ladyhusker

Or we were athletic enough (and prepared well enough) that short prep time didn't affect us the way it might a less athletic or less prepared team? IIRC our opponents had more of a normal rest period (or at least more than one day) prior to our games against them, at least for the most part.

This is true. So I started playing with Illinois scenarios and, sadly, we need them to pull out some decent wins the rest of the way to wind up as the 7 seed. Short of winning out, we're in 8-9-10 seed land, and if we want to avoid an 8-9 matchup with them (with Michigan on deck, yikes) I guess they need to win a bunch in a hurry. Ugh, this is miserable.

Playing around on the bracket generator...if we win two the rest of the way, we stay out of the bunny bracket (and there are scenarios that aren't too insane to keep us out of that bracket even with one more win). If we win 2 or 3 (or even 4), we're most likely looking at a rematch with either Illinois or Ohio State, with either Michigan or Michigan State on deck. So I guess I'm not counting on too many wins in the BTT. I know they say they don't pay attention to conference standings, but these guys don't live in a bubble either...I guess I'd just feel more comfortable with them dropping back to nothingness, although maybe it solidifies the "parity in the amazing Big Ten" argument this year too.

Question: Do we think it's better for Illinois to win (and keep their current lead over us in the Big Ten standings) or Wisconsin, who is already pretty much locked in ahead of us unless they absolutely tank the whole rest of the season? I know the committee CAN leapfrog teams in the conference standings (i.e. take the 5th place team but not the 4th...) but personally I think I'd feel a little better seeing Illinois dropping below us in conference W-L record. Wisconsin may be slumping but they're ranked nationally; Illinois still has a losing record overall and I'd rather put them in our rearview mirror in the standings. But maybe I'm wrong?

If I understand correctly, the guys get game tickets, dinner the night before, some stuff the day of, and whatever apparel they walk out in at the game. But paying for travel would get pretty insane with THAT many years of former players, which is why you pretty much see the locals every year + a few out-of-towners who come back in for it. Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

No joke...especially when you consider that we had one -- not a world-beater but at least another big body who had some skill for sure -- who took a crap on the team in July. I'm not saying we're undefeated or anything, but I do wonder sometimes what having another option to eat some minutes in the paint would have done. But that ship sailed, and Tanner has played his ass off, and I don't see how his mere presence somehow got the team to forget how to make layups. Correlation is not causation. Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

I always thought Bill in this game looked like a hemorrhoid. I'm quite disappointed to not spot him in this photo. (Suppose I should add Bill meaning the cartoon drawing, not Bill Moos.)

SPEAK FOR YOURSELF. I must have missed it getting that high, but that's nice. Didn't seem like I noticed it up there getting even close to that most of the game...and I was pretty invested, for the most part anyway. Do not step between a pregnant woman and her red meat.

I do think it's telling that they've all but given up on the Runza noise meter thing. Last night it went up a couple times but didn't really get much above 92. I was so looking forward to a free burger today, too, but I'm also five months pregnant and was out-shouting most of the sections around me, so there's that. Crowd was present for the most part, which I appreciate. But I'm not about to fall all over the place congratulating ourselves for how amazing we are. Help pitch in to earn me some Runza and then I'll start dropping accolades like "best ever" but I'm burger-less and hungry today (and the lunch I brought to work doesn't sound so wonderful right now) so nope.

This is awesome. God-willing, my husband and I hope to someday get to expand our family by adoption, although I don't know how that will look for us (I'd prefer via foster care, but we've got our first biological little one on the way now too so who knows what comes down the road after that). But there's a special place in my heart for people who open their homes to the joy adoption can bring. It's amazing. All the best to you and your family!

Fair, although I haven't looked to see when the criticism of the department started and if it possibly coincides with the "back off" directive (not sure which is the chicken and which is the egg, I guess). It's a violation if anyone who gives a dime to Athletics tweets at a recruit too, but I have to think he knows better than that too, given how long he's been working with the department in one capacity or another.

