Success is not random

[Norm Peterson]

There are obviously more than 3 elements that go into determining whether a given basketball program is successful or not. Some of those elements the coaches have control over; some of them they don't. But I don't think success is random. I don't think some coaches just get lucky or unlucky and produce sustained success or failure on the basis of good or bad fortune.

 

I'm going to look at 3 elements that I think coaches have control over that I think matter for the success of a program and then I'd appreciate people's thoughts on the current regime and past regimes as to each of those elements.

 

1. Scheme. This is more than just philosophy. It's philosophy plus the systematic way in which the philosophy is implemented. You might call it Xs and Os, but it involves each coach's unique approach to Xs and Os based on their philosophy. Questions to consider include: Do we have one? Is it workable?

 

2. Teaching and motivating. I suppose you could also call this "coaching." It's one thing to have a scheme or a well-defined philosophy of how you think things should work. But the teaching of that philosophy so that the players understand their role is what turns what players see in the film room into a product on the floor. And the motivating part is what gets players to buy-in to their role and also perform their best when they face adversity.

 

3. Recruiting. How well do coaches fill their roster with players suited to the scheme that they want to run? Some players are more suited to one coach's scheme than another's. You might have good players who just aren't a fit for a particular system. So it's not just a matter of getting good players. It's a matter of getting good players who are also a good fit. Questions to consider include: Is the coach getting adequate talent? Is the talent suited to the scheme?

 

When it comes to having an articulable scheme, teaching that scheme, and recruiting to that scheme, I'm curious how people would evaluate our current and last several coaches. You might rank each attribute on a 1-10 scale where 1 is horrible and 10 is elite.

 

OK, have at it.

[millerhusker]

1 hour ago, Norm Peterson said:

There are obviously more than 3 elements that go into determining whether a given basketball program is successful or not. Some of those elements the coaches have control over; some of them they don't. But I don't think success is random. I don't think some coaches just get lucky or unlucky and produce sustained success or failure on the basis of good or bad fortune.

 

I'm going to look at 3 elements that I think coaches have control over that I think matter for the success of a program and then I'd appreciate people's thoughts on the current regime and past regimes as to each of those elements.

 

1. Scheme. This is more than just philosophy. It's philosophy plus the systematic way in which the philosophy is implemented. You might call it Xs and Os, but it involves each coach's unique approach to Xs and Os based on their philosophy. Questions to consider include: Do we have one? Is it workable?

 

2. Teaching and motivating. I suppose you could also call this "coaching." It's one thing to have a scheme or a well-defined philosophy of how you think things should work. But the teaching of that philosophy so that the players understand their role is what turns what players see in the film room into a product on the floor. And the motivating part is what gets players to buy-in to their role and also perform their best when they face adversity.

 

3. Recruiting. How well do coaches fill their roster with players suited to the scheme that they want to run? Some players are more suited to one coach's scheme than another's. You might have good players who just aren't a fit for a particular system. So it's not just a matter of getting good players. It's a matter of getting good players who are also a good fit. Questions to consider include: Is the coach getting adequate talent? Is the talent suited to the scheme?

 

When it comes to having an articulable scheme, teaching that scheme, and recruiting to that scheme, I'm curious how people would evaluate our current and last several coaches. You might rank each attribute on a 1-10 scale where 1 is horrible and 10 is elite.

 

OK, have at it.

1. Collier, Doc and Miles could all coach defense. Offensively, X's and O's wise, I would rank them in order: Collier (by far), Doc (by far), Miles. I'll get some hate for that. Barry Collier and his Princeton offense is what got the ball rolling to make the Butler basketball program what it's been the past 25 years. They were atrocious before him. I liked his offense. He just had very little talent. 

Husker fans might not believe it, but we definitely have a scheme that is workable. In fact, many coaches and programs at all levels around the world have adopted aspects of Hoiberg's transition and halfcourt offensive scheme and philosophy. For me the scheme itself is a 10, or close to it, but I am biased because Hoiberg has been one of my favorite coaches to watch ever since his first year at Iowa State.  I also love Jay Wright's 4 out motion offense (I've stolen a lot of stuff from him, because it's more simple to teach). I think Wright has an elite scheme. Some years Villanova has an elite offense, but other years they appear very stagnant. But the one constant is always that 4 out motion. Which leads to points 2 and 3.....

 

2. I thought Collier, Doc and Miles were all pretty good at motivating and getting players to buy in. Rank in order: Doc, Collier, Miles. I could be wrong, but I don't recall Doc's teams having many issues with attitude, maturity, effort, etc. Collier had a few issues. I thought Joe McCray, Marcus Walker and Jamel White all had great potential but never really bought in. Miles's first two teams were 100% bought in. Then his next three teams had a lot of rough times. 

In Hoiberg's time at Iowa State, he would get a 10 for this one. But at Nebraska, probably a 1 or 2. It just hasn't worked. In the last month or two of the previous 2 seasons, we saw the scheme start to work. We got open looks consistently within the flow of the offense. At the rim, the free throw line and beyond the arc. We just consistently can't convert. I think it all comes down to recruiting. 

 

3. Collier, Doc and Miles all did a good job of recruiting to their systems. And Miles also got some really good players to go along with it. Rank in order: Miles (by far), Doc, Collier (I'd be ok with swapping Doc and Collier in this ranking).  

Is it weird that I'm excited that none of our 2022 high school recruits are rated higher than 3 stars? It's probably silly to think that way, but all of Doc's lovable 2 stars that would've ended up at Sacramento State if we didn't sign them didn't seem to have a problem buying into the system and playing hard. Tex Winter said it best - there is NO replacement for effort and energy. Of course we need talented players to consistently contend for an NCAA tourney bid. I'll give Hoiberg a 3, just because he signed the first 5 star ever. He's gotten some players who fit the system, unfortunately they just weren't very good (Kavas, for example). He's also gotten some good players who don't appear to fit the system. I think Verge is an example of this. And he's gotten a whole bunch of below average players who also don't fit the system... I'm not going to care how high recruits are ranked anymore. We've lost a lot more games than we've won (and have looked flat out embarrassing the majority of the time) and that's really all that matters. 

 

I'm not going rank Hoiberg with the other three coaches yet because I'm still considering it incomplete. During Miles' worst times at Nebraska, it was the most unwatchable basketball that I can remember. But during his best times, it was some of the most fun I've had watching Nebrasketball. I think Hoiberg's recruiting philosophy is starting to change and I'm going to give him more time to figure this thing out. 

Edited December 6, 2021 by millerhusker

[royalfan]

craig smith the best coach we have had in ages as far as gameplans and in game execution are concerned.  Sinking ship ever since he left.  

[Handy Johnson]

I remember prior to ‘94 when someone told Osborne it was his TURN to win a National Title & he replied “you don’t take turns in sports”…

[Cazzie22]

,I believe we have been recruiting too much on stars and not on fitting the system. Supposedly, players come here because of Fred but don’t acclimate themselves to the “system.” Or, the staff cannot get them to adjust.

 

What we hoped and thought was a talented, athletic group has not been proven.  I hope for improved execution tomorrow against the Wolverines.

 

I would still take that Hawkins kid from NW Missouri that’s playing for the Jays.  

Edited December 6, 2021 by Cazzie22
Additional comment