Jump to content

ladyhusker

Members
  • Content count

    88
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

ladyhusker last won the day on February 3

ladyhusker had the most liked content!

About ladyhusker

  • Rank
    Freshman

Recent Profile Visitors

378 profile views
  1. Selection Committee Games of Interest

    Am I nuts to think that Michigan is pretty much in anyway, and the one to possibly worry about is Penn State leapfrogging us for a spot in the tournament? (or, God forbid, leapfrogging Michigan for the 5-seed in New York and us having to play them back-to-back games?) If they're currently 86 (seems low...?), there's no chance they'll move up to a Quadrant 1 level in the next week, but there's still an outside chance Michigan could (their games are @ Penn State and Maryland, and home vs Ohio State). So I'm kind of in the camp that'd like to see Penn State win enough to make it a Q2 win -- right now our home game with them is considered Q3, which is nuts -- but not enough to knock off Michigan. I don't know how feasible that is and what the win combo that requires would be, though.
  2. Nebraska on the Selection Committee Board

    At the risk of sounding like an insane conspiracy theorist... I have to wonder a little bit of Lunardi's consistent dismissal of Big Ten teams has anything to do with the BTN vs ESPN slating of games. If I'm remembering correctly (and I don't know where I heard this but think I did), ESPN has so many fewer Big Ten games than usual because of cash considerations, or something like that. It isn't just Nebraska that's not on ESPN as much, it's pretty much the whole conference. As a result, is it at all possible that ESPN is a little salty, and pushing the narrative that the Big Ten is SO SO SO DOWN (when maybe it's just only kind of down, and when other conferences whose games are shown more on ESPN have this sort of phenomenon they call it "parity"), but at the end, if we do come close to his prescribed scenario, then it becomes a "WELL OBVIOUSLY with a run like THAT they're in" thing. I mean, I can go back to folding up my tinfoil hat, but I do wonder a little.
  3. Selection Committee Games of Interest

    I kind of wish the powers that be would reclassify our game vs. UCF to a semi-home game for them, or something along those lines (what was it when we did the home-and-home with Oregon, but at the Century Link and wherever it was at their end that wasn't the MKA?). It wasn't like they had a ton of fans there or a home atmosphere, although I don't know how strong their regular attendance is anyway...but for that to count as a road win for them, when I don't know that they even needed to stay in the hotel, is kind of cheap. For whatever the quadrants are worth, that would potentially move it from a Tier 2 to a Tier 1 game for us. Still a loss, but maybe demonstrates a stronger SOS than some of our bubble counterparts.
  4. Time to eat a little crow

    Hold on...I'm sorry guys, but the facilities, amazing as they are, are not a reason any recruit in his right mind commits to a program as historically blah as Nebraska. Quite honestly, having a nice facility is something more for the fans to pat themselves on the back over their contributions. It's removing a hurdle. But it isn't a reason anyone signs with a team. Go back and read the stories from when literally anyone on the team committed (I just did, because I wanted to make sure I was remembering correctly). What do they say is the reason they chose Nebraska? The first thing every one of them mentions is the relationships they formed. After that, some mention the fan base, some mention the level of competition, and Isaac Copeland noted that we had nice facilities but that was after talking at length about his relationship with Kenya Hunter and Anton Gill. Facilities help in the sense that it's one less thing to hurt you when competing for a nice player. They might have thought twice about it if the locker room was filled with dead bugs and they were practicing at Mabel Lee every day. But having a deluxe locker room (or a terrible locker room) will take a backseat to a good relationship with a coach 100% of the time. We have the players we have because they had great relationships with the coaches, not because they had a great relationship with the pool table felted to look like a basketball court. You don't have to like what the coaches do with those recruits after they become players, and there are probably some fair arguments to be had there, but it's inaccurate to say that we're getting recruits because of our facilities when the recruits themselves are consistently saying otherwise.
  5. Nebraska on the Selection Committee Board

