Jump to content

Rolling Down the Rock Bottom!


jimmykc

Recommended Posts

Rock Bottom?  Not even close.  Disappointing??  Absolutely!!  These next two games at home will give us a good indicator of the toughness of this team.  We need to win these next two home games and get some good mojo going.  We have 5 of our next 7 games at home, so I'm hopeful we can right this ship.

 

Last nights loss to me make the Minnesota/Maryland games tougher to swallow as we had those games won!! Especially the Maryland game as well as they are playing.  And then to think had we just shot decent vs MSU we win that game....unfortunately, we didn't win any of them making last nights loss tougher to swallow as you have less room for error.  

 

Really hope we come out guns a blazin' on Saturday and get a much needed win! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, HolyBobpilgrimage said:

I think someone else in the postgame thread earlier said it right: Miles is particularly good with small programs, reviving them and pulling upsets as the underdog. When he needs to run sets and has expectations on a good team...thats another story. 



This is a good point ... but we don't even know if that's it particularly. If you look close, year by year he seems to get a little bit better at each stop and then leverages that one particular year or so for the next job. Sustaining a program particularly? Not so sure ... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Norm Peterson said:

 

Rutgers loss is the only one that could be considered bad. 

 

Fortunately, we didn't get dumped by Incarnate Word this year, so getting dumped on the road by an NET top 150 team, while it sucks, isn't the end of the world.

 

But losing at Minnesota (65), Maryland (20) and Iowa (24) can hardly be considered bad losses.

 

We're either good enough or we're not.  If we're good enough, we'll win enough of the remaining games to make the tourney.  If we don't, it's probably Miles' last season.

 

I think we're good enough. But I've been wrong before.

 

On the other hand, where are the good wins?   At Clemson and at Indiana were  decent.  Creighton was Ok.  But thought we might have some better ones by now.  There will be opportunities out there, so we control our own destiny,  but right now we're still waiting.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, HB said:

 

But can you acknowledge that if we have more performances like last night, that the 8 seed projection goes bye bye?  

 

Isn’t that true for any team? Are you concerned we won’t win 5 of our next 7 games which are at home?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Husker4theSpurs said:



This is a good point ... but we don't even know if that's it particularly. If you look close, year by year he seems to get a little bit better at each stop and then leverages that one particular year or so for the next job. Sustaining a program particularly? Not so sure ... 

Tournament or not, I believe this is Tims final season. If we don’t make it, no extension and he’s gone and if we do make it, he takes a job elsewhere 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jayschool said:

Rock Bottom's good news: 90 percent of Husker Nation go back to worrying about Rising Senior All Purpose Backs and Four-Star Juco Mike 'Backers.

10-11 led the Sports with Kearney’s QB walking on for the Huskers. Thank God we finally have some depth behind Martinez & Vedral, I’ll sleep like a baby tonight...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Moos decision is looking pretty good about now.

It is really this simple...Miles wins, he stays, losses and he is gone....Period. There is no in between.

Get in the NCAA Tournament and win a game and nobody remembers the Rutgers game, which btw is currently a Q2 game.

6 of our next 9 games are at home. Lots of opportunities still in front of us. Couldn't say that last season.

Bad losses tend to bring out a lot of dormant trolls. Pretty cowardly if you ask me. 

 

The self loathing of Husker fans is never more evident than when we diminish wins against good teams and elevate losses by "bad teams".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Ron Mexico said:

Rutgers game, which btw is currently a Q2 game.

 

Only because they jumped from 142 to 130 because they beat us. That 135 cutoff is real tight and would require Rutgers to do better than their current Big Ten record of 3 conference wins in a season.

 

I'm going to go ahead and say this is a Q3 loss when all is said and done. We do need to get some more quality wins, but this loss is also not a bubble buster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Ron Mexico said:

 

 

Moos decision is looking pretty good about now.

It is really this simple...Miles wins, he stays, losses and he is gone....Period. There is no in between.

Get in the NCAA Tournament and win a game and nobody remembers the Rutgers game, which btw is currently a Q2 game.

6 of our next 9 games are at home. Lots of opportunities still in front of us. Couldn't say that last season.

Bad losses tend to bring out a lot of dormant trolls. Pretty cowardly if you ask me. 

 

The self loathing of Husker fans is never more evident than when we diminish wins against good teams and elevate losses by "bad teams".

 

What are the good wins so far?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, HB said:

 

What are the good wins so far?  

At at this point I don’t know if we have a single win over a ncaa tournament team.

 

Indiana has started to look like crap losing 5 in a row now.

Creighton, Seton Hall, Clemson, Okie State all in the bottom halves of their conferences 

Edited by Omahusker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, jimmykc said:

I just thought I would throw this phrase out since I haven't run across it yet. Just remember we have only lost two in a row , so I haven't gotten there yet. I predicted last week that we would have to bring the "A" game to win at Rutgers and Illinois and we didn't do it.  Both players and fans are prone to believe hype, and I think last night will bring us down to earth with a thud. I'll be glad to remove the "?" in the title if this result happens with the Illini. What I saw last night was what the lack of depth and a quality "big" can do if this group begins to take itself too seriously. We should be ok if we stay the course, which must begin on Saturday.

