Why not here?

[jimmykc]

I learned a long time ago that the bathwater has to be changed when the baby pees in it. 

[swmckewon]

22 hours ago, hhcmatt said:

 

We certainly have done worse than the last MWC we hired

Well, yes, in a sense.

 

In another, that coach had a new arena, a new practice facility and legitimate local talent to recruit. 

[Vinny]

44 minutes ago, swmckewon said:

Well, yes, in a sense.

 

In another, that coach had a new arena, a new practice facility and legitimate local talent to recruit. 

Am I missing where we brought in an old stadium, old practice facility and saw our local talent to recruit dry up in the last three years?

[swmckewon]

1 hour ago, Vinny said:

Am I missing where we brought in an old stadium, old practice facility and saw our local talent to recruit dry up in the last three years?

Nope. But none of the coaches before that had the advantage.

 

I don’t think there’s a debate to be had about the last 3 years vs. the 3 prior. 

[NUdiehard]

14 hours ago, hhcmatt said:

 

I'd assume that Fred is working from the same perspective as you in the sense that he's just a year or two of things turning around if he just keeps with it. Why would he have anyone change roles unless it was necessary? Why would it be necessary unless Matt wasn't there?

I still am not sure what you are trying to say.  All I am saying is there is place for Matt A to remain on staff but have a reduced role on recruiting. 

 

For instance, let's say up to this point Matt A has been primarily responsible for both scouting (both in person and watching film), evaluating, and recruiting (call, texting, etc) virtually every recruit (so if there are 7 new players Matt A did all three duties for 6 or 7 of those 7 new recruits).  

 

Why can't Fred just restructure things so that Matt A must share scouting and evaluation duties.  For instance, either Matt A only scouts/evaluates 3 of the 7 new recruits.  Or, even better, if Matt A scouts/evaluates a recruit he really likes, he must then bring in one or 2 other assistant coaches to scout/evaluate both live and film, and of course Fred should be involved in this process as well.  If there is a consensus among all the coaches that this is a recruit that can thrive in Fred's system, then Matt A can go on to the third step of recruiting him (calling, texting, etc).  If there is not a consensus, then either Fred makes the final decision or they have some other form of tie-breaker, such as at least 2 of the 3 assistant coaches must approve of pursuing that recruit.  

 

Let's say Matt A's greatest strength is developing a report with recruits, getting to know their families, and getting that recruit to trust him.  That is a strength that not every assistant coach has.  Why throw this away simply because he missed on scouting/evaluating some previous recruits?  Why not just reduce his role in scouting/evaluating and free him up to do what he does best which is recruiting.  For instance, maybe a different assistance scouts/evaluates 3 recruits (Matt A had nothing to do with the scout/evaluation process of these recruits), but then that assistant asks Matt A to recruit those recruits (call them, text them, meet the family), etc.  This is teamwork.  Each coach utilizing their strengths.  Simply because Matt A has been poor in scouting/evaluating some past recruits doesn't mean Fred has to get rid of him completely.

[Vinny]

15 minutes ago, swmckewon said:

Nope. But none of the coaches before that had the advantage.

 

I don’t think there’s a debate to be had about the last 3 years vs. the 3 prior. 

I guess I’m failing to see what you’re getting at.

[Norm Peterson]

5 hours ago, NUdiehard said:

I still am not sure what you are trying to say.  All I am saying is there is place for Matt A to remain on staff but have a reduced role on recruiting. 

 

For instance, let's say up to this point Matt A has been primarily responsible for both scouting (both in person and watching film), evaluating, and recruiting (call, texting, etc) virtually every recruit (so if there are 7 new players Matt A did all three duties for 6 or 7 of those 7 new recruits).  

 

Why can't Fred just restructure things so that Matt A must share scouting and evaluation duties.  For instance, either Matt A only scouts/evaluates 3 of the 7 new recruits.  Or, even better, if Matt A scouts/evaluates a recruit he really likes, he must then bring in one or 2 other assistant coaches to scout/evaluate both live and film, and of course Fred should be involved in this process as well.  If there is a consensus among all the coaches that this is a recruit that can thrive in Fred's system, then Matt A can go on to the third step of recruiting him (calling, texting, etc).  If there is not a consensus, then either Fred makes the final decision or they have some other form of tie-breaker, such as at least 2 of the 3 assistant coaches must approve of pursuing that recruit.  

