AFhusker

Yeah, that's the thing. You fire a coach, any coach, and it sets your program back a couple of years. At some point your need to pick a guy and stick with him. I think Riley gathered a pretty good staff around him. And recruiting seems to be going well. So there's that. : Yep, not to mention he is still using a team full of Bo's players, it is hard to turn a culture around in two years without a team full of players that he recruited. So all of this doom and gloom is ridiculous at this point. With that said the only thing that is alarming on the season to me is the no show today by the defense. Our LB's have been overaggressive and bad for stretches this season especially MRI, but today it was like we didn't put any on the field.

That is why I say TA should be benched. He loves the deep ball. If he is not running, he should not be playing.That's all on Langs. He's the offensive coordinator and QB coach. If he can't come up with a scheme that plays to Tommy' strengths, then it is all on him. Tommy wants to play. Offensive and defensive meltdowns are not the players' faults. This crap is squarely on the shoulders of Riley's Stooges.Just when I thought you couldn't say anything any dumber........Running straight up the gut is a good plan? Going yard on passing plays.....come on man, Langs is calling a crap game. Yea, Langs is the one who ignores the short routes and throws YOLO's all the time. 80-90% of our problem is between TA's ears, not the playcalling. The sooner that you and others that think this way realize that a pass play has more than one route and it's up to the QB to throw it to where the defense allows him too the better off you will be. It isn't Langs fault when TA throws it to guys who are covered.

That is why I say TA should be benched. He loves the deep ball. If he is not running, he should not be playing. That's all on Langs. He's the offensive coordinator and QB coach. If he can't come up with a scheme that plays to Tommy' strengths, then it is all on him. Tommy wants to play. Offensive and defensive meltdowns are not the players' faults. This crap is squarely on the shoulders of Riley's Stooges. Just when I thought you couldn't say anything any dumber........

WTF was that Kalu? Why do you call timeout with 1 second left in the quarter?

Our punter really sucks. Need to find someone who doesn't kick it for -2 or 5 yards a time in the offseason.

I think the hamstring band...... if I saw correctly was "invented" by a Bama trainer or that was who used it for football first. Stem Cell injection the sped up his recovery.

Here's a link on both ladies that doesn't have an agenda attached to it. http://freebeacon.com/issues/trump-taps-devos-lead-education-department/ http://freebeacon.com/issues/donald-trumps-u-n-pick-was-first-governor-to-sign-anti-bds-legislation/

I do agree with this. And I'd also say the larger part of her unlikeability stems from being such an establishment figure in a decidedly anti-establishment time. Talk about misreading the national mood, Mr. Obama. -- IPB keeps eating parts of my post. Anyway, I don't think this was an insane time for a woman to run. But it wasn't an unchallenging one, either. It will be for the next woman, and that's no more or less true if she's Mother Teresa or Ann Coulter. More women will get into politics and it will become a lot more normal for them to both seek and attain the highest office. This is a stark challenge to decidedly male-dominated positions of power, and there's zero way that this will be an unbumpy ride. As with any groups accustomed to majorities or privilege, it's not easy as that begins to erode over time. So, the gender topic, how we view women vying for legislative or executive power, these are all topics I think are worth discussing. Let's not keep it in a Hillary charge/excuse context, either; that diminishes the topic too. I personally don't think the country has a problem with a woman in power. We are far past those times, but the problem is that the wrong woman ran this time. I don't see any that are "names" that would win right now, not because they are women, but because they are too far right or left and those names are Warren and Palin. It will be somebody from the next generation of politicians and it wouldn't surprise me one bit if she was an R.

HW won because Dukakis was a terrible candidate and it was by default more than anything. He didn't look the part and did some silly things that pretty much handed the election to HW. I just watched a documentary about Dukakis and that campaign, his heart was in the right place, but he ran a terrible campaign. It was so bad that he really didn't have a chance.

