Random questions

[HankNU]

Yes it was Holt vs. Virginia Tech. My bad.

[zoogs]

These are some of the few remnants remaining from the Callahan era. We had a ton of this in '05 and '06, and still a fair share in '07 and '08. The play you're referring to specifically, with the three receivers/tight ends shifting from one side of the formation to the other, is how we set up our outside pitch plays, nearly every time from what I can see (we don't run the pitch very often, however). Similarly, they do that same motion on the halfback pass play, which is the exact same play we saw in '05 vs. Oklahoma, '06 vs. Texas, '07 vs. Iowa State, etc.

 

Good insight Landlord. I remember this was really a staple of Jay Norvell and remember that he brought those wholesale shifts with him to UCLA when he left. I suppose we were doing it a lot more often back then. Interesting note: Norvell is co-OC at Oklahoma right now.

 

Maybe you're thinking of Meno Holt's catch against Va Tech? Kinnie's catch in the CCG was incomplete because he didn't get a foot down in bounds, wasn't even close. Meno had a catch in the Va Tech game where he caught it, but while rolling (already out of bounds), dropped/let go of it.

 

This is the exact same play that happened in the NFL this year and sparked the controversy, isn't it? The cries that it should be a catch/touchdown. I always thought so.

 

The interview I saw with Watson indicated that they just put that in this week

 

Wouldn't necessarily believe anything they say, but it could be true. Or we could have had that worked in all year, but Bo only gave the green light for it this past game, such as the Wildcat and the Arizona game last year.

 

We saw some surprising lack of "play it safe" against CU in my opinion, which may be a sign of Bo relenting his generally conservative, shut it down philosophy. I do really wonder about the Wildcat passes, though (which I thought Burkhead was saying we had worked in even last year). Could have used it against A&M, or saved it for the CCG. Sometimes these are the kinds of things that you can pull out and have ONE shot to make it work. I guess we are treating this as a common package instead of a one-off trick play, and are giving Oklahoma something to think about next week.

[lilred]

I saw Bo talking to that kid in the hat as well and I was extremely curious as to who he was. He didn't look like a football player. Maybe some sort of make-a-wish deal? I have no idea.

[808Husker in KCMO]

1. Aflac trivia question: When was the last decade Nebraska didn't win a conference title? The announcers said they asked this because this was our last chance to win one this decade. I'm pretty sure this isn't correct. A decade starts 0 and ends with 9, so 2010 is the start of a new decade ("the 2010s"). So the answer should have been the 2000s (2000-2009) instead of the 1950s, right?

 

The decade ends after the "10" year. Everyone who celebrated the new millennium in the year 2000 is stupid. Think of it this way:

 

If you started the calendar today, it would be the year 1. If a decade has 10 years, then year 10 would still be in the same decade as year one.

 

The current decade, century and millennium started in 2001.

[huskerfan711]

1. Aflac trivia question: When was the last decade Nebraska didn't win a conference title? The announcers said they asked this because this was our last chance to win one this decade. I'm pretty sure this isn't correct. A decade starts 0 and ends with 9, so 2010 is the start of a new decade ("the 2010s"). So the answer should have been the 2000s (2000-2009) instead of the 1950s, right?

 

The decade ends after the "10" year. Everyone who celebrated the new millennium in the year 2000 is stupid. Think of it this way:

 

If you started the calendar today, it would be the year 1. If a decade has 10 years, then year 10 would still be in the same decade as year one.

 

The current decade, century and millennium started in 2001.

 

If you started a new calendar it would be year 0 until 365 days later when it would be year 1. This is much the same as when you have a baby it is not 1 when it pops out... It is 0 (and 1 day or whatever), and it is only 1 after 365 days. Thus, 2000 was the beginning of a new decade/century/millennium...

 

You cannot honestly tell me that 5 billion people were wrong on this matter...

 

Also, by that logic, the "60's" lasted from 61-70, the "70's" from 71-80, and so on. A decade starts on the 0 and ends on the 9 by common standards

[deedsker15]

1. Aflac trivia question: When was the last decade Nebraska didn't win a conference title? The announcers said they asked this because this was our last chance to win one this decade. I'm pretty sure this isn't correct. A decade starts 0 and ends with 9, so 2010 is the start of a new decade ("the 2010s"). So the answer should have been the 2000s (2000-2009) instead of the 1950s, right?

 

The decade ends after the "10" year. Everyone who celebrated the new millennium in the year 2000 is stupid. Think of it this way:

 

If you started the calendar today, it would be the year 1. If a decade has 10 years, then year 10 would still be in the same decade as year one.

 

The current decade, century and millennium started in 2001.

 

If you started a new calendar it would be year 0 until 365 days later when it would be year 1. This is much the same as when you have a baby it is not 1 when it pops out... It is 0 (and 1 day or whatever), and it is only 1 after 365 days. Thus, 2000 was the beginning of a new decade/century/millennium...

 

You cannot honestly tell me that 5 billion people were wrong on this matter...

 

Also, by that logic, the "60's" lasted from 61-70, the "70's" from 71-80, and so on. A decade starts on the 0 and ends on the 9 by common standards

What they did when they started the CE calendar is started with year 1. Making the first day the "baby being born" Year 1, day 1. So the first ten years are 1-10. The first 100 years 1-100. The first 2000 years 1-2000. Thus the start of the 21st century being 2001.

 

I am not saying either of you are right, but just acknowledging a large group of people think the same way as you doesn't make it right.

[I am I]

hey Jtrain, can you email me that picture?

 

i tried to copy and paste, but after i pushed send it didn't go through...thanks

[deedsker15]

Original question/comment.

