broganreynik

I would offer you the same advice. Don't just argue your point, but actually read what I'm saying. The players you're talking about will not think they are Blackshirts because of these gloves. They know what a Blackshirt is, and they know whether they've earned one or not. As I've said several times, the logo on these gloves is a marketing tool, not an actual Blackshirt. Putting this logo on these gloves doesn't cheapen the tradition of the Blackshirts any more than putting it on a kite does. No they don't think that, but people who are not familiar with the tradition will. Younger fans, unfamiliar fans, some other fans of the Big Ten. We've all heard how ridiculous some announcers are when they talk about "traditions", next thing you know Ed Cunningham or some douche is referring to all Husker defenders as Blackshirts. People bitch about having any black in the uniforms, having a b*******, adding piping or changing the uniforms in anyway, changing any traditions whatsoever, but you're a-ok with this? If it's marketing, at least market it in a way that represents the tradition.

I didn't call anyone stupid, or attack anyone's intelligence. Calm down. Again, the logo that you're talking about is a marketing tool. It represents the Blackshirts on merchandise, not on the field. On the field, the ONLY thing that represents the Blackshirts are the actual factual black jerseys in the pic I posted. But to show you that your premise is incorrect, you're saying that these are Huskers because they wear the N on the field: And that anyone wearing the N on the field is a Husker. To directly quote you, "...when you wear it on the field, you're a Husker. It's about ON THE FIELD." By that logic, these are also Huskers: These girls are "on the field," and they are wearing the N. But of course they're not Huskers, they're cheerleaders. Nobody thinks that because they are wearing an N tattoo (which the University sells licensing rights to, by the way), that they suddenly become Huskers. There is a huge difference between what the actual tradition is and what the University markets to make money. Oh for God's sake. On the field of play. DURING THE DAMN GAME. You're not that dumb, you're just twisting words around to try to prove your opinion. Just like every other time, nobody else can be right. And if "On the field, the ONLY thing that represents the Blackshirts are the actual factual black jerseys in the pic I posted." is your argument, that's debunked. Did you see Dejon Gomes playing against Texas in a black jersey? How about Jared Crick against Missouri? Are you just playing stupid to get a rise? You do seem to take on an antagonistic tone quite frequently with other posters that have differing views than you. And by saying I don't know what a Blackshirt is or what a logo is, that's pretty much saying I'm stupid.

Abso-smurfly. So... they shouldn't be called Blackshirts, but they should be able to be branded Blackshirts? Your crap about logos is ridiculous. There are N logos everywhere, the skinny N logos everywhere, but when you wear it on the field, you're a Husker. It's about ON THE FIELD. All the players are Huskers, not all of them are Blackshirts. Anyone can buy a star pin. But if a private puts four star pins on his lapel it's disrespecting the history of the Army and/or generals. All Blackshirts are Huskers, not all Huskers are Blackshirts. All Blackshirts are Husker defenders (aside from the occasional punter/kicker), but not all Husker defenders are Blackshirts. Anyone can wear the logo off the field, but if the logo THAT REPRESENTS THE BLACKSHIRTS is now going to be on the field, I would think you should have to earn it. Why say "Hey, you're not a Blackshirt, but we'll let you be marked as such." I was just asking to begin with, and then explaining my view. I'm not saying that it's going to be one way or the other. If it is the whole defense though, I feel it cheapens the honor of being/earning a Blackshirt. OH, and just because you think differently than someone else, doesn't mean you have to attack their intelligence. I know what a damn Blackshirt is, and I know what a logo is. Not everyone besides you is stupid. I'd like to think I'm the antithesis of stupid.

I was wondering the same thing, hopefully its just the blackshirts It will be for all defensive players. The jerseys mean a hell of a lot more than a pair of gloves that after this season you and I could drop 30-40 bucks and wear them too. Kinda kills the whole starter only thing when Husker Jen is flashing his...err....I mean her hands in the crowd. ??? Because someone couldn't wear a black jersey? I'm not saying your wrong about the whole defense wearing them, but that logic makes no sense. I think it'd be weird to have people who aren't Blackshirts wearing them though. This isn't a tradition like the Blackshirts, though. These are just gloves, like gloves that every player wears (if they want to, some don't). Every member of the defense will be issued a pair of these gloves, regardless of their Blackshirt status. Gloves with BLACKSHIRTS on it. I'm not saying they shouldn't get the gloves, but just have the N logo ones. Letting every defensive player wear gloves with BLACKSHIRTS on it, is disrespecting the exclusivity and effort it takes to become a BLACKSHIRT.

I was wondering the same thing, hopefully its just the blackshirts It will be for all defensive players. The jerseys mean a hell of a lot more than a pair of gloves that after this season you and I could drop 30-40 bucks and wear them too. Kinda kills the whole starter only thing when Husker Jen is flashing his...err....I mean her hands in the crowd. ??? Because someone couldn't wear a black jersey? I'm not saying you're wrong about the whole defense wearing them, but that logic makes no sense. I think it'd be weird to have people who aren't Blackshirts wearing them though.

