Offseason Potpourri

[49r]

Yeah but if Copeland isn't eligible for the first 7 games of the season then all hope is lost.  He's the ONLY one that will be able to take us to the promised land.

 

Keep that in mind.

[khoock]

Is it only seven games??? Thats not bad at all then.

[49r]

No it's probably more than that.  Last year we played 9 games before graduation.

[Norm Peterson]

1 hour ago, 49r said:

No it's probably more than that.  Last year we played 9 games before graduation.

 

Because of the new Big Ten schedule thing, we're probably looking at 1 or 2 more games before graduation than in years past.

[Dead Dog Alley]

Hopefully the two Big Ten games are ones that Copeland probably wouldn't change the outcome of, ideally I'd say Rutgers at home and Michigan State on the road.  I'm guessing one will be home and one away, so you wouldn't want either to be a toss-up game.  If you get, say, an Iowa/Michigan/Wisconsin/Maryland type game at home, and an Illinois/Rutgers/Ohio State type game on the road, you could realistically go 0-2 without Copeland and 2-0 with him.

 

The other games that I'd feel a lot better having Copeland in the lineup would be at St. John's, the Advocare game 1 and Advocare game 3 (not game 2 because they should be able to get by Marist without him and that West Virginia would be a tough one either way), and at Creighton.  Also you have to worry about losing a game or two early in the second semester that they wouldn't otherwise, while he's settling into the lineup.  So the impact on the W/L column could be significant.

[hhcmatt]

5 hours ago, 49r said:

Yeah but if Copeland isn't eligible for the first 7 games of the season then all hope is lost.  He's the ONLY one that will be able to take us to the promised land.

 

Keep that in mind.

 

You can keep poo-pooing this but Copeland's good enough to where you might win 1-3 more of those 10 games. Is that the difference between staying home and postseason or NIT and NCAA? Is that the difference between Miles being extended or fired?

[AuroranHusker]

Copeland is the real deal. Nebraska needs this guy as much as anyone on the roster.

 

 

[hhcmatt]

Glynn on his way to Adidas Camp

 

 

[nustudent]

54 minutes ago, hhcdimes said:

 

You can keep poo-pooing this but Copeland's good enough to where you might win 1-3 more of those 10 games. Is that the difference between staying home and postseason or NIT and NCAA? Is that the difference between Miles being extended or fired?

 

Nonsense.    Common sense is not allowed here 

[Norm Peterson]

4 minutes ago, nustudent said:

 

Nonsense.    Common sense is not allowed here 

 

C'mon, that's a canard.  Some people want to claim victimhood by pretending their views aren't allowed on this site and that's basically never been the case.  I've only ever seen people object that they don't want their noses continuously rubbed in poo by the "realists" on here.  The "realists" do not have a monopoly on common sense, nor is their viewpoint systematically silenced.  

 

The views on Copeland fall into about 4 categories:

 

1.  It's a big deal as to when he's eligible because if we don't have him for the first 10 games, our whole season will be crap.

2.  It's important as to when he's eligible because he could potentially tip the scales in a few of those early games and the added losses could mean the difference between dancing and not.

3.  It would be better to have him than not, but there's nothing we can do about it, I'd rather have him for 2/3 of the season than not at all, so I'm not going to play the "what if" game.

4.  Sometimes you're missing a guy because of injury, sometimes because he's not eligible for the first 10 games, and either way you have to be ready to go play and have someone step in and step up, so I'm not going to lose sleep over this.

 

I don't think any of those perspectives lack "common sense."

[nustudent]

44 minutes ago, Norm Peterson said:

 

C'mon, that's a canard.  Some people want to claim victimhood by pretending their views aren't allowed on this site and that's basically never been the case.  I've only ever seen people object that they don't want their noses continuously rubbed in poo by the "realists" on here.  The "realists" do not have a monopoly on common sense, nor is their viewpoint systematically silenced.  

 

The views on Copeland fall into about 4 categories:

 

1.  It's a big deal as to when he's eligible because if we don't have him for the first 10 games, our whole season will be crap.

2.  It's important as to when he's eligible because he could potentially tip the scales in a few of those early games and the added losses could mean the difference between dancing and not.

3.  It would be better to have him than not, but there's nothing we can do about it, I'd rather have him for 2/3 of the season than not at all, so I'm not going to play the "what if" game.

4.  Sometimes you're missing a guy because of injury, sometimes because he's not eligible for the first 10 games, and either way you have to be ready to go play and have someone step in and step up, so I'm not going to lose sleep over this.

 

I don't think any of those perspectives lack "common sense."

 

The fact of the matter is this...the view on Copeland falls into one singular category.   We have more potential with him than we do without him.   

