Year One of Rhule. What’s Acceptable to you? Call it.

[Ext. 55]

It’s an away game vs. a P5 team with several unknowns. What’s our road record vs. P5 been the past 5/10/20 years?

The line is less than 10. Statistically there’s almost a 1/3 chance we lose. Why call a loss in that situation unacceptable?

Nope, won't and can't accept that one.

 

[Ext. 55]

WTF why are you 2 agreeing on something?

Exactly. It's gross. Do better fellas. One of the key tenets of this board is @Baron Winnebago and @Jim14510 never agreeing. Ever.

Don't screw up a good thing here guys.

 

[Baron Winnebago]

Exactly. It's gross. Do better fellas. One of the key tenets of this board is @Baron Winnebago and @Jim14510 never agreeing. Ever.

Don't screw up a good thing here guys.

Al Sharpton once file a brief supporting white supremacists so these unfortunate events do happen on occasion

 

[SlumpBuster]

Acceptable is such a weird word for college sports IMO.

I don't think there's any record the first year that would make me question the hire. Considering his first two stops we're just absolutely terrible his first year. I kind of expect that to happen here too.

Year two would be a different story.

That being said, I currently expect 5-7.

I expect 9 wins by year 3.

But this year is a total wild card to me.

 

[BluesBucksNHuskers]

These threads are always a good way to pass the time but not realistic.

I could see a scenario I’m still happy with Rhule with 2 wins if Sims gets hurt in the first game and the team improves throughout the whole year.

I could see a scenario we go to a bowl and I’m not happy with Rhule if we blow more late leads and games just look completely mismanaged.

 

[Cornicator]

armstrong and kellogg split snaps in 2013. Westerkamp was a freshman. the talent dropoff from Callahan’s classes to Bo’s was grand canyon-esque.

again we should be able to always win 6…

Lol.. 2013 team had 4 future NFL linemen, and 3 of them who went on to start at least 20 games in the NFL. They had NFL players at all 3 levels of their defense, and a legit All-American in Abdullah.

Nebraska doesn't have any talent close to those two teams currently. You are so incredibly wrong with this take, and you know it. May God have mercy on your soul.

In fact, give me that roster with Matt Rhule 10 years ago, and I'm pretty sure Nebraska Football would've been a perennial 10 game winner with multiple division titles over the last decade.

 

[JerryBones5]

Number of losses that are acceptable in year one:

Losses to which teams are acceptable in year one:

Acceptable record in year one:

The ONE thing you will be looking for this year that makes it acceptable:


Me…

Number of Losses: 7

Switching it to unacceptable: LaTech, Northern Illinois, Colorado, Northwestern, Cockeye

Acceptable record in year one: 5-7

The One thing: The eye test. We play good football with what we have.

I’m expecting 6-6 or 7-5. If we start 2-0 and the team gets some confidence, anything can happen with this schedule. We have the talent.

 

[Mavsker]

The dumbest legal test ever invented

Not really. It's just viewed that way because our society for whatever reason craves a hyper rational, airtight legal system. That has its benefits but it's not a perfect system either.

The alternative to "I know it when I see it" is the following framework for obscenity where all 3 have to be true for something to be obscene.

• Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
• Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law,
• Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

#1 and #3 are still entirely subjective and even #2 is largely subjective. Something that is clear obscenity according to #1 and #2, but a judge finds has some redeeming "artistic merit", is suddenly not obscene. That is no more airtight or rational than Stewart's standard.

Plus, judges are put in their positions to...make judgements...often in murky waters. It's kind of what they're best at.

 

[Baron Winnebago]

Not really. It's just viewed that way because our society for whatever reason craves a hyper rational, airtight legal system. That has its benefits but it's not a perfect system either.

The alternative to "I know it when I see it" is the following framework for obscenity where all 3 have to be true for something to be obscene.

• Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
• Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law,
• Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

#1 and #3 are still entirely subjective and even #2 is largely subjective. Something that is clear obscenity according to #1 and #2, but a judge finds has some redeeming "artistic merit", is suddenly not obscene. That is no more airtight or rational than Stewart's standard,.

Plus, judges are put in their positions to...make judgements...often in murky waters. It's kind of what they're best at.

People don't like ambiguity which is probably why they think they want the legal system to be airtight but of course that's impossible because the same sentence can read differently to different people.

Generally speaking I prefer tests that expressly lay out the criteria even if at its core it's subjective as a great deal of legal judgement is subjective. More actual prose helps lay out the thinking more clearly for when ambiguities arise in the future. Otherwise it offers too much wiggle room the drag in extraneous shit. Imo.

