Time to eat a little crow

[huskerbaseball13]

Moos has literally got everything right during his first four months on the job IMO.  If he feels Miles needs to be extended I trust him.  If he feels we need to go in a different direction I think he will land us a great coach. 

[hal9000]

2 hours ago, Norm Peterson said:

If you motherfuckers can't live with a couple of down seasons every now and then while a guy tries to build a program, and demand we fire the coach every six years, I am going to be dead before we win an NCAA tourney game.

 

And if that happens, I'm going to be really pissed.  And I will haunt this board with error messages and banner ads for "Bluejay Pest Control" for all eternity.  Got it?

[Art Vandalay]

3 hours ago, Cookie Miller Wasn't Dirty said:

 

So you're okay with the up seasons being:

- 11 seed in 2014

- Completely blowing away an opportunity at a good season in 2015

- Being on the bubble in 2018

 

Yes, the history of Nebrasketball is pathetic. I know I've had to endure a smaller chunk of it than you have. But when the Chicago Bulls visit your campus to get ideas for their facilities... it's hard to determine if the recruiting success is due to that or due to Miles. We haven't had the opportunity to see what someone else can do with what we now have, and the longer we wait the more stale these facilities become.

 

Again, I'm not advocating for firing him right now. I'm as desperate for a tourney win as the next guy, and this year and next year seem to be our best chances we've had since 1991. I'm just saying, should we really accept two bubbly seasons in six years to be that successful? And to me it seems pretty clear that those two teams were carried by the talent and not the coaching. I know he's the reason the talent got here, but man it's frustrating watching that team in Omaha play beautiful offensive basketball year-in, year-out when Tim's teams resort to isolation. The only reason it's working this year is because we have four legitimate playmakers to bail out Tim's sad excuse for offensive sets.

 

Why dont you run some numbers to tell us how we should feel.

 

This program was crap before he got here. He has greatly exceeded expectations 3 of his 6 year. To say he is all recruiting and no coaching is rediculous. The years we have been good it is because he teaches a hard nosed defensive style that keeps us in most games. Look around, very very very few teams have an offense like Creighton, they have other issues as you saw their defense last night give up open threes all night. 

 

In the 3 seasons we under performed, there were issues he could have handled better for sure and some were bad luck. Season 3, Walt checking out and high expectation levels just killed us. I do not think he did a great job of keeping them focused that year. Year 4 good recruiting class but playing a lot of Freshman is never ideal especially undersized 5s. Then last year I hold him accountable for the late season collapse but if the traitor did not leave I think we are at least a 500 team. So it is not black and white and to say he can not coach is wrong IMO as he has proved he can for a long time. He might not be coach K or Izzo but he is not some scrub off the street either.

 

Also those who claim he can not recruit high school kids, I hope you know Watson, Allen, Roby, Nana, Ed M, Horne, and Xavier were all really highly rated high school players we out recruited good schools for. Nothing wrong with mixing high rated transfers in as well, he has been good at finding those which is nice.

 

We should not be even having to defend him, he might get some votes in coach of the year and might win it if Ohio St was not playing great.

Edited February 2, 2018 by Art Vandalay

[Swan88]

1 hour ago, Cookie Miller Wasn't Dirty said:

 

 

I have no idea what you mean regarding point 2. I'm not a Creighton fan if that's what you're implying.

Ha!  It takes a homer to gush so beautifully.

[Red Rum]

Its an odd dichotomy (my brain hurts from using that big of a word) going from one thread about we're a semi bubble team to another where we have to defend the coach who has us (like i'm on the team) on said bubble. 

 

Only in Nebraska amirite?

[B-town hoopsfan]

3 hours ago, Cookie Miller Wasn't Dirty said:

Are we really recruiting at as high of a level as we could be?

Via 24/7 rankings nations top players

allen 102

akenten 186

tshimanga 161

roby 133

horne 176 didn’t know this one 

morrow 111

watson 76

gill 52

palmer 105

copeland 24

xavier Johnson is currently 234 and id wager he gets into the top 200 at the end of the season

 

so 9 or 10 top 200 recruits in 3 years, I’d say the guy knows how to recruit. Especially since we can’t even put up a fence around our own state.