To me, it's not either. But empirically this is not true in general. It's an odd, and worrying brand of charisma. Yet there can be no doubt it was captivating. Talking policy appears to make little difference. People need a threat they are convinced they are batting down. Whoever creates the more compelling threat wins. And you'd think Trump's threats would be considered generally threatening....but also no. Some people felt so, and many others didn't really. Finally talking policy in the last 2-3 weeks is what got him that bump that won the election for him. Hillary screwed up by not changing her message from that "he's not fit." Also I think the Dems underestimated how much the country didn't like what Obama was doing. You didn't hear about it because the media was in the bag for Obama the last 8 years and was obviously trying to do everything they could to help Hillary win. Nobody wanted to ask Obama a tough question because they didn't want to be labeled a racist. I will combine a few responses so I don't flood the thread, but you are right about the R's being in dismay too. They won in spite of themselves because if they had their way they would have fixed the primary for Cruz. The difference was that there were rules in place so they couldn't do it unlike how the Dem's fixed their primary for Clinton. Trump beat both establishments in the process of winning two weeks ago and both sides have nobody to blame but themselves for his victory. Both sides are out of touch with what the American people want, the difference is that Trump picked to be an R (as he is really a Dem at heart) and is why the R's won. Not because of anything that their far right base did, but in spite of them. People are tired of whoever is in power blaming the other for nothing getting done in Washington. That has been going on for decades and that is how we got Trump. Well that and Hillary was also a historically bad candidate, with zero charisma and a ton of baggage who ran a very bad campaign.

That's not hard to understand, but why is it so hard to entertain the idea that a legitimate element of why people don't like her might have to due with her being a woman in a decidedly patriarchal role. It's implicit bias. And studies show us what kind of situations it exists in consistently. If you're going to take this line of reasoning, then I guess my question is how do we ever point to sexism/racism/etc. as being real in specific situations outside of the most ridiculous and egregious examples of people holding onto things like, "I hate black people." or "Women don't belong outside of the home." Surely those biases exist in much more subtle ways than that. So...how do we find them? Because apparently the data doesn't apply to any specific situation. Dem's can start by stopping making those issue's a reason for everything that doesn't go the way they want or how to describe people who are not "progressive." Labeling everyone an "ist" or on an "ism" is not the answer, America is tired of it and it showed why the "progressive" movement needs to tone it down or it will not be able to survive much longer. The Dems need to move away from the far left crazies like Sanders and Warren if they want to make any progress in 2018 or 2020. Hillary was more center before the primaries, being pulled to the far left hurt her more than any fake "ism" or "phoebe." that the Dems want to blame her loss on. I mean hell the Dem's are labeling one of their own a "sexist" for challenging Pelosi for her positon of minority leader (based on obvious poor performance) which is ridiculous. Until this stuff stops, the Dems won't gain any ground because they can't get elected based on separating people and failing to run on policy.

They played a role, but they were in her FAVOR. Women flocked out to vote for her just to see the first female president. To use this an part of an excuse as to why she lost is more whining and incorrectly "classifying" why they lost.

You nailed it where I bolded your comments.

