huskerinacaveman

move if need be, but

http://www.kake.com/home/headlines/Passenger-opens-door-on-commercial-plane-in-route-to-Wichita-265151961.html

 

what civil liabilities? why did the judge mention that?

Civil Liabilities can mean civil responsibilities which are things that don't have to do with the court. Meaning...not the courts problem

i was just wondering if the judge was referring to a specific civil case against lewis. it was just odd to me that the judge said that.

In the context of the way it was written I bet they mean responsibilities. There may be some civil law suit on the thing, but that doesn't really make sense int he context of the what the article is about.

As a former Sergeant who worked in a jail for 5 years I will shed some light on some myths and realities of what jail life is like for some people.

This is a Myth:

If your sentenced to 45 days you wont have to serve the whole time will you? Most inmates serve less than half of the amount of time they are sentenced. Is there any chance that he does less time and gets out early based on behavior at jail.

Reality:

Some people have review dates where they could potentially serve less then initially ordered, . These are typically for people who have minors who rely on the support of the person going to jail or other dependents, or very large metro areas where they just don't have the resources to "farm" out their inmates. Google "jail bed space for rent." Others can have their lawyers petition the court to have your sentence reviewed. With the short sentence of 45 days , and that they are almost always set about 30 days out and would need to have been petitioned to the court and approved before the first 15 days. Its not going to take a day for that to happen so we'll give it a 7-10 days for the lawyer to draw up the paperwork, for it to be sent tot he judges office, sit on his desk till the million other things are done with including presiding over other peoples cases and petitions of other sorts.

So say it does get done is a really fast 5 days, and is approved and they have a court hearing on day 35 of 45. Good luck with a judge reducing it then, it is almost over and he truly has more important things to worry about, and from the sounds of it got off pretty lightly of his his sentence, due to the public interest of this case. Seems like this turned into a making an example of athletes. A regular person might have gotten 30 days, or just probation. He'll do his 45 days in my opinion.

what civil liabilities? why did the judge mention that?

Civil Liabilities can mean civil responsibilities which are things that don't have to do with the court. Meaning...not the courts problem

Myth:

To the ones saying he got off easy, thats not really the case. Lots of people never spend more then a night in jail. Even though this is a felony, even then guys rarely see jail time on a first time felony charge, unless of course it is something extreme, which this is not. I am however happy that he does have to do some jail time, it is the best tool to keep people out of jail/coming back to jail, send them there for a bit.

As stated before its been dropped to a misdemeanor, and a lot of people serve jail sentences as first offenders, it really comes down to the DA/CA, the judge and your defense lawyer, but here what I know about "jail"

Reality:

You have 3 types of people who go to jail.

The first are scared out of their mind, they are physically small, emotionally not confident and become prey, and are likely to be non-repeat offenders of hardly any sort. Simply put, jail is the worst thing that could possibly happen to them.

The Second are the repeat offenders, been there, done it, not big deal just an inconvenience to their life much like someone who gets deploy to the middle east. They made a life choice to serve our great country, and they understand the challenge their family deals with. A criminal has the same mindset. They made a life choice to be a poo-bag, and they are often easy enough to get a long with types that usually only befriend someone for selfish manipulative reasons.

The third is a person who is honestly scared about going but is physically big, and emotionally confident. This is in my best guess going to be Lewis, the poo-bags aren't going to see him as prey, they are going to see him as someone they will try to manipulate (everyone in jail gets manipulated to some degree even staff). . They might do it to be cool, to hang out with the division 1 football guy, hear his stories, some might befriend him, make him feel as though these he's one of the guys. That is the dangerous part. When you start siding with these people they start to change the way you think and desensitize you.

I've seen good people go to jail, and come out criminals, this might be way out of line to post here, but I just get tired of all the myths about sentencing because of all of the celebrities who live in LA where they just don't have the room or the money to keep people in jail. Anyways, I thought I'd share my knowledge with you all. Maybe it will give others different perspective.

I don't think it should really matter about the caliper of the conference. When the Cardinals won their last world series they were not the best team during the season, but I would say that minus Rangers fans, most would say that the Cardinals were the best team of the playoffs.

My issue is that players and coaches should determine their fate, not a committee.

I see how its not fair to exclude 2nd place conference teams from a playoff if they are clearly better than the teams who are part of a lower conference. This might cause some of the bigger teams to switch conferences to give themselves better opportunities to get into the playoffs. This would create a more balanced landscape, but I doubt teams of the Big 10, SEC, or Pac 12 really considering a move from their conference because its more about money then it is championships.