 

I went to the game and so I didn't see the televised version until last night. While watching the game, trying to look back at big plays and penalties, I realized what people were talking about with showing Pelini all the time. Every time there was a penalty, we got a split screen of the ref and Pelini. Most of the time they didn't even show the infraction. I was really upset. I just want to see what the ref is calling and then I want to see what happened for myself.

 

Just wondering if we will continue to see this crap during the Big 12 title? I want to know what is going on myself and not watch how Pelini reacts to the situation.

[808Husker in KCMO]

1. Aflac trivia question: When was the last decade Nebraska didn't win a conference title? The announcers said they asked this because this was our last chance to win one this decade. I'm pretty sure this isn't correct. A decade starts 0 and ends with 9, so 2010 is the start of a new decade ("the 2010s"). So the answer should have been the 2000s (2000-2009) instead of the 1950s, right?

 

The decade ends after the "10" year. Everyone who celebrated the new millennium in the year 2000 is stupid. Think of it this way:

 

If you started the calendar today, it would be the year 1. If a decade has 10 years, then year 10 would still be in the same decade as year one.

 

The current decade, century and millennium started in 2001.

 

If you started a new calendar it would be year 0 until 365 days later when it would be year 1. This is much the same as when you have a baby it is not 1 when it pops out... It is 0 (and 1 day or whatever), and it is only 1 after 365 days. Thus, 2000 was the beginning of a new decade/century/millennium...

 

You cannot honestly tell me that 5 billion people were wrong on this matter...

 

Also, by that logic, the "60's" lasted from 61-70, the "70's" from 71-80, and so on. A decade starts on the 0 and ends on the 9 by common standards

What they did when they started the CE calendar is started with year 1. Making the first day the "baby being born" Year 1, day 1. So the first ten years are 1-10. The first 100 years 1-100. The first 2000 years 1-2000. Thus the start of the 21st century being 2001.

 

I am not saying either of you are right, but just acknowledging a large group of people think the same way as you doesn't make it right.

From Wikipdia:

Since the common calendar starts from the year 1, its first full decade contained the years from 1 to 10, the second decade from 11 to 20, and so on.[6] So while the "1960s" comprises the years 1960 to 1969, the "197th decade" spans 1961 to 1970.

A decade may also refer to an arbitrary span of 10 years. For example, the statement "during his last decade, Mozart explored chromatic harmony to a degree rare at the time," merely refers to the last 10 years of Mozart's life without regard to which calendar years are encompassed.

Thus, an unqualified reference to, for example, "the decade" or "this decade" may have multiple interpretations depending on the context.

[ohiocornhusker]

A decade starts 0 and ends with 9, so 2010 is the start of a new decade ("the 2010s"). So the answer should have been the 2000s (2000-2009) instead of the 1950s, right?

 

This was debated ad nauseum in 1999. You start counting with 1, not 0, so this decade will not be over until Dec. 31, 2010. They did not call the first year year 0, but year 1. January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2010 is this decade.

[omahahusker]

1. Aflac trivia question: When was the last decade Nebraska didn't win a conference title? The announcers said they asked this because this was our last chance to win one this decade. I'm pretty sure this isn't correct. A decade starts 0 and ends with 9, so 2010 is the start of a new decade ("the 2010s"). So the answer should have been the 2000s (2000-2009) instead of the 1950s, right?

 

2. Who was the guy in the winter hat, standing next to Niles Paul, that Bo said something to after the Burkhead to Kinnie touchdown?

 

No, A decade is TECHNICALLY 1-10 not 0-9. There was no year 0, therefore the 1st decade started in year 1.

[808Husker in KCMO]

Welcome to the party.

[madman23]

Does a dog's lips move when he reads the newspaper? Lots of questions for us to ponder this week....

 

Not a troll, just bored at work and finally signed up for an account recently

[deedsker15]

Does a dog's lips move when he reads the newspaper? Lots of questions for us to ponder this week....

 

Not a troll, just bored at work and finally signed up for an account recently

Welcome to the board.

[JTrain]

ABC was using the commmon way of referring to decades, which has nothing to do with counting decades in succession. Someone born in May of 1970 does not say they were born in the 60s. Nobody cares that a calendar started with year one when talking about decades like "the 1920s" or "the 1990s". We choose to group them 0-9 because "the nineties" conveniently describes anything that starts with "ninety".

 

Again, reference the Wiki article:

 

So while the "1960s" comprises the years 1960 to 1969, the "197th decade" spans 1961 to 1970.

 

So when someone says "1950s" like the trivia answer stated, they are referring to 1950-1959! Simple. Now, if the answer had stated "the 196th decade", then it would have referred to 1951-1960. But it clearly stated "1950s" meaning they are choosing the most common way of grouping. This has nothing to do with when year one was. Yes, the third millenium started in 2001, but that has nothing to do with choosing to call the period between 1960 and 1969 "the 1960s". We aren't talking about a succession of decades when we say "the 1960s". We are just referring to all years that start with "Nineteen sixty-". Again, only when you are talking about a succession of periods ("the 196th decade", "the third millenium", "the 15th century") should this even be an argument. When you simply say, "the 1960s" you don't care what came before it, you are just using an easy way to refer to the ten years between 1960 and 1969. Since the Aflac answer used the term "1950s" they were clearing grouping with this method.

 

If Nebraska wins on Saturday, they will have won a conference title in "the 201st decade" (2001 through 2010) but not in "the 2000s". Since the answer they used was "the 1950s" and not "the 196th decade", we can assume they are using the common way of grouping decades, not the succession of decades (and therefore year one is of no significance).

 

The 2000s (decade):

 

The 2000s was the previous decade that started on January 1, 2000 and ended on December 31, 2009. It was the decade in which the 21st century and 3rd millennium began, with 2000 a part of the 20th century and 2001-2009 part of the 21st century.