Jump to content

NUdiehard

Members
  • Content count

    345
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by NUdiehard

  1. NUdiehard

    Roby (is Good)

    Miles doesn’t have to listen to anybody. He is the head coach. He can do whatever he wants. Never meant to suggest otherwise.
  2. NUdiehard

    Roby (is Good)

    1. For the first half of the season Roby was only playing 19 minutes per game on average. He averaged just 24 minutes per game for the entire season, which is less than Anton Gill and Evan Taylor. 2. If Roby didn't have the "confidence" to be more of a playmaker, gee, I wonder why? Roby would get pulled out of the game and ripped on time and time again for any small mistake. We all saw it. If you were Roby, and you knew you were going get benched and ripped if you made a single mistake, would you be overly-aggressive in attacking the basket or trying to shoot or create or make things happen? Heck, one time he got yanked and ripped for being called for an illegal screen when two Minnesota players simply ran into each other. And the argument that he couldn't play longer because of fouls doesn't hold water because by the end of the year was playing over 30 minutes a game which proves he could. 3. I don't have much inside info to share with this board, but I do happen to know that there were prominent people around the basketball program who were imploring Miles last season to make Roby a more prominent part of the offense and to quit pulling him out of the game every time he made a little mistake 4. I agree that more shots will decrease his efficiency, that is going to be true with any player. But the odds are that he will still be more efficient than average. Palmer finished the year shooting under 31% from 3. That is not efficient at all. Palmer is awesome. He was awesome last year and carried the team though a stretch in the middle of the season. But then when his shot quit falling towards the end of the season, there was no plan B. Roby should have been groomed to be plan B or even A throughout the entire season, but he was not. There were very few sets that were run through Roby. My observation was that mindset was never instilled into Roby by Miles or the coaching staff. 5. Somebody above said Copeland was our most efficient offensive player, but that is not correct. Copeland shot 37% from 3 and 47% overall. Roby shot 40.5% on 3 (granted on much lower volume, but that is partly my point) and a whopping 56.5% overall. And this may surprise some, but Roby actually shot and made more free throws than Copeland on the year even though Copeland played 31 minutes/game and Roby only 24/game. Oh, and Roby averaged more rebounds than Copeland per game even though he played 7 minutes less per game. Not to mention twice as many blocks. 6. I hope all of this is water under the bridge. Last year is over. The hope is that lessons have been learned and Miles and staff now understand what they have in Roby and tailor their offense (and defense) to maximize his production and involvement in every aspect. Roby is not just "potential". He is the best player on the team right now. The best player should be the focal point, but we'll have to see if it plays out that way.
  3. NUdiehard

    Roby (is Good)

    Roby is the best player on the team. Last year he was woefully underutilized on offense. Roby was by far the most efficient scorer on the team and was one of the most efficient scorers in the B1G. He should be the focal point of the offense and most sets should run through him. The days of Palmer shooting 15-20 times every game should be over and Miles should be exhorting Roby to be more aggressive and looking to both score and create for others. He also should have the green light to bring the ball up the court on a good portion of his defensive rebounds.
  4. NUdiehard

    Let me get this straight...

    Norm on this one I 100% agree with you (and LadyHusker) and frankly I am shocked by how poorly Moos handled his situation and am just as shocked that all true Husker Hoops fans can’t see that. Thers were only 2 viable options for Moos after the end is the season: 1. Immediately give Miles at least a 2 year extension; or 2. Fire Miles and hire “his” coach Playing the waiting game and putting out feelers and then giving just a token 1 year extension was the worst thing he could do and if I/we/you have to take the time to repeatedly explain why then it’s not worth the effort because some will just never get it.
  5. Miles needs to recruit some guys who can shoot the ball. The modern game is all about space and pace and shooting 3s and driving to the rim. Need shooters do space the floor get easy points and open the paint. As for this game: Copeland played 31 minutes and had 2 rebounds and poor defense. Watson. 3-12 Palmer 5-15 (including a meaningless cheapy at end) Didn’t look like a tourney team tonight in any respect. At some point a program like NU has to earn respect rather than whining about adversity
  6. Copeland has played 24 minutes and has 1 rebound
  7. Coaching incompetence. Quit guarding him so far out on the perimeter
  8. Why are they guarding that guy so tight way out on the perimeter? Why?!?
  9. Copeland’s defense has been atrocious so far
  10. What’s the point of having a wider 3 Point Ln. if you’re not going to call three seconds?
  11. NUdiehard

