Offseason

[NUdiehard]

On 9/26/2022 at 2:21 PM, HB said:

I was talking about the class to be signed in November.   Recently lost Braelon Green and Parker Friedrichson.  Per Washut, we don't have a single official visitor for the opening night event on Friday.    Some are speculating we will have to rely exclusively on the transfer portal for the '23 class.   Haven't recruited a true point guard.   It seems to me not getting Freidrichson the second time around reeks of "Oh oh, Hoiberg may not be around when I show up on campus".    And I don't get where we signed a "great recruiting class" that are freshman (sic) now".   

 

The failure to secure a verbal from either Green or Friedrichson is disappointing to say the least.  It does seem that Fred's status as a "hot seat" coach has caught up to him to the point that it is going to be very difficult to land quality freshmen recruits for the 2023 class.  He is in the unfavorable position of needing to win to prove to recruits he is a winner and won't be fired-- but it is very difficult to get the recruits needed to win because he is on the hot seat.   It is a spiral that is hard to get out of.

 

This year's class with 3 freshmen and 1 sophomore (juco) is probably the best he could have hoped for considering his tenuous status going into his 4th year.  Hopefully that core 4 will be a solid foundation for the year's ahead and make up for some of the lack of quality youth in the 2023 class.  But transfers often are not as concerned about his long-term status because they are already upperclassman and only have 1 or 2 years or eligibility remaining.  So unless Fred can pull a rabbit out of his hat, he is going to have to rely on transfers.  He has to hope the 2022 transfers are good enough to earn him another year, then secure quality transfers for 2023 to try and get this program on track.  If he can successfully do that, then maybe he can start landing quality freshmen in future classes. 

 

With that said, although this team has 3 seniors, it is not an "old" team.  If some of these players can develop, they could be a foundation for a few more years: 

5 Freshmen (3 RS Freshmen)

3 Sophomores

2 Juniors

3 Seniors

 

*This does not include the 4 freshmen walk-ons

 

[hhcmatt]

4 hours ago, NUdiehard said:

The failure to secure a verbal from either Green or Friedrichson is disappointing to say the least.  It does seem that Fred's status as a "hot seat" coach has caught up to him to the point that it is going to be very difficult to land quality freshmen recruits for the 2023 class.  He is in the unfavorable position of needing to win to prove to recruits he is a winner and won't be fired-- but it is very difficult to get the recruits needed to win because he is on the hot seat.   It is a spiral that is hard to get out of.

 

I think you could call the Friedrichson miss due to the hot seat.  However, Green was choosing between Arizona St, NC St. and Nebraska.....I'd say that all 3 of these schools have coaches on the hot seat.

[49r]

Don’t really know where to put this, and only a handful of us look at the college hoops folder so I thought here’s as good as any:

https://collegebasketball.nbcsports.com/2022/10/13/acc-commisioner-jim-phillips-time-to-expand-ncaas-big-dance/

[49r]

I agree with Leonard Hamilton, BTW

[Navin R. Johnson]

1 hour ago, 49r said:

I agree with Leonard Hamilton, BTW

 

Yep.  Go to 128 teams and eliminate the NIT.  I don't like byes and plan in games.  The first four idea is dumb to me.

[49r]

1 hour ago, Navin R. Johnson said:

 

Yep.  Go to 128 teams and eliminate the NIT.  I don't like byes and plan in games.  The first four idea is dumb to me.

 

This is exactly what I want to see too.  Just play that first round at the higher seeded team's home arena on like Monday and Tuesday.  Easy-peasy.

[hskr4life]

Just now, 49r said:

 

This is exactly what I want to see too.  Just play that first round at the higher seeded team's home arena on like Monday and Tuesday.  Easy-peasy.

We’d probably find a way to lose to the first 100+ seed.

 

In all seriousness, I like the idea.  Would make for a lot of travel for teams not hosting that first round though.  

[49r]

18 minutes ago, hskr4life said:

We’d probably find a way to lose to the first 100+ seed.