 

Let's say Matt A's greatest strength is developing a report with recruits, getting to know their families, and getting that recruit to trust him.  That is a strength that not every assistant coach has.  Why throw this away simply because he missed on scouting/evaluating some previous recruits?  Why not just reduce his role in scouting/evaluating and free him up to do what he does best which is recruiting.  For instance, maybe a different assistance scouts/evaluates 3 recruits (Matt A had nothing to do with the scout/evaluation process of these recruits), but then that assistant asks Matt A to recruit those recruits (call them, text them, meet the family), etc.  This is teamwork.  Each coach utilizing their strengths.  Simply because Matt A has been poor in scouting/evaluating some past recruits doesn't mean Fred has to get rid of him completely.

Boy, that’s an excellent suggestion for how to arrange the deck chairs, NUdie. Really captures the Feng Shui of the situation. Thank you for that.

[hhcmatt]

8 hours ago, swmckewon said:

Well, yes, in a sense.

 

In another, that coach had a new arena, a new practice facility and legitimate local talent to recruit. 

 

We've done worse than any other basketball coach we've hired since the end of WWII. None of these are Tim Miles debates threads; they're all how in the world can Fred Hoiberg be this bad threads.

[cornfed24-7]

5 hours ago, NUdiehard said:

I still am not sure what you are trying to say.  All I am saying is there is place for Matt A to remain on staff but have a reduced role on recruiting. 

 

For instance, let's say up to this point Matt A has been primarily responsible for both scouting (both in person and watching film), evaluating, and recruiting (call, texting, etc) virtually every recruit (so if there are 7 new players Matt A did all three duties for 6 or 7 of those 7 new recruits).  

 

Why can't Fred just restructure things so that Matt A must share scouting and evaluation duties.  For instance, either Matt A only scouts/evaluates 3 of the 7 new recruits.  Or, even better, if Matt A scouts/evaluates a recruit he really likes, he must then bring in one or 2 other assistant coaches to scout/evaluate both live and film, and of course Fred should be involved in this process as well.  If there is a consensus among all the coaches that this is a recruit that can thrive in Fred's system, then Matt A can go on to the third step of recruiting him (calling, texting, etc).  If there is not a consensus, then either Fred makes the final decision or they have some other form of tie-breaker, such as at least 2 of the 3 assistant coaches must approve of pursuing that recruit.  

 

Let's say Matt A's greatest strength is developing a report with recruits, getting to know their families, and getting that recruit to trust him.  That is a strength that not every assistant coach has.  Why throw this away simply because he missed on scouting/evaluating some previous recruits?  Why not just reduce his role in scouting/evaluating and free him up to do what he does best which is recruiting.  For instance, maybe a different assistance scouts/evaluates 3 recruits (Matt A had nothing to do with the scout/evaluation process of these recruits), but then that assistant asks Matt A to recruit those recruits (call them, text them, meet the family), etc.  This is teamwork.  Each coach utilizing their strengths.  Simply because Matt A has been poor in scouting/evaluating some past recruits doesn't mean Fred has to get rid of him completely.

If I ever make a career change where I ned an agent to negotiate for me I'd probably go to some firm hire some guy or girl at random because how does one even hire an agent? 

 

Maybe I'd get lucky and land a sweet gig. But let's be real here. Theres a good chance I'd crap the bed because I work in health care not some field where one needs an agent. 

 

Point is if I did work in such a field, and when I did crap the bed, I'm definitely hiring you as my next agent to talk me up.

Edited February 5, 2022 by cornfed24-7

[hhcscott]

On 2/4/2022 at 8:05 AM, Norm Peterson said:

Wow. WTF.

