Shut Up Sipple! - Why Fred Should have at least 5 years

[HuskerFever]

2 minutes ago, coughunter said:

i guess he still deserves another year?

 

I could be wrong, but my read on this from the board is that most everybody agrees that he doesn't "deserve" another year.

 

But where viewpoints differ is adding in the financial element of it all. And as I've said many times before, I trust that Alberts is able to make that call (never could say the same about Moos).

 

If priorities and finances don't allow for it this season in Alberts' eyes, then Hoiberg would be around another year, not because he deserves it but because his lawyers did a very good job when he signed.

[BannedAccount]

9 minutes ago, HuskerFever said:

 

I could be wrong, but my read on this from the board is that most everybody agrees that he doesn't "deserve" another year.

 

But where viewpoints differ is adding in the financial element of it all. And as I've said many times before, I trust that Alberts is able to make that call (never could say the same about Moos).

 

If priorities and finances don't allow for it this season in Alberts' eyes, then Hoiberg would be around another year, not because he deserves it but because his lawyers did a very good job when he signed.

Tough situation for Trev.  Can we really go thru another year of this though?

[HB]

2 minutes ago, coughunter said:

Tough situation for Trev.  Can we really go thru another year of this though?

It’s not that tough.  The “look” of the team makes it fairly easy.  A week after Trev’s public statement we have this effort.  

[Huskerpapa]

...well even though we are getting nuked, we are at least trying.  

[HB]

Just now, Huskerpapa said:

...well even though we are getting nuked, we are at least trying.  

Part of the game.   Is that enough?

[hhcmatt]

45 minutes ago, HuskerFever said:

 

I could be wrong, but my read on this from the board is that most everybody agrees that he doesn't "deserve" another year.

 

But where viewpoints differ is adding in the financial element of it all. And as I've said many times before, I trust that Alberts is able to make that call (never could say the same about Moos).

 

If priorities and finances don't allow for it this season in Alberts' eyes, then Hoiberg would be around another year, not because he deserves it but because his lawyers did a very good job when he signed.

 

 

[Huskerpapa]

23 minutes ago, HB said:

Part of the game.   Is that enough?

No.  But thanks for asking.

[hhcscott]

I have to ask again...for the love of dog...can someone clarify to Fred that tanking in the B1G does not get you better picks in the draft?

[hskr4life]

I can understand those that want to hold onto Fred because of the buyout.  But I just don't understand wanting to see this product on the floor for another year if money wasn't an option.  It's not just about W's and L's.  First it was "year 1 was a throwaway" and now I've seen a few posts about how "year 2 was kind of a throw away as well".  Is year 3 a throw away too?

 

We aren't competitive.  What makes one think next year.... year 4.... will be anyyyyy different.

Edited February 14, 2022 by hskr4life

[HuskerFever]

13 minutes ago, hskr4life said:

What makes one thing next year.... year 4.... will be anyyyyy different.

 

The benefit of Hoiberg's system is that we're going to expect larger-than-average turnover each season.

 

The downside of Hoiberg's system is that we're going to expect larger-than-average turnover each season.

 

So you hope you can recruit players who don't need coaching or development, who can replace those who do. Unfortunately, the odds of that happening are very low.

[kldm64]

15 hours ago, HuskerFever said:

 

The benefit of Hoiberg's system is that we're going to expect larger-than-average turnover each season.

 

The downside of Hoiberg's system is that we're going to expect larger-than-average turnover each season.

 

So you hope you can recruit players who don't need coaching or development, who can replace those who do. Unfortunately, the odds of that happening are very low.

 

Not even sure Fred has a system as it's more playing street ball than a system.

[Ron Mexico]

On 2/11/2022 at 10:56 PM, royalfan said:

Just a couple things to keep in mind from sort of a devil's advocate perspective an a general perspective

 

.  1.  The first year almost should not count towards his record.  It was an unmitigated disaster he inherited and would have been an unmitigated disaster no matter who was coaching.  The discouraging part for me is that the first bunch arguable played harder than any team since.  

 

2.  I am not sure Matt A. isn't ok here, but things need to change.  If he is the only guy evaluating the talent and recruiting then obviously something needs changed.  He seems to land guys, but we need him to be recruiting and landing guys that actually can play.  If they are simply looking at stars for the most part, and just getting the best talent available, that can easily be a flawed approach.  You don't end up with anyone wanting to do the dirty work, among other major problems.  

 

3.  I am not sure it will ever work for Fred here as you cannot play positionless basketball in this league.  It is the exact wrong league for it.  You end up giving up too many shots on defense that go against what the analytics suggest you want to give up.  Fred likes his offensive analytics which I love, but at what expense?  Giving up an even worse ratio at the other end?  You cannot always have a choice to either give up easy ones at the rim or double and give up wide open threes.  Those are the exact shots we want, but unfortunately the exact shots we give up way more of than we get. 

That's being devil's advocate for Fred...Damn.

In all seriousness though that last sentence is spot on.

[Ron Mexico]

On 2/13/2022 at 2:26 PM, HB said:

It’s not that tough.  The “look” of the team makes it fairly easy.  A week after Trev’s public statement we have this effort.  