    Scheduling is everything

    Everyone is focusing way too much on Nebraska's non-conference schedule. What doomed NU from the start is the collective poor performance of OTHER Big 10 teams in the non-conf. The most important factor in having a chance to get into the dance is having ALL Big 10 teams do well in the non-conference. Those bad losses by teams like PSU and Iowa, Illinois, were absolute killers, not only for those teams that lost, but for ALL teams in the B1G. When those other B1G teams lose in non-conference, they bring their poor RPI into the conference, and that brings down every conference team because even beating those teams can actually drop your RPI. It makes it impossible to get multiple Quad 1 wins, etc. If every team in the Big could come into conference with an RPI of 75 or better, that would allow all teams multiple, multiple, multiple changes at Quad 1 wins. And apparently it doesn't matter how many you lose (ie, Oklahoma) as long as you rack up a few wins. Thus, no more laughing when Iowa or Illinois loses to Sisters-of-the-Poor in non-conference because that loss could potentially hurt us as much as them.
  12. NUdiehard

    The Big 10

    This X 1000. The lesson we need to all learn from this year is that what matters most is the collective success of ALL Big 10 teams in the non-conference. When our fellow B1G teams struggle or have bad losses in the non-conference, it absolutely crushes the chances of teams like Nebraska trying to get into the Dance because even 13 wins in conference play don't mean a thing because the conference is seen as being full of bad teams. Once league play starts, all the low (or even average or middle) RPI Big 10 teams hurt all the other teams and the cycle never ends. The factor of most importance is to have ALL (or as many as possible) Big 10 teams do well in non-conf. and all have good RPIs going into to conference play because if they don't then it is almost impossible for a team to move up in RPI no matter how many wins. Those terrible losses by teams like Iowa and Penn State this season in non-conf. were killers, for all teams in Big except the top 3 which just were so good and had such good non-conf. wins to overcome it.
  13. The question of whether college athletes should be paid is certainly not new, but it has resurfaced in a significant way due to the recent leaks of FBI investigations and wiretaps, etc. Based on the responses in twitterverse, this issue seems to be almost as divisive and polarizing as many of the significant political and social issues of our day. But as with most such discussion in the social media realm, it seems to be couched in absolutes with little room for discussion or nuance. This post is an attempt to bring legitimate thought and debate to this issue--hopefully without hostility and condescension. First, I will buck the usual format and state my current (personal) position/conclusion before getting into the basis/reasons for that conclusion. The reason is because I anticipate some hostility from the "players are being exploited and should be paid" crowd. I am not against players being paid in the absolute, even though many of my thoughts may seem that way. In fact, I would completely support a "cash stipend" being paid to college athletes (much like they have already started in football), but with this said, my feeling is that it should be a universal stipend that is binding on all schools and is the same for all players in that sport. For instance, all div. 1 college basketball players could be paid a stipend of $10,000 per year (the number could be debated and I am open to more or less, as long as it is within that range; but I don't believe it should or could be a whole lot (ie, $100,000 or $1,000,000 ). This would be in addition to their scholarship, training table access, athletic hear, travel, and all the other perks they receive. Now onto the basis for that position. There are some common themes that are often cited in this debate, but the question is "are they really true". Those in support of paying players often argue that the players are being exploited and it is unfair. There may be some truth to this, but the question is to what extent. The "pay the players" supporters frequently make the blanket argument that "it is the athletes that are generating all this money and therefore they should get their fair share of the money." They also argue that the "college athlete" is a sham and we need to just accept that college is now the minor leagues of professional sports and therefore college players should be paid accordingly. The pay-the-players supporters see the huge contracts being signed by NBA players (including the infamous one-and-dones) and conclude that since those athletes are worth millions in the NBA that each college team's star players must be worth a similar amount for their one or two years in college. But is this really correct? When valuing talented players, it seem to me that most people just look at all the money being earned by the schools and the "NCAA" and simply conclude it must be due to the players. But they fail to properly account for the value of the "brand". Is it the players that are worth so much and draw all those eyeballs to arenas and TVs? Or is it really the brand? By the brand, I mean the school/team in college and the team/organization in the NBA. For reasons I will explain, it seems to me the true value is much more a result of the brand than the individual players. Let's take our own favorite school good ol' Nebraska as a prime example. Nebraska has virtually sold out its 15,000 + seat arena every year for the past 5 years. Nebraska fans also watch the games on TV and support their program and cheer on their favorite players. Yet, in those past 5 years, how many NBA quality players has Nebraska had? Answer: None (at least to this point). So, if players were to be paid their "intrinsic worth", how much would the players on Nebraska have been paid in 2012/13? 2013/14? 