Moiraine

Still can't believe someone in this thread said the Huskers haven't faced adversity. It's... sure hard to think of anything they've gone through that was hard. Shucks... I just can't think of a single thing.

We need this more??? Do you think they care? We don't even need a spot in a trophy case for the Freedom trophy. Hell, we don't even know how big it is...because WE HAVE NEVER WON IT. Night game, hostile environment (where we can't seem to do anything right)...Halloween Party...if we win, it'll be because we stole it. We haven't been tested. Oregon sucks. They have. That's the difference. They have seen adversity, looked it in the eye and overcome it. If we win, it will be all on Armstrong. He'll have to go JT Barrett and carry the team. I don't think he will. Hope I'm wrong. What the heck is this?

People talking about Wisconsin's offense should remember that they've played the 2 best defenses in the Big 10.

Looking at fivethirtyeight again. One thing that scares me is they're getting closer in the same pattern as they did the previous two times. It seems like every time Trump is in the spotlight a lot as far as people actually seeing him talk, Clinton's lead increases. Then when he goes relatively quiet (for him) for awhile, he closes the gap. People have short memories. I wouldn't be surprised if it's 60-40 likelihood of Clinton winning by November 8.

The question seems more to be whether or not this is politically tenable. As Shapiro points out, voters appear to have looked at what the GOP has done and decided it was basically acceptable. (As a side note, I can't say this article has raised my opinion of Ilya Shapiro). I stand corrected, however:

There's really no reason for them to not block it for 4 years. They aren't going to get held accountable in the mid-terms because Dems don't show up to vote unless there is a President on the ballot. It's illegal for them to block it and gives the executive and judicial branches reason to disband the legislative branch for failing utterly to do what is required of them. Is that what we want? Probably not.

You start drinking early

But I thought this was a down year for the B1G

I'd prefer a 2-0 victory. That'd be amazing.

My opinion aligns a lot more with BigRedBuster here. The reason being, there are millions and millions and millions of U.S. citizens who are voting age. We are all different. There is no way in hell even 10% of us truly have views that line up with one of two parties, no matter how gungho some supporters are of one party. If they all truly looked at the party and what it does about various issues, most people would find they disagree with quite a bit of what their own party does and stands for. A two party system makes no logical sense at all. There's no way you can find that many people who agree on so many different issues. There are many more gradients for each issue and there should be far more parties that have more proportional popularity. But the other parties don't have the resources to contend with the big two. I don't spend a lot of time crying about media bias but both parties get free coverage. Most everyone else is ignored.

We border Kansas. Were the Jayhawks a rival in football?

Would Michigan have ever thought it was a rivalry if the record stayed around 30-14 (percentage-wise)? I kinda doubt it.No one's arguing this can't be the beginning of a future rivalry but we need to start winning against them more than 20% of the time for it to turn into that. Texas isn't a rival either. They didn't care about us. Their fans didn't care about us. One Wisconsin player doesn't convince me they care about us. Yes because it did. After the first 100 years in which they played 96 games, Michigan was 55-35-6 against tOSU. Ohio St. has controlled the last 15 years going 13-2 against Michigan. I don't agree there. When you have sample sizes of 50-100 games, this is a pretty big change. On top of that, games pre-1950 don't usually hold a lot of weight to people who weren't alive then. First 50 years: 30-12-4: Michigan win percentage = 65.2% Next 50 years: 25-23-2: Michigan win percentage = 50% First 100 years: 55-35-6: Michigan win percentage = 57.3% So the first 50 years don't count because it was lopsided and a lot of people today weren't alive during that time? Makes a lot of sense!!! Yep, it does. They count in the record, but this is a rivalry because Ohio State started to hold up their end, and continued to do so for decades. The fact Michigan won about 2/3 of the first 50 games isn't too meaningful and isn't why it's a rivalry. If that had continued into modern times it would be much less of one.

I don't think we'll lose by a lot, and I have hopes we'll win.

This is the most ridiculous garbage I've ever read on Huskerboard. You must have missed all of the posts he made about how Republicans think clearly and logically, always, 100% of the time and Democrats make everything up, always, 100% of the time.

I actually thought about him the other day. He left here because he wanted to play for a contender and he wasn't real happy with his coach at Nebraska. Well....as of today anyway, Huskers have a pretty good DL coach that the players like and we are a contender. MSU???? Not so much. So, unfortunately for him, he went from a really bad season at Nebraska to a really bad season at MSU. That has to really suck. I know it's not too popular to say but the dude has annoyed me since that video came out. He was obviously a prima donna. And then he said he wanted to go to the SEC because it would help him get into the NFL, and the team he looked at was... Kentucky. What??

I went to his twitter page. I regret that decision.

Hmmm....I guess that you can look at that. It would be another example of how screwed we are with party politics. I don't understand this comment. Not that I disagree, just not sure why it's in response to this.

I'd much rather the players take a methodical approach to the game.

I think it's because we felt we were being forced into it because of the trophy, and also because many Iowa fans hated Nebraska when we never gave a crap about them. Now that we're 5 years in, it actually feels a lot more like it could turn into one, considering how close the games have been.

Would Michigan have ever thought it was a rivalry if the record stayed around 30-14 (percentage-wise)? I kinda doubt it. No one's arguing this can't be the beginning of a future rivalry but we need to start winning against them more than 20% of the time for it to turn into that. Texas isn't a rival either. They didn't care about us. Their fans didn't care about us. One Wisconsin player doesn't convince me they care about us. Yes because it did. After the first 100 years in which they played 96 games, Michigan was 55-35-6 against tOSU. Ohio St. has controlled the last 15 years going 13-2 against Michigan. I don't agree there. When you have sample sizes of 50-100 games, this is a pretty big change. On top of that, games pre-1950 don't usually hold a lot of weight to people who weren't alive then. First 50 years: 30-12-4: Michigan win percentage = 65.2% Next 50 years: 25-23-2: Michigan win percentage = 50% First 100 years: 55-35-6: Michigan win percentage = 57.3%

delete

Would Michigan have ever thought it was a rivalry if the record stayed around 30-14 (percentage-wise)? I kinda doubt it. No one's arguing this can't be the beginning of a future rivalry but we need to start winning against them more than 20% of the time for it to turn into that. Texas isn't a rival either. They didn't care about us. Their fans didn't care about us. One Wisconsin player doesn't convince me they care about us.

Early voting looking good for Clinton. http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/26/politics/early-voting-statistics-2016-election/index.html

I've been saying this for months now. As president he would bully anyone who ever so much as looked at him funny. He'd do whatever he could to make their lives hell.

I never thought Kansas State or Colorado or Missouri were rivals. Also, if you look at the verb: Rival - compete for superiority with; be or seem to be equal or comparable to.