 

 

Norm this is an unfair comparison...who is going to be able to get recruits to Lincoln when they are competing with....uh Laramie? ... Yeah Laramie

 

(No disrespect to Laramie, was a fan in the Dembo/Leckner years and still watch Foot-Bohl games, but the old excuse of location doesn't hold up when MWC schools are top 50 rpi)

[swmckewon]

39 minutes ago, hhcmatt said:

 

We've done worse than any other basketball coach we've hired since the end of WWII. None of these are Tim Miles debates threads; they're all how in the world can Fred Hoiberg be this bad threads.

There is no debate between the last 3 years and the 3 prior to that. None. Everyone knows which one was better.

 

The point is, with all the advantages of a new arena, a new facility, a new league, and local talent, the previous coach built a good mid major program that happened to be housed in the Big Ten. If you stuck Wyoming’s roster and coach in the Big Ten, Wyoming would probably make two NCAA tournaments over 7 years, which is what Nebraska should have made. 
 

given the thread is about what Wyoming’s doing, and Nebraska is doing worse now than it did under Miles, I pointed out the advantages Miles had. Which, he did. 

[hhcmatt]

7 hours ago, NUdiehard said:

I still am not sure what you are trying to say.  All I am saying is there is place for Matt A to remain on staff but have a reduced role on recruiting. 

 

For instance, let's say up to this point Matt A has been primarily responsible for both scouting (both in person and watching film), evaluating, and recruiting (call, texting, etc) virtually every recruit (so if there are 7 new players Matt A did all three duties for 6 or 7 of those 7 new recruits).  

 

Why can't Fred just restructure things so that Matt A must share scouting and evaluation duties.  For instance, either Matt A only scouts/evaluates 3 of the 7 new recruits.  Or, even better, if Matt A scouts/evaluates a recruit he really likes, he must then bring in one or 2 other assistant coaches to scout/evaluate both live and film, and of course Fred should be involved in this process as well.  If there is a consensus among all the coaches that this is a recruit that can thrive in Fred's system, then Matt A can go on to the third step of recruiting him (calling, texting, etc).  If there is not a consensus, then either Fred makes the final decision or they have some other form of tie-breaker, such as at least 2 of the 3 assistant coaches must approve of pursuing that recruit.  

 

Let's say Matt A's greatest strength is developing a report with recruits, getting to know their families, and getting that recruit to trust him.  That is a strength that not every assistant coach has.  Why throw this away simply because he missed on scouting/evaluating some previous recruits?  Why not just reduce his role in scouting/evaluating and free him up to do what he does best which is recruiting.  For instance, maybe a different assistance scouts/evaluates 3 recruits (Matt A had nothing to do with the scout/evaluation process of these recruits), but then that assistant asks Matt A to recruit those recruits (call them, text them, meet the family), etc.  This is teamwork.  Each coach utilizing their strengths.  Simply because Matt A has been poor in scouting/evaluating some past recruits doesn't mean Fred has to get rid of him completely.

Nevermind, just fire Fred at the end of the season if he doesn't quit

[tcp]

45 minutes ago, hhcscott said:

Norm this is an unfair comparison...who is going to be able to get recruits to Lincoln when they are competing with....uh Laramie? ... Yeah Laramie

 

(No disrespect to Laramie, was a fan in the Dembo/Leckner years and still watch Foot-Bohl games, but the old excuse of location doesn't hold up when MWC schools are top 50 rpi)

 

Seriously, dude, I live near Stillvvater. If they can get athletes, any place can get athletes. Trust me on this one. The "Lincoln sucks" is literally the vvorts excuse ever and only someone that hasn't been to too many college tovvns could believe it. 

[Fullbacksympathy]

35 minutes ago, swmckewon said:

There is no debate between the last 3 years and the 3 prior to that. None. Everyone knows which one was better.

 

The point is, with all the advantages of a new arena, a new facility, a new league, and local talent, the previous coach built a good mid major program that happened to be housed in the Big Ten. If you stuck Wyoming’s roster and coach in the Big Ten, Wyoming would probably make two NCAA tournaments over 7 years, which is what Nebraska should have made. 
 

given the thread is about what Wyoming’s doing, and Nebraska is doing worse now than it did under Miles, I pointed out the advantages Miles had. Which, he did. 

Do you think the funds are there to buy Hoiberg out?  