 

In all seriousness, I like the idea.  Would make for a lot of travel for teams not hosting that first round though.  

 

Not really that much different from the 8 teams in the first 4 going to Dayton on short notice now, just be for a bunch more teams and locations.

 

(also, the highest seed would only be #32, and we wouldn't need to worry about playing them any time soon anyway...we aren't in any danger of getting a #1 seed) 

[HuskerFever]

If you went for function over tradition, you'd invite the top 64 teams into the tournament. But they don't. Conference tournaments would be meaningless, but they're tradition. To advance the best team you'd make it a series, but they don't.

 

Sure, you can make some changes, but there's a balance between inclusivity (of #15/16 seeds), tradition (conference champions automatically qualify), etc. If they're not willing to budge on some of those things, you'll never have the perfect tournament that truly invites the best teams and sets up a brackets where the best teams likely advance.

[kldm64]

On 10/13/2022 at 12:28 PM, 49r said:

I agree with Leonard Hamilton, BTW

 

Why not just let every team in the field then?  Adding this many more teams will just ruin the alure of the tournament.  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.  Honestly wish they would go back to 64 teams but certainly don't want to add more teams.

[jimmykc]

I don't know. It just seems like another way to achieve inclusivity by rewarding mediocrity. Would we be as excited for a Huskers first NCAA tourney victory if it would occur against the 100th seed?

[Huskerpapa]

5 minutes ago, jimmykc said:

I don't know. It just seems like another way to achieve inclusivity by rewarding mediocrity. Would we be as excited for a Huskers first NCAA tourney victory if it would occur against the 100th seed?

YES!!!

[OmahaHusker]

Don't mess with the tourney whatsoever. If you think it needs to be altered I'm sorry but you're wrong. More teams would be awful. If you're not good enough to get one of the 36 at-large bids then you don't deserve it. 

[hskr4life]

2 hours ago, jimmykc said:

I don't know. It just seems like another way to achieve inclusivity by rewarding mediocrity. Would we be as excited for a Huskers first NCAA tourney victory if it would occur against the 100th seed?

At this point…. I’m leaning yes.  Lol.

[uneblinstu]

Don't try to fix something that isn't broken. Don't need to change the format at all. It's perfect how it is. Well, almost perfect. Instead of two of the play in games featuring #16 seeds, I'd make those four games for the last four at large spots. Auto berths into the tournament should get to play on Thursday or Friday.

[busticket]

6 hours ago, kldm64 said:

 

Why not just let every team in the field then?  Adding this many more teams will just ruin the alure of the tournament.  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.  Honestly wish they would go back to 64 teams but certainly don't want to add more teams.

Agreed.  I hate the first four garbage.  
 

No matter how many teams you add, you can always complain about the next teams that didn’t make it.  The thing that makes the NCAA tourney so exciting because it is hard to get in.

[HuskerFever]

36 minutes ago, busticket said:

The thing that makes the NCAA tourney so exciting because it is hard to get in.

 

[Gonzaga, MVC, and former Big East schools have entered the chat]

[jimmykc]

I certainly feel that the present format has more than enough teams of questionable quality. But remember, I am old enough to have seen a 16-team format increased to 24, 32, etc. to the present bloated level. For an interesting read on the 1950 NCAA championship, I'll recommend this book.             Review: The dawn of the big dance (journalstar.com)

[Chuck Taylor]

Honestly, if 128 would get us in and get us a win, I don't care whether it's a good format or not. 

[kldm64]

16 hours ago, busticket said:

Agreed.  I hate the first four garbage.  
 

No matter how many teams you add, you can always complain about the next teams that didn’t make it.  The thing that makes the NCAA tourney so exciting because it is hard to get in.

 

My thoughts exactly.  People need to realize this selection is meant to be for teams that are worthy to play for a National Championship and earned the right to do so.  Does the 128th ranked team in the country really deserve that opportunity?  It really de-values the regular season as if you can get to 10 wins, you can still make the tournament.  It would become a joke with early round games that are not worth watching.  They had a nice format until they added the "buy in" games.  Just not worth it.  