2 hours ago, Norm Peterson said:

 

We're about to go over .500 in conference play for just the third time in 18 years.  Two of those three under Tim Miles.  And people are on the fence.

And 2nd time in 4 years. For those fence hopers be careful what you wish for. There’s a certain football team that fired a coach that wasn’t great but atleast put you in the conversation for what they had hoped were greener pastures, well they just got their teeth kicked in for three years in a row including Iowa stomping a hole in em for consecutive years. They currently are basically starting from ground zero 

 

hskr4life I loved that tv/radio analogy 

 

norm thats the kinda passion I was hoping to find on this blog when I joined, if we ever meet it would be a honor to buy you a brewski. 

Edited February 2, 2018 by B-town hoopsfan

[hhcmatt]

4 minutes ago, Red Rum said:

Its an odd dichotomy (my brain hurts from using that big of a word) going from one thread about we're a semi bubble team to another where we have to defend the coach who has us (like i'm on the team) on said bubble. 

 

Only in Nebraska amirite?

 

Any message board of a team coached by Bruce Weber

[Cookie Miller Wasn't Dirty]

39 minutes ago, Swan88 said:

Ha!  It takes a homer to gush so beautifully.

 

I've hated Creighton more than any team in sports since I was in grade school. No need to worry.

[Norm Peterson]

1 hour ago, hhcdimes said:

I wouldn't look at  @Norm Peterson post as him stating we couldn't hire a coach who would be more successful; we seem much more serious about winning and paying up to do so in terms of faciliites and coaches.  I'd look at it in more of a cautionary 'be careful for what you wish for because you just might get it for 6 more years' warning.

 

Yeah, I mean, I think a coach can win here.  My expectations are higher than where we've been.  Miles hasn't gotten us there yet, but I think if you look at the big picture, I don't think it's clear that Miles has maxed out yet.  And the trajectory we're on this year is very encouraging.  I thought it was premature to say he should have been fired a year ago.  If we had done that, we wouldn't be seeing the success we're seeing now; instead, we'd be at the beginning of another six year plan.  I'm not willing to accept mediocrity, but I just don't think turning over coaches every six years is the way to make progress.  You have to look at the coach's resume with a little more depth because a superficial "look at the skid we went on end of last season" and "3 losing seasons" doesn't really tell the whole story.  Not in my opinion.

[Swan88]

Cip, Mo and Nee all did good things and had good results.  If we had a 64-team field in days gone by, there'd be no talk in the present about no-tournament-wins.

And even Doc had it going for awhile (he was 50/50, for example, with the guy now at Oregon), until the Robert Sallee fiasco killed his program.

 

You can't usually fire your way to success.  Usually, it takes a commitment to a coach and a process over-time and through-adversity to do exceptionally well: see, e.g., Tom Osborne.  I still remember college-mates back in the late-70s (when Osborne toyed with the Colorado job) saying, "If Tommy wants to go, then Tommy should go."  I thought they were ridiculous-or-insane at the time, and I now know they were at least one of those!

 

And remember: Tom Osborne took over a program that had just come off of two consecutive national championships.  Tim Miles had no such luck.

Edited February 2, 2018 by Swan88

[HuskerFever]

Why do we have to play this game of "I'll keep dating my boyfriend/girlfriend until someone better comes along" with Miles? We should either commit to him like any healthy relationship should or we should just sever the ties and move forward.

 

No more of this in-between grey area. Let's just make a decision and move along with it with full commitment. Stand by that coach's side, make it to the big day, and enjoy our big dance with family and friends all around celebrating that glorious day. Till death do us part.

[royalfan]

That would be ideal, but his performance has largely been in a big grey area to this point, making it a bit of a polarizing situation.  

[nebrasketball10]

37 minutes ago, royalfan said:

That would be ideal, but his performance has largely been in a big grey area to this point, making it a bit of a polarizing situation.  