There has to be a prerequisite. That IMO should be the Conference title. Anything else is subjective.

As for having fluke games where the lowest seeded team beats the top seeded team. You could always instill a double elimination bracket, if you have two teams that play 15 games, who says that others can't play 14. It could work, how? That is for another discussion

I always thought a conference championship should be a requirement for a playoff.

 

The problem is that some conference are much weaker than others. Also, you could easily have a conference champion with 3 losses. I simply like the new system, where a group of people sit down and say, "Okay, who's really the best four teams in the country."

But still, how can you say X is better than Y if not's not played out on the field. How do you know Bama is better than Michigan St right now? How do you know if Auburn or even Florida St is? That's why I'm a proponent of conference champs. it's played on the field. It eliminates the most nonsense and off-field bs of any other method. If youre really the best team, youre gonna win your conference and win the playoffs anyway. Then end prize is what it's all about after all.

Yes, thank you

As an OSU fan, Wisconsin has my respect. They always play OSU tough and it isn't easy to win in Madison.

 

I don't understand all the hate.

Because out of the three times that we've played them, we've been stomped. Though I like having adversaries, I think Wissy becomes our biggest rivalry.

8 team play-off.......head-to head matchups will always be a more valid and reliable measurement of who the best is vs. a committee with innate biases attempting to be objective.

How do you determine which 8 teams make it?

I think the whole recruiting thing is a crap shoot.

 

There isn't any real way to know how good someone is going to be.

 

There is definitely a method to it, but I would say that lesser known recruits become better players more often then high caliper players pan out.

 

I would love to hear any information to back that last statement up. It may be a crap shoot, but if you look at the last 5 years, the top 10 teams they were full of 4 and 5 star recruits. There are some schools that don't fit the mold but the teams that are constantly at the top recruit the best on a national scale. Maybe the reason why you can make that last statement is because there are less 4 and 5 star guys than lesser known recruits thus making it seem like they don't pan out.

You are right sir, its more of a perceived notion I guess. Though, I only really looked at how often 5* were drafted and how many games they played in.

Depends on if you work nights and this is my evening. Which its not, but I do what I want

Thanks you, Here is your beer.

Wisconsin gets way to much love.

 

One of the best teams in the conference the last twenty years and by far the most successful in the West since 2000 but yea ok, too much love.

 

Even I'll admit that given the current state of the different programs in the West Nebraska should win more division titles than Wisconsin. NU has better (at least more expensive) coaching, better (at least historically) recruting, better facilities and what not. That said, a lot of things that should happen often don't happen as we all know. Wisconsin shouldn't have won the B1G in 2011 or 2012. Nebraska shouldn't be on a six year four-loss-a-season streak but they are. Who knows what will happen.

 

Look, lets face it, no one really cares what you did a few years back...only the last season and then into the current season. Wisky had 4 losses last season, right? All 3 good teams they played worked them over for the most part and they lost at home to PSU.

 

If that is your idea of good, then, amen, you guys had a good season.

 

Best team over the last 20 years, great! NU is probably the best over the last 30...but who cares? I don't. You don't.

 

You know I am right, which is why you are upset about it.

 

You think Bama fans are happy with getting beat up the last two games?

Why is everyone so hung up on 9 wins, or 4 losses.

Everyone cares about the recent history.

Do you think they recruit off of last years results? Bama would win every year

Teams like Michigan State who sucked it up last year wouldn't have been any better.

You know I am right.

Wisconsin gets way to much love.

They've earned it.

Faltered this year at the end, but I think they are a solid team capable of beating anyone in the Big 10

Haven't read through the entire thread, but most of it.

 

 

I'll throw out this - I think it's very unlikely to see it go to 16 teams. Why? Player safety. That's just too many football games. We're already at 14 for the successful schools, 15 next year. No way the powers that be will opt for a possible seventeen game schedule for two teams - unless we go the way of getting rid of a non-conference game, which also won't happen, because those schools need a certain amount of home games for revenue.

Agree, and the only way to reduce that is to remove the Non-conference schedule, play conference play, and the non-con is essentially the playoffs of however many teams.

I'm not saying my way is right, but I am arguing that Conference champs is a FAIR way to establish a STANDARD level of achievement for all teams to be able to play in the game. It relies on nothing more then the performance of the players and the coaches who participate in the game. No other human outside element has control over who plays. Now tell me that isn't BETTER then leaving decisions up to biased, personal, subjective opinions, and money to sway results, or match ups.

