The Isaac Copeland watch

[FredsSlacks]

from what i heard, it's not likely he'll be eligible to start the season.

[hskr4life]

38 minutes ago, TimSmiles said:

from what i heard, it's not likely he'll be eligible to start the season.

 

Now this is new.  Please share!

[nustudent]

Not good if true

[colhusker]

11 hours ago, TimSmiles said:

from what i heard, it's not likely he'll be eligible to start the season.

This would suck, would not be surprised with how things go in the basketball offices but ugh if true.

[jimmykc]

Jimmy's rule: When decisions seem to drag on forever, the outcome is usually not favorable. Addendum: Especially true in cases involving Nebraska basketball.

[49r]

Jesus, let's just step off the ledge here a bit folks.

 

Anybody that thinks that one guy (who is coming off major back surgery and has had marginal success at the college level to date anyway) playing or not playing what amounts to probably just under a third of the season is going to make or break a whole season is probably going off the deep end here.

 

If this team is going to have any kind of success we're going to need about 10 guys to make an impact...all season.  If you really think that we need to have Copeland eligible from mid-November instead of mid-December in order to have any shot of reaching our goals then I'm sorry, but you really just WANT to feel persecuted.

 

...and if you really think this kind of thing (which would really only amount to the NCAA not granting a waiver) only happens to us, then man you don't pay much attention to college basketball.

[TourneyBound]

47 minutes ago, 49r said:

Jesus, let's just step off the ledge here a bit folks.

 

Anybody that thinks that one guy (who is coming off major back surgery and has had marginal success at the college level to date anyway) playing or not playing what amounts to probably just under a third of the season is going to make or break a whole season is probably going off the deep end here.

 

If this team is going to have any kind of success we're going to need about 10 guys to make an impact...all season.  If you really think that we need to have Copeland eligible from mid-November instead of mid-December in order to have any shot of reaching our goals then I'm sorry, but you really just WANT to feel persecuted.

 

...and if you really think this kind of thing (which would really only amount to the NCAA not granting a waiver) only happens to us, then man you don't pay much attention to college basketball.

With our December Schedule it sure would be nice to have him......  I could see him adding an additional win or 2 to our record by being immediately eligible. 

Edited August 2, 2017 by ConkintheCorner

[Norm Peterson]

38 minutes ago, ConkintheCorner said:

With our December Schedule it sure would be nice to have him......  I could see him adding an additional win or 2 to our record by being immediately eligible. 

 

Yeah, the year the Big Ten decides to have a couple of early games. 

 

Any other year, and Copeland not being eligible until December graduation wouldn't have been as big of a deal.

 

[aphilso1]

1 hour ago, 49r said:

Jesus, let's just step off the ledge here a bit folks.

 

Anybody that thinks that one guy (who is coming off major back surgery and has had marginal success at the college level to date anyway) playing or not playing what amounts to probably just under a third of the season is going to make or break a whole season is probably going off the deep end here.

 

If this team is going to have any kind of success we're going to need about 10 guys to make an impact...all season.  If you really think that we need to have Copeland eligible from mid-November instead of mid-December in order to have any shot of reaching our goals then I'm sorry, but you really just WANT to feel persecuted.

 

...and if you really think this kind of thing (which would really only amount to the NCAA not granting a waiver) only happens to us, then man you don't pay much attention to college basketball.

 

Disagree.    

 

Nebraska is not a team that is expected to be "safely in the tournament" by any metric or by any prognosticator.  In fact, I've yet to see anyone outside of this message board project us to even make the play-in game in Dayton.  So to put a number on it, our odds of making the Tournament in any capacity is likely below 30%.  That's a thin margin for error.

 

Now we take that thin margin for error and shave off even more of it.  Why?  Because the guy "who is coming off major back surgery" will now not be able to readjust to game speed during non-con.  No, now he'll be learning on the fly against the Michigan States and Wisconsins of the world.  It is NOT just an impact on the 1/3 of the games he's missing.  It's an impact on likely the next 1/3 of games as well.

 

So take a 30% chance of making the Dance, and then take one of your likely difference makers and make him sit on the bench for 1/3 of the season and have a reduced impact for another 1/3 of the season.  Now what do you put the odds at?  15%?  10%?  One or two wins is usually the difference between a bubble team making it or staying home.  It's not hard to see Copeland's ineligibilty swaying at least two games' results, if not more.

 

[nustudent]

1 hour ago, 49r said:

Jesus, let's just step off the ledge here a bit folks.

