Jump to content

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, Huskerpapa said:

I heard this tidbit, but have no clue as to accuracy.  Assuming Thor is still coming back, we will return 2% of our scoring from last year and 4% of our floor time.  Perhaps the lowest numbers of any college basketball team, ever.  

 

Have to think someone has done 0% before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Milk said:

Really surprised Akenten hasn’t landed anywhere yet.  I think he’s only one left who hasn’t committed anywhere.  

 

Not too surprised, Nana Akenten isn't a great Div. 1 player. Now, if he'd humble himself to prove it on a lower level, I'd imagine he'd have a bevy of opportunities to play & I think he'd play quite well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Milk said:

Really surprised Akenten hasn’t landed anywhere yet.  I think he’s only one left who hasn’t committed anywhere.  

Have to wonder if he really wants to play D-1 college basketball all that much. He engaged in quite a bit of self-destructive behavior at NU. Sometimes that's just engaging in self-destructive behavior; sometimes that's a sign that a player doesn't really like basketball enough to make the commitment required at this level.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Husker4theSpurs said:



The only one I wish we had was Thomas Allen, but he seemed gone mid-year on just judging from body language.

 

Thomas Allen was the only player who went to a comparable power program. I'd say that most of the guys seem to be at places that fit their skill sets.

Share this post


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

 

Thomas Allen was the only player who went to a comparable power program. I'd say that most of the guys seem to be at places that fit their skill sets.

 

ding ding ding ding ding

 

Next year was set up to be a real struggle if Miles had stayed. My view is that he was hamstrung in recruiting by the non-extensions of his contract, and the fact that ONLY Thomas Allen winds up at a comparable program reinforces that view for me.

 

I wasn't surprised that Hoiberg came in and cleared out a bunch of people; I was surprised by some of who he kept vs. who he got rid of. But it seemed to come down to anyone who was healthy enough to work out and show what they could do was allowed to stay. And anyone who was slowed/limited/out with injuries was invited to leave.

Share this post


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

 

ding ding ding ding ding

 

Next year was set up to be a real struggle if Miles had stayed. My view is that he was hamstrung in recruiting by the non-extensions of his contract, and the fact that ONLY Thomas Allen winds up at a comparable program reinforces that view for me.

 

I wasn't surprised that Hoiberg came in and cleared out a bunch of people; I was surprised by some of who he kept vs. who he got rid of. But it seemed to come down to anyone who was healthy enough to work out and show what they could do was allowed to stay. And anyone who was slowed/limited/out with injuries was invited to leave.

Agree pretty much. In a perfect world (Roby, Allen, Burke, Green) we would have had a competitive roster. But it was very likely Roby and Allen still would have been gone even if Miles had stayed. Possible we could have lost Green too. 

 

Nana SHOULD be a P5 player but isnt (would more than likely be gone with Miles) and Amir has a high level defensive ability but cant shoot a lick.

 

Miles had pieces to work with but would have needed to catch ALOT of breaks that he more than likely would not have gotten.

Edited by khoock

Share this post


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

 

ding ding ding ding ding

 

Next year was set up to be a real struggle if Miles had stayed. My view is that he was hamstrung in recruiting by the non-extensions of his contract, and the fact that ONLY Thomas Allen winds up at a comparable program reinforces that view for me.

 

I wasn't surprised that Hoiberg came in and cleared out a bunch of people; I was surprised by some of who he kept vs. who he got rid of. But it seemed to come down to anyone who was healthy enough to work out and show what they could do was allowed to stay. And anyone who was slowed/limited/out with injuries was invited to leave.

 

You've stated this view many times, and it's never made sense to me.  Has any kid every said something like "I would've considered Nebraska, but I heard that Miles' contract wasn't extended"?  Seems extremely unlikely that kids actually care if a coach has a contract running 5+ years. 

As an example, Brian Kelly just went to the College Football Playoff and he consistently strings together top 10 recruiting classes.  His contract only runs through 2021, the same as Tim Miles' did.  And before anyone states the obvious "well yeah, but basketball is different than football," I agree they're different.  Long term contracts actually matter even less in basketball, because kids a) can turn pro younger, b) transfer at a higher rate, and c) redshirt at a lower rate.  Whereas a football player has an interest in whether a coach will be around for 4-5 years, basketball players don't typically stick around more than 3 years.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, aphilso1 said:

 

You've stated this view many times, and it's never made sense to me.  Has any kid every said something like "I would've considered Nebraska, but I heard that Miles' contract wasn't extended"?  Seems extremely unlikely that kids actually care if a coach has a contract running 5+ years. 

As an example, Brian Kelly just went to the College Football Playoff and he consistently strings together top 10 recruiting classes.  His contract only runs through 2021, the same as Tim Miles' did.  And before anyone states the obvious "well yeah, but basketball is different than football," I agree they're different.  Long term contracts actually matter even less in basketball, because kids a) can turn pro younger, b) transfer at a higher rate, and c) redshirt at a lower rate.  Whereas a football player has an interest in whether a coach will be around for 4-5 years, basketball players don't typically stick around more than 3 years.  

 

When I've had a couple mediocre experiences at a restaurant, I don't generally say anything. I just stop going there.

 

I don't expect kids to say anything about the schools they decide not to go to; I only see them saying positive things about the schools they're considering that they will go to.

 

And, when I look at Nebraska's recruiting under Miles, I can just see that there was one category of recruits before he hit that skid of Miles not having a full extension, and then a different category of recruits once we started talking about his contract.

 

Kids who go to Kentucky might not care if there are rumors swirling that Calipari may be headed to an NBA gig in the next couple of years, because many of them figure they'll be off to the NBA by then as well. But the kids Nebraska is going after probably enter school thinking or at least hoping they'll be at the one school for the duration. Unless there's a coaching change. I'd be very surprised if too many kids go into college planning their next move.

