Jump to content

throwback

Members
  • Content count

    1,537
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    17

throwback last won the day on October 30 2017

throwback had the most liked content!

About throwback

  • Rank
    All-Conference

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

1,092 profile views
  1. 2018-19 Husker opponents

    Certainly a much more balanced schedule, but it's also easier to balance when you have 20 conference games instead of 18.
  2. Postseason Tourney Talk

    If KU wins, I believe it'll be the first time since 1988 NU will have played both teams in the title game. Also should UM win Monday, 1988 was the last time NU beat the eventual national champion during the season, I believe. Glad I doubled down on UM with the halftime number to go with the -5.5 before the game. Easy money - never a doubt.
  3. Postseason Tourney Talk

    NU has now beaten a Final Four qualifier three of the past five years.
  4. Postseason Tourney Talk

    S-E-C! S-E-C! S-E-C! Oh wait. Do they use that cheer when they're getting their ass kicked? Not sure. Whew - Michigan looks serious about winning the whole thing tonight.
  5. Creighton?

    Not sure what the committee was thinking, but the eye test says if UMBC was a #16 seed, K-State should've been about a #14 seed, and CU should've been roughly a #27 seed.
  6. What to do with Miles contract?

    Not wanting to single you out, but I've seen this mentioned many places and finally decided to respond. So nothing personal. But what exactly is a "great" season? Getting hot down the stretch and making the NCAA tournament isn't a great season? Sure as heck beats the alternative. And we've seen plenty of the alternative the past couple of decades. This team did a lot of great things this season. Sure, I guess people could say it was accomplished against a weak schedule. But considering how few times we've won 22 games against weak, strong, and everything-in-between schedules in our history, I'd still call it a great season. I know this: Both season were a lot of fun as a fan of a team that hasn't had much success in a couple of decades. Yes, both seasons didn't finish on a great note. And there have been clunkers in between. I perfectly understand the frustration with the lack of sustained progress and transfers and losses vs the team in Omaha and failures in the postseason. But if 22 wins doesn't result in him receiving an extension, probably to 4 years total as most coaches receive, I'd be shocked. And that's what should be done. Either give him an extension or fire him. It's the only thing that makes sense. I have no idea what game the Ginger Assassin was trying to play last season. Either Miles is your guy and you extend him, or you fire him. His choice to leave Miles in limbo with no extension made no sense. Buyout money for coaches at NU barely puts a dent in the budget, so there was no reason to try to pinch pennies on this decision. Of course, the previous AD was pretty awful, so such an odd decision shouldn't be a surprise. In part because of the games the previous AD played with him, it's far, far, far more likely Miles chooses to take matters into his own hands, cash in on a 22-win season, and find another job - and he could - versus Moos firing him.
  7. NIT bracket announcement

    He may be telling the truth - he also may be playing to the local audience. There's nothing in the the metrics that the committee emphasized that would indicate NU was even on the bubble. NU's metrics looked nothing like Arizona St, Syracuse, Oklahoma, Texas, Baylor, teams that were all close or made it. We played strong down the stretch; that obviously didn't matter when you consider how ASU, OU and even CU finished the season. We only had one Q1 win; every other P5 at-large team, other than CU, had at least 3. To be in contention, we needed the committee to value eye test, value playing well late, value winning games you should, avoiding bad losses, etc. None of that was important, based on who made it. USC had similar but better metrics than we did and they were in the last 4 out. So it's hard to imagine "we were one of the last teams eliminated." So I'm not sure how much to take what he's saying at face value at this point. The actual results would indicate otherwise. And that's not a slam on him, CU, etc, it's just the way the committee chose to do things this year, based on the results. I'd say the above no matter who the chairperson was - it's just that we wouldn't have the chairperson giving local interviews if he wasn't from Omaha, so we wouldn't normally hear things like this.
  8. New Rules for the NIT

