Jump to content

What we thinking


What we thinking?  

66 members have voted

  1. 1. What should we do with Hoiberg?

    • Bring him back and give him another year.
    • Fire him or try and convince him to step down
    • Undecided at this time


Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, jimmykc said:

I think we have all noted a lack of passion in Fred's sideline demeanor and attributed it to his laid-back personality. When I read about the 18.5 million buy-out clause, I was reminded of a saying made by on old Pittsburg Steeler player which went " It is hard to play (coach) hungry when you are walking around with a ham slung over your shoulder".

I have seen this notion that Fred "lack's passion" because of his sideline demeanor often on this board and I completely disagree.  Fred is an intense competitor.  He didn't get to where he is as a player and a coach without being incredibly competitive.  He just has a certain style on game days.  It is more in line with the NBA where coaches don't flap their arms and jump up and down.  Look at Brad Stevens, he never changes expression.  Same with Erik Spoelstra of Miami Heat--one of the most fiercely competitive teams in NBA year in and year out.  I could go on and on.

 

I am close enough to the floor to see veins bulging in Fred's forehead, even though his overall "demeanor" would never show it (especially from upper levels).  I have seen Fred throw his clip board on the floor and at the bench in disgust.  I guarantee you he is boiling inside. 

 

Personally, I wish he would get on players more during games.  But I do know there are many coaches who believe you do the "yelling" all week during practice, and not during the games.  If that is his philosophy, that is fine.  It certainly isn't what is keeping this team from winning.

Edited by NUdiehard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, jimmykc said:

I think we have all noted a lack of passion in Fred's sideline demeanor and attributed it to his laid-back personality. When I read about the 18.5 million buy-out clause, I was reminded of a saying made by on old Pittsburg Steeler player which went " It is hard to play (coach) hungry when you are walking around with a ham slung over your shoulder".

Funny thing is I think he has changed since that was brought up.  Not sure what he was or wasnt doing earlier in the year.  Almost seemed liked he was more concerned of letting his players figure it out early in the year instead of coaching.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't see the option "Bring him back another year but do a Frost-like restructure of his deal so he is: 1) paid less (more in line with lower division coaches); 2) has to flip some staff; and 3) given a reduced buyout." So, I went with just the "bring him back" option.

 

I was concerned about where we come up with the money for a new hoops coach when we might have to come up with money for a new football coach. With all the buyouts to get rid of the old guy and other inducement required to lure a new guy in, canning the two biggest paycheck guys in the department in a single year seems like a bit of a reach. Maybe there are folks out there with big enough bank accounts to make it happen, but that's for Trev to figure out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we all agree that the Matt Abdelmassih experiment has been a failure?

 

I was openly skeptical of having a dedicated recruiter on the coaching staff who really has no coaching responsibilities. I mean, theoretically, you could make it work. But I've gone into more detail than I care to try to recreate about how the pieces he's assembled haven't worked well together. Just look up my post from a year ago where I described how each of our players was basically inept at some important skill pertinent to their position.

 

Yeah, we have some guys with some recruiting service stars on their resume. But, do we have ... talent?

 

Whatever the case, there's clearly a disconnect between the roster that's been assembled and the product on the floor. Either we're not getting enough of the right kinds of players for this system or we're not getting the coaching that translates that talent into wins. Or both.

 

I think the question is whether Fred will continue to protect his buddy or whether he'll make the tough call that I think has to be made to move this program forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Norm Peterson said:

Can we all agree that the Matt Abdelmassih experiment has been a failure?

 

I was openly skeptical of having a dedicated recruiter on the coaching staff who really has no coaching responsibilities. I mean, theoretically, you could make it work. But I've gone into more detail than I care to try to recreate about how the pieces he's assembled haven't worked well together. Just look up my post from a year ago where I described how each of our players was basically inept at some important skill pertinent to their position.

 

Yeah, we have some guys with some recruiting service stars on their resume. But, do we have ... talent?

 

Whatever the case, there's clearly a disconnect between the roster that's been assembled and the product on the floor. Either we're not getting enough of the right kinds of players for this system or we're not getting the coaching that translates that talent into wins. Or both.

 

I think the question is whether Fred will continue to protect his buddy or whether he'll make the tough call that I think has to be made to move this program forward.

