Where It Went Wrong (Maybe) -- Some Stats

[cornfed24-7]

19 minutes ago, Vinny said:

If it takes $5 mil to compete and Fred was giving around $2 mil, we better not fire Fred.

 

That statement will remain as long as the situation does.

Right?!? Because what's your bench mark for success if this is true? I don't know the answer to that. But I know what ever the answer is Hoiberg blew that bench mark out the water this last 2-3 years.

 

I'm to believe there's a coach out there that's going achieve even marginally better results given the same situation as Fred. Get out of here with that mess. 

 

Someone mentioned recently, I think in jest, that we haven't tried the Northwestern approach yet. But if this is the reality then I think that's probably the best bet and Fred has done a good enough job to be the guy to bet on.

 

 

 

[hhcmatt]

24 minutes ago, cornfed24-7 said:

I'm to believe there's a coach out there that's going achieve even marginally better results given the same situation as Fred. Get out of here with that mess. 

 

Yes. I wouldn't say Fred excels at all in running a college basketball team or roster construction, which is a very big part of the job. On the flip side, you could argue that Nebraska excels less at hiring a "better coach".

 

Maybe the more apt question is whether or not a "better coach" would get more, similar, or less NIL money than Fred. 

[HuskerFever]

59 minutes ago, UnicamMan said:

Maybe instead of hiring a coach we should just let the team coach itself and use the money for players.  This is mostly snark. 

 

[hskr4life]

1 hour ago, cornfed24-7 said:

 I totally believe that. But let's say you drop a cool 500k more on his offer does that change his ask? It may not have. 

 

But 500k seems like chump change from what I'm learning today. If it really is 5 mil to compete and we're closer to 2 mil then from here on out I am just going to assume we couldn't come up with a persuasive enough offer to make a player either stay at or commit to the Huskers.

 

 

Or was he asked to go to free up some salary ca.... I mean NIL in hopes we could land something different (maybe we swung and missed after this happened)

[cornfed24-7]

2 minutes ago, hskr4life said:

 

Or was he asked to go to free up some salary ca.... I mean NIL in hopes we could land something different (maybe we swung and missed after this happened)

Yeah. That's the problem apparently. We have money to compete between 2 role players. Other teams have the money to keep their role players and compete for "better" role players and possibly different makers.

[cornfed24-7]

39 minutes ago, hhcmatt said:

 

Yes. I wouldn't say Fred excels at all in running a college basketball team or roster construction, which is a very big part of the job. On the flip side, you could argue that Nebraska excels less at hiring a "better coach".

 

Maybe the more apt question is whether or not a "better coach" would get more, similar, or less NIL money than Fred. 

This is why I am arguing about the last 2-3 years. To me this in where a solid line in sand is of how teams were run after the current NIL and transfer rules  and before.

 

Fred was awful in the before. But that doesn't matter. Completely different world now. He's done pretty good in the after.

 

In the post  I said same situation meaning meaning same NIL if that wasn't clear. And I just don't believe there is a coach out there that would achieve better results with the same or less NIL. 

 

As far as roster management I just can't bring myself to fault Hoiberg if he's really operating on a budget of 2mil, but it takes 5mil to compete.

 

To me this roster confirms this because it reeked of a roster that was taking what we could get not what we wanted. 

 

If they fired Fred tomorrow I wouldn't think it's the right or wrong choice. But who ever they hired next you wouldn't convince me that they would achieve any better results than what Fred has the last 3 years if they operate with the same NIL budget.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dean Smith]

2 hours ago, hskr4life said:

 

Or was he asked to go to free up some salary ca.... I mean NIL in hopes we could land something different (maybe we swung and missed after this happened)

Again sources say essegian was the targeted replacement for Wilcher so I’m assuming he took the NIL 

[Blindcheck]

My thoughts on this year

I liked the Defensive strategy and when it was working, it caused a lot of havoc.  My issues especially as the season progressed that we didn't have an alternative way to defend teams that had done a good job of devising a way to burn us on our traps.  Uf a team keeps hitting threes from our traps, it would be nice to throw something else at them instead of continually giving them the same looks on offense.

 

I was not that impressed by Berke and Meah during the first part of the season, but when they couldn't play they were definitely missed.  Meah could erase mistakes on the defensive end (surprised he only had 12 blocks, but I think he was more of a deterrence) and his length made it tougher for teams to take advantage when he was involved in the traps on the baseline.

 

Shooting.  We need guys that can knock down shots, but everyone needs it.  We also need to make sure the guys that can shoot are the guys getting the shot. Berke and Wooster taking a combined 127 3s and only making a combined 33 (25.9%), that is tough on an offense.  I am not saying don't ever shoot 3s if they are playing, but they need to be more selective (that's about 4 combined attempts a game and it probably should have been between 2 and 3 attempts per game.

 

I thought Morgan was solid especially since he was generally a bench player and if we can get 8 pts and 4 rbs out a bench big, I'll take it.

 

I love how Sam plays, but he ideally he comes off the bench and averages 15 minutes a game not 22 minutes a game...he deserved the minutes he got, but we need guys that take those minutes from him.

 

Brice and Gary tried to will this team to victories and sometimes it worked and other times it didn't.

 

Connor was streaky, but when he is the only shooter, I think it is much easier to take him away.

 

 

 

 

[Norm Peterson]

Our five highest-volume perimeter shooters first half of the season vs. second half:

 

Through the end of December, Conner Essegian was 35/79 for 44.3% from downtown; after January 1, he was 35/109 for 32.1% from downtown.

 

Through the end of December, Brice Williams was 20/47 for 42.6%; after January 1, he was 35/108 for 32.4%.

 

Through the end of December, Juwan Gary was 14/43 for 32.6%; after January 1, he was 20/67 for 29.9%.

 

Through the end of December, Berke was 8/28 for 28.6%; after January 1, he was 14/49 for 28.6% but at a higher volume for a low-percentage shooter.

 

Through the end of December, Rollie was 5/21 for 23.4%; after January 1, he was 6/29 for 20.7%.

[Norm Peterson]

I don't think "conference defenses had us figured out" explains our plummeting perimeter shooting accuracy after January 1. We looked good against UCLA on January 4. But blowing a 15-point lead at Iowa I guarantee hurt our psyche and probably sent us on the six-game skid. (You know how coaches always say "don't lose the same game twice;" I think we might have lost Iowa more than twice.)

 

Anyway, we had six one-possession losses (including the Iowa OT loss, which we should have won in regulation.)

 

A single additional made trey in any two of those games and we might well be dancing instead of watching.

 

We were that close.

[Norm Peterson]

On 3/20/2025 at 3:26 PM, Norm Peterson said:

I don't think "conference defenses had us figured out" explains our plummeting perimeter shooting accuracy after January 1. We looked good against UCLA on January 4. But blowing a 15-point lead at Iowa I guarantee hurt our psyche and probably sent us on the six-game skid. (You know how coaches always say "don't lose the same game twice;" I think we might have lost Iowa more than twice.)

 

Anyway, we had six one-possession losses (including the Iowa OT loss, which we should have won in regulation.)

 

A single additional made trey in any two of those games and we might well be dancing instead of watching.

 

We were that close.

 

I should say we had six one-possession losses after January 1. We had an additional 1-possession loss at the beginning of the season to a team now in the field of 32.

[Vinny]

34 minutes ago, Norm Peterson said:

 

I should say we had six one-possession losses after January 1. We had an additional 1-possession loss at the beginning of the season to a team now in the field of 32.

I added it up recently, 21 points spread out across 7 games would have put us at 24-7.