But it's not really establishing a standard level because it only considers conference games, plus some conferences have that elimination championship game, and others don't. And some conferences have 14 teams, while others have 8. It's far from a standard level.

 

I'd argue that it's like saying that a team has to win it's rivalry game to make the playoffs. If Oregon rolls through the rest of the schedule but loses the Civil War game vs Oregon St, and still goes on to win the Pac 12, they can't go, because if you can't even win your rivalry game for your own state's bragging rights, you don't get in. If you don't have a rivalry game, well, that rule just doesn't apply to you so you're eligible. Not the same thing as winning a conference? Why not? The only difference is that a conference championship involves more games, but it doesn't take into account the entire season.

 

The committee can make it fair. They aren't employed by ESPN if you're worried about the SEC bias. I'd hope that this year they'd have considered the conference championship factor enough to include Auburn, FSU, Stanford, and Michigan St, and leave Alabama out because 3-5 were so close. No need to mandate Alabama out,and if Michigan St and probably Baylor had another loss or two, I think Alabama should get in.

I disagree, here's why.

Non-Conference is a joke anyways and to early in the season to truly establish anything other than a perceived ranking based on what? Kind of the same thing that the BCS never started their rankings until after halfway through the season.

Each of the conferences have established clear ways to win the conference. All of the conferences with CCG have divisions and then a title game. The other are small enough to play everyone to establish a winner with ties going to the winner of the two, and so on and so forth.

I'm not saying that Alabama wasn't good this year, they were, but by what I am saying you shouldn't be allowed to play if you can't win your conference. As someone else put it mentioned, they didn't even win their division.

If you don't make this the standard then you have to open it up wider (at least top 25 teams to 36 teams, and the argument that the season doesn't matter anymore starts.) to allow the teams that are at a natural disadvantage (Non-AQ schools) to get into it. Other wise you have little to no shot to ever get in. 2 Non AQ schools in the last 4 years have made it in the top 10

Do I feel that Boise State or TCU were good enough to deserve those rankings. I do not, but my opinion shouldn't matter, not should anyone else's. They won the games that were put in front of them more then they lost. They should have a chance to prove it. Not have someone else decide with a committee

I think the whole recruiting thing is a crap shoot.

 

There isn't any real way to know how good someone is going to be.

 

There is definitely a method to it, but I would say that lesser known recruits become better players more often then high caliper players pan out.

 

I would love to hear any information to back that last statement up. It may be a crap shoot, but if you look at the last 5 years, the top 10 teams they were full of 4 and 5 star recruits. There are some schools that don't fit the mold but the teams that are constantly at the top recruit the best on a national scale. Maybe the reason why you can make that last statement is because there are less 4 and 5 star guys than lesser known recruits thus making it seem like they don't pan out.

This is going to take some time.

I think the whole recruiting thing is a crap shoot.

There isn't any real way to know how good someone is going to be.

There is definitely a method to it, but I would say that lesser known recruits become better players more often then high caliper players pan out.

My question is: Who was talking about the 1 second before this thread came up?

My question is: Who was talking about the 1 second before this thread came up?

Good question. Why did the OP start this thread?? Mack, is that you?? If it is, we could use a recruiting coordinator.

I am kind of laughing seeing that this thread doesn't seem to want to go away.

I don't remember what thread it was but someone was using the incident as a point.

I am just tired of hearing it, and yet I made a thread about it 4 years after the fact, and it blows up into a double pager.

The irony

EDIT* Mods I give permission for a lock.

Who gives a sh#t if he done something unethical when he was here before. The guy can flat out coach and according to some, we need that badly cause the rest of our coaches aren't very well at it.

No, we should never have this attitude.

Alabama looked subjectively good going into bowl season, not so good after. (No conference title, no division title)

What do you think that says about the rest of the conference?

I would have thrown it out there as an "any one could win on Saturday" after Auburn, but after the bowl game, Alabama look like they lost something. Probably just focus, but I'll say their Mojo has evaporated

Well, now there is some down time and I know this has been discussed but since we have an idea of which players will be returning/starting next season, how do you all think we look in the B1G West?

 

Personally, it reminds me a lot of the B12 North, a weak division that most seasons we will have a "should win" mentality about. Not saying Wisconsin is a cupcake at all, and Minnesota/Iowa/Northwestern have given us fits since joining, but how do you see it going? What percentage do you expect to see the Huskers winning the west?

