Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

Recommended Posts

I can see both sides of the argument - I just can't imagine the administration would accept a bid while looking for the next coach or a senior-laden team would put much into playing the game (they haven't shown much pride in competition over the past couple of months). I would vote "nay".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, hskr4life said:

 

I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not.  Did you seriously hear this?  If so, oof.

 

Unfortunately it was not a case of sarcasm, I would add a "😉" if it were. I did say 'take it for what it's worth' which is likely more rumor than fact.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, AuroranHusker said:

 

I've heard that the coaching staff has cleared out their stuff. Just what I've heard. Take it for what it's worth..... no N.I.T. if no coaching staff will be around to prepare a team.

 

 

Gotta clear room for Fred to bring in his things. Can’t waste time, gotta get some players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, last March, we felt we were more the team that finished the season going into places like Wisconsin and coming away with Ws than the team that lost early on to St. John's and UCF.  But the committee basically said we're going to judge you on your whole body of work, including the early loss to a St. John's team that ended up tanking later on.  So, sorry Huskers, but you don't get in.

 

Then, if I'm to understand what people are saying now, we again feel we're probably more the team we've been over the last 2 months than the team we were before Copeland got hurt.  

 

Yet, this time … we're not to be judged on our whole body of work but rather just the games since we've gone into the crapper in the last half of the season.

 

I mean, either you judge a team by its whole body of work or you judge a team by what they looked like the last half of the season.

 

But quit changing the standards depending on what keeps us out of post-season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Norm Peterson said:

So, last March, we felt we were more the team that finished the season going into places like Wisconsin and coming away with Ws than the team that lost early on to St. John's and UCF.  But the committee basically said we're going to judge you on your whole body of work, including the early loss to a St. John's team that ended up tanking later on.  So, sorry Huskers, but you don't get in.

 

Then, if I'm to understand what people are saying now, we again feel we're probably more the team we've been over the last 2 months than the team we were before Copeland got hurt.  

 

Yet, this time … we're not to be judged on our whole body of work but rather just the games since we've gone into the crapper in the last half of the season.

 

I mean, either you judge a team by its whole body of work or you judge a team by what they looked like the last half of the season.

 

But quit changing the standards depending on what keeps us out of post-season.

Does our whole body of work this season make us a postseason team? If a team like Boston College or Texas A&M had our current resume, I wouldn't be shocked if they missed out on the postseason (NIT included).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Norm Peterson said:

Then, if I'm to understand what people are saying now, we again feel we're probably more the team we've been over the last 2 months than the team we were before Copeland got hurt.  

 

My understanding is that the committee does take into consideration major events like an injury to make decisions.

 

That said, our whole body of work consists of only beating 1-3 teams who will make the tournament, with our best NET win against Clemson who is holding on to a "last four in" bid. We also have a nonconference SOS of 191 out of 353 teams (45th percentile).

 

We didn't do ourselves any favors going through a huge losing period, but if people want to compare us to Oklahoma last season, their SOS was 165 but they were 6-9 in Quadrant 1 and beat teams like Kansas, Wichita State, Texas Tech, TCU x2, and Kansas State who were all in the tournament.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, huskerbaseball13 said:

If we are going to keep Miles then yes to the NIT. If we are not...then get the show on the road. 

 

Agreed... I can't see a scenario where Miles stays and we say NO to the NIT, nor can I see one where there is a coaching change and we say YES to the NIT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, HuskerFever said:

That said, our whole body of work consists of only beating 1-3 teams who will make the tournament, with our best NET win against Clemson who is holding on to a "last four in" bid. We also have a nonconference SOS of 191 out of 353 teams (45th percentile).

Then again, we're NET #50, with wins over several teams considered on the bubble or a virtual lock now, including Creighton (54), Minnesota (55), and Seton Hall (61), with wins over each. We also have a curb-stomping win over Indiana (50), currently two spots ahead of us and also apparently a bubble team, and one over Penn State (47, with about as much chance of making the tournament as we do).

 

I like the NET a lot more than the RPI, but it's still weird. I doubt all those teams make it (although I'd guess more than 1 does) so you're right there -- but if they're all bubble teams, by virtue of the NET, we probably should be in that conversation too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Norm Peterson said:

So, last March, we felt we were more the team that finished the season going into places like Wisconsin and coming away with Ws than the team that lost early on to St. John's and UCF.  But the committee basically said we're going to judge you on your whole body of work, including the early loss to a St. John's team that ended up tanking later on.  So, sorry Huskers, but you don't get in.

 

Then, if I'm to understand what people are saying now, we again feel we're probably more the team we've been over the last 2 months than the team we were before Copeland got hurt.  

 

Yet, this time … we're not to be judged on our whole body of work but rather just the games since we've gone into the crapper in the last half of the season.

 

I mean, either you judge a team by its whole body of work or you judge a team by what they looked like the last half of the season.

 

But quit changing the standards depending on what keeps us out of post-season.

 

I'd say our problem is that our whole body of work isn't better than last year.

I am looking at Boston College making the NIT last year and a win over Iowa and then in the first round seems of the B1G seems like it should be good enough to put us into the conversation for the NIT.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/7/2019 at 11:52 AM, uneblinstu said:

If they finish at or above .500, they would.

 

I'd go/watch. I don't know if they'd accept a bid if they get one. I hope they would, though.

 

I thought they got rid of the .500 requirement. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, PimpMario said:

 

I thought they got rid of the .500 requirement. 

 

They did. But I think the other side of the argument I've heard is that they haven't selected anyone under 0.500 since that requirement changed. Haven't verified that myself, but I guess it just depends how "deep" the middle/bottom conference dwellers are in a given year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Huskerpapa said:

Anyone know the financial piece of the NIT?  From a financial perspective, would it be beneficial to play?

 

If I recall, it's only really a benefit for home ticket sales and travel is covered.

 

I think you get 15% of the net ticket sales at the gate for home games through 3 rounds. I think for travel you can only fly 25 people, versus around 75 for NCAA (think admin, band members, etc.).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ATM we have the 7th best RPI of a team not tabbed by Bracketmatrix to be in the tourney.

Assuming we don't win our way into the NCAA tourney we have a real shot at making the tourney and should let the team vote on it as whether or not they care will determine if we show up or not.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...