 

Very polarizing. Recruiting has been great... but is that the coach or the amazing facilities?? (Probably both)

 

I get frustrated with Miles when I see our lack of an inbounds play and lack of an offense that can create shots when we are otherwise stale. 

 

He he is definitely likeable and energetic. I generally like his roatayions. I think he needs a very sold X’s & O’s assistant to get to the next level. 

[Norm Peterson]

3 hours ago, Art Vandalay said:

Also those who claim he can not recruit high school kids, I hope you know Watson, Allen, Roby, Nana, Ed M, Horne, and Xavier were all really highly rated high school players we out recruited good schools for. Nothing wrong with mixing high rated transfers in as well, he has been good at finding those which is nice.

 

Worth noting:  The two best recruiters in the last 40-50 years of Nebraska hoops (perhaps ever) were Danny Nee and Tim Miles.

 

Nee leveraged Prop 48 and jucos to assemble competitive recruiting classes; Miles has leveraged the transfer market to do the same.

 

I agree with the complaints about his iso offense, but good recruiting has allowed us to offset that criticism this year.

 

Would people rather have Doc's or Barry's system offenses with their recruiting?  Prolly not.  So, let's see what Tim can get done with this group.  And if he gets us into the tournament and wins a game or two while there, then you've clearly jumped the gun if you've ever called for his termination at any point before then, because he would have produced the single-most successful season in Nebraska basketball history.

 

Frankly, I'd prefer if we could all just sit back and watch where this one takes us and enjoy the ride for awhile because right now we're winning.  Bigly.

[ladyhusker]

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.

[AuroranHusker]

 

9 hours ago, Norm Peterson said:

If you motherfuckers can't live with a couple of down seasons every now and then while a guy tries to build a program, and demand we fire the coach every six years, I am going to be dead before we win an NCAA tourney game.

 

[AuroranHusker]

NORMY, YOU DA MAN.

 

[Dead Dog Alley]

12 hours ago, hhcdimes said:

 

At the end of the year if it's decided that we're not for sure whether we want to keep Miles around here longer this could happen:

 

a) Moos: we're going to extend you one year

Miles: I need more

c) Moos: That's the best we can do

d) Miles: Goodbye

 

 

I think at this point, if the core of the roster is scheduled to come back, that a more likely event for c) would be:

c) Moos:  okay, two.

And then a more likely event for d) would be:

d) Miles:  OK

I might be all wet on this, but I think it would be more likely to play out that way.  So far, Miles has been a guy who stays someplace for six years, sneaks into the tournament but doesn't win, then takes off.  How much hotter of a prospect would he have been if he had stayed at CSU one more year and been the guy who had their only tournament win in 25 years?  Would he do that again if he thought he was close next year?  At some point you get tired of being Moses, the leader that never actually enters the promised land.  If he becomes the first coach to win a tournament game at the last power five team to do so...that's one hell of a resume enhancer. 

[nebrasketball10]

18 hours ago, ladyhusker said:

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.

 

You don’t think the new arena, practice facility and player’s lounge make a difference in recruiting?

[Cookie Miller Wasn't Dirty]

18 hours ago, ladyhusker said:

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.

 

Sorry ladysker, gotta disagree with you on this one. While a recruit is rarely ever going to say that the facilities are the reason they came, there are associated subconscious feelings that go along with the facilities and improve the overall experience of an official visit. Seeing our facilities can give a sense of wonderment and improve the feeling of the visit, which is huge. Of course the relationship building is key, but it all matters.

[Art Vandalay]

55 minutes ago, Cookie Miller Wasn't Dirty said:

 

Sorry ladysker, gotta disagree with you on this one. While a recruit is rarely ever going to say that the facilities are the reason they came, there are associated subconscious feelings that go along with the facilities and improve the overall experience of an official visit. Seeing our facilities can give a sense of wonderment and improve the feeling of the visit, which is huge. Of course the relationship building is key, but it all matters.

