Hercules

Simple. Anti-descrimination laws lead to reverse discrimination. It's called affirmative action. Yes, it is a reality. Anti-discrimination laws are not the same as affirmative action. And also, reverse discrimination is not why Ron Brown opposed the ordinance.

Brown says in his letter to the Lincoln Journal Star that he supports UNL's anti-discrimination policy. Yet he disagrees with an anti-discrimination city ordinance. How's that work, exactly?

I hate the "didn't get much of a chance" or "wasn't given an opportunity" rhetoric... He was a true freshman, and didn't the coaches encourage him to redshirt at the beginning of the year? He could have been competing for the #2 spot this year with Abdullah with 4 years to play, and with 3 years left to play he would have been competing for the #1 spot. Even without the redshirt, he would have been competing for the starting job with 2 years left to play. Seems like he had a great chance at Nebraska, he just wasn't patient enough to see it through.

Tough loss. It seemed like he was coming along nicely, and was going to be a major contributor over the next few years. Moving on - does Braylon Heard move back to running back? I thought he looked very promising last year. Another thing - if Green really is transferring because he doesn't fit in our offense, what does that mean? We had significant emphasis on the zone read, the option, and the toss sweep last year, all of which put our running backs in space. Is he upset that we would ask him to run in between the tackles sometimes? If the rhetoric coming from the coaches is true and we're passing the ball more, won't that give him even more opportunities to get into space with a short passing game? I guess the "doesn't fit the offensive system" argument makes little sense to me... Location I would understand, but I thought he liked being with his brother, who is poised to be a major contributor. Playing time probably makes the most sense, but I think that jumping ship after one season is a premature move that will likely set him back more now that he has to learn a new system.

I keep seeing people say that Ron Brown is OK as long as he makes it clear that these are his personal beliefs, and that he isn't representing the University when he presents them. He's ALWAYS representing the University. He can't just clock out for the day and go to another life where people don't know him as an assistant football coach. He has the freedom of speech - he can go around and say whatever he wants. The University is also completely within their own right to fire him if he makes it clear that he doesn't fit it into their culture. He's not a tenured professor. They can get rid of him whenever they want. It is also interesting (and I don't think it has been noted yet) that a strict interpretation of the Old Testament which condemns homosexuality would also bring into question the moral nature of football itself.

Oh, I was wondering a little if it would be possible to accept homosexuality while still being Christian. Well - that is disappointing. It would be disappointing if Christians started compromising beliefs to match up with the pressure of the popular world view. Wait. That's already happening everywhere. That has always happened, and it will continue to happen until the end of time. Any literature of any kind will always be viewed through a contemporary prism, and will be interpreted relative to the modern view of right and wrong. It was no different 2000 years ago, when a Jewish carpenter presented such a different, compelling world-view that it started a new religion. Christian morals are constantly in flux, and in about 50 years when the vast mainstream of Christianity will have accepted homosexuality, it will be no more a compromise of their beliefs than over the past few centuries when their perception of right and wrong changed to condemn slavery and racial discrimination.

I thought "right to work" laws referred to the laws that make it possible for people to enter certain lines of employment without being a member of a union. One of those conservative thinktank phrases that despite the sound of it actually makes things tougher for employees by weakening unions.

Offhand I'd say it's different because he wasn't advocating the hatred of a group of people while at Penn State. I sung his praises for his role in that Penn State game, and I'm the one who started this thread. I have no agenda against Coach Brown or against religion. I have an agenda against discrimination, which I would think Coach Brown, a Christian, would also have. But sadly, that is not the case. I agree with knapplc here (again). Brown's message at Penn State was one of unity - it was two opponents coming together to share in a moment of reflection before a game where the goal is to beat the crap out of the other team. It wasn't about religion, it was about manhood, it was about doing things the right way. Brown's message to the city council was one of division, not unity. He stated clearly that he believes that a specific group of people deserves unequal protection from the law. Those are two entirely different messages. One is worthy of praise. The other one is the sort of message that causes public entities to "distance" themselves from the situation.

I don't think anybody is stupid enough to think that Ron Brown isn't representing the University of Nebraska every time he speaks in public. Case in point: The article is on the front page of ESPN right now, and it's titled, "Huskers Aide: Faith Demands Anti-Gay Stance." The first three words of the article are "Nebraska assistant coach..." That is bad press. It's bad for the football program, for the University, and for the state as a whole. It's embarrassing on a national level. As far as the people arguing that Ron Brown is correct in arguing against the anti-discrimination ordinance because we shouldn't need it - there's nothing wrong with that idea - we do already have the 14th amendment which basically covers it. However, we keep making laws like this to be more specific in order to address the people who DON'T follow the 14th amendment the way they should. Besides, opposition to big government and redundant lawmaking is not why Ron Brown protested this. He protested because he doesn't like homosexuals. He apparently does not believe that they deserve the same protection from the law as heterosexuals. First off and most importantly, that's just wrong, but from a heartless business standpoint - it's embarrassing. Especially coming from a teacher who is obligated to work with students of all kinds. Imagine being a closeted homosexual trying to play for Ron Brown, trying to deal with a personal issue like that while your coach is off protesting a bill that would give you equal protection from the law. That's not what we want the University of Nebraska to be like. Seriously, where are all of the posters who want Bo fired for yelling at the refs too much? This is way worse.