 

Anybody that thinks that one guy (who is coming off major back surgery and has had marginal success at the college level to date anyway) playing or not playing what amounts to probably just under a third of the season is going to make or break a whole season is probably going off the deep end here.

 

If this team is going to have any kind of success we're going to need about 10 guys to make an impact...all season.  If you really think that we need to have Copeland eligible from mid-November instead of mid-December in order to have any shot of reaching our goals then I'm sorry, but you really just WANT to feel persecuted.

 

...and if you really think this kind of thing (which would really only amount to the NCAA not granting a waiver) only happens to us, then man you don't pay much attention to college basketball.

That one guy is also arguably our most talented and certainly most highly touted player.  He's also the reason that many on here poo poo'd the departures of Morrow and Jacobson.

 

Coupled with the fact that you have a thin roster and inexperienced from the scope of playing together, you'd want to have him logging minutes as much as possible before Big 10 play starts.   Considering the fact that we've won more than 7 conference games only once in Miles tenure, also don't think it's entirely a good idea to have to expect to compensate/make up for the non con with Big 10 wins in order to achieve our goals.

 

I do agree with you in the sense that we shouldn't be feeling oppressed or screwed in him losing eligibility.   We rolled the dice and lost (if the news turns out to be true).   But that doesn't change the fact that on the surface, it is a major knock to achieving an NCAA bid.

[Norm Peterson]

Well, I'd rather have Copeland for 1 2/3 seasons than not have Copeland at all.

 

He's either going to be eligible to start the year or he isn't, and the time it took to get paperwork submitted is not at all likely to diminish the chances of prevailing in the appeal.
 

If he isn't going to be eligible to start the season, that die was cast long ago and if the appeal is ultimately rejected, then submitting the appeal sooner would just mean it would get rejected sooner.

 

I'd rather the coaches take their time with the appeal and get it as right as they can before it's submitted. 

 

[Norm Peterson]

Let me use a lottery analogy:

 

If I play the lottery and win, I win huge.

 

If I play the lottery and lose, I'm really in no worse position than I was when I started.  It's not like the lottery officials come take my house.

 

So it is with Copeland.

 

If we win the appeal, we win big by having him eligible all season.

 

If we lose the appeal, we're in no worse position than if we just accepted him as a mid-season transfer.

 

But we still have our house.  And we still have Copeland.

 

So, look on the bright side.

[49r]

5 minutes ago, Norm Peterson said:

 

Well, I'd rather have Copeland for 1 2/3 seasons than not have Copeland at all.

 

 

Yep.  Me too.  And if his impact to the team is SO great that missing him for the first month of the season will be the reason we miss the postseason, I'd argue that our team probably doesn't deserve the postseason if they can't get there without him for a few weeks anyway...

[hhcmatt]

1 hour ago, Norm Peterson said:

Well, I'd rather have Copeland for 1 2/3 seasons* than not have Copeland at all.

 

He's either going to be eligible to start the year or he isn't, and the time it took to get paperwork submitted is not at all likely to diminish the chances of prevailing in the appeal.
 

If he isn't going to be eligible to start the season, that die was cast long ago and if the appeal is ultimately rejected, then submitting the appeal sooner would just mean it would get rejected sooner.

 

I'd rather the coaches take their time with the appeal and get it as right as they can before it's submitted. 

 

 

* Assuming that he doesn't grad transfer/turn pro and you only get 2/3 of a season

[nustudent]

1 hour ago, Norm Peterson said:

Let me use a lottery analogy:

 

If I play the lottery and win, I win huge.

 

If I play the lottery and lose, I'm really in no worse position than I was when I started.  It's not like the lottery officials come take my house.

 

So it is with Copeland.

 

If we win the appeal, we win big by having him eligible all season.

 

If we lose the appeal, we're in no worse position than if we just accepted him as a mid-season transfer.

 

But we still have our house.  And we still have Copeland.

 

So, look on the bright side.

While true.   However....did us playing the lottery on Copeland, cost us in other facets.   Did Copeland's presence, or potential presence, impact the decisions of Morrow and/or Jacobson in their leaving?   Then we have to ask, if we are missing Copeland for the first 1/3 of the year, are their games mixed in there that would've/could've been won with Morrow or Jacobson?

[hskr4life]

13 minutes ago, nustudent said:

While true.   However....did us playing the lottery on Copeland, cost us in other facets.   Did Copeland's presence, or potential presence, impact the decisions of Morrow and/or Jacobson in their leaving?   Then we have to ask, if we are missing Copeland for the first 1/3 of the year, are their games mixed in there that would've/could've been won with Morrow or Jacobson?