He's at worst the second most accomplished player on the roster based on performance to date.   Is it possible to be successful without him?   Sure it is.  Technically anything is possible.   But do our odd for success go up exponentially with him as opposed to without him.   Absolutely.   

 

Don't buy the two sided coin view on him.   We (message board posters) don't get to hype him as our first 5* and talk about how great he is and then turn around and say out the other side of their mouth that it's no big deal if he misses 10 games.   

 

Certainly seems like we have a number of posters here talking Copeland up about how good he is (and I agree, he has a very high ceiling) but then dismissing his absence when he might not be eligible.  Generally when a team loses one of its top players, it experiences a setback.  Which is it.  Copeland is either good and his loss hurts or if his loss doesn't hurt, it probably means he's not that special.  Always amazes me how things get played on both sides here.

Edited August 4, 2017 by nustudent

[Norm Peterson]

Granted @nustudent Copeland is a great player.  I agree with basically everything you say about him.  I indeed believe he could be a difference maker.  

 

If we don't have him, though, then we simply don't have him.  The coaches didn't screw up in not getting him eligible like someone apparently did with Roburt Sallie and  with Jorge Brian Diaz.  Copeland's outcome was basically fixed when he decided to transfer after playing a few games last season.  If the rules say we don't get him until 12/16/17, then that's what it is.

 

Acting like our season depends upon it is overstating things IMO.  We'd undoubtedly be better off if he was eligible all season long, but we'd also be better off if Tai Webster had an extra year of eligibility.  But he doesn't.  So why worry about it?  Why count some games in the mythical win column if he'd somehow been able to gain a 5th year and then compare that with the number of additional losses we might have without him and declare the season nearly a hopeless cause already?

 

I'm kind of with 49r on this.  If he's ruled eligible, then hallelujah.  If not, then let's buckle down and make the best of things.  I'm not prepared to throw in the towel on the season just because Copeland might not be eligible until game 10.

 

Yes, it would be better if we had Copeland all season long.  But, you go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you wish you had.

[Chuck Taylor]

I think we'll all be ready to put on our raccoon coats and lift our pennants high when the season starts, but there's good reason for "realism" about this season. We finished over 100 in most metrics last year with an abysmal record, then lost Tai and four other guys in the offseason. Norm, I know you think the team just got beaten down, but that's just a postseason analysis. Good teams don't get beaten down. We couldn't shoot and our defense wasn't good enough to make up the difference. 

 

Take Copeland out of the mix for part of the season, add the chemistry issues of blending him in later to a team that's picked to finish 10+ in the BIG and you've got something to be legitimately concerned about. For those of us who are "on the ledge" about not having Copeland, it's just a basketball issue, not a matter of loyalty. 

[hhcmatt]

6 hours ago, Norm Peterson said:

If we don't have him, though, then we simply don't have him.  The coaches didn't screw up in not getting him eligible like someone apparently did with Roburt Sallie and  with Jorge Brian Diaz.  Copeland's outcome was basically fixed when he decided to transfer after playing a few games last season.  If the rules say we don't get him until 12/16/17, then that's what it is.

 

Agree. It's not going to be the staff's (or administration's) fault if Copeland isn't ruled eligible by the NCAA.

If he doesn't play in the first half of the season and we're short handed the staff has culpability if we ultimately start the season with 2 unused scholarships.

[49r]

10 hours ago, nustudent said:

 

Is it possible to be successful without him?   Sure it is.  Technically anything is possible.   But do our odd for success go up exponentially with him as opposed to without him.   Absolutely.

  

 

This is about as hyperbolic as things get, I'd imagine...

[49r]

...besides, do we really want to pin all our hopes on a guy who - be honest - you probably never heard of while he was at Georgetown, that is also coming off back surgery?

[49r]

Check out what the blog that @kldm64 posted in the other thread had to say about Copeland:

 

Quote

Who’s In: 

Nebraska adds two transfers who should join the starting lineup immediately, Isaac Copeland and James Palmer. Isaac Copeland is a 6-9 combo forward who is plagued by inconsistency. At times Copeland looks like an NBA prospect, but he also goes through long stretches where he is invisible on the court. Copeland only averaged 5.4 points in seven games last season before sitting out the remainder of the season with a back injury. As a sophomore, he averaged 11.1 points and 5.4 rebounds, which is a better indication of his talent. If Copeland can stay healthy and improve his inconsistent long-range shooting (27.2% in 15-16), then Nebraska will have a chance to climb the Big Ten standings.

 

Tell me...if that had been written about a Penn State player would you be worried about what he brings to the table for them?  Or that their postseason hopes hinge on him being available, and him alone?

[nustudent]

53 minutes ago, 49r said:

...besides, do we really want to pin all our hopes on a guy who - be honest - you probably never heard of while he was at Georgetown, that is also coming off back surgery?

