avfan2121

Not to stan, but Dirk is easily the best writer in the state. His state and national awards prove that. I would love to see all these examples of Dirk trolling. The only thing I can think of was a Taylor Martinez article in like 2011 that was too harsh and Bo got upset about. Probably time to get over it. My biggest memory of Dirk is him being one of the first people to try and find a path for Nebrasketball to get to the tournament in 13-14. Seems like the opposite of a troll. Ever since then, the 3 major men's teams have been pretty bad. What good has there been to say?

Apparently, there is relatively high interest on both sides.

16 minutes ago, hhcmatt said:

 

Yeah a definitive answer for win totals is pointless but we can do better than just shrug and say who knows.  Given the years of data we have from fields since 1985 we generally know the bounds for Power 5/6 teams in terms of Wins-Losses for making the tournament as an at-large.  2006 Alabama made the tourney with a 17-14 record.  Virginia Tech in 2010 and their 23-8 record did not make the tournament.  It's almost a certainty that the Power 5/6 teams that make up the 10-12 seeds in this year's tournament will have between 17 and 23 wins. It's my contention that given what should be a poor non-conference schedule we will need to be in the range of 21-23 wins that as always depends on which of the teams on your schedule you beat.

I think only 3 teams that won 5+ quad 1 games didn't get in. Indiana and Texas, who were basically .500, and another team that is escaping me. Get quality wins and be a few games above .500. Now, last year felt like a weak bubble, even though they say the bubble is weak every year. But a starting point. How many Q1 opportunities will we have and how many will we capitalize on?

1 hour ago, kldm64 said:

 

19 - 12 overall with that weak of non-conference schedule would not even put us close to being a bubble team.

Honestly probably depends on Quad 1 wins and Quad 4 losses. Belmont got in at 26-5 last year. Yes, they had a lot of wins, but 17 were Q4 and only 2 were Q1 wins. 

Every B1G conference road game for us last year was a Q2 game, with 2 home games against Northwestern and Illinois and the Rutgers tournament game as Q3. So hopefully still plenty of opportunities to grab Q1 and Q2 wins. Win 5 or 6 Q1 and 19 overall and you probably aren't in, but at least on the bubble. Now winning 5 or 6 Q1 games while only winning 10 in conference is the real challenge.

Even if tuition was free for someone, they count against the scholarship number as soon as they play in a game (I think). I know in football walk-ons can receive academic scholarships, but they either forfeit those or count against the scholarship number once they play a snap.

1 hour ago, Nebrasketball1979 said:

The committee also is discussing high loss teams with great SOS versus low loss teams with poor SOS (i.e. Belmont).  This conversation happens every year and we know how this song and dance plays out - small schools typically get the screw job and I'll be ok with that this year!

If a team like Belmont gets in over us, even if the season ended right now, then we got absolutely screwed last year. Their NET is higher than us at 46, but their 2 Q1 wins are at 45 Murry St and at 48 Lipscomb. And they've played 17 Q4 games. A lot of teams could win 25 with that kind of schedule.

2 minutes ago, OmahaHusker said:

 

Bottom line is we have 15 losses (soon to be 16, sadly, but realistically) and they have 13 with a better overall SOS and non con SOS. At some point you have to award winning. 

Unless you are a 22 win Nebrasketball team...I'm not arguing for us to be in now. Just contemplating what 2 wins mean. If Creighton won today and lost tomorrow they would be in the conversation, if not in for some people. If Nebraska won 2 more games, they would have the same number of overall and Q1 wins and should probably be in the conversation.

4 minutes ago, The Polish Rifle said:

Other things on the Team Sheets where Creighton out preforms us - Their non-con SOS is 35, ours is 193. They have a 4-7 road record, ours is 2-9. It will be interesting where the conversation goes if we win the next two. though I don't see that happening. 

The thing about non-con SOS for the Big Ten is we played 2 more conference games, meaning 2 less non-con. So worst case scenario we add Rutgers and Northwestern to our non-con, what would the SOS look like? But really you should swap in 2 from the pool of Maryland, Iowa, Michigan St, Purdue, Minnesota, Illinois or Penn State since we played those teams twice. Any of those teams bump up the non-con SOS quite a bit.