[hhcscott]

10 minutes ago, tcp said:

 

Seriously, dude, I live near Stillwater. If they can get athletes, any place can get athletes. Trust me on this one. The "Lincoln sucks" is literally the worst excuse ever and only someone that hasn't been to too many college towns could believe it. 

Exactly. If a town is big enough to have a college, it's big enough. It's not like Chicago, Miami, Dallas and NYC are dominating the hoops world. Spokane, Tucson, Lexington et al seem to be fine. 

But, what is the missing ingredient because we have literally changed everything in this bball program over the last 10 years and WYO can turn things around in a couple? I get that the level of competition is better, but we are losing to summit league teams so we can't really scoff at MWC competition

[hhcscott]

7 minutes ago, Fullbacksympathy said:

Do you think the funds are there to buy Hoiberg out?  

I think it has to be a PR question...cutting budgets at state Universities and doling out 18.5 million is a bad look. I know it is different funds sources and uses, but if athletics and boosters have 18.5 why don't they donate it to successful program at the University? How far would 18.5 million go to recruiting students who can do be successful more than 20 percent of the time?

[HB]

9 hours ago, NUdiehard said:

I still am not sure what you are trying to say.  All I am saying is there is place for Matt A to remain on staff but have a reduced role on recruiting. 

 

For instance, let's say up to this point Matt A has been primarily responsible for both scouting (both in person and watching film), evaluating, and recruiting (call, texting, etc) virtually every recruit (so if there are 7 new players Matt A did all three duties for 6 or 7 of those 7 new recruits).  

 

Why can't Fred just restructure things so that Matt A must share scouting and evaluation duties.  For instance, either Matt A only scouts/evaluates 3 of the 7 new recruits.  Or, even better, if Matt A scouts/evaluates a recruit he really likes, he must then bring in one or 2 other assistant coaches to scout/evaluate both live and film, and of course Fred should be involved in this process as well.  If there is a consensus among all the coaches that this is a recruit that can thrive in Fred's system, then Matt A can go on to the third step of recruiting him (calling, texting, etc).  If there is not a consensus, then either Fred makes the final decision or they have some other form of tie-breaker, such as at least 2 of the 3 assistant coaches must approve of pursuing that recruit.  

 

Let's say Matt A's greatest strength is developing a report with recruits, getting to know their families, and getting that recruit to trust him.  That is a strength that not every assistant coach has.  Why throw this away simply because he missed on scouting/evaluating some previous recruits?  Why not just reduce his role in scouting/evaluating and free him up to do what he does best which is recruiting.  For instance, maybe a different assistance scouts/evaluates 3 recruits (Matt A had nothing to do with the scout/evaluation process of these recruits), but then that assistant asks Matt A to recruit those recruits (call them, text them, meet the family), etc.  This is teamwork.  Each coach utilizing their strengths.  Simply because Matt A has been poor in scouting/evaluating some past recruits doesn't mean Fred has to get rid of him completely.

Trying way too hard.  This is over and it’s obvious to virtually everyone, present company excluded.

[HB]

3 hours ago, swmckewon said:

There is no debate between the last 3 years and the 3 prior to that. None. Everyone knows which one was better.

 

The point is, with all the advantages of a new arena, a new facility, a new league, and local talent, the previous coach built a good mid major program that happened to be housed in the Big Ten. If you stuck Wyoming’s roster and coach in the Big Ten, Wyoming would probably make two NCAA tournaments over 7 years, which is what Nebraska should have made. 
 

given the thread is about what Wyoming’s doing, and Nebraska is doing worse now than it did under Miles, I pointed out the advantages Miles had. Which, he did. 

Seriously, Sam, stick to football.  You are very good there.  You haven’t a clue about basketball, and  never have.

[HB]

3 hours ago, hhcmatt said:

Nevermind, just fire Fred at the end of the season if he doesn't quit

Yeah, I’m sure the new coach will keep Matt, despite Diehard’s acknowledgement that he’s been bad at scouting/evaluating some recruits in the past.  

Edited February 6, 2022 by HB

[HB]

3 hours ago, Fullbacksympathy said:

Do you think the funds are there to buy Hoiberg out?  