These are off limits... Jokes about rape? Jokes about the Holocost? Jokes about abortion? Nothing fnny about them is funny, NOTHING. T_O_B Strongly disagree. If we can't use comedy to deal with the terrible things in life, just shoot me in the head. *NSFW* "There's nothing funny about serial rape... BUT..." I wish Dave was still on TV...

*cough* alternate uniforms *cough*

4 runs scored with 2 outs.

The baseball team wears black uniforms, then they lose by 8 runs, and then this. Don't tell me that alternate uniforms aren't cursed.

For the record, we lost by 8 runs.

This is exactly why you don't wear alternate uniforms.

So to sum up, based on what we've learned the past few years during non-conference season... Watch out for Idaho State.

"Legitimate" starpower is where I'll disagree with you. "Potential" starpower, we have loads of. I really hope those guys come through for us big time, but at this point, they've mostly just shown flashes - Bell has produced most consistently.

I don't mind this kind of talk as long as the players keep it in perspective. The argument against this kind of talk isn't that we're cocky or arrogant or don't understand the game of football - it's that you run the risk of not taking things one game at a time. We could win our first 7 games, get into the national title talk, and players could get so excited that they lose focus for a week and lose to Northwestern. Or we could lose a couple close games, and lose focus because we fall behind in our own division. However, as long as players keep their heads on straight and take things one rep at a time, there's nothing wrong with expecting yourself to beat every one you're going to play against. That's the mindset that championship teams have even before they're awarded a trophy.

Part of the Nebraska allure is tradition, and there are a ton of people who are stomping around because of this. Let's think about this realistically - Nebraska hasn't been in the national title hunt - legitimately - for over a decade. Sticking to tradition and remembering who you are is important, but thinking about the future is just as crucial. Nobody is going to pick a school simply because of their uniforms. But, whether we like it or not, athletes (especially the ones today) are interested in this kind of thing. I've talked to a couple of players here and they love the idea of alt uniforms because they wear the same thing week in, and week out, and then they have to look at Oregon who has awesome uniform changes every week. I brought this example up earlier - if you went to a Catholic school, you had a uniform every day. I'm sure it was awesome when casual Friday came around, no? It's sort-of the same principle. It's one game - it's one uniform - and, for all we know, one time. It's not going to hurt anything, AND it will appeal to recruits who think Nebraska is full of 60+ year-old fans who complain about getting away from tradition all the time. I think it can be appealing if it still looks like Nebraska out there on the field. I think if it looks like Texas Tech or Iowa State or if it just doesn't look like Nebraska, it'll just be embarrassing, and it'll demonstrate as clearly as ever that Nebraska has lost its identity. I kid you not, you send Nebraska out in black uniforms only to get blown out by Michigan or Wisconsin wearing their traditional colors, and you'll never find another moment more symbolic of how the program has regressed since its glory days. It's just one game - but if it's a big game, big enough for College Gameday or for it to at least be a national story - then the whole country watches it play out and takes in that symbolism. I think the risk is greater than the reward. Again - I don't have problems with minor changes to the uniforms. But Michigan doesn't change their color scheme. Neither does Ohio State, Alabama, LSU, or USC. Oregon changes their color scheme, and as much as it has worked for them, they back up their flash with tremendous substance in their facilities and on the field, and they're still second-fiddle to USC in their own conference.

First off, I really don't think it's just the blue hairs that have a problem with this. I am in no way a bluehair, and I don't want to see the uniforms change much. I think that the main reason that some of us have a problem with changing the uniforms is the abandonment of identity. People have talked a LOT over the past 10 years about Nebraska's identity, often saying that we had lost it. We stopped running the option, we threw away our coaching continuity, the level of play and competition and intensity plummeted, the walk-on program fell apart, and the Big 12 changed our identity so much that we're now in the friggin Big Ten, something that would have been completely unthinkable just 15 years ago. The only thing recognizable about us any more is the classic red "N" on the helmet along with our traditional scarlet and cream jerseys. You take that away, and what are we? A middling Big Ten team in a less than desirable location that hasn't won a conference championship since 1999 and has no true rival. How are we going to get back to winning conference and national championships by being like Oregon? Why would we abandon our history, the one thing that makes us more special than them, and the one thing that schools like Oregon can never match? Why would we choose to emulate their uniforms, where we'll never be competitive with them? I don't think we're ever going to get the recruit who chooses his school based on their flashy uniforms. We're never going to win many recruits over with flash, because there are way too many schools that have way more flash than Nebraska. We're going to win them over with substance, with gravitas. It's just one game, and hopefully we won't do anything particularly drastic. It'll look ridiculous and embarrassing if we come out wearing black or something that has nothing to do with what makes Nebraska football special. We'll look like we've completely forgotten who we are. It's ONE game. It's not throwing away history by switching it up once a year. Michigan, Ohio State, LSU, etc have all done it and look at them. They're all still very relevant. Besides, it's what the players want. They don't want to be compared to previous years. They are their own team and their own chapter in the Husker history books. Let them do it their way. These are Michigan and LSU alternates from last year. If we do something like this, I will have ABSOLUTELY no problem with it. They didn't wear black just for the sake of wearing black. They didn't completely abandon their color scheme or their helmet logos and everything that made them special. Nebraska changing the N on the helmet would be like Michigan losing the winged design. They would no longer be Michigan. Nebraska coming out of the tunnel in black jerseys would be just as sad as Michigan or LSU or Alabama or USC sporting black jerseys. I would be embarrassed for those programs.