I also wonder if the committee puts more stock in the SOS numbers or the Quads. We have more Q1/Q2 games and less Q3/Q4 games than Creighton. So why is Creighton's overall SOS 14 and ours is 51? Doesn't really add up.

10 hours ago, jason2486 said:

If we somehow beat Maryland and Wisconsin, depending on other bubble teams and conference tourney upsets, I could see us at least having reason to watch Selection Sunday. We really need Palmer, Watson, and Roby clicking on all cylinders these next 2 days.

 

If Creighton is on the bubble right now (First Four Out at worst in most brackets, somehow in on quite a few), it feels like 2 wins would have to put us in the conversation. We are currently 2 spots ahead of Creighton in the NET. They have 3 Quad 1 wins to our 2, but both teams have 9 Q1/Q2 wins. And obviously we would pick up 2 more Q1 wins if we make it to the semis.

Related to Miles, but also for the next coach. Shouldn't player retention at Nebraska be more difficult than at other P5 schools? Miles recruited over guys like Morrow and Jacobson with Roby, Palmer, and Copeland. Would have loved to have had Morrow and Jacobson on the bench, but why would guys like that want to stay and be bench players at a program with a history of losing? So they transfer either to lower level schools with guarantees of more playing time or to schools that are more successful. So what's the alternative? Recruit worse players that are satisfied with being relegated to bench roles, but you know they will stay for 4 years?

One aspect people typically don't mention from the tourney team is that the block/charge rule was emphasized differently that season. I don't have the data, but felt like that led to us getting a lot more and-1s and free throws. The next year it reverted back and felt like we got called for a lot more charges. 

12 hours ago, Dead Dog Alley said:

 

Here's the NCAA Tournament appearances for the current 14 Big Ten teams in the last 10, 20, and 30 years.  If the top 7 programs (Michigan State, Michigan, Ohio State, Wisconsin, Purdue, Maryland, and Indiana) and the next 3 (Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois) all maintain or stabilize their coaching situations then there isn't much room to move up.  

I agree. That's why my only real expectation is separating from Northwestern, Penn State, and Rutgers. Get in the mix with the next tier up and hope for the best. It's laughable to expect us to consistently be in the top half of the conference. Too many good programs you would have to displace.

Rankings by average finish since we joined the Big Ten (Using ESPN and I just went off display order, not tie-breakers/seeds):

1. Michigan St 2.89
2. Wisconsin 4.1
3. Maryland 4
4. Michigan 4.4
5. Purdue 4.8
6. Ohio State 5.6
7. Indiana 6.6 
8. Iowa 6.9
9. Minnesota 8.9
10.  Illinois 9.4
11. Northwestern 9.8
12. Nebraska 9.9
13. Penn State 10.9
14. Rutgers 13.2

I think you can split this into 4 Tiers:

Tier 1: Michigan St

Tier 2: Wisconsin, Maryland, Michigan, Purdue, Ohio State

Tier 3: Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois

Tier 4: Nebraska, Penn State, Northwestern, Rutgers

I would like to clearly separate ourselves from Tier 4 into Tier 3. If we can regularly hang out in Tier 3, I think that should at least put us close to the bubble most years. Move to the top of Tier 3, you're probably in with a decent non-con. Then you'll have some years where you get a chance to move to Tier 2 when other teams are down.

I think the right coach can get the program into the 6th-10th range in the conference. But we aren't the only team with nice facilitates, fan support, and money. Pretty much all the other schools in the conference can offer this. Facilities will be caught. We get the same cut from the B1G as every other team. People seem to forget pretty lackluster attendance at the Devaney. Can't bank on the new arena forever. Attendance will dwindle.

So what type of coach wants to take a chance on a bottom dweller program, with very few advantages, and some big negatives (no history, lack of recruits in area, etc)?

Pretty much sets up for a second tier mid major coach or a P5 retread. I hope I'm wrong.

25 minutes ago, HoiBall said:

 

15,000 people that show up to watch bad basketball. There are top 15 teams that struggle to draw 7,000 fans. You win at Nebraska you're going to get support like you see at Kentucky, UNC, etc.

Showing up to watch a loser doesn't really matter because we don't want a loser. What Big Ten school outside of maybe Penn State doesn't get fans to show up when they are winning?