 

Wait a minute........ NU hasn't lost at Illinois (just yet). ;)

 

 

 

YjAInuQ.gif

Edited by AuroranHusker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, HB said:

From one of my buddies who was a D1 athlete:   "This team has no heart.  To have that much talent and no heart, just  makes me want to puke".  

 

If there is any validity to that, how do you manufacture it mid-season?   Man, we may miss tough guys like Evan Taylor and Anton Gill more than anyone could have realized.  

 

Agree 1000% as a former baller myself. Unacceptable how casual this team appears to be. It's like, ehh, so what?! We got another one in a few days, we'll just get those guys next time....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, HB said:

 

What are the good wins so far?  

I could name those teams, although I think you know which games I'm referring, but then we would get into a protracted debate over "what is a good win".

We would likely disagree over what is a good win and end up delving into the minutia with each of us bringing forward stats to support our respective position, so I'm going to save us both time by saying that we agree to disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, AuroranHusker said:

 

Agree 1000% as a former baller myself. Unacceptable how casual this team appears to be. It's like, ehh, so what?! We got another one in a few days, we'll just get those guys next time....

One could say we have bunch of Clark Kents who haven't found the phone booth yet.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for the fun of it, I looked back and found my original prognostication for the year and realized that to achieve my proposed goal we have to go 8-4 in these final regular season games. This means the next three games are of the "must win" category, at least for me. Not sure how KenPom will see them but I don't care since I am doing much better than him anyway. I hope our opponents forget to pack their krypton.

Edited by jimmykc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Ron Mexico said:

I could name those teams, although I think you know which games I'm referring, but then we would get into a protracted debate over "what is a good win".

We would likely disagree over what is a good win and end up delving into the minutia with each of us bringing forward stats to support our respective position, so I'm going to save us both time by saying that we agree to disagree.

 

That's fine, and thanks for the offer to save my time.    But it you start a conversation by calling people "cowardly" and 'trolls"  for having the audacity to have an opinion different than yours and actually being concerned that the team is underachieving at 3-5 , it's a little disingenuous to suddenly claim the high road.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Not beating anyone
 
Last year we beat a Top 25 Minnesota team which amounted to a big pile of nothing.  We're not truly going to know how good or not some of our wins will be until the end of the year.
This is the exact reason I hate the current system (albeit while happily taking it over the RPI). I know it might take a little more work, but I think the win/loss quad should be locked in at the time you play the game, not at the end of the season, as though the outcome of the game doesn't play a factor in determining the final ranking at the end of the year or that the team you beat or lost to early on (or your own team) is the same at the end of the season as they were at the beginning. So for us, Clemson and Indiana would clearly remain Quad 1. But any noise Seton Hall or whoever else makes after we played them winds up being kind of immaterial. Rutgers stays Quad 3. Maybe I'm looking too narrowly, but that seems a lot more fair and accurate to me than to wait until the end of the season (which might include sickness, injury, suspensions, etc) to determine how good the win or loss you had two months ago was.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, HB said:

 

That's fine, and thanks for the offer to save my time.    But it you start a conversation by calling people "cowardly" and 'trolls"  for having the audacity to have an opinion different than yours and actually being concerned that the team is underachieving at 3-5 , it's a little disingenuous to suddenly claim the high road.  

OK, lets get into this.

Who did I call cowardly? Was I referring to everyone on this board or a specific group of posters? Are you in that group of posters? Let me answer for you, no you are not.

I'm not sure why you think I was in anyway referencing you @HB ? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ladyhusker said:

This is the exact reason I hate the current system (albeit while happily taking it over the RPI). I know it might take a little more work, but I think the win/loss quad should be locked in at the time you play the game, not at the end of the season, as though the outcome of the game doesn't play a factor in determining the final ranking at the end of the year or that the team you beat or lost to early on (or your own team) is the same at the end of the season as they were at the beginning. So for us, Clemson and Indiana would clearly remain Quad 1. But any noise Seton Hall or whoever else makes after we played them winds up being kind of immaterial. Rutgers stays Quad 3. Maybe I'm looking too narrowly, but that seems a lot more fair and accurate to me than to wait until the end of the season (which might include sickness, injury, suspensions, etc) to determine how good the win or loss you had two months ago was.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
 

 

Agreed. Seasonal evaluations are bodies of work. Ratings reflect that totality. But that's not how games are played. The problem with "freezing" wins and losses in time, however, is that early in seasons too many teams aren't accurately evaluated and that's why the current system exists. There is no perfect way to do this. You either risk beating a lowly rated team early that actually was much better than anticipated or you beat a really good team that gets a few injuries and has their season derail. 

 

The only good news is that this system's imperfections are suffered by everyone else, too, and most programs run the same risks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of Goldy the Gopher, they were blown out in Champaign, beat Penn St by a point, and came within a buzzer beater of Michigan last night. So who knows which squad will show up in Lincoln. I know the local scribes are calling for young Richard's head, and I don't think an NIT bid will save his position. As for my Conference prediction, we'd have to go a blistering 11-1 down the stretch to hit what I thought was a reasonable number...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...