But somewhat flippant legal comment aside, I'm sure there have been worse tests proposed/implemented

 

[Jim14510]

Not really. It's just viewed that way because our society for whatever reason craves a hyper rational, airtight legal system. That has its benefits but it's not a perfect system either.

The alternative to "I know it when I see it" is the following framework for obscenity where all 3 have to be true for something to be obscene.

• Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
• Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law,
• Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

#1 and #3 are still entirely subjective and even #2 is largely subjective. Something that is clear obscenity according to #1 and #2, but a judge finds has some redeeming "artistic merit", is suddenly not obscene. That is no more airtight or rational than Stewart's standard.

Plus, judges are put in their positions to...make judgements...often in murky waters. It's kind of what they're best at.

People don't like ambiguity which is probably why they think they want the legal system to be airtight but of course that's impossible because the same sentence can read differently to different people.

Generally speaking I prefer tests that expressly lay out the criteria even if at its core it's subjective as a great deal of legal judgement is subjective. More actual prose helps lay out the thinking more clearly for when ambiguities arise in the future. Otherwise it offers too much wiggle room the drag in extraneous shit. Imo.

But somewhat flippant legal comment aside, I'm sure there have been worse tests proposed/implemented

Dorks

 

[GBR305]

Number of losses that are acceptable in year one: I'm hoping for 6-6/7-5, but I'm expecting 4-8/5-7

Losses to which teams are acceptable in year one: DO NOT LOSE TO COLORADO OR NORTHWESTERN. THAT IS ALL I ASK. It would be nice if we could break the losing streak to a new-look Wisconsin as well.

Acceptable record in year one: Don't be worse than last year (4-8), This team has more talent than what he inherited at Baylor.

The ONE thing you will be looking for this year that makes it acceptable: They sell us on what they promised us. The offense is built on a smashmouth power run game that opens up the vertical passing attack. The defense is playing angry & flying to the ball. The 3-3-5 works against Big Ten offenses.

 

[Baron Winnebago]

Dorks

I'm going to write a law that says you're a dumb jerk

 

[HuskerDocCo]

6 wins and a trip to the Doritos Bowl tooootttt

 

[Jim14510]

I'm going to write a law that says you're a dumb jerk

 

[nscottie]

Number of losses that are acceptable in year one: I'm hoping for 6-6/7-5, but I'm expecting 4-8/5-7

Losses to which teams are acceptable in year one: DO NOT LOSE TO COLORADO OR NORTHWESTERN. THAT IS ALL I ASK. It would be nice if we could break the losing streak to a new-look Wisconsin as well.

Acceptable record in year one: Don't be worse than last year (4-8), This team has more talent than what he inherited at Baylor.

The ONE thing you will be looking for this year that makes it acceptable: They sell us on what they promised us. The offense is built on a smashmouth power run game that opens up the vertical passing attack. The defense is playing angry & flying to the ball. The 3-3-5 works against Big Ten offenses.

Do we really know what talent we have? Personally, I’m in a wait and see. And I don’t think it’s fair to compare us to Baylor. Different conferences and different styles of play.

 

[KidsSeeGhosts]

Not really. It's just viewed that way because our society for whatever reason craves a hyper rational, airtight legal system. That has its benefits but it's not a perfect system either.

The alternative to "I know it when I see it" is the following framework for obscenity where all 3 have to be true for something to be obscene.

• Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
• Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law,
• Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

#1 and #3 are still entirely subjective and even #2 is largely subjective. Something that is clear obscenity according to #1 and #2, but a judge finds has some redeeming "artistic merit", is suddenly not obscene. That is no more airtight or rational than Stewart's standard.

Plus, judges are put in their positions to...make judgements...often in murky waters. It's kind of what they're best at.

One provides a pretty clear standard v. ruling on vibes. Simple as.

 

[The Other Dave]

I also expect 6 wins. 8 wins if we beat Minnesota.. that's such a huge game. I'll only be disappointed if we quit or don't exert maximum effort in games

 

[Mavsker]

One provides a pretty clear standard v. ruling on vibes. Simple as.

"Ruling on vibes" is a pretty gross mischaracterization of his concurrence

 

[KidsSeeGhosts]

"Ruling on vibes" is a pretty gross mischaracterization of his concurrence

 

[Mavsker]

If you're bored you should head on over to your old haunt, the hyvee parking lot. You'll be frothing at the mouth again in no time!