2014/15? and so forth? Excluding this year, the best player at NU in the past 6 years was Terran Petteway. So should he have been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars. I mean, he 'packed the vault" right? So wasn't he largely the reason for bringing in all that revenue . . . or was he? As we all know, Terran left early for his shot at the NBA, and after a year in the D-League (in which he probably "earned" about $45,000 (which just happens to be very similar to what a full-ride scholarship with all the perks, training table, etc. is probably worth at NU). And what is the D-league anyway? It is a developmental league for the NBA. I have not researched it, but I highly doubt the D-league self-generates enough money to pay its players even those rather meager salaries--it is subsidized by the NBA (which has an established "brand" to generate value. When Terran as at NU, 15,000+ would pack the house to watch him play. How many people went to watch him play on his D-league team? Based on my (admittedly very quick google search) research, D-league games average a couple thousand fans per game. But wait! Wouldn't we all agree that even the worst D-League team has FAR more talent than any team Nebraska or even almost any other college team ever has. The D-League is full of players like Terran who were "the show" on their college team, but not quite at NBA talent. I highly doubt there is a college team today that could beat even the worst D-League team. Yet the college teams are generating 15,000+ attendance while the D-league teams are generating a couple thousand. And this doesn't even factor in TV, radio, etc. Has anyone on this board ever watched an entire D-League game? Can you even name 3 teams in the D-league (and as a note I know it is now called the G-League but we all know it as D-League so Gatorade will just have to deal with it). Let's look at this another way. If elite players who have just graduated from high school are really so intrinsically valuable and are being exploited, then why doesn't someone (how about champion of the cause Jay Bilas) simply form a new league called the "We're not going to take being exploited any more" league and then get all these intrinsically valuable high school graduates (who don't yet qualify for NBA) and make millions and millions of dollars off of their intrinsic value that has for too long been exploited. Wouldn't this be the American Way. In fact, Lavar Ball actually suggested he was going to do this very thing. But the reality is he hasn't and he never will. And neither will anyone else IMO. Why? Because it would fail miserably and lose money and be bankrupt within 2 years. Why? Because "fans" don't pay real money for season tickets or game tickets, etc, to see the latest high school kid who they have never heard of but are told he can really dunk well but happens to play on a team they have never heard of in a league they have never heard of. Why? because the fans have no affiliation with that "brand" . The reality is that the fans are loyal to the brand, not the high school recruits. I am a Nebraska fan first and foremost, not a Terran Petteway fan, or David Rivers fan. Do I become a fan of the player once they play here? Absolutely. But that is only because they came to play for my "team" The team, the program, the brand is always first and foremost. This is why I am a huge fan of Ed Morrow when he steps on the PBA court with a Husker jersey on. But as soon as he switches that jersey and goes to Marquette, I don't follow him, cheer him, or really think about him anymore. Who do I cheer for? Whoever is wearing the Scarlet and Cream. Heck, I have cheered more for Mike Peltz than I ever have for Jahlil Okafor, Lonzo Ball, or any other high draft pick who played on another team. And certainly more than a D-league player on a team I have never heard of. One more thought. Most of the pay-for-pay supporters use high NBA draft picks and one-and-done type players to argue their point. Yet there are over 350 Div 1 college basketball teams at 13 players per team equals over 4,500 Div 1 college basketball players. And yet people are basing their arguments on a very, very small and select few of those players. Now I will explain why even those elite players do not significantly bring value to the brand. Let's say Lavar Ball did form his "exploited players" league and the top 30 high school recruits all went and played in this league (and I don't know the exact number but I am quite confident that on average there are less than 30 one-and-dones draft into the NBA each year). If this happened, according to the pay-the-players supporters, this should significantly reduce the value of college basketball programs and the NCAA. But would it? I don't think it would have much effect at all, if any. In fact, it might even increase the value. Why? Because it would bring more parity to all the teams. As mentioned, NU has not had a single NBA player in almost 20 years. Yet Husker fans keep coming and coming and coming. College basketball fans don't need NBA caliber talent to enjoy and support and pay to watch their team. Why? Because we support the brand not the players. If a new league sucked up all the one-and-dones, it would simply mean that all schools would be similar to Nebraska and have to find ways to recruit the "not quite NBA" talented players, coach them up, and compete. Plus, it might actually result in they players staying in school longer, which builds up even more brand/team/player loyalty. The value is in the brand and the fan loyalty to the brand, not the individual elite players. One more thought. Some people say "why not just let the players sell their "likeness" or identity like pro players can. I can see why people would think this way from a players stand point. But IMO, this could be winning the battle but losing the war. I believe this type of approach might be the one thing that could kill the brand loyalty that has been built up for so many years. We all know what would happen, right? Those schools that have huge big dollar donors would get all the best players. Why? Because those donors would pay the best prospects huge money for "advertising" or "marketing" or whatever just to get those players to come to "their" school. It is already bad now, but this would end any semblance of parity. The same 10 teams with the big booster would get the best every year and win every year. Coaches wouldn't even have to recruit. Just send an email saying how much T-Boone will pay and it will be a done deal within minutes. Nothing to do with the school, or coach, or academics, or teammates, etc. Just a paycheck. There would be no way the lesser schools without those big donors could complete, and eventually the impending doom of futiliy would catch up with even the most ardent fans and they would just give up. This would result in 340 of the 350 teams having little or no hope and therefore no support and no fans and ultimately the end of college basketball altogether. Well, I may have set a record for longest post ever so I will stop. But I am open to thoughts, counter-arguments, etc. And mods, please don't move this to another forum. I think it relates to Husker Hoops as much as many topics and it is a issue of interest to almost all Husker Hoops fans I am sure.
  14. Nobody is legislating anyone’s earning power. Nobody is forcing them to go to college. If you think they have more value then you should start a new league and sign them and make millions.
  15. NUdiehard