    In my nerd moment of the day (whatever, it's Friday afternoon), I got kinda curious about what things would be like if the tiers factored in the state of the team at the time the game was played, vs at the end of the season. Obviously that's an imperfect practice too, since early evaluations can be super arbitrary, and overall things usually tend to balance out -- i.e. we were really undervalued at the beginning of the season, as were teams like Boston College (and Ohio State), but teams like St. John's and, oddly, North Dakota and Long Beach State were valued better at the time of those games than they are now. But I was curious nonetheless. I used the TeamRankings site for RPI, on the date of the game itself. No idea if there are other places to find that information, but I Googled NCAA 2018 RPI and found that. The picture this paints is a touch different from our current resume -- not necessarily a night-and-day situation, but it does get rid of our Tier 1 goose egg. Interestingly, Minnesota would still only be a Tier 2 win, but Northwestern and Michigan are both Tier 1. Full listing is below, but the summary goes: Tier 1: 2-6 Tier 2: 3-2 Tier 3: 6-0 Tier 4: 6-0 I guess I'd argue that, if RPI is so important and they trust it enough to make it a major component of bracket-building, they should trust it enough to evaluate the quality of the team at the time the game is played. If that were the case, what I see is a team who played a balanced schedule across a variety of team difficulties, won the games they "should", and is competitive against decent competition with a few decent wins, but wouldn't necessarily be considered elite. What that translates to in terms of a bid to dance, I have no idea. But our resume maybe looks a little better this way. Date Team H/A/N W/L RPI Tier 11/11 Eastern Illinois H W 236 4 11/13 North Texas H W 328 4 11/16 St. Johns A L 65 1 11/19 North Dakota H W 85 3 11/23 UCF N L 52 2 11/24 Marist N W 300 4 11/26 Long Beach State N W 70 2 11/29 Boston College H W 98 3 12/3 Michigan State A L 7 1 12/5 Minnesota H W 43 2 12/9 Creighton A L 56 1 12/16 Kansas H L 21 1 12/20 UTSA H W 249 4 12/22 Delaware State H W 348 4 12/29 Stetson H W 279 4 1/2 Northwestern A W 75 1 1/6 Purdue A L 13 1 1/9 Wisconsin H W 126 3 1/12 Penn State A L 123 2 1/15 Illinois H W 145 3 1/18 Michigan H W 30 1 1/22 Ohio State A L 14 1 1/24 Rutgers A W 179 3 1/27 Iowa H W 145 3 1/29 Wisconsin A W 135 2
  6. Nebraska on the Selection Committee Board

    That seems to be the crappy, inequitable part of this. When we played UCF and St. John's (and hell, Minnesota) their trajectories were far different than they are now, yet when it comes to our resume we're judged by where they currently are (post injuries/law issues). But the Big Ten conference as a whole doesn't receive that benefit; we're judged by where we were in December. Maybe some years that's a good thing, I don't know, but it doesn't seem to be a good system to judge a real, accurate, national picture, if that truly is how the system works. Hopefully an eye test by the humans in the room can mitigate some of that computer damage -- I might be biased, but I just have a tough time believing the Big Ten in February is the sixth-best conference out there (where I guess maybe the Big Ten in December might have been). Ps please enjoy my semicolon usage...
  7. Game sign

    Speaking as a wife: let her bring it. Act supportive, even. It'll work out better for you in the long run, and unless it's giant, it's not likely anyone outside of your immediate seating area will be able to decipher it anyway. Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
  8. Nebraska (11-5) vs. Purdue (14-2) Game Thread

    Coming out of relative lurkerdom to note that I didn't think many people could match the jackwagon-ness of DJ Byrd from a few years back, but lo and behold, there in another Purdue uniform, there he is... Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
  9. Jacobson Gone?

    I know it sort of defeats the purpose of a message board, and I'm not trying to call anyone out on anything -- so I hope no one posting takes this personally, because I don't mean it personally. I don't doubt that there are people posting here who do learn things that others may not be publicly privy to, and I don't doubt anyone would post something they knew to be untrue, just for the sake of posting it (as in, I assume they're posting something they heard from someone else, but in good faith that it's accurate). We're all here, presumably, because we love Nebraska Basketball. But the rumor mill has been churning on overdrive around here the last couple weeks. So before we get too sold on any one narrative, whether that's one of Miles being an insufferable d-bag that players hate, or that Jacobson just wanted to shoot 3s, or that we're trading coaches with New Mexico, or any other stories yet to arise...I'm throwing out the suggestion that we take a second to realize that what we hear from the university probably won't match what we hear from "sources", and what "sources" have to say may or may not actually have any basis in reality (or may be hyperbole that has some roots in a fact somewhere, but just gets overblown as it passes from person to person). In other words, I'm just presenting the virtual salt shaker, and invite everyone to take a grain or handful.
  10. Morrow leaving