 

How about some consistency. You completely discredit what recruits say got them to commit in this thread but totally 100% believe committee members say about conference records. Its ok to admit there is a middle ground. I imagine the facilities being top notch did play some part in the commitments but relationships were the main reason. Just like conference records might not be a deciding factor but can be discussed and considered because they are not actually outlawed from bracket discussions just because they are not included on a stat sheet. 

 

 

[Cookie Miller Wasn't Dirty]

40 minutes ago, Art Vandalay said:

 

How about some consistency. You completely discredit what recruits say got them to commit in this thread but totally 100% believe committee members say about conference records. Its ok to admit there is a middle ground. I imagine the facilities being top notch did play some part in the commitments but relationships were the main reason. Just like conference records might not be a deciding factor but can be discussed and considered because they are not actually outlawed from bracket discussions just because they are not included on a stat sheet. 

 

 

 

Why would committee members lie about using conference standings? If they did use them, why wouldn't they just admit it? Why wouldn't they just put it on the team sheets?

 

If you're saying that a high conference finish could subconsciously inflate the perceptions of a team then I can get behind that. But I do not believe standings are "discussed and considered" in the way you mean it. They do care about how you did out of conference (which is why they put the non-con record on the sheet). So really, a great conference record might actually be seen as a knock against a bubble team since it implies they didn't do well out of conference.

[Art Vandalay]

42 minutes ago, Cookie Miller Wasn't Dirty said:

 

Why would committee members lie about using conference standings? If they did use them, why wouldn't they just admit it? Why wouldn't they just put it on the team sheets?

 

If you're saying that a high conference finish could subconsciously inflate the perceptions of a team then I can get behind that. But I do not believe standings are "discussed and considered" in the way you mean it. They do care about how you did out of conference (which is why they put the non-con record on the sheet). So really, a great conference record might actually be seen as a knock against a bubble team since it implies they didn't do well out of conference.

 

why do you avoid the question? you take some people at their word and not others depending on your stance. why would the kids lie if they came here just for the facilities?

 

I have said all along they are not a stat used but I would bet anything they are brought up when discussing and comparing individual teams. Quick question do you really believe the BIG10 guy(s) in that room will not mention the conference or us finishing 4th alone? Not once, zero, nada, ever in the discussion if it would come down to us and some other team?

[Cookie Miller Wasn't Dirty]

23 minutes ago, Art Vandalay said:

 

why do you avoid the question? you take some people at their word and not others depending on your stance. why would the kids lie if they came here just for the facilities?

 

I have said all along they are not a stat used but I would bet anything they are brought up when discussing and comparing individual teams. Quick question do you really believe the BIG10 guy(s) in that room will not mention the conference or us finishing 4th alone? Not once, zero, nada, ever in the discussion if it would come down to us and some other team?

 

I'll try to address your comment in three parts:

 

1. I didn't say I don't take the recruits at their word. I said that I believe the positive feelings that are associated with visiting a place with nice facilities can play a role in their decisions. Those feelings may be subconscious, and if they are, the recruit is not going to express it as a reason for why they chose the school. That's much different than saying "recruits lie, but committee members wouldn't."

 

2. Again I ask, why would the committee leave off the conference standings and records from the team sheets if it's supposed to be a relevant criteria? If it was part of the criteria, even just a little bit, wouldn't they admit to it? What's their motivation for lying?

 

3. Sure, I could see the B1G guys in the room saying, "Nebraska finished 4th, shouldn't that count for something?" Then I believe the rebuttal would be, "No, we're not supposed to use conference affiliation as a criteria."

 

Now, I could see the B1G guys claiming that the conference's RPIs are lower than what they should be. But will the guys from every other conference listen? If the B1G guys think we should get an additional team, one of the other conferences has to suffer for it. Do you think the guys from that conference aren't going to fight back? I'm sure the Pac-12 members lobbied hard for Washington in 2012. Winning the conference regular season title is a pretty big accomplishment. But apparently everyone else in the room didn't think it mattered enough.

[nebrasketball10]

What if the selection committee used blind resumes?? I’m kind of surprised that hasn’t been suggested... wouldn’t it be the best way to evaluate teams based on their body of work?? Though it would eliminate the eye test...