I don't think he concentrated on faraway football hotbeds as much as he maintained the inroads Solich had already made in places like New Jersey. To get the defensive speed he wanted, he had to compete with SEC schools in areas out of our traditional comfort zone, and double-down in places like New Jersey and California. So much like Mike Riley, Tom Osborne created a team reliant on position players from outside the 500 mile radius, sometimes referred to dismissively as "coastal talent" although most Nebraska fans welcome them as Huskers. Hard to imagine those '95 Huskers being quite as dominant without: Lawrence Phillips (California) Riley Washington (California) Sheldon Jackson (California) Christian Peter (New Jersey) Jason Peter (New Jersey) Kenny Cheatham (Arizona) Terrell Farley (Georgia) Tyrone Williams (Florida) Tommie Frazier (Florida) Cheatham and Washington were not major players that year. Jackson was the 3rd team TE. Phillips was dominate for 3 of 12 games, but the 4 Omaha backs behind him were pretty good in his absence. And for all his greatness, Frazier was marginally better than the local boy Brook. This is revisionist history if I have ever heard it. Brook was a great person and what happened to him was sad, but he was nowhere near as good of a QB in Tom's system that Tommie was. We were blessed to have the QB depth that we did at the time because Brook was a very good QB, (what a concept!) but Tommie was clearly the best QB on the team and that is why he was the unquestioned starter in 1995. This was after Book did a wonderful job of holding the fort down while Tommie was out in 1994. IMO Tom's masterful use of both of them in the Orange Bowl is what won the game for us vs Miami with how much different QB's they were.Revisionist history indeed. Osborne himself said that the QB race literally came down to about 1 or 2 plays during practice that year. They were almost exact equals when they were graded out. Listen to Benning, the team was split on who was the better dude. You do realize that the only reason that Brook even started a game was because of Tommie's blood clot problem...right? Brook did a wonderful job of filling in for Tommie when he was out getting treatment for his blood clots, but once Tommie was cleared to play, he was made the starter and became one of the all time greats starting with that 4th quarter in the 1994 Orange Bowl vs Miami. Having guys like Brook as second stringers is what made that 1995 team to be considered the best team of all time and that is because our second stringers could go and start almost any other program in the country. Brook was a lot of good things, most importantly he was a wonderful human being, but one thing he was not, was a better QB that Tommie Frazier.

If that is the case, and Bray is that loyal, then maybe he could be in line to replace Riley when he (hopefully) retires after a successful run here.

This is exactly what happened. They started to look for safeties who had the build to put on muscle to play LB's and the same at the other two positions that you mentioned. It made us too fast for everyone which made it ironic when Corso picked Florida in the Fiesta Bowl because it had a grass surface and it would slow down Nebraska to a speed to where a slower Florida team to not only be competitive, but win the game. Nebraska's ass whippings of Florida and Tennessee twice made the SEC change the way they recruited and how they also constructed their teams. Before Nebraska started to physically whip the SEC, they were all trying to compete with Spurrier's soft finesse teams and that made the entire conference soft.

I don't think he concentrated on faraway football hotbeds as much as he maintained the inroads Solich had already made in places like New Jersey. To get the defensive speed he wanted, he had to compete with SEC schools in areas out of our traditional comfort zone, and double-down in places like New Jersey and California. So much like Mike Riley, Tom Osborne created a team reliant on position players from outside the 500 mile radius, sometimes referred to dismissively as "coastal talent" although most Nebraska fans welcome them as Huskers. Hard to imagine those '95 Huskers being quite as dominant without: Lawrence Phillips (California) Riley Washington (California) Sheldon Jackson (California) Christian Peter (New Jersey) Jason Peter (New Jersey) Kenny Cheatham (Arizona) Terrell Farley (Georgia) Tyrone Williams (Florida) Tommie Frazier (Florida) Cheatham and Washington were not major players that year. Jackson was the 3rd team TE. Phillips was dominate for 3 of 12 games, but the 4 Omaha backs behind him were pretty good in his absence. And for all his greatness, Frazier was marginally better than the local boy Brook. This is revisionist history if I have ever heard it. Brook was a great person and what happened to him was sad, but he was nowhere near as good of a QB in Tom's system that Tommie was. We were blessed to have the QB depth that we did at the time because Brook was a very good QB, (what a concept!) but Tommie was clearly the best QB on the team and that is why he was the unquestioned starter in 1995. This was after Book did a wonderful job of holding the fort down while Tommie was out in 1994. IMO Tom's masterful use of both of them in the Orange Bowl is what won the game for us vs Miami with how much different QB's they were.