 

It will be like football where the top 4 is fine and probably the most deserving but now we are going to jump to 16 teams.  And before long after that, the #17 team will complain they didn't make it so it will go to 24 teams and so on.  Money and schools whining can certainly ruin a good thing.

[49r]

28 minutes ago, kldm64 said:

Does the 128th ranked team in the country really deserve that opportunity?

 

Then let's eliminate the AQ's.  Does anyone really want to watch Saint Peter's play in the NCAA tournament?

[cornfed24-7]

Gonna be the dissenting voice here. Go to 128. It's not the 64 best teams. And I like it. Once the tournament gets to the Sweet 16 It starts to get boring. What I think makes the tournament great is the 1st two rounds. Especially when chaos ensues and upsets are everywhere. I'd bet money in the years when more upsets happen (especially from double digit seeds) the viewership is higher. So go to 128 and create more chaos

[HuskerFever]

46 minutes ago, kldm64 said:

People need to realize this selection is meant to be for teams that are worthy to play for a National Championship and earned the right to do so.

 

That's not fully accurate the way the tournament is/has been structured. There are far better qualified teams than many of the automatic bids.

 

Even decades ago, they gave bids to those who won the conference. Even if #2 in that conference was far better than the majority of the other conferences.

[OmahaHusker]

27 minutes ago, 49r said:

 

Then let's eliminate the AQ's.  Does anyone really want to watch Saint Peter's play in the NCAA tournament?

 

I'm willing to listen to an argument for if you win your conference regular season you get an automatic bid rather than the conference tourney. But increasing to 128 would lose the allure IMO. Basically anyone getting in would be lame. 

[49r]

1 hour ago, cornfed24-7 said:

Gonna be the dissenting voice here. Go to 128. It's not the 64 best teams. And I like it. Once the tournament gets to the Sweet 16 It starts to get boring. What I think makes the tournament great is the 1st two rounds. Especially when chaos ensues and upsets are everywhere. I'd bet money in the years when more upsets happen (especially from double digit seeds) the viewership is higher. So go to 128 and create more chaos

 

When the NCAA expanded the tournament to 64 in 1985 (commonly regarded as the modern era of the NCAA tournament) the number of teams in Division 1 was 280.

 

64/280 = 22.857% of the teams in Division 1 qualified for the NCAA tournament.  That's already a hideously low percentage of teams in a given league that is given the opportunity to compete in the post season.  Pro sports (outside of baseball) generally have about a third to half of their teams compete in the post season.  No casual viewers complain that those post seasons are watered down.

 

This year, there are 363 teams in Division 1 and just 18.73% of the teams will qualify.  Of that 18.73%, there are 21 conferences whose AQ's are typically ranked below 70 or so and who do not realistically have a chance at advancing at all, let alone win the whole thing.  That leaves 11 AQ's (at most) that are higher than that 70 ranking.  That's 47 teams in the field that one could realistically think have a chance at winning a game.  12.95%.  The percentage of teams that actually have a realistic shot at the final four or the championship is much MUCH smaller still.  Probably less than 5%.

 

Of course we don't watch to just see the top powerhouse teams slug it out for a championship.  That's boring (because College Basketball to the casual fan is boring).  The whole reason to tune in to the tournament (and the only reason for probably 95% of sports fans to watch any college hoops at all) is to see the Cinderellas make their run.  The vast majority of people tune in to March Madness to watch the UM-Baltimore County's and Saint Peter's and Loyola's of the world achieve the impossible...and the gambling fun that goes with it.

 

Expand the tournament to 128 and add another few days to the tournament.  Give us one more week to embrace the chaos that comes with it and one more week in the spring to have something fun to talk about.  Hell, I say expand it even to 256 teams.  Get everybody in there!  Let's make this the greatest spectacle in sports.

Edited October 18, 2022 by 49r