mrjam

Duh. We never *need* walkons. Until your starting PF blows his ACL, your starting SG suffers a high ankle sprain, your part-time starter at the 3 gets suspended for not following unspecified rules, your back-up PG tweaks a knee, your back-up SG/SF blows his Achilles, your back-up PF transfers in December, and you've got a guy sitting out as a transfer, and you either play five guys the whole game or go with a couple of walk-ons.

Edwards put up Curry-like stats at Purdue, not Davison, against B1G talent. To say there is no comparison isn't fair. There are parts of his game that are better than Curry's at this stage. Does he become as good as Steph, pry not. But at the same time in their careers, you can't say they aren't at least comparable. Steph got better after college, Edwards could do the same. 

I re-read it and it appears you disagree but I couldn't find one thing political in anything Korver said. So I don't know how to respond to that. I just posted it because I'm not a Creighton fan and Creighton takes a lot of heat on a Nebraska board as it should, here was something good done by someone who went to Creighton.

Silver I must be a bad person/fan too, because had I been in Lincoln, I would have bought you a drink of choice and gone and sat at the game and cheered with you and 10,000 other bad fans.  Oh and yes I loved the win Thursday night.

Have you reached China yet?

Winning an NIT game is completely meaningless. 

Stop it. This is a pretty sad attempt at walking back an absolutely absurd statement. If you're so concerned about "how miserable it will be for the coaches" then focus that blame on the administration for dragging it out instead of hoping that the team loses because how dare they have the audacity to earn the invitation to play in a postseason tournament. But don't assume you know better than the people in that locker room whether they want to play (or coach) or not.
 
And if winning an NIT game somehow costs Nebraska its top coaching prospect, that clearly wasn't a coach all that interested in Nebraska in the first place, which maybe isn't a trait you'd want in the person leading your basketball program anyway.

Thanks for the data. It certainly points to the coaching deficiency, but that is one of the concerns about the commitment. Every program you noted has had coaches who were household names or coaches who were good enough to step up to bigger opportunities, who has left Nebraska for a better job? Ask anyone outside Nebraska to name two Nebraska basketball coaches. They can't.
 
We don't get the coaches who will make a difference because the impression, right or wrong, is that this is a career killer. We got a perfect storm of recruits in the early 90s and it is our last big splash, but Danny vs Roy, Johnny, Dana, Billy, Lon, Larry, Eddie, or Norm...? How did those years even happen? We've never been close to a hire like those coaches.

The rifleman,  for that consistent 3 pt shooting, or maric for his post play

Lol, you're right its early after taking the kids out last night.  Cant a guy be greedy?

All of those early and mid-afternoon tips on Saturdays made me think the broadcaster would be:
 

Holy hell this would be a glorious get.  That kid can seriously ball and has a super unique game.  

Heard a rumor both parties are interested.

Teddy to Lincoln. Let's do this!
 

That'd be one hell of a get with how he did this year.

What I’ve learned is that your reaction to this type of situation is a lot different when you actually feel like you are a target. I don’t feel like a target in this situation, but some of the players on the team do. That’s something that is hard to relate to, and if they’re scared than I fully support 100% whatever type of response they choose to go forward with. Because the fact of the matter is African Americans are a minority on UNL’s campus, and if these guys are feeling targeted by this wacko then we need to stand behind them and let them know that we’re here to support them. 

Wow, if he transfers, comments like this sure as hell don't help. Don't forget guys like Tai Webster and Frank Kaminsky didn't exactly light it up their first two seasons.

I sure wish we had Teddy Allen as a HUSKER. I think that we would have at least 2 more wins possibly 3 if you count today.
Play great d and has been the leading scorer 3 of the last 4 games for the # 6 team

12-6 would put us as a first round bye in the b1g tourney.
 
Odds are, the committee looks past the rpi at that point and takes us because the b1g likely has 5-6 teams.
 
11-7 might do it with a top 4 finish.
 
He is right with the math I think but more goes into it than rpi. Not much more... But more.

While it would be nice to have all 13 scholarships filled, I don't think the addition of two more freshman, two
more transfer question marks, or two more question marks at all would have helped us win any more games in the 1/3 of the season Copeland would be out.  
 
Firstly, if there was a transfer out there that was another Copeland/Jordy/Watson and they wanted to play here, then I guarantee you that he would be a Husker.  I thought the staff did a damn fine job of filling some much needed filled holes this off season.
 
Secondly, I see some mentioning chemistry and I totally agree.  With such a brand new team, chemistry might be a challenge.  Something to think about though is "is filling 2 more spots with question mark players going to hurt or help in the long run?"  As I mentioned in the last paragraph, if there was a no question would help us immediately player out there, he'd be here.  But to now go the first 1/3 of a season splitting the minutes up even more amongst the new question mark players and then taking that many more minutes away would hurt chemistry more I think.
 
