Nebraska AD now says year four or five will takeoff

dirtwrap said:
https://www.espn.com/college-footba...huskers-facing-sexual-assault-related-charges

Building character in Lincoln!
Click to expand...

sexual assault should never be allowed. falsely accusing someone of sexual assault should never be allowed. an accusation of sexual assaut/rape is a criminal matter that should be handled by our criminal justice system.

what concerns me is that the police waited for and (apparently) only acted when kNU completed an internal investigation into the incident. why was the University allowed to be involved with the investigation in the first place? THAT is a huge concern because it allows for the possibility for a political approach to a decision to be introduced.

from the article:
"Findings of sexual misconduct at Nebraska, and at many universities, are based on a preponderance of evidence, which means the weight of the evidence favors one side over the other. It is a lower burden of proof than the beyond a reasonable doubt needed to convict someone in a criminal case."

Edit: And let me add that a "preponderance of evidence" is NOT part of due process. Preponderance is not Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. It isn't constitutional.
 
Last edited:
The Nebraska situation continues to fascinate. A few observations:

1. They don't have any patience over there. They want to win quickly, but it doesn't work that way. You have to build the culture and foundation first. Compare their program to Minnesota. Minnesota hired a good young coach who was winning in the MAC. They gave him a long leash to build a culture and an overall philosophy that the players are what matters. He is building that culture. If you watch interviews of the Minnesota players, you can see the quality of the kids he recruits and their character shines through. Their appreciation and respect for their coach is obvious, because they are repeating Fleck's sayings and talking about his overall philosophy.

The same thing has happened at Iowa, because of Ferentz and his coaching staff. Contrast that to Nebraska....it always feels like "win now, at any cost, and we won't be satisfied until we win another national championship." Their past continues to haunt them. They ignore the welfare of their players and lack of character by focusing on only one thing.

2. They need to realize that they cannot win in the Big Ten with the spread offense alone. In this league, you must play defense first. Nebraska hasn't played much defense in the past 5 years. Their numbers this year were near the bottom of the Big Ten again. Indiana and Minnesota won this year in large part because their defense continues to improve.

3. They need to commit to the players they HAVE, not the players that they DO NOT HAVE. All Frost ever talks about is "wait until I get my players in here." The arrogance is startling. Does he really think that the talent level is going to improve that much? Ferentz won in his third year with players he inherited. So did Fleck. You have to build a foundation. Frost really isn't doing it.

I'm really starting to believe that Frost was the wrong hire. He simply doesn't have the experience or the moral character to win at this level. You have to have great young men first, with high character in your program, and then you have to develop them into good players.. Ferentz and Fleck really focus on that fact. Frost is not.
 
ArvadaHawk said:
sexual assault should never be allowed. falsely accusing someone of sexual assault should never be allowed. an accusation of sexual assaut/rape is a criminal matter that should be handled by our criminal justice system.

what concerns me is that the police waited for and (apparently) only acted when kNU completed an internal investigation into the incident. why was the University allowed to be involved with the investigation in the first place? THAT is a huge concern because it allows for the possibility for a political approach to a decision to be introduced.

from the article:
"Findings of sexual misconduct at Nebraska, and at many universities, are based on a preponderance of evidence, which means the weight of the evidence favors one side over the other. It is a lower burden of proof than the beyond a reasonable doubt needed to convict someone in a criminal case."
Click to expand...
If the police have probable cause, they should make an arrest immediately independent of the University taking action. Some towns where the school is a "football factory" are still living in the past and say "let's let Coach decide what to do here."

There is a lot of litigation going on regarding the standards and procedures that public universities must apply in these cases. Absent sports issues, the schools have long taken the approach of "toss the man out" but that is being challenged as a violation of Title IX and equality laws. The recent case of Cephus at Wisconsin is one such example. Cephus maintained his innocence, was thrown out of school, sued (I think he lost) and was found not guilty in criminal court and ended up getting re-instated. He would have been gone at Iowa. 100%. The schools are really in a tough spot on this sort of stuff. I can understand both sides and the truth is always pretty murky in these cases. But places like Columbus or Lincoln where the athletes "get a pass" from law enforcement are inexcusable.
 
ModebaSan said:
Question #1. Why was she at their apartment alone?
Question #2. How are you forced to have oral sex? Doesn’t she own a pair of teeth?
Question #3. Sent texts to who after incident? What texts did she have on her phone prior to incident?

Her story sounds suspicious to me. Without any other witnesses and lack of physical evidence, it sounds to me like a he said/she said situation which is hearsay and subjective at best. No wonder it took so long to file charges. When pressured by some SJW’s from the university, then DA decided to let courts settle this. These guys will be back on the team based on what I’m seeing. No young woman should go anywhere alone. She is guilty of bad judgment. We’ll see how this shakes out but it sounds like a very flimsy attempt to prove sexual assault unless there is solid evidence.
Click to expand...

