We're #1

[ColoradoHusk]

8 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

I believe the distinction trying to be made is the difference between taxes being used to pay for it and it being paid by people who also pay taxes.

 

Pretty much all the time when people say "taxpayers are paying for it" it is used to indicate that they are having to pay for it because they have to pay their taxes and their tax money is paying for something.  Thus, they don't have a choice in the matter - they are paying for it.  In your illustrations, it may be taxpayers who are actually paying the bill but it is something they are choosing to do.  They aren't being forced to do it.  And I don't think that's what most people are talking about when they say "taxpayers are paying for it."

Agree 100%.  There is a big difference in saying "my tax money is being used to pay for these buyouts" and "my donation money is being used to pay for these buyouts".  In this instance, no "tax money" is used for Nebraska athletics.

 

Individual people don't have a saying where their income/property taxes go, as that is decided by the local/state/federal government.  Individuals don't have a lot of "say" where there donated $ goes to, but they do have a choice to where they donate "charitable" funds, with the big donors getting more influence on how the money is spent.

[BigRedBuster]

11 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

I believe the distinction trying to be made is the difference between taxes being used to pay for it and it being paid by people who also pay taxes.

 

Pretty much all the time when people say "taxpayers are paying for it" it is used to indicate that they are having to pay for it because they have to pay their taxes and their tax money is paying for something.  Thus, they don't have a choice in the matter - they are paying for it.  In your illustrations, it may be taxpayers who are actually paying the bill but it is something they are choosing to do.  They aren't being forced to do it.  And I don't think that's what most people are talking about when they say "taxpayers are paying for it."

I took his argument as the donors donated to the athletic department, so they didn't donate to UNL academics.  So, the legislature had to make up for what wasn't donated to UNL academics.

 

It's a really strange argument that isn't based in reality.

[ColoradoHusk]

16 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I took his argument as the donors donated to the athletic department, so they didn't donate to UNL academics.  So, the legislature had to make up for what wasn't donated to UNL academics.

 

It's a really strange argument that isn't based in reality.

As someone who worked at the University Foundation soliciting donations, most of the donations to UNL academics are made to the individual colleges (business, engineering, liberal arts, etc.) so even those donations are earmarked for specific colleges within the University.  I am sure there are exceptions and there are donations to the general college fund, but the argument that donations would lessen the tax liability for individuals is a fallacy.  

[N is for nowledge]

6 hours ago, NUance said:

 

I'm not sure whether you don't understand the point I was making, or you are just arguing for the sake of argument. 

 

Answer me this:  If regular donors shifted their donations away from the athletic dept to Riley's buyout, who would make up the difference?   Who?  (Hint:  It rhymes with "Ax Slayers".)   Or perhaps you think the people who funded Riley's buyout were one-time givers who would not have otherwise donated to DONU.  Is that what you think?   

 

Which of those two scenarios was it?  Or can you think of another source of funding for Riley's buyout?        

 

I'm not sure how to explain it differently.  

It comes from the same bucket.  Taxpayers don’t pay for coaches salaries, buyouts, or a tackling dummy.  The taxpayer doesn’t pay one dime for anything related to the athletic department.  I thought everyone understood this.

[Jeremy]

November 28th, 2003 and November 30th, 2014 are two horrible dates in Nebraska Football history, and we've been floundering, really, since 2014. I think Frost can right the ship, how many struggling years are we willing to wait? I'm in it for the long haul.

 

Riley, while a nice guy, was a horrible hire. Had no idea what he was getting himself into. Callahan is a good pro coach, but the worst hire by a power five team I can ever remember. After so many years of solid, fundamental football, the 2007 and 2017 seasons are the biggest dumpster fires we could ever imagine, given the resources and fan support this program has. No excuses for it.

 

IMHO, what Frost needs is the best defensive mind in the country. We WILL NOT return to prominence without a defense that can create turnovers and get off the field. Chinander seems alright, but I don't know if he's that guy.

[southernoregonhusker]

14 hours ago, Ulty said:

 

Those are all great selling points for the guy, but due diligence would also show that the guy had a career .500 record and was never in any sort of championship discussion outside of Canada.

 

I never bought the idea that Riley turned around one of the worst programs ever (Bill Snyder he ain't). When he left Oregon State for a couple of years, Dennis Erickson quickly came in and took them to a BCS bowl. Riley returned and they went back to being a mediocre program. It is also disingenuous to say that he outcoached Carroll, Harbaugh, and Kelly. In what, one game? One big upset every year or two is not a career.

 

Yes, there was reason for optimism (one of the reasons being we were stuck with him for a couple years no matter what), but at no time did the evidence actually suggest that he was going to be wildly successful here.

A quote taken from The Oregonian last September:  "Riley went 93-80 at OSU in 14 seasons. In the four seasons since, the Beavers are 9-51."  That sentence says a lot, and 9-51 is a long ways from mediocre.

 

Riley was a terrific coach for OSU until he unofficially retired two seasons before leaving for Nebraska.  You read that right.  Riley stopped recruiting his last two seasons here and we hoped he would leave.  He did, yet I was still stuck with him.     Then we got Gary Andersen, and we rejoiced.   Gary Andersen went 2-10, 4-8 and 1-5 before quiting in-season.  That sentence says a lot, too.  When was the last time a coach quit in-season?

 

As for Dennis Erickson, he won with Riley's recruits and junior college guys that Riley would not have recruited due to questionable character.  Guys like Chad Ochocinco Johnson who legend says never attended one class while at OSU.  Erickson went 7-5, 11-1, 5-6. and 8-5.  Personally I was happy with Erickson, but it wasn't all rosie. I think OSU still holds the record to personal fouls in a game in a dominating win over Notre Dame in the Fiesta Bowl.  Crushing Notre Dame was sweet, yet embarrassing at the same time.

 

You are right about saying Riley outcoached those other coaches.  Riley had an opportunity to go to the Rose Bowl in back to back years.  All he had to do was beat Chip Kelly and the Ducks.  FTR, OSU still hasn't been to the Rose Bowl since the 1960's.   

 

In my opinion, Riley would have Nebraska as the second or third best team in the West if he were still the coach minus Diaco.  Obviously not great, but better than we are now.  You talk about evidence he wouldn't be wildly successful.  What does the evidence say about Frost?