Moiraine

Umm...but everyone's life does matter, and it's not a competition to see who has had the worst upbringing or challenges to go through in life. I have white friends that have had massive struggles in life due to health issues but also to abuse, and many of these challenges cross racial and ethnic lines. To single out one race and suggest other races suffering is not as important does not pass the common sense test for most Americans. Blacks who are continuing to play the victim card in the 21st century when we have a black President and have seen so many blacks have success actually goes against everything that prior generations in the civil rights movement stood for. I'm not saying there are not cases of racism still present in this country, whether its whites against blacks, blacks against whites, or some combination of other races...it's there, and always will be. But if the black community really want to improve the lives for all blacks, their energy would be better directed at understanding the root cause of why blacks have a higher percentage of poverty and unemployment, why so more black households are without fathers, etc... The point isn't to say only black lives matter. It's to draw attention to negative issues they face at a far greater rate than do non minorities. The all lives matter sh#t is stupid. That's a given that doesn't need to be stated. People who are blind to the fact that blacks face things that whites don't (at a much greater rate) are being willfully ignorant. To deny it is to deny facts. Listing off a few successes like Obama is something called anecdotal evidence. Unfortunately, successful blacks are an anomaly. And they undoubtedly face more racism than their white counterparts. All of this is not to say there aren't idiots involved with that organization.

The coloring of the map isn't relevant. It's not connected in any way to the percentages. It could be that no Nebraskans think the program is relevant but some people in other states do think Nebraska is relevant and even it out. Who knows, 'cause it's a terrible graphic. I think it's just supposed to be funny. Are you sure? Maybe you're right and I'm just being an imbecile, but, I thought those maps usually show where the largest percentage of people saying 'yes' or 'non' hail from. Actually no, what I said was wrong. I didn't see the "mouse over the results" part until now because the link to the graph isn't actually there. I don't know at what % it changes color. Probably 50%. So over 50% of Nebraskans think we're relevant and for all other parts of earth less than 50% think Nebraska's relevant.

The coloring of the map isn't relevant. It's not connected in any way to the percentages. It could be that no Nebraskans think the program is relevant but some people in other states do think Nebraska is relevant and even it out. Who knows, 'cause it's a terrible graphic. I think it's just supposed to be funny.

That's neat. Thing is, this question can't be asked about Iowa because it has the word "still" in it.

Amen. Time for Cross and Andy Janovich to carry the ball 30x each and pound the rock. This is the strength of Iowa's defense. We want good weather on Friday. Bad weather hurts us a bit more than it hurts Iowa.

It's the prosecutors job to look at the case to determine if there is enough evidence there to file charges and secure a conviction. If not there would be so many cases going to court it would be insane and also a waste of tax payers money. Sure, they could've worded it differently, but regardless, there wasn't enough evidence to proceed with charges apparently. But the prosecutor did not say there was not enough evidence. He used the term "beyond a reasonable doubt" which would imply that in fact there was evidence but that he made an assumption on how a jury would decide, even though that's not his job... that's a jurys job. That type of action by a prosecutor should be troubling in any case... this one or any other case. I'm sorry but that's not how it works. Maybe ideally that's how it should work but it's not. Most cases don't actually go to a trial before a jury, regardless of whether they involve high profile defendants or not.

Were they asked to do that? (I didn't watch the last Republican or Democrat debates). If not, I don't see why they'd just blurt that out randomly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wa_06fIIK24?t=1h47m48s

I'm not sure if this is a joke or if you didn't read the OP carefully. Anyhow, I didn't meet him because I don't like bugging people in public places, but I saw him at Scheels in December 2013 and saw a bunch of different people come up to talk to him and he was gracious to everyone. That doesn't mean he doesn't have psychological issues.

I'm really confused by your post. None of those places are in Nebraska, except Omaha, which was stated to have Hawkeyes fans. So how does any of what you posted provide evidence that Iowa fans are common in parts of Nebraska outside of Omaha? There is no big team in SD so people are going to pick between Nebraska, Iowa, Colorado and Minnesota. It makes sense that you're more likely to find an Iowa fan in SD than in Nebraska. Nebraska fans aren't even that common in western Nebraska, because hardly anyone lives there I never said that I had direct evidence that any sizeable population of Hawkeyes live in Nebraska outside of Omaha. I am making an assumption (could be a false one) based on my 39 years of experience living in those places. My point was that both fan bases are hard to miss, and always display the colors. There's got to be pockets of Hawkeyes outside of Omaha. No? The assumption is based on weird stuff, though . I always saw Iowa gear when I went to Adventureland as a kid, but that doesn't mean anything because we're talking about Iowa fans in Nebraska. I think everyone who's posted about it has said, in their own experience, they haven't come across many Hawkeyes fans in their respective non-Omaha, Nebraska locations.

I'm really confused by your post. None of those places are in Nebraska, except Omaha, which was stated to have Hawkeyes fans. So how does any of what you posted provide evidence that Iowa fans are common in parts of Nebraska outside of Omaha? There is no big team in SD so people are going to pick between Nebraska, Iowa, Colorado and Minnesota. It makes sense that you're more likely to find an Iowa fan in SD than in Nebraska. Nebraska fans aren't even that common in western Nebraska, because hardly anyone lives there

The wins against ranked teams for those 3 will be pretty even after the B1G championship. If Iowa wins, Oklahoma will be at 3 and Iowa will probably also be at 3. I think Wisconsin will work its way back into the rankings by then. But that bottom row will remain the same, so that obviously doesn't look good. Being 13-0 kinda makes up for that, though. (But I think they'll be 11-2 at that point).