 

I think Morrow and Jacobson were going to be gone either way.  Copeland just solidified their decisions.

[uneblinstu]

From the OWH:

 

>> The appeal for Copeland to become eligible the first semester instead of waiting to the end of the semester is still going through the process. Miles said the paperwork trail involves the Copeland family and the NCAA.

Edited August 2, 2017 by uneblinstu

[nustudent]

1 hour ago, 49r said:

 

Yep.  Me too.  And if his impact to the team is SO great that missing him for the first month of the season will be the reason we miss the postseason, I'd argue that our team probably doesn't deserve the postseason if they can't get there without him for a few weeks anyway...

 

Not sure that is fair.   The difference in making the NIT or not, could just be 2-3 games.  The difference in making the NCAA as opposed to the NIT could also just be a game or two.   I think it's fair to say that most 'expect' that Copeland will be one of the top 2 players on the team.   If that is the case, losing one of your top players can definitely impact a couple games.   And this doesn't apply to simply NU.   All bubble teams, would struggle if they lost their best player for 1/3 of the season. 

[nustudent]

13 minutes ago, hskr4life said:

 

I think Morrow and Jacobson were going to be gone either way.  Copeland just solidified their decisions.

 

Maybe.   I think each had concerns about fit here.   I think the potential impact of becoming reserves/bench players/playing out of position coupled with that fit only aggravated each situation

[hhcmatt]

25 minutes ago, uneblinstu said:

From the OWH:

 

>> The appeal for Copeland to become eligible the first semester instead of waiting to the end of the semester is still going through the process. Miles said the paperwork trail involves the Copeland family and the NCAA.

 

Good to hear that Copeland will probably be healthy should he be cleared.

[hhcmatt]

2 hours ago, 49r said:

 

Yep.  Me too.  And if his impact to the team is SO great that missing him for the first month of the season will be the reason we miss the postseason, I'd argue that our team probably doesn't deserve the postseason if they can't get there without him for a few weeks anyway...

 

Pretty big deal for a guy that potentially starts and plays 25-30 mpg

[Navin R. Johnson]

Copeland should have gone to Creighton. The NCAA would let him play immediately and probably give him an extra year or two as a bonus!

[Norm Peterson]

1 hour ago, nustudent said:

While true.   However....did us playing the lottery on Copeland, cost us in other facets.   Did Copeland's presence, or potential presence, impact the decisions of Morrow and/or Jacobson in their leaving?   Then we have to ask, if we are missing Copeland for the first 1/3 of the year, are their games mixed in there that would've/could've been won with Morrow or Jacobson?

 

Fair point. But I still think Copeland was worth the risk even if we lost Morrow and Jacobson as a result. Having watched Jacobson and Morrow for two seasons at Nebraska, I feel pretty confident that neither would be any more than a role player for a good team.  Copeland, on the other hand, has the ability to be a star for a good team. 

Edited August 2, 2017 by Norm Peterson

[49r]

48 minutes ago, nustudent said:

 

Not sure that is fair.   The difference in making the NIT or not, could just be 2-3 games.  The difference in making the NCAA as opposed to the NIT could also just be a game or two.   I think it's fair to say that most 'expect' that Copeland will be one of the top 2 players on the team.   If that is the case, losing one of your top players can definitely impact a couple games.   And this doesn't apply to simply NU.   All bubble teams, would struggle if they lost their best player for 1/3 of the season. 

 

My point is, if a third of a season of Copeland is going to be the difference between postseason or not, then we probably didn't deserve the postseason anyway.  Teams that make the postseason are able to withstand these kind of roster hits...they have to because it usually happens.

 

Being so one dimensional is exactly the kind of thing that killed our chances the past three years.  We HAVE to be better than just one guy.

[aphilso1]

21 minutes ago, 49r said:

 

My point is, if a third of a season of Copeland is going to be the difference between postseason or not, then we probably didn't deserve the postseason anyway.  Teams that make the postseason are able to withstand these kind of roster hits...they have to because it usually happens.

 

Being so one dimensional is exactly the kind of thing that killed our chances the past three years.  We HAVE to be better than just one guy.

 

Elite post-season teams are able to withstand these kinds of roster hits.  Bubble teams, generally speaking, are not.  Unfortunately luck is frequently a deciding factor in determining who is dancing vs. staying home.