The more FH losses the easier it is for TA to pull the trigger. The only argument against it is financial, but then that could end up being a wash in season tickets and interest.

[HuskerFever]

58 minutes ago, Ron Mexico said:

The more FH losses the easier it is for TA to pull the trigger. The only argument against it is financial, but then that could end up being a wash in season tickets and interest.

 

Another way to think about it...

 

We generated $2.6M surplus in our men's basketball program in 2019. A $3.5M/year loss from paying off Hoiberg in addition to salary for a new coach and staff flips this into a cost-guzzling program for years to come.

[cornfed24-7]

7 hours ago, HuskerFever said:

 

Another way to think about it...

 

We generated $2.6M surplus in our men's basketball program in 2019. A $3.5M/year loss from paying off Hoiberg in addition to salary for a new coach and staff flips this into a cost-guzzling program for years to come.

Betcha its not a surplus if Hoiberg stays. 

[royalfan]

13 hours ago, Ron Mexico said:

That's being devil's advocate for Fred...Damn.

In all seriousness though that last sentence is spot on.

Hard to do much more:)

[jimmychitwood]

First, to address the original topic, I’m tired of Sipple going in the radio and saying “wins matter” with regards to Fred when he spent football season on his knees for a coach that won 3 games (1 power 5 team in there).

 

 I’m fine with Fred getting next year. He’s going to finally have a legitimate amount of bigs to complete instead of managing time between Walker and Andre. He should also have ball handlers on the team. If things don’t improve next year, it’s time for him to go but with the incoming core, another year is needed.

Edited February 18, 2022 by jimmychitwood

[aphilso1]

6 hours ago, jimmychitwood said:

First, to address the original topic, I’m tired of Sipple going in the radio and saying “wins matter” with regards to Fred when he spent football season on his knees for a coach that won 3 games (1 power 5 team in there).

 

 I’m fine with Fred getting next year. He’s going to finally have a legitimate amount of bigs to complete instead of managing time between Walker and Andre. He should also have ball handlers on the team. If things don’t improve next year, it’s time for him to go but with the incoming core, another year is needed.

 

I keep seeing this perspective, which seems to be making one MAJOR assumption: roster retention.  I'm not sure why you believe we'll have so many bigs on the roster next year.  Nor why you believe there will be more ball handlers.  Fred's rosters have been a revolving door, and there is no reason to see that changing.  It seems like a very statistically unlikely assumption that we will have a core group of guys returning in addition to the new recruits.

[49r]

6 minutes ago, aphilso1 said:

 

I keep seeing this perspective, which seems to be making one MAJOR assumption: roster retention.  I'm not sure why you believe we'll have so many bigs on the roster next year.  Nor why you believe there will be more ball handlers.  Fred's rosters have been a revolving door, and there is no reason to see that changing.  It seems like a very statistically unlikely assumption that we will have a core group of guys returning in addition to the new recruits.

 

While this is true, it's also true that there is a sizable chunk of our roster that have already used their free transfer and if they decide to move on they would need to sit out a year or go down a division, which reduces the likelihood of transferring out.  But yeah Andre and Wilhelm are certainly ones to keep your eye on.

[aphilso1]

2 minutes ago, 49r said:

 

While this is true, it's also true that there is a sizable chunk of our roster that have already used their free transfer and if they decide to move on they would need to sit out a year or go down a division, which reduces the likelihood of transferring out.  But yeah Andre and Wilhelm are certainly ones to keep your eye on.

 

Not really.  We have two guys that aren't able to immediately use remaining eligibility at another D1 school, and neither seem like D1 transfer candidates.  

 

The guys that used the new one-time transfer exception are CJ and Keon.  CJ is one of the few guys that seems like a lock to return regardless, as he actually is settling into his role and playing much better as the year progresses.  Keon has been buried on two bad P6 rosters, so he has to be wondering if he can hack it at this level of competition.  I wouldn't be surprised to see him transfer out of D1 altogether.

 

[NUdiehard]

Why does no one talk about what happens if Fred is fired?  If you think bringing back Fred will be bad, how much worse if Fred it fired?

 

If Fred is fired, most current players and probably a lot of the recruits will leave, forcing the new coach to turn over the roster just like Hoiberg had to do in his year 1.  There is almost zero chance a new coach will be able to assemble a roster with more talent than Fred will if Fred returns.  Why is this such an appealing option?  If you fear fans are leaving, hiring a new coach and turning over the entire roster again is not a great way to bring them back.

 

In contrast, If Fred's new recruits come in and show some effort, talent and progress, the fans will return. 

[Norm Peterson]

4 minutes ago, NUdiehard said:

Why does no one talk about what happens if Fred is fired?  If you think bringing back Fred will be bad, how much worse if Fred it fired?

 

If Fred is fired, most current players and probably a lot of the recruits will leave, forcing the new coach to turn over the roster just like Hoiberg had to do in his year 1.  There is almost zero chance a new coach will be able to assemble a roster with more talent than Fred will if Fred returns.  Why is this such an appealing option?  If you fear fans are leaving, hiring a new coach and turning over the entire roster again is not a great way to bring them back.