Yes.

[Norm Peterson]

11 hours ago, NUdiehard said:

I still am not sure what you are trying to say.  All I am saying is there is place for Matt A to remain on staff but have a reduced role on recruiting. 

 

For instance, let's say up to this point Matt A has been primarily responsible for both scouting (both in person and watching film), evaluating, and recruiting (call, texting, etc) virtually every recruit (so if there are 7 new players Matt A did all three duties for 6 or 7 of those 7 new recruits).  

 

Why can't Fred just restructure things so that Matt A must share scouting and evaluation duties.  For instance, either Matt A only scouts/evaluates 3 of the 7 new recruits.  Or, even better, if Matt A scouts/evaluates a recruit he really likes, he must then bring in one or 2 other assistant coaches to scout/evaluate both live and film, and of course Fred should be involved in this process as well.  If there is a consensus among all the coaches that this is a recruit that can thrive in Fred's system, then Matt A can go on to the third step of recruiting him (calling, texting, etc).  If there is not a consensus, then either Fred makes the final decision or they have some other form of tie-breaker, such as at least 2 of the 3 assistant coaches must approve of pursuing that recruit.  

 

Let's say Matt A's greatest strength is developing a report with recruits, getting to know their families, and getting that recruit to trust him.  That is a strength that not every assistant coach has.  Why throw this away simply because he missed on scouting/evaluating some previous recruits?  Why not just reduce his role in scouting/evaluating and free him up to do what he does best which is recruiting.  For instance, maybe a different assistance scouts/evaluates 3 recruits (Matt A had nothing to do with the scout/evaluation process of these recruits), but then that assistant asks Matt A to recruit those recruits (call them, text them, meet the family), etc.  This is teamwork.  Each coach utilizing their strengths.  Simply because Matt A has been poor in scouting/evaluating some past recruits doesn't mean Fred has to get rid of him completely.

OK, so the very obvious problem with this suggestion, other than the fact that it’s a moot issue if Hoiberg leaves, is that you still have Matt in charge of trying to figure out who to reach out to, and just getting another assistant to agree that the 10 or 15 or 20 players that Matt’s identified are suitable doesn’t solve the fact that he missed out on identifying 50 other late bloomers who weren’t in the Rivals 150 at the time Matt was making his picks.

 

We don’t get the next Isaiah Roby because Matt doesn’t find him to even take his name and film to the other assistants for their second opinion.

 

The now-four-star shooting guard from Oklahoma, whose dad was from Aurora, had to practically beat down our door in June to get us to bring him in on an unofficial visit when he was still unranked. So, before Rivals ranked him, he wasn’t worthy of a look? That’s only because Matt couldn’t spot talent if it came up and kicked him in the ass.

 

And it’s Fred’s fault for deferring to/relying on him.

[Norm Peterson]

1 hour ago, HB said:

Yes.

[unl]

23 hours ago, jimmykc said:

I learned a long time ago that the bathwater has to be changed when the baby pees in it. 

Or poops in it.  

[NUdiehard]

11 hours ago, Norm Peterson said:

OK, so the very obvious problem with this suggestion, other than the fact that it’s a moot issue if Hoiberg leaves, is that you still have Matt in charge of trying to figure out who to reach out to, and just getting another assistant to agree that the 10 or 15 or 20 players that Matt’s identified are suitable doesn’t solve the fact that he missed out on identifying 50 other late bloomers who weren’t in the Rivals 150 at the time Matt was making his picks.

 

We don’t get the next Isaiah Roby because Matt doesn’t find him to even take his name and film to the other assistants for their second opinion.

 

The now-four-star shooting guard from Oklahoma, whose dad was from Aurora, had to practically beat down our door in June to get us to bring him in on an unofficial visit when he was still unranked. So, before Rivals ranked him, he wasn’t worthy of a look? That’s only because Matt couldn’t spot talent if it came up and kicked him in the ass.

 

And it’s Fred’s fault for deferring to/relying on him.

 

I also stated that another strategy is to only allow Matt A to scout/evaluate appox. 3 of the 7 recruits.  The other assistants and Fred would scout/evaluate the remaining 4 recruits.  Its not that complicated.  