First off, I really don't think it's just the blue hairs that have a problem with this. I am in no way a bluehair, and I don't want to see the uniforms change much. I think that the main reason that some of us have a problem with changing the uniforms is the abandonment of identity. People have talked a LOT over the past 10 years about Nebraska's identity, often saying that we had lost it. We stopped running the option, we threw away our coaching continuity, the level of play and competition and intensity plummeted, the walk-on program fell apart, and the Big 12 changed our identity so much that we're now in the friggin Big Ten, something that would have been completely unthinkable just 15 years ago. The only thing recognizable about us any more is the classic red "N" on the helmet along with our traditional scarlet and cream jerseys. You take that away, and what are we? A middling Big Ten team in a less than desirable location that hasn't won a conference championship since 1999 and has no true rival. How are we going to get back to winning conference and national championships by being like Oregon? Why would we abandon our history, the one thing that makes us more special than them, and the one thing that schools like Oregon can never match? Why would we choose to emulate their uniforms, where we'll never be competitive with them? I don't think we're ever going to get the recruit who chooses his school based on their flashy uniforms. We're never going to win many recruits over with flash, because there are way too many schools that have way more flash than Nebraska. We're going to win them over with substance, with gravitas. It's just one game, and hopefully we won't do anything particularly drastic. It'll look ridiculous and embarrassing if we come out wearing black or something that has nothing to do with what makes Nebraska football special. We'll look like we've completely forgotten who we are.

I saw this team quit a couple times last year. He's the leader of the offense, and sets the tone in the huddle. I don't think they would have quit if the above was entirely true. It's not all on Taylor, this is a team sport - and IMO a lot of this falls on the coaches. But, I do think Taylor gets down on himself and loses confidence or whatever - and it impacts his play and his effort. Just an observation. When did our team quit last year? They got their butts kicked against Wisconsin, Michigan, and South Carolina, but I never felt like they quit. I've seen Taylor and others play worse than they're capable of - maybe they lose confidence and play tentatively, or sometimes they'll get frustrated and lose focus - but that's very different from "quitting." If this team was of the kind of character where they would simply "quit," when they got down, they wouldn't have made the biggest comeback in school history. Responding to adversity is definitely an issue, but I'm confident our team is not going to simply "quit." The only time I saw quit was from the online at the end of the South Carolina game....I believe it was the last series, Taylor and everyone else was still trying to make plays but the online gave up 3 straight sacks. Those three plays the online had seemed to quit. But maybe I am the only one who thought that. I don't think they quit. South Carolina's defensive line was extremely good, and we were in a situation where we had absolutely no choice but to try to drop back and pass. Their d-line simply teed off on us. It's the same thing we used to do to other teams - when you take away a team's running game, they become one-dimensional, and your defensive ends can charge up the field without having to worry about containing the run or anything.

I saw this team quit a couple times last year. He's the leader of the offense, and sets the tone in the huddle. I don't think they would have quit if the above was entirely true. It's not all on Taylor, this is a team sport - and IMO a lot of this falls on the coaches. But, I do think Taylor gets down on himself and loses confidence or whatever - and it impacts his play and his effort. Just an observation. When did our team quit last year? They got their butts kicked against Wisconsin, Michigan, and South Carolina, but I never felt like they quit. I've seen Taylor and others play worse than they're capable of - maybe they lose confidence and play tentatively, or sometimes they'll get frustrated and lose focus - but that's very different from "quitting." If this team was of the kind of character where they would simply "quit," when they got down, they wouldn't have made the biggest comeback in school history. Responding to adversity is definitely an issue, but I'm confident our team is not going to simply "quit."

Why is this a bad thing? Any of these would be better than what we currently have, except for the jacked up Rose Bowl preservation plan. That thing has no chance. A four team playoff with semi's on campus sites and the championship game someplace else would be unquestionably awesome. I would care more about the bowls if Nebraska still had a tie-in to the Orange Bowl, but we don't, so I don't care.