    Iowa (11-11) vs. Nebraska (15-8) Game Thread

    And since you live by this philosophy I’m sure you have never had an opinion or taken a negative stance on a decision made by our president or representatives in congress since you don’t know how to write a legislative bill or executive order.
  16. NUdiehard

    How many future pros are on our roster?

    X 1000. Been saying this for weeks. Roby should be shooting, driving and and having plays run for him to score at least 10+ times every game. Plus, this team needs to learn how to pass. Roby is open on his rolls off pick n rolls 70% of the time and teammates never find him. Unfortunately for Roby he is best passer on team and he can’t pass to hinself. This is also on Miles. He needs to communicate this and make it part of the game plan
  17. NUdiehard

    How many future pros are on our roster?

    Roby uses his length, athleticism and quick hands to get his hands (cleanly) on the ball and refs call a foul not because they actually see a foul but simply because they see something they rarely if ever see which results in a loose ball and conclude it must be a foul because no one else is able to swipe a ball like that without fouling. This is why I can’t stand refs because they don’t call what they actually see they call what they anticipate seeing. Then, after he picks up early quick fouls he has to play more “cautious” to avoid fouling out.
  18. Copeland didn’t box out againCopeland didn’t box out again
  19. Only 3 minutes left. Gimme a break
  20. Why is Miles putting Jordy in now?
  21. Only difference is the Rutgers guy flopped.
  22. Evan just drove into 3 defenders Roby wide open
  23. Roby does things average players can’t so refs just call foul assuming he must have fouled because other players can’t do what he does without fouling. Mind numbing
  24. Palmer a joy to watch. Hope those scouts are distracted don’t want him to get any ideas.
×