1 hour ago, khoock said:

I think we should be able to get a quality coach. We have good facilities, great support, and Miles showed that you can bring in top 150 kids (both out of hs and through transfers). If we offer up a competitive pay the only thing we are missing is the bball history.

 

Not saying we are a glamorous destination, but we arent the bottom of the barrel imo either.

This is true of most P5 schools. Especially in the Big Ten.

What does Nebraska have to offer that makes the job attractive, which is unique and outweighs the negatives of the program?

Can someone explain why Lewis would be a good head coach? He's supposed to be in charge of the offense and that's the first thing people complain about. Does Miles refuse to implement his ideas? Is the culture so bad from the head coach that it doesn't allow Lewis to be successful? I get the sense the Lewis would be a good head coach, but I don't see any evidence from his time here.

1 hour ago, royalfan said:

watson shot not going to get better if shooting with sidespin and wrong form.  

Watson was squaring up and really using his legs at the beginning of the year. Form looked way better than anything we have seen from him. Way more arch. Now he's reverted back to a flat, step back shot all the time.

1 hour ago, Huskerpapa said:

On another note, what has happened to our player spacing.  We seem so clogged up, that any drive to the key is a mucked up mess.  

No need to even cover anyone outside the restricted area the way we are shooting. Doesn't leave much room to operate inside unless Tanner can get a good seal.

I feel like something happened over winter break. Whether that was just not getting games in or a disruption in locker room chemistry. They won same games since, but haven't really looked sharp since then. Especially on offense.

1 minute ago, hskr4life said:

 

100% we have higher expectations than when Miles was hired.  That's the goal right?  You want to hire someone who provides "more" than what the previous guy did.  I think Miles has done that on the recruiting trail.  It hasn't been necessarily so in the W/L column outside of 1-2 good years.  However, this year can still be made into something.  If we don't dance, I am in the boat that it's time to move on.  I have been that way since the beginning of the year.  If the time comes that we hire a new coach, I think expectations should be higher than what Miles provided.  That means consistent or better recruiting and more trips/wins after the conference tourney.

Of course it's the goal. I think many people would agree the expectations are higher while also saying that Miles never really did anything here. Heck, on another board there is an argument on whether Miles will leave the program worse off than Sadler. Pretty rare combo.

15 minutes ago, HuskerFever said:

 

I'm not sure I'm following this. Miles was given 7 years to take this program to whatever heights we could achieve. A 2nd year run to the tournament and facility upgrades didn't inhibit his chance to put his stamp on this program.

 

What do you think our expectations should have been after Year 7?

Basically feels like people have higher expectations of the program now than when Miles was hired. Which would seem to mean that he elevated expectations. But he didn't really have the success that warrants higher expectations, outside of a streak to the tournament early in his tenure. Which lead to expectations of continuing to make the tournament. If they don't make it this year, it's definitely time to move on. I'm just curious what our expectations of a new coach will be when the time actually comes.

One of the odd things about Mile's tenure is it seems the expectations were elevated without much increase in success. I would say we aren't a program that should expect to make the NCAA tournament. The 2nd year run to the tournament (and facility upgrades) almost set him up for a higher chance of failure. 

I'll be curious what the expectations reset to with a new coach.

Eichorst and Moos hurting the program by not extending Miles to the traditional 4/5 year contracts and Miles not deserving said extensions are not mutually exclusive.

11 hours ago, Dead Dog Alley said:

 

If you're looking for a coach that is also considering Penn State --- you have failed.

Nebraska basketball compared to the Big Ten:

-12th in the Big Ten in all time win percentage; behind Penn State, ahead of Rutgers and NW

-Tied for 12th with Maryland in Regular season conference championships; ahead of NW and Penn St (Penn St is an odd case with their conference affiliations)

-12th in tournament appearances; ahead of Rutgers and NW

Not really a gimmie that a coach would choose Nebraska over other teams in the bottom half/third of the conference.

If you're going to go after a Power 5 assistant, I would try getting from within the Big Ten. Don't actually know his coaching abilities, but a guy like Dwayne Stephens. Has been with Izzo for 16 years. Would think he would have learned something from him. Would already have familiarity with the B1G. Never know if guys like that want to take a gamble and leave though.