 

In contrast, If Fred's new recruits come in and show some effort, talent and progress, the fans will return. 

 

Sunk costs fallacy.

 

The problem is systemic. Lack of effort, lack of cohesion, lack of buy-in, lack of attention to detail, lack of setting standards, lack of enforcing standards.

 

Like a total failure of leadership.

 

Bringing him back an extra year won't change his leadership style or suddenly make him a better manager of the players on the roster; it will simply give him a different group of players with which to fail. I think you're just delaying the inevitable.

 

Admittedly, I would support delaying the inevitable failure in order to avoid paying the full buyout.

 

If Fred won't accept a big cut, then make him come back and do it again. We have a decent recruiting class coming in but I don't see a bunch of impact players coming in here.

 

But I really doubt Fred has his heart in this. I suspect he'd be willing to look for an out that pays him a bit to leave but doesn't require him to come back and suffer through another historically disastrous season.

 

But here's my question back to you: If it's probable that we'll have to do this anyway, if not this year then next, and if all of the negative consequences will occur whether we do it now or next year, why not get started on the next chapter a year sooner? If the next coach can turn things around, we'll have a year head start on that process if we pull the trigger at the end of this season.

[aphilso1]

13 minutes ago, NUdiehard said:

Why does no one talk about what happens if Fred is fired? 

 

That has been the topic du jour for the past 2 months.  You have a very strange definition of "no one."

[HB]

13 minutes ago, NUdiehard said:

Why does no one talk about what happens if Fred is fired?  If you think bringing back Fred will be bad, how much worse if Fred it fired?

 

If Fred is fired, most current players and probably a lot of the recruits will leave, forcing the new coach to turn over the roster just like Hoiberg had to do in his year 1.  There is almost zero chance a new coach will be able to assemble a roster with more talent than Fred will if Fred returns.  Why is this such an appealing option?  If you fear fans are leaving, hiring a new coach and turning over the entire roster again is not a great way to bring them back.

 

In contrast, If Fred's new recruits come in and show some effort, talent and progress, the fans will return. 

 

It isn't necessarily an appealing option.   But for many it is more appealing than watching more of this hideous basketball we play in year 3, together with a poor team culture and extremely low basketball IQ.    this is virtually unwatchable.  If the roster is going to turn over anyway, which it has done every year under Fred, we might as well turn it over with some hope for the future.  This is about way more than getting excited about recruiting starts and raw "talent".  And most people watching the games and the way we play and act see it.  

[NUdiehard]

18 minutes ago, Norm Peterson said:

 

Sunk costs fallacy.

 

The problem is systemic. Lack of effort, lack of cohesion, lack of buy-in, lack of attention to detail, lack of setting standards, lack of enforcing standards.

 

Like a total failure of leadership.

 

Bringing him back an extra year won't change his leadership style or suddenly make him a better manager of the players on the roster; it will simply give him a different group of players with which to fail. I think you're just delaying the inevitable.

 

Admittedly, I would support delaying the inevitable failure in order to avoid paying the full buyout.

 

If Fred won't accept a big cut, then make him come back and do it again. We have a decent recruiting class coming in but I don't see a bunch of impact players coming in here.

 

But I really doubt Fred has his heart in this. I suspect he'd be willing to look for an out that pays him a bit to leave but doesn't require him to come back and suffer through another historically disastrous season.

 

But here's my question back to you: If it's probable that we'll have to do this anyway, if not this year then next, and if all of the negative consequences will occur whether we do it now or next year, why not get started on the next chapter a year sooner? If the next coach can turn things around, we'll have a year head start on that process if we pull the trigger at the end of this season.

Whether the problems are systemic is up for debate.  Last year's team had a top 40  defense (adjusted for tempo).  This year's defense is terrible.  The difference was last year they had Delano Banton, a long, athletic player who could defend and rebound at a high level, and this year replaced that with Verge and Keisei.  Same coach, different players, different result.  Problem was Delano couldn't shoot, which hurt on the offensive end.  Again, player problem, not coaching problem.  Having players that can shoot, defend and rebound is going to miraculously make the coach and his system look much better.  Does anyone dispute this?

 

It may or may not be be "probable" that Fred will be fired and we will have to start over with a new coach in the next year or 2.  But it is not 100% certain.  There is a chance that if Fred got another year or two, he could turn it around sufficiently that he gets retained for much longer because he is showing improvement and success.  I personally think that probably is higher with Fred (who has proven he can win at a power 5 school) than some no-name mid-major who will come here and think he is different than Collier, Sadler and Miles before him. 

 

Besides, even if Fred fails to meet expectations in years 4 and/or 5, at least he will have already brought in his new highly ranked recruits.  Those recruits are much more likely to stay with the new coach if they are already here and been in the program a year or 2.  If you fire Fred now, most of them likely leave and never set foot on campus.  Keeping Fred another year or 2 could be the difference between leaving the cupboard bare (if fired this year) vs. leaving fairly well stocked (after next year or the year after).  Next year is almost guaranteed to be terrible if we fire Fred now, so I see little downside to keeping him at least one more year.