 

Considering the potential talent and the makings of the team we have returning, he's a huge variable in the potential success of the team

[nustudent]

30 minutes ago, 49r said:

Check out what the blog that @kldm64 posted in the other thread had to say about Copeland:

 

 

Tell me...if that had been written about a Penn State player would you be worried about what he brings to the table for them?  Or that their postseason hopes hinge on him being available, and him alone?

 

Would we also have scoffed at the transfers of Penn State starters after the season because they had him coming in like many on here did?

[nustudent]

1 hour ago, hhcdimes said:

 

Agree. It's not going to be the staff's (or administration's) fault if Copeland isn't ruled eligible by the NCAA.

If he doesn't play in the first half of the season and we're short handed the staff has culpability if we ultimately start the season with 2 unused scholarships.

This is where I am at.   I won't blame them specifically for him not being eligible.   But that leaves us basically without 3 scholarship spots for the first part of the season with lots of youth. inexperience and uncertainty mixed in to the remaining 10.  

Ultimately, all that matters is the season's performance.   Copeland's absence just lowers the ceiling.

[hhcmatt]

56 minutes ago, 49r said:

...besides, do we really want to pin all our hopes on a guy who - be honest - you probably never heard of while he was at Georgetown, that is also coming off back surgery?

 

You ever heard of Andrew White before he thought about transferring here?  Do you think he could have helped last year? 

[nustudent]

8 hours ago, Norm Peterson said:

Granted @nustudent Copeland is a great player.  I agree with basically everything you say about him.  I indeed believe he could be a difference maker.  

 

If we don't have him, though, then we simply don't have him.  The coaches didn't screw up in not getting him eligible like someone apparently did with Roburt Sallie and  with Jorge Brian Diaz.  Copeland's outcome was basically fixed when he decided to transfer after playing a few games last season.  If the rules say we don't get him until 12/16/17, then that's what it is.

 

Acting like our season depends upon it is overstating things IMO.  We'd undoubtedly be better off if he was eligible all season long, but we'd also be better off if Tai Webster had an extra year of eligibility.  But he doesn't.  So why worry about it?  Why count some games in the mythical win column if he'd somehow been able to gain a 5th year and then compare that with the number of additional losses we might have without him and declare the season nearly a hopeless cause already?

 

I'm kind of with 49r on this.  If he's ruled eligible, then hallelujah.  If not, then let's buckle down and make the best of things.  I'm not prepared to throw in the towel on the season just because Copeland might not be eligible until game 10.

 

Yes, it would be better if we had Copeland all season long.  But, you go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you wish you had.

 

Don't think the season necessarily depends on him.   But I don't think anyone can honestly say that we are better, or even at a similar level without him, than we are with him.   Our upside is far higher with him on the floor than it is with him in street clothes.

 

And yes, it may only be 9-10 games.   But as Dimes pointed out....does Copeland change the outcome in 2-3 of those games.   Those 2-3 games can mean the difference between 19 wins and 17 wins (NCAA vs. NIT) or 17 wins and 15 wins (NIT vs. Staying home).

 

Chemistry, experience and having the team mesh were already huge ?s.   Delaying Copeland's addition to the team only adds to that questions and delays things.

[hhcmatt]

13 minutes ago, nustudent said:

Chemistry, experience and having the team mesh were already huge ?s.   Delaying Copeland's addition to the team only adds to that questions and delays things.

 

Probably the silver lining for 2nd semester Copeland eligibility is that Kansas won't have any recent gametape on him which could work to our advantage.  After that we will have a couple of cream puff games to work out the kinks.

[Norm Peterson]

3 hours ago, Chuck Taylor said:

I think we'll all be ready to put on our raccoon coats and lift our pennants high when the season starts, but there's good reason for "realism" about this season. We finished over 100 in most metrics last year with an abysmal record, then lost Tai and four other guys in the offseason. Norm, I know you think the team just got beaten down, but that's just a postseason analysis. Good teams don't get beaten down. We couldn't shoot and our defense wasn't good enough to make up the difference. 

 

Take Copeland out of the mix for part of the season, add the chemistry issues of blending him in later to a team that's picked to finish 10+ in the BIG and you've got something to be legitimately concerned about. For those of us who are "on the ledge" about not having Copeland, it's just a basketball issue, not a matter of loyalty. 

 

I can respect that POV.

[49r]

31 minutes ago, nustudent said:

 

Would we also have scoffed at the transfers of Penn State starters after the season because they had him coming in like many on here did?

 

I don't see how that has any bearing at all on the discussion, but I will say that I defy you to find one single word that I have typed on here scoffing at our transfers out this year.