Where there's smoke... https://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/terps/tracking-the-terps/bs-sp-maryland-basketball-fbi-subpoenas-0706-story.html Granted, no actual charges yet, but also interesting that the assistant who recruited Bruno Fernando (and Silvio De Sousa) to Maryland -- a younger guy getting a name as a pretty great recruiter -- decided to leave fairly quickly in between these subpoenas being issued. He, of course, was the replacement to Dalonte Hill of $400K-a-year-at-K-State fame, which I have no doubt was reflective of his skills as a coach and not a slush fund whatsoever (who decided to leave that kind of paycheck voluntarily and take a pay cut to join a bright mind like Turgeon).

Brought in two years ago (for volleyball) and only recently asked to stop? With a staff of several full-time, law school-educated compliance officials whose job is literally to look for these exact circumstances? I mean...I guess it's possible. But with the way this policy seems to be kind of randomly enforced, that just seems unlikely to me, and it sure didn't sound like it was a temporary pause (albeit from the way he's portraying things, which may not be the most objective, but it seems pretty extreme to be this vocal about being told "hang on for a couple weeks while we submit some paperwork"). Bottom line: maybe it doesn't matter, but this just seems like an example where perhaps the administration could do better. If their purpose is to remove hurdles when possible, it seems counterintuitive to create policies that build them instead. Also I heard the "Andre Dagunduro" reference too...thought I misheard it, but nope, guess not. Although I'd chalk that one up more to Boehm not being a very polished public speaker than to some sort of administrative ignorance. Had he referred to him as "Aid Dagunduro", as in lemon or lime...THEN I might be a little more wary.

Whoa that was a good listen @hhcmatt. I hadn't heard it yet but yeah...sounds like he could bring some much-needed perspective that a coach entrenched in it may not come up with independently (and he wouldn't have a business if other coaches didn't find that valuable, so I don't see it as a negative on a coach to want to bring in that type of training, whether it's Miles or Cook or whoever else he's worked with). That policy seems even more asinine after listening to him.

Totally get that it isn't basketball-specific, but it does seem like a weird policy, especially since it seems to be sort of randomly applied (Volleyball was allowed to work with him for the majority of their season, and does anyone really think that if Scott Frost wanted to have someone come in to talk to the football team, it wouldn't be permitted?). Maybe it doesn't make a difference at all, I don't know. But if it isn't costing anything, and the coach feels like it's worthwhile, and literally the same person has seen good results with other teams within the same department, I guess it seems like an odd policy to enact. If it flips even a single game outcome (and gives us a two or three or four game losing streak instead of the continuous slide as we bottom out), isn't that worth it? Again, not saying THIS is the reason we're losing. But the question was about support shown for the coaches by the administration, and this is one example of a place where there was a very easy opportunity to provide something the coach felt was useful (without adding a penny to the budget or a minute of time spent) and instead a random policy was enacted, thus denying said support.

Ew. It's one thing to cover for your player who steals a bike or cheats on a test. But covering for your player who habitually rapes people (and using a ministry to do it) is a whole other level. I'm not asking for a saint but this should be a pretty low bar to clear. UCLA caught plenty of flak for hiring him after that (and there were plenty of protests at Iowa too), as they should. I'm not a fan of how Osborne handled stuff in the 90s either (arguably it cost him the governor's mansion too), but I would hope we could learn from that and do better now. "Hire someone who doesn't try to actively cover up serial rape" shouldn't be a groundbreaking statement. Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

From CBS Chicago in 2013: Pierre Pierce performed unwanted sex acts on a female student at his apartment, covering her mouth when she tried to scream. He eventually plea-bargained to a charge of assault causing injury, later issuing a public apology for “inappropriate sexual contact with a fellow student.” Had Alford succeeded in his efforts to strong-arm the victim, it all would have evaporated. The disgusting ploy backfired, however, and only steeled her resolve to pursue criminal charges. Alford enlisted the help of close friend Jim Goodrich, the campus representative for Christian group Athletes in Action who often traveled with the team and conducted bible-study sessions. Per specific instruction from Alford, the victim was invited to what she was told was a “prayer meeting,” at which she was urged to back off and not cause problems for a basketball program that could overpower her. This could describe James Naismith and I would beg for someone else. If we have even a shred of decency we will stay far, far, far away from Steve Alford.