Football started when Bob Devaney was hired to Nebraska. I have to give you credit, that was a good one. +1

I know this was meant as a joke, but really we could see our 17-year conference title drought as another "curse". I don't see us breaking that one this year, but technically we still could. I'll see a 2 or 3-loss season as major progress. Division and conference titles will be the goal next year IMHO. That is the true Solich curse as his recruiting has led to what we are now. Which is that we are happy about a season where we don't lose 4 games and it is the best since Tom's players left. If you compare the schedules we are basically reliving the 2003 season. The only difference is that we lost three games by 17 points to an unranked Mizzou team in Columbia, 24 points to # 16 Texas in Austin, 29 points to an unranked KSU in Lincoln and didn't beat any ranked teams. This year we are likely not to beat any ranked teams (unless it happens in the bowl game) and have one OT loss and one obliteration to the (as of today) # 5 and #2 teams in the country on the road with at least two games left. We lost 3 games by a total of 70 points in 2003 and our two losses this year are by a total of 66 points thanks to the obliteration in Columbus.

tOSU can't go to the CCG unless PSU loses to MSU. So it is likely either UM or PSU that are going to the CCG which is fine to me if we have TA. If I were a betting man I think PSU goes to the CCG from the West which is very winnable and why I will be a temporary Gopher fan if we can beat Iowa on Friday.

IMO Ohio State and Alabama are clearly the two best teams in the country. There are serval valid arguments that can be made for teams to fill the last two spots in the playoffs. One was taken away last night by Louisville losing. Who do I think will end up in the playoffs? I don't think some people will like it but this is how I expect it to turn out at this point. 1) Alabama--Doesn't matter if they lose to Auburn, they will still kill whoever they play in the SEC CCG as the East is terrible. 2) Ohio State--This is where the complaints will start to come as I expect them to beat UM in the same manner that they did last year in the big house. But by winning that game, they will send Penn State to the Big 10 CCG as the winner of the West Division by way of the head to head tie breaker. But they will be in because they are a blue blood that is peaking at the right time and it won't matter that they didn't get to even play for their Conference Championship. Not to mention IMO when they are not bored with being so much better than anyone on their schedule, an argument could easily be made that they are the best team in the country. 3) Clemson--Yes the ACC is a terrible conference in football, but they only have one loss and will be the Conference Champion. The committee will remember that they almost beat Alabama in the National Championship game last year which shouldn't matter. With that being said, the ACC is better than the PAC 12 so they are the second best 1 loss team left. 4) Wisconsin--if they beat Penn State in the Big 10 Championship game. (Which I fully expect them to do) I don't think PSU will get in with 2 losses if they win the Big 10 Championship game due to one of their losses being to Pitt (even though they beat Clemson) and then getting blown out by Michigan. This will infuriate the PAC 12 if Washington wins the conference with 1 loss. But the only way I see them getting in is if PSU beats Wisconsin in the CCG in this scenario. Even then the committee could still prove me wrong about PSU and put them in over Washington because of the Ohio State win and the Pitt game being close and early in the year. Michigan would be in if they won in Columbus and then beat Wisconsin in the Big 10 Championship Game and that would put them in the #2 spot. Then just replace Wisconsin with Washington if they win out in the #4 seed in this scenario. IMO nobody else should be in the conversation as the Big 12 has had a bad year to say the least. Any talk of Oklahoma sneaking back in is bogus IMO. I really don't know how they are in the top 10 with the losses and lack of quality wins they have.

IMO Alabama and tOSU will be the top 2 seeds after they win out. Where it gets interesting is that PSU will likely lose to Wisky in the CCG which I think gets them the 4th seed behind a 1 loss Clemson team for 3rd. Louisville and Washington don't have the SOS to deseve to be in and Wisky will be the champion of the toughest congerence in the country with their only two losses in OT vs the # 2 team and on the road vs a team that will be in the top eight. Whereas Louisville will have only played two ranked teams all year in destroying a 3 loss FSU team and then losing to Clemson. The PAC 12 and Big 12 are both too weak to have anyone deserve to get in. Although I would see a 1 loss conference champion Washington jump a 1 loss Louisville team if it came down to those two teams.