 

One big difference between here and Iowa St is that Matt A didn't have complete control of the roster. I'm not sure how you change that dynamic other than completely removing him from the equation. If Fred is back for a 4th year, *that* at least would be a change from the last 3 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Norm Peterson said:

Yeah, we have some guys with some recruiting service stars on their resume. But, do we have ... talent?

 

A few weeks ago, I set up a thread based on that very question.  I compared our current starters to their closest former-Husker equivalents, and realized those equivalents weren't considered "talented."  My conclusion?  The only reason we say we have a talented roster is because of the recruiting rankings attached to the names on the backs of the jerseys, not based on actual performance or the eyeball test.  Most responders disagreed, and seemed to think our roster is talented but poorly coached.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or maybe we’re looking at this the wrong way.  Maybe someone sees an opportunity either way because…

 

A. I come in, turn things around, and am basically viewed as a God when I win that elusive NCAA first round game.  I have already signed for a huge chunk of change because Nebraska threw some money at me initially due to my prestige.

 

or…

 

B. I come in and things don’t turn around.  Nebraska threw big numbers at me because of my prestige and now that I’m fired, I can basically live off my buyout before finding another opportunity.

 

It was just a thought that crossed my mind on why someone WOULD come despite the 1000 reasons not to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, aphilso1 said:

 

A few weeks ago, I set up a thread based on that very question.  I compared our current starters to their closest former-Husker equivalents, and realized those equivalents weren't considered "talented."  My conclusion?  The only reason we say we have a talented roster is because of the recruiting rankings attached to the names on the backs of the jerseys, not based on actual performance or the eyeball test.  Most responders disagreed, and seemed to think our roster is talented but poorly coached.

Although there are coaching issues I see (and I have pointed some out in previous posts), I do believe the much bigger issue is a talent problem. 

 

For instance, the defense this year is TERRIBLE.  We all know that.  But just last year (same coaches), NU had a good (if not very good) defense.  NU finished in the top 40 in adjusted defensive efficiency just last year.  Did they all completely forget how to coach in one off-season?

 

Coaching is important.  It is crucial.  But there are some players that either simply are not coachable, or just don't have that "dog" in them.  A coach can try to bring it out, but some players either take years, or just don't have it.  Look no further than Trey and Bryce.  Same family.  Same upbringing.  One player (Trey) is an absolute dog on the defensive end.  One player (Bryce), well let's just say he is NOT a dog (to put it nicely--no reason to pile on). 

 

Look at Wilhelm, he is a freshman so he had almost no college coaching.  He is not the athlete of the others,  but he played his butt off every minute he was on the floor.  He dove for lose balls.  He played physical.  He had a high motor.  He already understands the level of effort it takes in the B1G, while guys with years of experience do not.  Playing hard is a talent as much as a developed skill, and some guys have that talent and some don't.

 

Playing disciplined is also a talent as well as a skill.  Look at Verge.  He is in his 5th year of college ball. He has been under other college coaches for years.  And he still lacks discipline on the defensive end.  He also lacks consistency.  Did all the coaches at ASU not know how to coach, as well as Fred.  Or is this more a Verge issue than a coaching issue?

 

Wilcher plays hard, but he is slow as molasses.  That is not his fault, it just is who he is. 

 

Walker tries hard, but he is too short/small to be a dominant defensive big man in the B1G. 

 

The main reason I am in favor of keeping Fred is because it appears he has begun to increase the talent level of recruiting, especially with next year's class.  I want to see what he can do with better

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody is more disappointed with the results under Fred than I am.  I was ready to start building his statue outside PBA as soon as he signed on to be our coach.  However, when you step back and look at it, Fred had to recruit and entire team in a short period of time for year one which was a disaster for obvious reasons.  Then basically had to flip almost the entire roster again for year 2 so not surprised we didn't win alot of games.  And that brings us to year 3 when expectations were high based on the returning players and a very impressive recruiting class.  We lose 2 of our top 7 players to injury and both players were very key pieces this season.  

 

Not trying to make excuses for Fred but can understand why the record is so bad in 2 1/2 seasons.  I think Fred still needs to improve on his coaching philosophy as can't have an NBA mentality to give players as much freedom in the college game.  He also needs to look at his coaching staff.  He needs to make some changes and decide if Doc is really adding any value at this point or even Armon.  He needs to take a hard look in the mirror and make some tough decisions.  

