Leaderboard

Better tell the family to keep looking.

from Brian Rosenthal's Twitter: Said Miles: "You get conditioned to winning, and you get conditioned to losing, mentally. It's what you expect of yourself ... Miles, cont. ... "and to me, and I just don't think we expect enough out of ourselves." Miles: "There's three things: You either do your job, or you don't know, or you don't care... Miles, cont. "half the time, it looks like, to me, we don't care. Or, we don't know. I asked the guys all the time in film, which is it?" Miles: "I'm not sympathetic to a bad mentality. I'm not sympathetic to, 'I'm not sure I can do this.' That's not going to get us very far." I love this attitude. This is a guy that absolutely wont accept losing, but goes about teaching it the right way. I don't know whether he will be successful here or not, but he has a heck of a lot better chance that the last 2 coaches, IMO. He seems to be going about things the right way and isn't going to give "I can't" as an excuse.

there are no substitutes for luck. this is a program that needs a dose of the good variety badly. and we're definitely due.

Whether you like Dirk or not. I find it amusing that people actually think he makes stuff up. So your telling me that the Omaha World Herald allows one of their columnist to make stuff up. I find that funny. The problem is there is seperating the Dirk Chatelains: OWH article writer, OWH blogger and tweeter. The level of quality and potentially fact checking goes downhill from Article-->Blog-->Twitter How high or how low this graph starts, as you can tell from this thread, is in the eye of the beholder. Chateilain the article author does some well written and interesting work. Chatelian the blog writer comes up with drivel like writing the NCAA a fake letter to have Nebraska and Creighton switch conferences this year. Chatelian the twitter author is at best a way to hype is stuff on the OWH and at worst a way to Perrault his reputation as a credible source of information.

Whether you like Dirk or not. I find it amusing that people actually think he makes stuff up. So your telling me that the Omaha World Herald allows one of their columnist to make stuff up. I find that funny. I think most don't like Dirk because they think he's too critical. Personally, I think that stems from fans being too sensitive and subjective about Husker sports. Look at this thread. People are complaining about reporters being critical of the basketball team. I love the basketball team as much as the next person but take a step back and be objective. We're at the bottom of the Big Ten and fighting to stay around .500. We are NOT a good team, as much as we like them, and on a lot of nights there's an abundance of terrible plays and mistakes. It is what it is and I have no issues with reporters commenting on the obvious.

So you don't like good insight based on factual and analytica information, I understand. You probably don't believe in evolution either. What specific articles has Dirk made up that you think it's so ridiculous that people like his work?

Because the quoted article says the opposite of what Norm was saying earlier, and Norm was, apparently, using the article to support his earlier claim (unless I missed something).

OSU would be Spock, and we would be lizard.

It is TERRIBLY wrong. And you should be ashamed of yourself. As your penance, I suggest you do the "I am very sorry" dance* in front of your co-workers today. * FYI: The "I am very sorry dance" is quite similar to, and almost indistinguishable from, the happy dance. Kinda looks like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQXy72PByQU

He just posted the article work for word. Not sure how you could still be confused.

You actually believe his stuff? Wow. Thank goodness there all kinds in this world. Good insight. OMG, you can't make this up people. So you don't like good insight based on factual and analytica information, I understand. You probably don't believe in evolution either.

Because the quoted article says the opposite of what Norm was saying earlier, and Norm was, apparently, using the article to support his earlier claim (unless I missed something). I see. I guess I didn't look at it as though I care if Norm was correct or not in the beginning. I cared that he posted the article so we know what is what and that eliminated any confusion for me.

So you don't like good insight based on factual and analytica information, I understand. You probably don't believe in evolution either.