Moiraine

Then their defense stopped Boise State.

I did not say that it was in the past. I said it is not related to the topic that this thread points out. I love being ridiculed for having differing opinions. Not once have I ridiculed someone for having a differing opinion on mine, I try and fire back a constructive argument. It has a whole hell of a lot to do with this thread, and there's no point in discussing this topic with people who can't see that. You don't seem to know what the words ridicule or hate mean. Even in saying that I'm not ridiculing you. I'm slightly closer to it than I was before but not quite there.

Easily the Schlesinger quarter. Runners up: Missouri '09 4th, Colorado '08 4th, Florida 2nd. Basketball: Wisconsin 4th quarter during Miles' best year

Someone who thinks "Blacks were oppressed >= 50 years ago" and it's in the past isn't worth talking to on this matter.

I think I get it. There's an option somewhere where you can choose to let your posts have an "edited by" line and it will show the date. I think?

Where are all the shirtless men?

Trump's philosophy: if anyone wrongs him, anything said about them is fair game. He can go after their weight, their looks, their religion, their race. He thinks if they're a bad person that it's okay to use these things against him.

The situation with Gore was not like this at all. Florida decided to do a recount. That was a state level decision. He waited on the results and accepted the decison after it was made. He could have taken it way further than he did. Trump is saying the election is rigged and has been saying it for the past 2 weeks+. The damn election hasn't even happened yet. He is also no evidence to back up his claims. Now he says he doesn't know if he'll accept the decision and in Ohio today he said he would accept the election results if he wins. He's a child and he's putting the country in danger with these comments

+ "Nasty woman" Trump will probably argue it was some neutral comment he would have used against a man. But the thing is, women get called nasty for things that a man can do without any comment at all. And what Clinton was saying when he called her a nasty woman wasn't anything irregular for a debate.

Kinda wish this topic would be re-titled to show his name. Not saying fans have much of a say but if it's 1%... something about special teams should be in the name. Anyhow, I'm still hoping against hope this has all been one long trick and when we play Wisconsin/Ohio State we're going to have 6 punt returns for TDs.

Easy to do when the media is rigged. Donald Trump isn't saying people's votes are being changed. He's saying that the media is just about as corrupt as the candidate they support and are polluting the minds of the people. No. It's not. Not to mention the fact that Trump got free press for months on end from pretty much every media format and every channel/newspaper. It's a big reason why he won the primary.

I'd say it was Trump's best debate and Clinton's 2nd best debate. But Trump also said two things that basically ruined it for him, imo.

How does Trump let Clinton go on and on about Russia's hacking without absolutely destroying her on her own e-mail problem? It would have been child's play to make her e-mail "mistake" seem TERRIBLE.

India is growing at 8% and China is growing at 7%. I'm not an economist but it stands to reason countries that were 3rd world countries not that far in the past have a lot more room for growth than does the U.S. 20 years ago people were still using the "people starving in China" line.

The thread was more about how garage of an analysis Tom Dienhart can be, but I will play the game for a moment. This was a recognition of Mid-season Coach of the Year, not most improved coaching job from last year. Looking at the current teams preseason, you had to like Ohio State because of recent success, but they were only bringing back 6 starters from last year. That is the lowest number of starters out of the 128 total FBS teams. The fact Urban Meyers has his young team playing at the level they are could easily warrant a nod for Coach of the Year. That is only one other factor to consider, so to say Riley is a default option is not completely accurate. I don't think Riley is the only choice. I just don't think it's crazy to pick him. Coach of the Year awards often consider what the team was like the previous year. If they didn't, Nick Saban would win the national one almost every year. Also, it's easy to argue OSU is more talented than Nebraska, regardless of how young the players are.

Nobody should have to be subjected to political theater by means of ambush. If one pays to see a football game, then give them a football game and leave out the other crap...is that wrong? I just despise all of this "Look at me!" sh!t that tries to get pawned off as something noble or useful. Like that other guy said, "Do something." People have had this conversation with you enough times already. Just because players are doing this doesn't mean it's the only thing they're doing.