 

I can understand the people that want him gone as well as the people that think he deserves another year.  Pretty hard to convince me that he should be gone when you bring back Frost from a 3-9 record and he has yet to make even a bowl game in 4 seasons.  Trev is earning his paycheck with dealing with the men's programs at NU right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, aphilso1 said:

 

A few weeks ago, I set up a thread based on that very question.  I compared our current starters to their closest former-Husker equivalents, and realized those equivalents weren't considered "talented."  My conclusion?  The only reason we say we have a talented roster is because of the recruiting rankings attached to the names on the backs of the jerseys, not based on actual performance or the eyeball test.  Most responders disagreed, and seemed to think our roster is talented but poorly coached.

 

I remember the thread and I basically think you framed it backwards. I didn't disagree about our level of talent not being improved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No revelations here, but at this point Both the Coaching and Team seem "Rudderless."   One doesn't see anyone "stepping-up" in a 'Leadership' role, at least in any way we've been used to seeing.   I don't know if COVID has had anything to do with it or not, but after Covid (year two) things have certainly changed for the worse (even after year one roster rebuild).  

 

So much has happened that, despite a lot of conjecture, is not well-explained.  For example; Fred contracting Covid  (along with his known heart condition).  Doc, not traveling with the team, and ostensibly giving up his coaching responsibilities, and Coaching turnover (Lutz, etc.).  Then we have Matt A taking an unexplained "Leave of Absence;" now reportedly back on the coach's bench during games.   And then there were the rumors of unreported NCAA "Violations," that ultimately amounted to nothing and have gone away.

 

Other than conjecture, I'm not sure anyone knows for sure what is really going on within the program; for example, just who is responsible for what.

 

I do know that things will have to change, exactly how I have no idea, but that is what Fred , along with Trev Alberts will have to sort out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Norm Peterson said:

I didn't see the option "Bring him back another year but do a Frost-like restructure of his deal so he is: 1) paid less (more in line with lower division coaches); 2) has to flip some staff; and 3) given a reduced buyout." So, I went with just the "bring him back" option.

 

I was concerned about where we come up with the money for a new hoops coach when we might have to come up with money for a new football coach. With all the buyouts to get rid of the old guy and other inducement required to lure a new guy in, canning the two biggest paycheck guys in the department in a single year seems like a bit of a reach. Maybe there are folks out there with big enough bank accounts to make it happen, but that's for Trev to figure out.

This is what I'm expecting to happen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Norm Peterson said:

Bring him back another year but do a Frost-like restructure of his deal so he is: 1) paid less (more in line with lower division coaches); 2) has to flip some staff; and 3) given a reduced buyout." So, I went with just the "bring him back" option.

 

Better yet...why don't we just swap coaches? Frost coaches the basketball team, Hoiberg coaches the football team. What's the worst that can happen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I imagine, like others have said, that he'll be brought back in a frost like fashion. Reduced buyout and restructuring of the staff. So he'll be here at least 1 more year. 

 

This has gone about as bad as anyone can imagine. It all goes back to the PG position in my eyes. Cam was good, but very erratic and had other issues. Last year Banton and Trey both did a good job, but turnovers was a massive problem all year. If banton was back I do think we'd be in a different position today, but he made the right decision for him. This year Verge has been as hot and cold as a player of recent memory. Kobe has been a calming factor of sorts and missing Trey has made this look worse, but point guard play has been same this year as in years past. 

 

Next year (assuming Trey and Bryce leave as expected) the staff NEEDS to get a point guard who can run an offense and hit shots. I'm optimistic on Lloyd being inserted right away on the wing as a secondary creator, just need to identify the primary guard via portal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, aphilso1 said:

 

Yikes.  Is Timmy living in a studio apartment at that salary?  Bay Area cost of living is no joke.

 

Like a lot of schools in super expensive cities, he might live in a university house. UCSC (Santa Cruz has several high speed houses for senior administrators and such in that posh pit). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After finding out that Moos secretly extended Hoiberg and now his buyout is $18.5 million, I'm struggling to come up with an analogy that captures what I'm feeling.

 

I shorted game stop and now I'm stuck waiting for the price to go down so I can get out of it at a loss and there's absolutely not a frickin' thing I can do about it? Naw, that ain't it.

 

An abusive relationship? No, I won't go there.