IMO that has nothing to do with whether it's a rivalry game or not. Was the Michigan Ohio State game less of a rivalry when OSU was good and Michigan down on their luck? I believe it was 2 years ago when OSU was undefeated and they beat Michigan something like 49-48. One team being considered bad leading up to the game is irrelevant. It's the body of work between the two teams that matters. A rivalry doesn't go away even if one team is undefeated and the other is winless. If it did we'd just have brand new "rivalries" each season.

I've lived in Lincoln 5 years and never seen anyone wearing Iowa gear unless they were at an Iowa game played in Lincoln. I did know an Iowa State fan once.

It's becoming less special though. Oregon is playing Friday, Washington-Washington State is Friday, Baylor-TCU is Friday. Hmph. Oh. I actually didn't realize that. I just remember when it used to be only NU/CU, and Texas/A&M (I think...) I think something not listed in the poll that is defining for a rivalry game to me is being played at around the same time every year. No matter what other teams we play, we close out with Iowa (and CU before that) every year. The Red River Shootout is always in early October (or was?...) Things like that. I think a couple of those games are new this year. It annoyed me when I saw. For a long time Texas/Texas A&M was on Thanksgiving. By a long time it might've just been 5 years. I just know I hated it because I wanted to watch a good college football game with my family and we were stuck with a game nobody cared about.

I just want 6 teams. The more teams we add the less important the regular season games are.

It's becoming less special though. Oregon is playing Friday, Washington-Washington State is Friday, Baylor-TCU is Friday. Hmph.

I've lived my whole life in that geographic area and my interactions with Iowa fans can be counted on the fingers of one hand. That includes both games they've played here since the merger. Based on team gear, bumper stickers, etc, that I've seen around Lincoln these past nearly 30 years, I'd go with Michigan as the #1 expat fan base in Lincoln, followed by Ohio State, Oklahoma, Penn State, etc. Not even joking when I say that Iowa Fan is barely a blip on the radar here. I've seen more Oregon gear in the past year than I've seen Iowa gear in 30 years. There are more Colorado Buffaloes fans in Lincoln to this day than Iowa fans. I agree on Michigan but see quite a bit of Alabama too. I think the Alabama stuff is just due to bandwagoners, though.

I know we don't really understand this because we're in love with OU and they love us, but most rivalries are fueled by hatred more than anything else. But I agree with you that Iowa winning would go further towards it actually becoming something than Nebraska winning and spoiling their season. If Iowa wins, we'll get so god damn annoyed and have to put up with the gleeful bragging of Iowa fan for a year, strengthening our dislike to match theirs and strengthening their feeling of equality. If we win, then we just continue to laugh at them and they continue to not like us, which is what has already existed in the same capacity for years now. I just can't hate a team that loses to us so often. But I will say I don't actually know any Iowa fans.

I'm really excited for the game. 95% because they're highly ranked and regardless of how good Nebraska is that always makes me more excited for a game. 5% because it's Iowa and it would tickle me to ruin their season. So not a rivalry, just something slightly different than beating some random #4 team. All of this rivalry talk is making me annoyed that we don't play PSU every year.

WRONG. That would have the opposite effect. That'd make the formation of a rivalry even less likely. It'd get us closer to making them our doormat. Overruled. You're thinking solely of Nebraska's side of a rivalry. A true rivalry "takes two to tango," and Nebraska wrecking Iowa's only bid for a perfect season, ever, will stand out in their minds forever. And Nebraska Fan will remind them of that, forever. That's a little tiny seed that could turn into a might oak. That's exactly my point. If we beat Iowa, again, then they are clearly not tangoing. Maybe 10 years from now if the W-L is close it will be closer to a rivalry and we will remind them. I don't think anyone's dreaming. Animosity does not solely a rivalry make. I hate Texas but that was never a rivalry game because they almost always won and the series didn't last long enough.

They are still required to investigate and are currently doing so

WRONG. That would have the opposite effect. That'd make the formation of a rivalry even less likely. It'd get us closer to making them our doormat.

Iowa isn't a rival because we haven't played enough games and it's too lopsided. Colorado, Kansas State, and Missouri were not rivals because the W-L record was too lopsided. This is sort of a reply to a comment in another thread about it. No, KSU wasn't our rival. Not because we're being snooty but because they beat us 1 time in the 90s. Even if you start at 1998 (the year of their first win against us since 1968) our record against them was 8-5. No, Colorado wasn't our rival. Not because we're being snooty but because they beat us 1 time in the 90s. Even if you start at 1986 (the year of their first win against us since 1977) our record against them was 18-7. No, Missouri wasn't our rival. Not because we're being snooty but because they beat us 0 times in the 90s. Even if you start at 2003 (the year of their first win against us since 1978) our record against them was 4-4. Disliking a team or their fans is not enough to make it a rivalry. It's only a part of it. Oklahoma was a rival because we played a lot of important games and the W-L was pretty even.

How about I talk up Nebraska's championships and you talk up Iowa's BCS wins and then we toast each others teams and look forward to an awesome game on Friday? (which of course Iowa will win because damnit don't we deserve some love after SI tried to curse us?) I just think we are all snobs when it comes to our teams and there is nothing anyone can do or say to change that. But the difference is Iowa fans don't have anything to be snobs about.