Those are three really bogus, terrible questions and what you are implying.

If she was being forced and raped then it is already a violent act and who knows if she fought back or yelled or something she might have ended up dead in a cornfield outside Lincoln.

Maybe she shouldnt have been alone with him/them but maybe the invitation was for drinks and not sex.
 
uihawk82 said:
Those are three really bogus, terrible questions and what you are implying.

If she was being forced and raped then it is already a violent act and who knows if she fought back or yelled or something she might have ended up dead in a cornfield outside Lincoln.

Maybe she shouldnt have been alone with him/them but maybe the invitation was for drinks and not sex.
Click to expand...


The invitation was probably to smoke a joint or 2.
 
Relationships in general are weird these days. I suppose that is a byproduct of the times. It's pretty much a free for all in today's world as long as it's consensual. Since it is such a free for all, consensual is what is left to move the needle and/or argue about.
As a wise man once said, people are out there licking buttholes, but lose their mind if someone double dips a chip.
When the general morality decays around any subject, you are left with nothing but deeper questions of morality. Which is basically what everyone is arguing about.
I would only suggest that you try not to substantiate your morality upon that of the law, or what others base theirs on. Because I find it funny how the law says to not kill anyone....... unless the law says to. The churches with their sex scandal and preachers living in 10 million dollar houses, have done nothing to show their morality is worthy of basing a moral line on. The list goes on and on.
What you are left with is consensual. An accord. Nobody outside of that agreement can judge it's morality. Again look at the government. If a hurricane goes through and all the roofers are busy, you had better not price gouge. That same rule does not apply to gas prices. If anything is in short supply (except your labor) the price goes up. But if you are busy and people want and are willing to pay to get to the front of the line, so you raise your prices, well that's illegal.
My philosophy is this. I imagine the best human being I have ever personally met. Then I wonder if I am making them proud.
It sucks to see people with scholarships or anything really handed to them piss it away or use it in a less then grateful way. Think about that.
500 years ago some guy happened to meet some girl. He had what 250 million sperm cells? She was making a new and different egg every month. Crazy odds. But times 2 because that baby was going to grow up and repeat the cycle with someone else. Generation after generation.
Maybe we are all just pretty lucky to be here??
Maybe, unless we come from crappy stock, we should try and honor that and make them proud. Because I don't think many of us come from royalty, so I bet there was some suffering along the way to get us to where we are.
That's my view on morality, if you are not making everything and everyone before proud, then the only other option is you are a disappointment.
I guess my point is, if consensual is the only standard, and the bases of your argument, you are already pretty far down the rabbit hole of morality. Prostitution can be consensual. I'm not even saying it's wrong. I'm simply saying that to some it's not wrong, to others it is. I won't weigh in because technically if as suggested women do go after men with money......then you have to call a spade a spade. So again, we come down to consensual and ones own personal morality.
 
Last edited:
4thngoal said:
If a hurricane goes through and all the roofers are busy, you had better not price gouge. That same rule does not apply to gas prices.
Click to expand...

Depends where you live. In South Carolina, when the governor declares a state of emergency for a hurricane, you cannot raise gas prices until the emergency is lifted and even after the fact once the emergency is gone, the seller has to demonstrate increase in underlying commodity price in order to raise price. They flip the interstates from the coast to all lanes outbound and they don't want anyone running out of gas and blocking the road.
 
okeefe4prez said:
Depends where you live. In South Carolina, when the governor declares a state of emergency for a hurricane, you cannot raise gas prices until the emergency is lifted and even after the fact once the emergency is gone, the seller has to demonstrate increase in underlying commodity price in order to raise price. They flip the interstates from the coast to all lanes outbound and they don't want anyone running out of gas and blocking the road.
Click to expand...

I understand your point and it is a good one. A valid one.
But if you don't see the Forest Gump effect, you are not looking hard enough. I used gas prices as an example.
 
Btw the reason they put off winning for awhile wouldn't have anything to do with playing Oklahoma and OSU, now would it?
I haven't looked at everyone's future schedules but have glanced at a couple, so I don't know for sure.
In other words "we will be winning when we get an easy schedule again".
 
Last edited:
okeefe4prez said:
If the police have probable cause, they should make an arrest immediately independent of the University taking action. Some towns where the school is a "football factory" are still living in the past and say "let's let Coach decide what to do here."