 

Even though transfers happen at higher rates in hoops, I don't think kids head off to a school *expecting* to transfer any more than people   plan their divorce before they get married.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to this, Miles' recruiting classes were ranked:

72 in 2012

56 in 2013

95 in 2014

27 in 2015

55 in 2016

75 in 2017

83 in 2018

66 in 2019

Consistently mediocre, the one outlier was 2015, when TM could sell the success of 2014. The program's lack of success was a bigger recruiting factor than a contract extension imo. Doesn't take into account how the recruits panned out, of course.

Either way, transfers made his program, not his recruiting of HS players.

https://www.cornnation.com/2019/3/29/18260493/nebrasketball-a-history-of-tim-miles-recruiting-classes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/4/2019 at 10:28 PM, Norm Peterson said:

And, when I look at Nebraska's recruiting under Miles, I can just see that there was one category of recruits before he hit that skid of Miles not having a full extension, and then a different category of recruits once we started talking about his contract.

 

 

We'll just have to agree to disagree on cause & effect.  There's a reason why Miles wasn't getting long-term extensions.  In my opinion, that reason is also why top caliber HS players stopped wanting to play here.  A lack of contract extension and lack of ability to land top HS players were both effects of the same cause -- losing.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Blackshirt83 said:

 

You're looking at it the wrong way.

 

College recruits base a large part of their decisions based on their recruiter/position coach. Basketball players probably base 70% of their decisions on that alone - if not more. As they care less about location, academics and atmosphere as they don't plan on being there as long as football players do. 

 

And while recruits generally don't look at a coaches contract when making their decisions, those assistant coaches absolutely do.

 

College basketball assistants for some reason seem to be way more sensitive to how many years their boss has on his contract than football assistants do, are quicker to bail on an iffy contract situation and college basketball players are far more likely to bail with them.

 

Miles' contract situation 100% cost us Kenya Hunter and losing Hunter lost us at minimum 2-3 recruits who would have been actual depth last season.(including Xavier Johnson who looks like he's going to be a star) And losing Hunter is a big reason Allen decided to transfer (and in part Tshmanga last july).

 

It's a pretty simple chain reaction for any program that doesn't reload purely off the name on the front of the jersey:

 

When there isn't security for the head coach the top recruiter leaves.

When the recruiter leaves the recruits leave. 

When the recruits leave the roster is weak and the coach gets fired.

 

Look at what just happened to St. John's when we hired Abdelmessih.  The same thing happened here when we lost Hunter, it just took longer because we had 4 upperclassmen who we stuck with for the year hoping for a lot of luck, but the contract issue created the chain reaction that crippled our depth and led to the same outcome - a weak roster and a fired coach.

That's one interpretation. Another is that Hunter thought coaching for Danny Hurley at UConn had more upside than NU. Plus, he was an East Coast guy before he came here so he's heading back to where he's comfortable recruiting. So the issue of job security might have mattered, but more in the fact that the UConn job was better long term, regardless of an extension for Miles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet another way of looking at it is: If we had been able to keep Kenya, And his recruits, And gone to the NCAA, And won a game;  Would we now have Fred Hoiberg and his staff aboard?  All-Devaney_ph34r.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally got caught up on this thread. 

Keeping Thor seems to me to be very strategic move. He's a known quantity who provided good minutes last season. Almost as importantly he helps balance out the scholarships. If he has a good Jr year and then stays for his Sr year then that is a big positive. If things don't work out then that will give us an extra scholarship sooner rather than later. 

 

Guarantee that all of the players who left were given a lot of help by the staff for them to find a landing spot.

Lets dispel the misconception of pulling scholarships. Regardless of BIG 10 policy on coaching turnover, NU policy is that scholarships are guaranteed 4yr/full. 

FH can certainly encourage players to go elsewhere and even help place them, but he can't pull their scholarship. Scholarships are not 1yr renewable at NU. 

 

I also believe that backhanded bashing of Miles, or rehashing the contracting situation are useless. These sorts of arguments on the football side have torn the fan-base apart.

The great thing about fans of the basketball program is that through all of the years of misery we have always remained united and mostly respectful of our former coaches and each other.

Another thing we all agreed on was the University did NOT provide full support for the program. That has changed. It has unfortunately come with some pain. I wish nothing but the best for all of our former players and coaches. 

 

It is going to be great getting to know these players and coaches.

 

On a side note, looking at FH time at ISU he essentially did the same thing his first season. He basically cleaned house. His second season at ISU he had a lot of turnover. 

Also, most of FH successful teams at ISU, he didn't have a player over 6'9". We need to get used to not having a true center.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ron Mexico said:

 

Also, most of FH successful teams at ISU, he didn't have a player over 6'9". We need to get used to not having a true center.

First of all, well said Ron.  Second, less Jordy for a few brief shining moments, I have pretty much gotten use to not having a true center over the past several years. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ron Mexico said:

We need to get used to not having a true center.

 

There are a few of us that have managed to wrap our minds around that concept.  I'm afraid, however, that there are many many more (very vocal people I might add) who haven't, and may never come to terms with this aspect of how the game has evolved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, 49r said:

 

There are a few of us that have managed to wrap our minds around that concept.  I'm afraid, however, that there are many many more (very vocal people I might add) who haven't, and may never come to terms with this aspect of how the game has evolved.

Agreed. Yes Hoiberg isnt gonna get centers just to get centers. He's much more likely to play two forwards (or even just one). Thats not to say he wont go after centers, but he wont be adding centers just because we need to have centers on the roster.

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.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...