This whole thread is weird. There are really only 4 coaches to consider for this, and 3 of them don't have vast improvements in their current winning percentages from last year. That leaves Riley.

I didn't know that there was a restraining order that prevented this. Is this the same thing as saying grandma can't see the kids after the divorce? there isnt. As long as hes not coaching for another program. Which he wasnt. so no doing it was not wrong. and again, your lack of reading comprehension has COMPLETELY missed the point here. Because no one said it was wrong for him to do so. the debate is whether or not he, within that contact, furthered a divide. There was an article out at some point last season saying the old coaches in contact were talking sh#t about the new coaches to the current players. Unfortunately I have no recollection of what that article was. It was other people close to the program who were saying this or maybe a couple of the players said it. Don't remember that detail either.

A lot of people on this thread have asked why atheists have a group, why atheists want there to be more atheists, or why atheists are promoting atheism. I've wondered these same things, because one of my family members is an atheist and argues about it with other family members who believe in God. I've never actually asked why, but I've been thinking about it and have a couple possible explanations. 1. *Religion causes wars. Atheists can point to ISIS and argue this pretty easily. It is not a crazy notion at all. In promoting atheism, they could be attempting to reduce the number of people who would potentially cause wars. 2. *Religion causes harm. Many people do stupid things in the name of religion that may not cause death but they cause other problems. People shoot doctors in the name of religion, persecute the non-religious or the sinners (e.g. Gay people) in the name of religion, and use religion as an excuse for their political stances. Some also deny science in the name of religion, even science that wouldn't prove their religious texts wrong if they'd just stop and think. #1 is worse, but #2 is important too. * - But I don't believe religion causes either of these. I think the people who do stupid/evil things in the name of religion would do the same stupid/evil things and just use a different excuse, if religion didn't exist. See Kim Jong Un and his father and grandfather. There are likely some North Koreans who really do worship them. Which makes me think it's not really possible to not have religion - without religion and knowledge of "God" we'd just worship different things/people and put them above us. I guess atheists could be calling out to those who would never put anything/anyone on a pedestal.

sample size tho So, let's say NU goes 11-3 this year (10-2 regular season, loss in B1G Championship, win the bowl game) and then falls back to 8-5 next year (new QB, new receivers, new leaders have to step up). That's a .615 winning percentage through 3 years. Still way behind. I'm not sure why Riley would need to equal his percentage by 2018. He needs to average around 9.5 wins over the next 6 seasons (including this year) in order to match what Pelini did. It's too early to say how likely that is but winning 11 games this year would make it a lot easier. That's what's expected of him anyway, + Championship(s)

Eh. I'm not seeing it.

That's pretty spot on, Bility. I actually don't agree with this... things have been severely divided for years and years now. This year has worsened it in my opinion. I think it will stay bad. yeah. I said that. At yhe end. It just wont be division over the presidency. Well quickly move on to the next issue. Hell i myself have already losg interest in the election cuz its clear how it ends. There will always be division. We are human. Humans have an opinion. But dont overlook the role of social media in magnifying a division that frankly was always there. Gotcha

Alright here's a positive. If Clinton is elected she will probably lose in 2020. If Trump is elected he will probably lose in 2020. But he's more likely to do a sh#t-ton of harm to the country than is the status quo which is what we'll get with Clinton. The only reason I see to vote for Trump is if you think he can actually make a difference in abortion laws. I've tried and tried to think of any other reason and I can't find it. I mean, the gun issue could potentially be one but Clinton isn't going to abolish the 2nd amendment. That's just what the people who make $ off of guns want you to think. If you're really gungho about Trump's plan to deregulate, get rid of the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Education and most food safety laws, I don't have a response to that. And don't say he changed his mind on that. When Trump changes his mind, it's on something he said 24 hours ago. I'm okay with people changing their mind on an issue in 20 years, or even 5-10 years. When someone changes their mind that often, you can't prepare for or predict what stupid thing they might do from day to day.