So do all of the defensive players wear them or just players who have earned Blackshirts?

So he goes and blabs to the press about how he's been wanting to transfer for a year, and all that stuff behind the scenes, and he's still a classy guy? I honestly don't get it. (in comparison to T-Mart, who hasn't blabbed about anything, and is still on the team).

To me, what it comes down to is if they're ok with what they're going to endure. I'd say it's pretty evident that people (teammates/fans/opponents) will give them crap for being gay. If they can handle that, fine. There's more to it than "I think it's morally acceptable and you don't." You have to measure repercussions, as I would like to think most people do with most any decision, but that's far from the truth. I don't care if a guy or girl is gay. If a guy were to kiss another guy in front of me, that would make me uncomfortable though. But if two ugly people kissed that would too. Because kissing, whether or not it is a simple form of affection, has sexual connotations, however small that may be. So basically anything with sexual connotations is going to bother me if it's not someone I'm sexually attracted to. It's just a matter of comfort. I can deal with it if it happens though, that's on me. But if you are openly acting on your desires or instincts, knowing it will make majority of people uncomfortable, that's on you. You can't just forget about other people either. For instance, I like to listen to some bands my wife doesn't like, so when she's around, for the most part, I try not to listen to them. I didn't make a choice to like Nick Cave's music, I just heard it and was attracted to the music, but that doesn't mean I should forego her desires as well just because I want to act on mine. So coming out, I think is fine if you've weighed the pros and cons and find that it being known that you're gay will work better than keeping it to yourself. But being "openly gay" to the extent of kissing another guy after practice is a completely different ball of worms. If everyone there, or majority of people there are fine with it, by all means, but you can't just say "hey, it's ok to do this anywhere". Also, if you're ragging on someone else for their religious beliefs, that is no better than that person ragging on someone for being gay. Let people believe what they want to believe. It's how and where they practice their beliefs is the issue. I am a Christian, btw, but I believe people make their own decisions. One thing that bothers me is when Christians get all preachy to non-believers of the faith. If they haven't become a Christian in their lives by now, why would they just because you asked them to? Or when Christian ministries send bibles to ravaged areas instead of food. That seems ridiculous. I didn't vote for anything though. I wouldn't want the person booted from the team, but I'm not a person that will fight for gay rights either. I'm kind of indifferent, as it's their prerogative, why should I care? I'm not going to get all upset if it was revealed Jared Crick has a thing for women over 85 or if Carl Pelini likes pickles rubbed all over his feet before he gets it on.

I'm wondering if this kid grew up to be this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oOHZvAYmxk&feature=player_embedded

There was the 2001 Colorado game. I only turned it off cuz I had to go to work though, not that I'm upset that I missed the rest of it.

I would love for the Jets to pick up Henery. Stinkin' Nick Folk has been sucking it up since he got to NY. I wouldn't even mind if they took him as high as they did Mike Nugent (2nd round).

So was this the Oklahoma thing or something else?

You're right that no one can do it without blocking, but everything else I disagree with. The best example of Martinez's issues come from the B12 Championship. Continuing to eat sacks when you can throw the ball out of bounds. Not what you expect from a starter at the end of the season. If he isn't running untouched for 25+, he's pedestrian. Can't build a team around that. Right. Throw it out of bounds when you're in the pocket and enveloped by d-lineman because your o-line just touches them and lets them through. That's just as good as a sack, because it's intentional grounding. We saw what happens when he does get rid of it in the Oklahoma game. Pick, in the endzone. A sack is much better than a pick. He can play much better, but the sacks are not completely on him. Problem is, everyone around here proclaimed him as their Messiah when he went off against Washington and K-State, then when they come crashing back to reality, he's the worst quarterback ever. Jesus people, there's a happy medium.

Haha. Peterson. The presenter also originally said "Chris" instead of "Prince"

Did this thread really need to be started. I mean all the other threads ragging on the guy who poured his heart and soul into that game weren't enough? You're not enamored with a wounded QB, but you want Zac Lee in? I've never been so ashamed of my fellow Husker fans as I am today. I don't know how long of a memory any of you guys have, but with the whole taking sacks thing, Joe Ganz did that when Bo first got here. Just about everyone got on him about it, then he gets rid of it and throws a pick against Texas Tech in overtime. How quickly we all forget.

Yeah, when people say the '80s, they don't include 1990, they include 1980.

NU-30 OU-17 Rushing: 214 Passing: 241

You never know. A team may have a kicker miss clutch field goals in a playoff game and have the coach draft him. It happened with my Jets when Doug Brien screwed the team out of a victory against Pittsburgh, then they drafted Mike Nugent in the second round. What a bad pick.

Earlier this year they had an Aflac trivia question, what is the highest a freshman has ever finished in the Heisman standings? Then they said 3rd. Even though Adrian Peterson finished second.