    Full First Round NIT schedule for your viewing pleasure: Tuesday, March 13 Baylor vs. Wagner | 6 p.m. - ESPN2 Louisville vs. Northern Kentucky | 6 p.m. - ESPN Middle Tennessee vs. Vermont | 7 p.m. - ESPNU Western Kentucky vs. Boston College | 7 p.m. - ESPN3 Oklahoma State vs. Florida Gulf Coast | 8 p.m. - ESPN2 Notre Dame vs. Hampton | 8 p.m. - ESPN Saint Mary’s vs. SE Louisiana | 9 p.m. - ESPNU Oregon vs. Rider | 9 p.m. - ESPN3 USC vs. UNC Asheville | 10 p.m. - ESPN2 Wednesday, March 14 LSU vs. Louisiana | 6 p.m. - ESPN3 Marquette vs. Harvard | 6 p.m. - ESPN2 Penn State vs. Temple | 7 p.m. - ESPNU Mississippi State vs. Nebraska | 8 p.m. - ESPN2 Utah vs. UC Davis | 8 p.m. - ESPN3 Stanford vs. BYU | 9 p.m. - ESPNU Washington vs. Boise State | 9 p.m. - ESPN3
  9. USC Coach nails it

    Basically, ASU beat Xavier on a neutral site in November, won at Kansas in December and that was enough. They just had to tread water the rest of the way. They had one Q1 win and two Q2 wins after Jan. 1 and got in. Won 2 games vs RPI Top 50 teams after Dec. 10, both at home, and 0 wins against RPI Top 30 teams after Dec. 10. Crazy.
  10. USC Coach nails it

    Right - the quads basically count a road win at, say, Vermont the same as one at Kansas. Caught Vermont's tournament championship game at home over the weekend. Scrappy team with some nice players. Probably would have blown Iowa out of the gym this year. But there's no way those road wins should be treated the same. (Again, not dissing the Catamounts. Maybe we'll see them at PBA in the NIT Elite Eight.) More tiers at the top, better metrics to go into it, and it may work. But this particular RPI-based quad system is bad, and the committee let it rule things too much. (Well, except with CU. The committee must've mis-read their 2 Q1 wins to give them an 8 seed, since every at-large Power them had more Q1 wins than they did, even all the at-large teams seeded below them, including St Bony with 3. But there's always a WTF team, right?) And the quad system doesn't help mid-majors at all. Thought I read somewhere that was part of the intent of implementing it, but if it was, the NCAA missed badly.
  11. USC Coach nails it

    I think if Q1 and Q2 are all that matter, they need more tiers in that area to make it easier to compare teams. I broke down NU & Texas's Q1 wins in another thread somewhere. No idea where anymore. NU was 1-5 vs the upper half of Q1, Texas was 0-9 NU was 0-1 vs the bottom half of Q1, Texas was 6-2 It's a heck of a lot easier to beat a #70 RPI team on the road than a #10 RPI team, but they're both Q1 games, which makes the current quad breakdown very flawed and easier to game. I understand wanting to use quads to make it easier to compare teams. But it needs to be a combo of metrics, not just RPI, and we need more tiers at the top. EDIT: And I should add, I caught a couple of Stanford games this season. They're awful. Had no idea they would even be under consideration for the NIT. Them getting a #3 is a joke. But the eye test is not a part of any criteria anymore.
  12. USC Coach nails it

    Stanford 2-10 Q1 6-1 Q2 Nebraska 1-6 Q1 2-3 Q2 These are the primary criteria they appeared to use throughout the NIT seedings.
  13. Scheduling is everything

    I guess if Q1 and Q2 is all that matters and Q3 and Q4 are ignored, logic would say you need more tiers at the top and fewer at the bottom to make it easier to compare/separate out teams.
  14. USC Coach nails it

    Agree with multiple posts above - the intent of our schedule was fine. Caught a lot of bad breaks, plus the middle of the B1G collapsing. All I'm saying is - as it turned out - we could've won 25 games and 15 league games, but unless those extra wins were Q1 games, it would've made no difference in the end. Just blows my mind - have to keep repeating it to make sure it sinks in that a 25-7/15-3 Big Ten team would've had essentially zero chance of making the NCAA Tournament as an at large. Our at large hopes were basically over - barring multiple double-digit 'dog road wins in league play - once the Big Ten got smoked in the B1G-ACC challenge.
×