knapplc, you are probably the biggest blowhard I have ever seen. You are always right, but the funny thing is you are just a pathetic fool. Enhance, landlord, huskerjock, etc are a$$hole$. Stumpy in this thread is a retard. Now ban this account and go f#*k yourselves.