There is a lot of litigation going on regarding the standards and procedures that public universities must apply in these cases. Absent sports issues, the schools have long taken the approach of "toss the man out" but that is being challenged as a violation of Title IX and equality laws. The recent case of Cephus at Wisconsin is one such example. Cephus maintained his innocence, was thrown out of school, sued (I think he lost) and was found not guilty in criminal court and ended up getting re-instated. He would have been gone at Iowa. 100%. The schools are really in a tough spot on this sort of stuff. I can understand both sides and the truth is always pretty murky in these cases. But places like Columbus or Lincoln where the athletes "get a pass" from law enforcement are inexcusable.
Click to expand...

no university is a sanctioned police force. no university should be involved...indeed first in line...to conduct any sort of "criminal investigation." get the politics out of it.
 
uihawk82 said:
Those are three really bogus, terrible questions and what you are implying.

If she was being forced and raped then it is already a violent act and who knows if she fought back or yelled or something she might have ended up dead in a cornfield outside Lincoln.

Maybe she shouldnt have been alone with him/them but maybe the invitation was for drinks and not sex.
Click to expand...

I don’t condone rape or any kind of violence against women. But a woman should know better to go into a man’s apartment alone. On the other hand, those guys should have been indoctrinated about sexual harassment/ assault thru the football teams orientation. That said, I think my questions are valid. The questions a defense attorney is gonna ask will be much more intense. With all the SJW’s screaming about “rape culture,” there is no fathomable reason that either parties should have entered into this situation. I get it. There are some piece of shit guys out there. But there are also an equal amount of piece of shit bitches out there too, trying to destroy men. If the guys are guilty, they should be punished. But if the woman is just trying to make a buck thru some civil suit later, she too should be punished. I don’t care much for Nebraska, but I do care that REAL justice being carried out. Not just blindly believe everything a woman says. I’ve seen way too many guys falsely accused and punished and later exonerated without the woman ever being reprimanded. I don’t like to see lives destroyed based on hearsay. Show me some indisputable evidence first!
 
Last edited:
ModebaSan said:
I don’t condone rape or any kind of violence against women. But a woman should know better to go into a man’s apartment alone. On the other hand, those guys should have been indoctrinated about sexual harassment/ assault thru the football teams orientation. That said, I think my questions are valid. The questions a defense attorney is gonna ask will be much more intense. With all the SJW’s screaming about “rape culture,” there is no fathomable reason that either parties should have entered into this situation. I get it. There are some piece of shit guys out there. But there are also an equal amount of piece of shit bitches out there too, trying to destroy men. If the guys are guilty, they should be punished. But if the woman is just trying to make a buck thru some civil suit later, she too should be punished. I don’t care much for Nebraska, but I do care that REAL justice being carried out. Not just blindly believe everything a woman says. I’ve seen way too many guys falsely accused and punished and later exonerated without the woman ever being reprimanded. I don’t like to see lives destroyed based on hearsay. Show me some indisputable evidence first!
Click to expand...

Defense attorneys cannot delve into many of the areas you have pointed out. And you know something - maybe she did go in there with the intention of having carnal knowledge of a ball player. But then she got there and all of the sudden, a couple of guys decided they wanted to run a train on her. Or maybe she changed her mind when she saw more than she bargained for. That's her right. So her intentions upon entering an apartment have zero bearing on whether an assault occurred. Maybe she's lying, maybe they're lying. The young men involved are absolutely entitled to a presumption of innocence until the State proves its case.
 
dirtwrap said:
I have never heard of an incel but it is a foregone conclusion that women disregard men who are not good looking or rich! So that part is true anyway.
Click to expand...
I must be good looking then, b/c I sure as hell am not rich
 
Fryowa said:
That's a potato/po-tah-to argument if I've ever heard one. It's no different than telling someone the sky isn't blue, its cyan.

You conveniently leave out the fact that red pill and incels promote dominating women because they're perpetually rejected by females. Paradoxically, the successful, "red pill types" aren't the ones taking part in this movement, man. It's the scorned ones. Ironic, but it's true.

You mention males are wired polygamous by their nature. "By our nature" we're also wired to kill rivals, swing from trees, and shit on the ground. At what point does one draw the line dismissing (and accepting) behavior as being pre-wired by nature?

Honest question. What is your personal yay or nay point for where we draw the line and say, "This is behavior that is acceptable because it's genetically wired into humans," or "This is unacceptable behavior because the human brain is able to make conscious altruistic decisions?" Early humans killed other clans over food competition, and competition to stay alive and pass your genes on is hard-wired into our DNA. Is that acceptable? I know it still happens all the time in one form or another, but is it ok?

Because you're saying men's dominance over women isn't misogyny, it's nature.
Click to expand...

It seems you got some more learnin' to do. A red pill incel is a fine example of an oxymoron.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top