I think we are better than PSU if we are healthy, we won't have as much talent as UM but I like out chances on a neutral field, I want no part of tOSU again this year.

Sure, there's your list. Mentions of Sept 11. There are others. It adds up. BTN has regular (and many) recruitment ads, the per-game Marines "Leader of the Week" for outstanding play, etc. After awhile it borders on being one long commercial. Exactly. With out a draft you have to recruit people to join the military. Many people who watch football are in the demographic that the military is trying to reach. Not so much with "Dancing with the Stars" or "Golden Girls" reruns. Same with beer commercials True, without a draft you do need to recruit. Some might question how healthy it is for a society to foster and uphold a "warrior class" (for lack of a better name), but that's a whole other can of worms. Hmm...some (you) might question how healthy it is for a society to foster and uphold a "warrior class".... You explain a lot about yourself with this one sentence. You live in an echo chamber. All you hear is from other people who agree with you. I actually applaud you posting on here, probably knowing you're going to get some vehement disagreement. You're moving outside your comfort zone and that's a good start. Since you opened this door, or can of worms, allow me to burst through it. If you, or anyone else, even question our society fostering and upholding a "warrior class" you haven't really seen much of this country or world. You've never seen horror. You've never seen evil. You've never seen a man use his own pregnant wife and mother as a human shield and fire from behind them (this happened). That is evil. That is horror. These things exist. You can't rationally explain why people do some of the things that they do. Like flying planes into buildings full of civilians. This accomplished nothing, except the loss of innocent lives. Suicide bombers targeting schools in Pakistan and India, knife attacks on the elderly in Israel, these are all evil actions that defy logic or reason. We in the United States have mostly been spared from these horrors. It's not something we really fear happening to us on a daily basis. We don't have government sponsored execution squads rounding up and massacring people just because of their religion or because of who their grandparents were. We don't have government or religious sponsored rape or slavery (not anymore, thanks to our warrior class). We don't have those things because we have people here who are willing to step up and put their lives on the line to make sure that sh1t doesn't happen to anyone. If this was some perfect utopia where, in the words of that turd Rodney King, we all got along, we wouldn't need our warrior class. And I can guarantee you, they would be happy to lay down their arms and live peacefully. But we don't live in that idyllic world. This isn't the Age of Aquarius. We live in a world that can be dirty and barbaric and vicious. We live in a world with warlords and dictators that need to be stopped so peaceful men and women can survive and prosper. If we didn't foster our warrior class, we would still be an English colony. We would see the Barbary coast still looting, pillaging and enslaving Christians for the crime of not being a Muslim. We would still have slavery. We would see a world taken over by Germany and Japan, slaughtering innocents and using them for medical testing. We would see a world where rampant hatred and intolerance is allowed to grow unchecked and continue to claim even more lives in the name of Allah. These men and women who stand up against these evils, who you appear to disdain, are what keep the wolves from your door and allow you to be disdainful of what they do. Until that day comes, when there is no more evil, that warrior class has got you covered. Maybe my opinion is colored by my service, colored by the evil I've seen in Iraq and Afghanistan. Maybe it is, but I doubt it. I think I can speak for most of us veterans when I say that we don't want a pat on the back or free food or a blow job (Edit: I lied, I'd totally take a blow job). It's not why we do this. But if some people want to take a minute and thank my brothers and sisters for doing what most people won't, do me a favor and shut the f#*k up. Knap, you made a comment above this about honoring doctors and electricians and whomever. You're right, they do an important service to this country. There's a difference though. Nobody is actively trying to kill them. Veterans Day is about those that have been to war. It's not "Soldier's Day". It's Veterans Day. Lemme know when doctors have people trying to kill them on a daily basis. When that day comes, I'll be first in line shaking their hand for what they do.

That sucks because that means it will start at 2 AM Sunday morning over here.