Thirdly, I 100 percent agree that's we are a better team with Copeland.  However, I also believe that we have the ability to win all of our games prior to him becoming eligible.  It isn't just my Rose Colored Glasses this year either.  We have depth (All 11 scholarship guys I feel are actual players that could help).  We have better shooting (The addition of Allen and Palmer, Glynn and Jack getting better, and possibly Roby breaking out).  We have two true posts.  We should have better D (Less doubling down, two big inside presences, good guard play).  All of that is without Copeland.  Sure the addition of him only adds to that, but not having him doesn't automatically create an L either.
 
Fourthly, the loss of Ed and MJ hurt.  No doubt about that.  The addition of Copeland took a little of that sting away.  Then we added Okeke and Allen as well.  We want to talk about chemistry, well do we think having those two automatically increases our chemistry?  I don't honestly.  Production is one thing and I think they would have helped there no doubt.  However is a decreased Ed/MJ role going to help chemistry?  Is someone who was very critical about AW leaving only to walk himself someone who would have helped chemistry?  You traded that for a "last chance U" grad transfer who wants to prove himself, a struggling performing  5* who now gets a shot in the best basketball conference in the nation, and a top 150 Freahman guard.  My point is that while in production MJ and ED would have helped, there could have been chemistry issues even with vets on the team.  Sometimes new is the way to go.  See Petteway, Pitchford year 1.  
 
Also, I'm not so sure the production of ED and MJ can't be offset by the production of Okeke, Copeland and Allen this year.  Honestly would probably take the last group.  Even if I only get 1 for 2/3 of a season.

True and gotcha, maybe thats why they struggle by the end of year.  Maybe I'm just thinking less means more when it comes to some of the kids of today. I think with Allen at he point as well.

Amen, couldn't have been written better.

Silver, just remember Psalms 23:4
"Yea,though I  walk thru the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil; for You are with me; Your rod and Your staff, they comfort me"
 
I feel the same way when times are tough. The people and here bring a positive light as well. 
May he hold you and your family high in your rime of need.
 
 
 
 

You're right. They're not minimum wage workers. They get "paid" less. What perks they get--medical care etc.--are largely there to preserve their viability to serve the institution's interests. But exploitation isn't hitched to a dollar figure. It's possible to be an exploited millionaire. We call them "professional athletes".   It's simply the extraction of excess monetary value for the labor provided and even outside of labor theories of value, labor *does* provide *some* value at all times. 
 
Departments being in the red or black is largely irrelevant to the dynamic, since most programs exist as branding devices for administrators hooked on a fool theory that visibility equals tuition dollars, which is where *they* get paid. This is an institutional addiction more than anything else, going well beyond athletic departments themselves. Obviously schools like Nebraska have chosen to replicate corporate models of organizational behavior because, well, it's padded the wallets of the administrative classes. A lot. Even if this doesn't always extend to every single school--and you'd be right to say that it doesn't--*no* athletic program breaks a schools finances. Otherwise it would cease (and some have). But so-called "power five" schools are run like businesses, and for them, athletics is a large part of the corporate branding war that attracts both students and donors. Or at least, they believe that. So this is how the exploitation formula works. Successful programs raise the visibility of an institution. They are marketing devices. Nothing more.
 
Transforming athletic departments into corporations/businesses has had one effect that few people inside athletics thought about: with the model came the model's values. No corporation values the "development" of an employee as such. It merely demands the match of skill and labor to the productive task involved. The personal "growth" of a player is equally irrelevant, since it is seen to have no impact on revenue generation. Business exist to secure profit. Period. And that sole directive now applies to most corporatized athletic departments. It was likely unintentional, but it was the outcome nonetheless. And when we speak of profit, we're not limiting that to the intake of dollars for an athletic department alone.
 
I agree with you on fan values, btw. Which goes to show that a profound dissonance still exists between what a fan might value and what an athletic department or television content producer might value. Hence the constant clashes between fans and departments when there is no winning. or the entertainment value is seen as poor. But I don't believe that most fans give two $&*&s about a players "growth": these are rationalizations for the demands they make to the player to subordinate their ambitions to those of the fan. Sure, there are exceptions. Probably quite a few. But let's face it: how fans react to losing belies that claim.
 
As you point out as well, this is a social dynamic, not exclusively a collegiate one. We exist in a system that drives everyone towards defending what they perceive as their self-interest. It should shock no one that they're going to learn that lesson, too, because that's precisely what they're getting taught from birth in one form or another.
 
 

I was wrong.