Don't agree that its like being in the Big XII north because division is not apples to apples to B1G West. Wisconsin is better than all of the Big 12 North, NW is solid, Iowa won't be a push over and Minny is on the uprise. Not to mention Nebraska has lost to each of one of these teams in the first two years of our involvement in the Conference. We have stayed consistent, and the competition has gotten better hands down won't even argue.

I think it's ridiculous to say that a team that doesn't win a conference can't go. Utterly ridiculous. So, Nebraska beats Oregon, FSU, Alabama, and USC in non-conference games, loses one conference game by one point, but it's only loss is to a conference mate who doesn't lose any conference games (but did lose 2 non-conference games), so Nebraska can't play for the conference title. Meanwhile, it's one of those rare years where there are only two teams with less than 2 losses in the country. Under this scenario, it would be TOTALLY STUPID to exclude Nebraska simply because they did not win the conference. Utterly ridiculous.

Its not stupid as you put it if that is the requirement. Lets just say that we use your example that Nebraska beats each one of those teams. I am assuming that your argument is those are all highly ranked teams. Well for the sake of the argument, those highly ranked teams at the beginning of the year are all not so highly ranked or even ranked at the beginning of the year.

The point I am trying to make is that using the polls or rankings to determine who should and shouldn't be in play to play in the playoff is about establishing a standard. Poll are subjective, and there isn't a real good way to determine how good a team is other them personal, biased, subjective opinions of writers, coaches, and public opinion. None of which has any real factual basis because they don't all play each other.

I agree with you that it would TOTALLY AND ROYALLY SUCK if Nebraska did all of that and didn't make it, but to use another example in 2001 when Nebraska did make it to the title game and as a fan, I am saying that they didn't deserve to be there, and we were embarrassed when we played.

I'm not saying my way is right, but I am arguing that Conference champs is a FAIR way to establish a STANDARD level of achievement for all teams to be able to play in the game. It relies on nothing more then the performance of the players and the coaches who participate in the game. No other human outside element has control over who plays. Now tell me that isn't BETTER then leaving decisions up to biased, personal, subjective opinions, and money to sway results, or match ups.

My main thought is it should be eight teams. But for four, I think conference champions should be a high priority but not the only one, as several have said. For example, what if 12-0 Nebraska loses to 12-0 Ohio State (the only remaining unbeaten) in the B1G CCG 24-21. Would that automatically disqualify Nebraska from the playoff in favor of an 11-2 (or worse) champion from the ACC or Big XII? I definitely wouldn't go more than two teams per conference but there is too small a sample size (number of games) in football to automatically say a team is out because of one loss or because they happen to be in the same conference as a great team and let another team in just because they won a weaker conference.

I would agree if those two teams didn't play. each other over the course of the season, but generally if you are in a conference like the big 12 where every team plays each other, or a conference like the big 10 where there are 14, You will play everyone in your division you face the division winner of the other side. They won, end of story. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and that line should be the conference championship. Anything after that point is too subjective to someone else's opinions.

EDIT* Namely a board that include someone with the last name of Rice.

It's obvious that no system is really a good system when it comes to football, because in CFB any given Saturday anyone can win, generally the better team does.

But like one of the last posters said, that is what is fun about it.

Something I brought up in a post a while ago, that I think would be cool, and would allow for CFB to retain the bowl system.

Move the Bowl Games to the Spring,

Have your spring camps, you inter-team scrimmage one week, and then the next week have a bowl game that is more about an exhibition game during spring break.

I wonder if graduating players can play since they haven't technically graduated yet.

I assume this question is being posed hypothetically for some future time when the playoff is not four teams selected by a committee. Imo, there needs to be provisions for getting the top 8 or 16 teams into the playoff. Only considering conference champions would not meet that goal. There have been, are, and likely will always be better 2nd and 3rd place teams in some conferences than there are champions from other conferences.

Agree, but 2nd, and 3rd placed teams are based of their rankings which really don't tell the story. Auburn won their conference, as did Michigan State, both were under dogs, and I think everyone here will say that both Ohio State, and Alabama didn't deserve to be in the National Championship Picture

CF appears to be the only major sport where don't get a reasonable fair shot at winning a championship because you don't play every team. CBB is slightly more so because the big dance is so big, and I don't think a 16 seed has actually ever won, and including anyone else would have even less probability.

There has to be a better way to even up the playing field. That still allows for everyone to make a bunch of cash, and get a shot.

I think we can establish it here on this board lol