 

I decided to go on a cruise and we hit bad weather and we're at least a week until our next stop, I have the worst seasickness imaginable, and I absolutely cannot do anything about it but ride it out? OK, maybe if the cruise was another year instead of another week.

 

I mean, financially, we're stuck. By any reasonable metric, this is a coaching tenure that probably ought to end this season, but we can't make it happen because someone who's no longer even here committed us to a deal we haven't the financial wherewithal to get ourselves out of. Just effing stuck. Effing effing stuck.

 

So, we have no choice but to sit here and eat this shit sandwich and bide our time until the buyout diminishes enough that we can scrape together enough nickels to be done with it.

 

Might I suggest that the NEXT time we hire a coach, we do the following:

 

  • Don't go all-in with an expensive name;
  • Find an up-and-comer with the EXPECTATION that we'll have to fire him in 4 years;
  • Don't pay him Sweet 16-level compensation unless he wins a Sweet 16;
  • Minimal buyout;
  • Pay him $650,000/year with ENORMOUS incentives:
    • make the NIT? You just earned an extra $300K
    • reach the NCAA? That's a cool million
    • WIN an NCAA game? That's another million
    • CONSECUTIVE NCAA appearances? Add $250K
    • Sweet 16 appearance? Another million
  • After 4 years, if the MFr hasn't earned any bonuses, his buyout is WAIVED

Then, bring in the next guy. Wash, rinse, repeat. Don't saddle yourself with a $20 million buyout for a guy who is producing the fewest wins in a 3-year stretch of any coach in the modern history of the program. We're better off swapping out coaches every few years until we find that guy who actually catches fire. And then, once he does, THEN pay the guy a King's ransom.

 

He, that there's the analogy. They've kidnapped the MFing King. And we have no choice but to pay the ransom.

 

Alright, another bad analogy.

 

OK, so then recruiting. I'm really not excited about 5-star NBA, one-and-done talent. I want quality kids who will work hard and represent for a good 3 years. I don't want a 5th year senior transfer running point. I want a kid who's been with the program for 3 seasons running point.

 

I'd rather have 5 guys in the top 75-150 range who will be here for the long haul and have very limited NIL brand appeal. Not that we won't swing deals for our players, but I'd rather have a kid who's more concerned about his team winning than his brand winning. And I suspect you get there more with some 3- and 4-star kids who'll stay for 3-4 years than with a 5-star prima donna (as opposed to a pre-Madonna) who's here to bank one year before getting paid in the NBA. Now that I see what that's all about, I think I'll pass on the next one.

 

So let's use the money we saved on paying a big-name coach to get our boosters behind the recruits our up-and-comer coach targeted and bring in THOSE guys. At this point, with NIL being what it is, the money we save on coaching salaries can almost directly go into player acquisition. Find an up-and-comer coach who can actually coach, and that would be money well spent.

 

Done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/10/2022 at 2:35 PM, Donkey said:

From what I have been told, Hoiberg may be ready to retire.  I can easily see it being a mutual decision.  Who would take over is a complete unknown; however, I would love to see LaVall Jordan as the coach.  He has BIG experience as an assistant and has 5 seasons in the Big East.

There is absolutely zero chance of that happening...zero. He'd be walking away from a monster salary. That's not going to happen so get that idea out of your head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Norm Peterson said:
  • Don't go all-in with an expensive name;
  • Find an up-and-comer with the EXPECTATION that we'll have to fire him in 4 years;
  • Don't pay him Sweet 16-level compensation unless he wins a Sweet 16;
  • Minimal buyout;
  • Pay him $650,000/year with ENORMOUS incentives:
    • make the NIT? You just earned an extra $300K
    • reach the NCAA? That's a cool million
    • WIN an NCAA game? That's another million
    • CONSECUTIVE NCAA appearances? Add $250K
    • Sweet 16 appearance? Another million
  • After 4 years, if the MFr hasn't earned any bonuses, his buyout is WAIVED

 

All do respect, truthfully... Is this not Doc Sadler? Granted a last minute scramble after Collier threw us for a loop.

 

I do get your point. I see the side of "we have a chance to land somebody "big" so let's lock in and go all in" where we've never had that chance before in our history. We were wrong.

 

Without going on this rant over and over again about how I feel about Moos and his spending spree, I'll just say..... Yes. Let's vet more and be more deliberate about what we expect our ROI to be on this investment.

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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...