 

As for Parker Friedrichsen (the guard from Oklahoma), he is one of the reasons I am in favor of giving Fred 5 years.  Say what you want about how the relationship started, but it clearly has developed and matured to a point that Parker seems almost a lock to come to NU if Fred is retained.  I would not feel nearly so confident if Fred is fired.  He is a top 100 recruit and a very skilled player, yet probably not good enough to go to the NBA anytime soon.  He is the exact type of player we need in the program.  I feel similarly about many of the 2022 recruits.

 

So my position in a nutshell.  Fred/Matt A have failed miserably in their recruiting the first 2 years.  The third year (this year's class), was a bit better but still not good enough.  I do think Wilhelm can develop into a very solid B1G level player by his Jr./Sr years.  And let's remember, he will be a freshman next year b/c of his injury.  Add in Wilcher and Tominaga as role player 3-point specialist.  They are not great, and probably not starter quality, but can be rotation players on a good team by their Jr./Sr. years.

 

The 2022 class is where I believe Matt A really stepped up his game.  Ramel Lloyd has a massive offer list, including Kansas, Oregon, etc.  He is very athletic and looks to have some of that "dog" in him.  Washut recently said that Jamarques Lawrence is playing so well he will be in the top 150 soon.  Keita hopefully is a legit big man.  And although Dawson is a wildcard, but he has good length and is athletic, and Fred has already said he plays with passion and energy (dives on the floor, etc). 

 

We also are still in play for some very solid recruits like Avery Brown, who would the perfect PG IMO.  Matt A may not be able to reel him in, but he at least has a decent shot.

 

So in short, I see considerable improvement.  I could be wrong.  All these future recruits could be busts just like the past couple years.  But I am just going off what I read/watch/hear and that is why i am willing to give them more time. 

[hskr4life]

42 minutes ago, NUdiehard said:

 

I also stated that another strategy is to only allow Matt A to scout/evaluate appox. 3 of the 7 recruits.  The other assistants and Fred would scout/evaluate the remaining 4 recruits.  Its not that complicated.  

 

As for Parker Friedrichsen (the guard from Oklahoma), he is one of the reasons I am in favor of giving Fred 5 years.  Say what you want about how the relationship started, but it clearly has developed and matured to a point that Parker seems almost a lock to come to NU if Fred is retained.  I would not feel nearly so confident if Fred is fired.  He is a top 100 recruit and a very skilled player, yet probably not good enough to go to the NBA anytime soon.  He is the exact type of player we need in the program.  I feel similarly about many of the 2022 recruits.

 

So my position in a nutshell.  Fred/Matt A have failed miserably in their recruiting the first 2 years.  The third year (this year's class), was a bit better but still not good enough.  I do think Wilhelm can develop into a very solid B1G level player by his Jr./Sr years.  And let's remember, he will be a freshman next year b/c of his injury.  Add in Wilcher and Tominaga as role player 3-point specialist.  They are not great, and probably not starter quality, but can be rotation players on a good team by their Jr./Sr. years.

 

The 2022 class is where I believe Matt A really stepped up his game.  Ramel Lloyd has a massive offer list, including Kansas, Oregon, etc.  He is very athletic and looks to have some of that "dog" in him.  Washut recently said that Jamarques Lawrence is playing so well he will be in the top 150 soon.  Keita hopefully is a legit big man.  And although Dawson is a wildcard, but he has good length and is athletic, and Fred has already said he plays with passion and energy (dives on the floor, etc). 

 

We also are still in play for some very solid recruits like Avery Brown, who would the perfect PG IMO.  Matt A may not be able to reel him in, but he at least has a decent shot.

 

So in short, I see considerable improvement.  I could be wrong.  All these future recruits could be busts just like the past couple years.  But I am just going off what I read/watch/hear and that is why i am willing to give them more time. 

 

If there is one thing this year has shown, it's that you can get all of the "top level" talent you want, but if they don't gel, you'll still be 0fer in conference.  I've already seen that we can recruit "talent".  What I haven't seen is that talent gel in any of Fred's three years.