    It may have happened in 2016 too, I don't honestly remember, but it would appear he first broke his rule in the fall of 2015, per Tom Shatel... http://www.omaha.com/sports/shatel-what-s-this-shawn-eichorst-talks-about-his-guy/article_23e179c1-a67c-5c7f-9866-d0f52d42fbef.html Not sure if that's better or worse for the context of the situation...on one hand, it was year 1 for Riley and people were already asking for a mulligan. On the other, it's when a coach was floundering and in need of public support, and he was willing to provide it then. It's also possibly a little telling when even Shatel ribs on it just being for his own guy. aphilso could also be correct in Eichorst publicly supporting Mike Riley in 2016 too. But it looks like the rule first went out the door in 2015. I guess we'll all draw our own conclusions, but that's at least maybe a clarification of what otherwise appears to be a fairly accurate flyover of this whole mess.
  11. This Year Wasn't All That Bad

    Which is exactly the point...if the goal is to have a good win-loss record, let's schedule every team in the Summit League and feast away (sorry, couldn't resist). But if the goal is to make the NCAA tournament, wins and losses just as numbers can't be a gauge for whether a season was good or not, and how the team plays must be considered as criteria. The last two weeks certainly don't sit well with me either, and the way we played was a pretty big shock -- which, I'd posit, was an anomaly to the rest of the year (which would seem to indicate something significant happening to affect it...which others have discussed extensively in other threads, and I probably don't want to wade into that again here). I'd just submit that purely pointing at our record and using that to define the last three years under Miles (as it stacks up to his predecessors) doesn't seem to be a good way to determine if someone is or isn't a good coach, or if a season is or isn't bad; the point of this thread, then, seems to be to find the positivity we can take from a numerically poor season, and I appreciate that kind of holistic approach. There's a lot to be encouraged by in this season, even if it didn't end well -- and that, at least in my eyes, actually includes the aggressiveness in scheduling and prioritizing a path to the NCAA tournament over the chance to pick up 22 (largely empty) wins. (Before anyone points out the obvious: no, no one is arguing against all that yet; this something of a pre-emptive commentary. And yes, I fully know you need to actually win games to make the NCAA tournament, and we didn't do enough of that, I'd say probably for a myriad of reasons, some of which are under Miles' control and some of which are not. I'm just pointing out that, unless wins -- any wins -- are the ONLY goal, they also can't be the only criteria -- and in that sense, hanging our hat on some moral victories isn't entirely inappropriate.)
  12. This Year Wasn't All That Bad

    I almost wish, instead of win-loss records, we had a way to figure RPI or included our SOS ranking with the record or something for a better picture of the overall year. I loved Doc, but if our current team traded schedules with one of his teams, I don't think any of us would be upset with the win-loss record. For reference, because I was curious, I actually looked up the 2010-11 schedule, which was Year 5 Doc...we went 7-9 in conference, but made it to the NIT after only losing two non-con games...because we played USC, Creighton, Vandy (lost that one) and everyone else pretty much had a "State" or a direction in their school name. Point being, it isn't really a true representation to compare wins and losses only between coaches sometimes, because I don't think anyone would argue that the level of competition was MUCH higher this year than basically any year in Doc's (or Barry's?) tenure. I'm not excusing the losses being as numerous as they were, but it only stands to reason that a harder schedule would yield more losses. If we wanted to be the SWAC champions again I'm sure we could, but this is the tradeoff for a better schedule, and honestly, considering the circumstances, I'm not really displeased about the results we got. The timing of the last slump was poor, of course, because that's what we'll focus on going into next year...but I'm glad someone brought up the cool moments and unlikely accomplishments this team had prior to the last two weeks.
  13. Ugh, this is my least favorite part of March Madness (and the lead-up to it now, I guess), when we start talking about how much better Player McPlayerson from Directional U is than our own roster. I like UNO and love that they made a good run -- but this is also a team that had 100 points dropped on them THREE times this season (by Rice, Oral Roberts and Fort Wayne), who was swept by Fort Wayne, and who had a 7-6 non-con record (with a win over Iowa but double-digit losses to USC, KState, Rice, Eastern Michigan, Iowa State, and Pitt -- average margin of loss was 19 points). Do they have a player or two who might contribute here? Sure, in a bench role, they might. But let's also feed Ed Morrow or Jack McVeigh a steady diet of those games and see what they look like. Again, I like UNO. Glad they made it as far as they did. They score points a lot so their horrible defense isn't as glaring and they can be fun to watch. But I'll take our guys pretty much any day of the week. (back to lurkerdom...)
  14. Crowd at Iowa game

    I kind of think part of what made that Wisconsin game so incredible was the "can we really do this? it's been SO long" feeling that went with it. We were making history. There was an excitement that this could FINALLY be the year we break the almost-20-year curse. So to that degree, I hope at least that part is something we don't experience again, if it means waiting another 15 years to have a game with that kind of hope associated with it. Back to lurkdom...
×