From a couple pages back...I think this is a bigger deal than the airtime it's receiving. You had a resource being given freely to the AD (if you follow Twitter you see that his services were on a volunteer basis, so it didn't even cost the department a penny) that clearly was effective -- the volleyball team certainly benefitted from his services, and the basketball team looked entirely different in November (before he was axed) than it does now. But the administration, who allegedly is committed to providing all the resources the team needs for success, intentionally eliminated this one. Why? (If you want to say that this should be the coach's job, I hope you'd tell John Cook the same thing and to give back that national championship.) Support doesn't have to mean a nice facility to practice. It doesn't have to mean a big buyout. Sometimes it can just mean showing a modicum of interest in the program, and not cutting out the resource the coach himself identified as being a need for his team.

YEP -- and games don't happen in a vacuum. If they win that game, do they have a confidence boost to win any subsequent games, rather than get mired in the quicksand that losing can be? Not to give us more credit than we deserve, because maybe they do wind up losing all these other games too anyway, but especially when you're talking about college dudes, it's naive to pretend that one game can't have an effect on the next.

That's probably fair to say. I just meant this more in the sense that Miles didn't cause Nana to struggle by diminishing his playing time after his performance and hustle has been visibly subpar. Chicken and egg I guess.

His dad also left Minnesota with more than 100 NCAA violations, in the 70s, when rules were a lot more lax than they are now. Eric may be very different from his dad, but if that's who he learned under, it does make you wonder. This also assumes game performance is the only criteria for playing time in subsequent games and that practice performance has no bearing on it (nor do illness/injury status). Unless I'm remembering incorrectly, Nana's biggest minutes came when Thomas and Roby were ill, and when he was hustling and busting his butt on the court. His minutes have dwindled with a., healthy starters (aside from Cope), and b., visible effort on the court. His role on a nightly basis (and daily, in practice) should be to work his tail off on defense and let his game come to him to score as needed. Have you seen either of those things lately? I might be old-school but it seems to me he needs to earn his playing time, not just be given more of it in hopes that he gets back to where he was before.

@Rachoo If there was a way to upvote this more than once, I would. You absolutely NAILED it -- or should I say, as a former player, you understand better than most, and it makes me feel better that I agree fully with you.

Interestingly, if you recalled earlier in the season, Miles seemed to agree at least in part that team psych maybe isn't his strong suit, and brought in Jack Riggins, a former Navy SEAL who also worked with the volleyball team, to help improve that area. If you follow Twitter recently, it seems Bill Moos shut that down and no longer allows Captain Jack to work with the team. Seems a shame from where I sit that someone volunteering their services (as he mentioned on Twitter he was), so costing the AD nothing, and providing what sounded like good results to the team, was prohibited from working with them any longer, especially when it appears his services could be really worthwhile right now. (And before it goes there: unless you have a knock with John Cook using the same guy, don't say "this is the coach's job".) Edited to include the tweet referenced here:

Not arguing that Nebraska has more butts in the seats, and when it's said and done we may pay more than Penn State (purely conjecture, who knows at this point -- that's also straight school money, not counting any perks packages, which I would guess are significant if they work that hard to keep pay numbers out of the public record)...I was just countering the idea that we are willing to pay 2-3 times the salary, which I have a very very hard time believing would be true. Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Apropos of nothing, Pat Chambers is not making $900K. That's the last reported figure from when he was first hired (and regurgitated in 2013 because Pennsylvania's Right to Know laws don't cover coach salaries). He signed a new contract last year, but the salary number isn't available -- but I would bet (900K) dollars to donuts that he's had a raise of some sort in 7 years. Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk