nuled2dance Posted February 17, 2014 Report Posted February 17, 2014 What really are our bad losses. UAB was bad but was penn state and Purdue really terrible losses? Jerry Palm was on 1620 and mentioned we have a lot of bad losses. Other than UAB I really don't view any other loss as bad. Am I way off. He also said we would need to go 5-1 with only loss being Wisconsin. I really feel he is off an wa reaching. Nick had to remind him of our schedule as well. Thoughts?
lanigan123 Posted February 17, 2014 Report Posted February 17, 2014 UAB, Michigan, PSU and Perdue are the ones that hurt. If we win the UAB and the Michigan game I think we would be dancing!
throwback Posted February 17, 2014 Report Posted February 17, 2014 We have a few 100+ RPI losses - PSU, Purdue, UAB. However all were away from home and only UAB is outside top 125, so he may be talking out of his ass a bit. Meaning I'm sure most "experts" glance at 10 overall losses for NU & 4 in the non-con and have no idea that 7 of those losses have come to Top 25 RPI teams, as they probably assume NU scheduled soft in the non-con. That said two Top 25 wins, one of which came in a true road game, should offset the three 100+ losses in the eyes of the NCAA committee, especially for a team that has played a Top 30 schedule. Bottom line is we just need to keep winning, go at least 4-2 down the stretch to stay in it. And one more Top 25 RPI win wouldn't hurt, whether it's Wisky or in a Big Ten Tourney quarterfinal game. The better OSU & MSU play from here on out, the better for us. Most of these national guys have no idea what NU has done this season, other than seeing the final score yesterday. And I doubt most of them have done much homework on NU yet, so they're just guessing/making assumptions. The ones that have at least glanced at numbers probably don't realize NU has won 6 of 8, another key component for the NCAA committee. In other words, NU's roughly first half of the season has the 3 100+ RPI losses. The roughly back half of the season thus far has the two Top 25 RPI wins and no 100+ RPI losses. Finishing strong is worth quite a bit. At this point, I'd pay attention more to what the regional guys are saying, such as the Big Ten Network analysts. They're on the NU bandwagon big time in the past 10 days, because they're seeing it up close and personal. Most national guys aren't paying close attention yet. If we keep winning, we'll force them to do some homework. Just got to keep winning.
ajb5856 Posted February 17, 2014 Report Posted February 17, 2014 What really are our bad losses. UAB was bad but was penn state and Purdue really terrible losses? Jerry Palm was on 1620 and mentioned we have a lot of bad losses. Other than UAB I really don't view any other loss as bad. Am I way off. He also said we would need to go 5-1 with only loss being Wisconsin. I really feel he is off an wa reaching. Nick had to remind him of our schedule as well. Thoughts? I echo this sentiment. I mean, is a B1G road loss really considered a bad loss when talking about tournament resumes? Yes we want the Penn St game back, but is it a bad loss? Northwestern and Penn State bring up the rear for the B1G RPI-wise and quite a few B1G teams, even tourney bound teams, have lost to those two. Some B1G tourney bound teams have lost to those two at home. What gives?
HuskerCager Posted February 17, 2014 Report Posted February 17, 2014 UAB, Penn St and Purdue are the ugly ones. But if we finish strong, it helps us that they are early season, not late season ugly losses.
icedragon101 Posted February 17, 2014 Report Posted February 17, 2014 I think all losses hurt us, but their are some that hurt worse then others, because they snowball. I think our SCC losses against UMASS & UAB hurt really bad, and our loss to Creighton was not necessary. All 3 are with in our control and completely unnecessary to play. Like i said earlier, the SCC was too much to early, the team was inexperienced. If we go back to the sunbowl classic, we win that tournament. We bring in UAB and Georgia at PBA. Take Creighton off and bring in Drake. 3 good games 3 win we are 17- 7, i think the confidence we would have would have be good for +1 more win, the PSU game so I think we would be 18-6,7-5 in big 10 play with 6 to play, we go 5-1 the rest of the way and 2 win in the big 10 toruney. that is 23 -7 in Big10 play and 25 win total, that is a Dance resume. http://basketball.realgm.com/ncaa/tournaments/Non-Conference/Don-Haskins-Sun-Bowl-Invitational/75/Bracket/2014/606 Norm Peterson, hskr4life, tcp and 9 others 12
Huskerpapa Posted February 17, 2014 Report Posted February 17, 2014 If I go by my smell test, there are two losses that are bad losses to me, Penn State and Purdue. Both can be avenged to a certain degree...starting Thursday evening.
icedragon101 Posted February 17, 2014 Report Posted February 17, 2014 Here we go again......... you worry over nothing, that all depends on your response
Norm Peterson Posted February 17, 2014 Report Posted February 17, 2014 Time to drop that argument, icedragon. You have mentioned several times in the past that you think it was a mistake to schedule tough the way Miles scheduled. I think you're totally wrong, but, fair enough, we can agree to disagree. What we cannot agree on is your need to bring this up again and again. The loss to Creighton was not "avoidable" since our commitment to playing that game took place long before Miles was hired. We've been playing that series for ... a long time. While there have been times I would have favored dropping it, we haven't. And there's certainly no shame losing to them this year. It puts us in pretty good company. As far as the tournament in Charleston, I cannot believe you continue to beat that drum. I'm not going to even comment. It's time to let it go. As in don't bring it up again.
icedragon101 Posted February 17, 2014 Report Posted February 17, 2014 Time to drop that argument, icedragon. You have mentioned several times in the past that you think it was a mistake to schedule tough the way Miles scheduled. I think you're totally wrong, but, fair enough, we can agree to disagree. What we cannot agree on is your need to bring this up again and again. The loss to Creighton was not "avoidable" since our commitment to playing that game took place long before Miles was hired. We've been playing that series for ... a long time. While there have been times I would have favored dropping it, we haven't. And there's certainly no shame losing to them this year. It puts us in pretty good company. As far as the tournament in Charleston, I cannot believe you continue to beat that drum. I'm not going to even comment. It's time to let it go. As in don't bring it up again. I mentioned it 2 times, that is all. I am sorry you take to so personally, but someone else brought the subject up. They asked about bad losses, I simply responded with my opinion. That is what we do here is give opinions. That is my opinion and I am sticking to it. Sorry you don't like it, but I don't believe the forum is called "tell Norm what he wants to hears forum". Here is a suggestion, why don't just try responding to the post. What bad losses do you see. I've to you mine you tell me yours pvhusker, tcp and hskr4life 3
HB Posted February 17, 2014 Report Posted February 17, 2014 OK, I'll respond to the post, Dragon. What evidence do you have that UAB and Georgia were willling to come to PBA? It's easy to be a knee-jerk critic, but the staff has to live in the real world, where getting home games against below 200 RPI teams is difficult. Even Drake--any evidence they would have played us here? And how does Miles just up and drop Creighton after nearly 40 years of consecutive games? Think maybe he would have had to clear that one with a few folks? The good news is Miles is universally praised by experts across the country as being one of the best schedulers around for the tournament committee. I'll probably defer to their expertise rather than yours.
icedragon101 Posted February 17, 2014 Report Posted February 17, 2014 Why wouldn't they come? we got USC to come. All teams have scheduling needs. Big Conference team that could be beat. Possible TV match up They are trying to get as many wins as possible and we match up great with both of them. Each team thinks they can beat the other and won't be blown out. Drake is right don't the road and if we asked they might, What reason would they not come. major conference, TV game, close by nebraska fan travel well and would likely travel Des Moines. So is if changing the scheduling would net 25 wins would you change it and let the conference schedule take care of the top 25? Red Rum and jaimes2000 2
HB Posted February 17, 2014 Report Posted February 17, 2014 Why wouldn't they come? we got USC to come. All teams have scheduling needs. Big Conference team that could be beat. Possible TV match up They are trying to get as many wins as possible and we match up great with both of them. Each team thinks they can beat the other and won't be blown out. Drake is right don't the road and if we asked they might, What reason would they not come. major conference, TV game, close by nebraska fan travel well and would likely travel Des Moines. So is if changing the scheduling would net 25 wins would you change it and let the conference schedule take care of the top 25? Because they don't, and everyone knows it. USC was part of the conference challenge format. Most of the mid majors and high majors require a home game in return at best (and most high majors won't even consider a home and home, they require a 2 for 1 or just a road game. Financially we need home games, and the only way to get enough is to schedule low majors. I suggest you read up on scheduling--going back more than 10 years their are lots of articles deomonstrating how difficult it is for the Nebraskas of the world to get home games. Or, just keep criticising from your fantasy world.
Norm Peterson Posted February 17, 2014 Report Posted February 17, 2014 Why wouldn't they come? we got USC to come. All teams have scheduling needs. Big Conference team that could be beat. Possible TV match up They are trying to get as many wins as possible and we match up great with both of them. Each team thinks they can beat the other and won't be blown out. Drake is right don't the road and if we asked they might, What reason would they not come. major conference, TV game, close by nebraska fan travel well and would likely travel Des Moines. So is if changing the scheduling would net 25 wins would you change it and let the conference schedule take care of the top 25? We've had coaches who tried scheduling soft to get to a certain number of wins. The selection committee has seen that kind of approach and is clearly not impressed. They deliberately try to discourage teams from trying to schedule cream-puff opponents during the non-conference. That's why we have the rpi -- to give us a sense of the quality of your schedule. It forces you to take some risks playing tougher teams. And if you win, it pays off. jaimes2000 1
brfrad Posted February 18, 2014 Report Posted February 18, 2014 Why wouldn't they come? we got USC to come. All teams have scheduling needs. Big Conference team that could be beat. Possible TV match up They are trying to get as many wins as possible and we match up great with both of them. Each team thinks they can beat the other and won't be blown out. Drake is right don't the road and if we asked they might, What reason would they not come. major conference, TV game, close by nebraska fan travel well and would likely travel Des Moines. So is if changing the scheduling would net 25 wins would you change it and let the conference schedule take care of the top 25? Because Miles told everyone what the committee looks for in scheduling terms. He has talked to committee members who say the most important thing in making the tournament is the scheduling you control, which is non conference. Your non conference schedule is key, I will wager my life savings that beating a 171 ranked Drake team at home is less impressive than losing to the 8th ranked Creighton team in Omaha according to the selection committee. Again, there is more to scheduling than just naming teams to play. You have a lot of things to do. Georgia and UAB might come to Lincoln, but you have to match it up with away games, for sure against Georgia, and possibly UAB. Next, you have to look at TV options. I know the games for the Charleston Classic were on ESPN3, ESPNU, and ESPN2, but you have a chance to be on TV. Georgia would probably get a BTN option if a time slot is available. The away game would probably not get any TV coverage. With your schedule it would take 23 wins to be a lock for the tournament. Tim Miles' schedule probably takes 20 to be a lock.
brfrad Posted February 18, 2014 Report Posted February 18, 2014 Speaking of UAB as a bad loss, why can't we look at how they were playing when they beat Nebraska? The previous night they went to 2OT against a New Mexico team that is ranked 26th in the RPI. They then beat Nebraska, and 9 days later beat North Carolina. They haven't played well the rest of the year, but during that stretch they were a pretty good team.
Donkey Posted February 18, 2014 Report Posted February 18, 2014 There are usually 3 criteria which factor into the "bad loss" equation: 1. Location of the game. Road wins are paramount in sports. Since the NCAA tournament is played away from home court, teams need to demonstrate the mental toughness needed to play through games in unfamiliar territory and, potentially, without crowd support. 2. Quality of the opponent. This criteria is usually the most subjective of the three. Some pundits look at the quality of the opponent at the time the game was played while others examine the quality of the opponent at the time of discussion. I will discuss this issue in specific losses below. To illustrate, I will be using the KenPom's rankings at the time the game was played and current ranking as of today. 3. Final score. Any loss of 15 points or more. Some pundits look for scores of 10 points or more; however, a 10-12 point win may be the result of a team fouling at the end of the game to stop the clock and reduce opportunities. I will apply this criteria to each loss individually. 1. UMass: Neutral court, 6 pt loss, 47/19 Nebraska's rank at the time of the game: 70 Good loss: Nebraska remained competitive throughout the game but just could not pull it off in the end. UMass has kept itself in the top 50 since the time of the game. 2. UAB Neutral court, 13 pt loss, 90/165 Nebraska's rank at the time of the game: 74 Bad loss: This one hits pretty much all of the criteria. UAB was lower ranked than Nebraska at the time of tip off and remains more than 100 spots below Nebraska. 3. Creighton, road game, 15 pt loss, 24/8 Nebraska's rank at the time of the game: 94 Bad loss: Even though this game was on the road and Creighton was and still is highly rated, the margin of loss is too high for a rivalry game. 4. Cincinnati, road game, 15 pt loss, 39/14 Nebraska's rank at the time of the game: 92 Bad loss: See Creighton. 5. Iowa, road game, 10 pt loss, 13/24 Nebraska's rank at the time of the game: 94 Neutral: Yes Nebraska was really never in this game, but it did close the gap and pushed Iowa at the end of the game. 6. tOSU, road game, 29 pt loss, 2/15 Nebraska's rank at the time of the game: 92 Bad loss: 29 pt margin, it does not matter whether Nebraska won the second go-around. This loss still stings. 7. Michigan, home game, 1 pt loss, 20/16 Nebraska's rank at the time of the game: 96 Good loss: even though Nebraska lost at home, the game was tight and Nebraska should have won 8. Purdue, road game, 6 pt loss, 93/108 Nebraska's rank at the time of the game: 90 Neutral: Even though Nebraska is substantially better now, a 6 pt loss at Purdue is all right, now if Nebraska was a top 25 program . . . it would be a bad loss. 9. Penn State, road game, 4 pt loss, 110/112 Nebraska's rank at the time of the game: 77 Neutral/Bad loss: Most will consider this a bad loss due PSU's bad ranking; but others see a 4 pt loss on the road. Unlike the tOSU games, a big win against PSU at home will neutralize this loss. 10. Michigan road game, 29 pt loss, 15/16 Nebraska's rank at the time of the game: 76 Bad loss: 29 pt loss. That Nebraska with 5-6 bad losses, 2-3 Neutral losses, and 2 Good losses. Those 5-6 Bad losses alone could keep Nebraska from dancing.
tuxino Posted February 18, 2014 Report Posted February 18, 2014 Time to drop that argument, icedragon. You have mentioned several times in the past that you think it was a mistake to schedule tough the way Miles scheduled. I think you're totally wrong, but, fair enough, we can agree to disagree. What we cannot agree on is your need to bring this up again and again. The loss to Creighton was not "avoidable" since our commitment to playing that game took place long before Miles was hired. We've been playing that series for ... a long time. While there have been times I would have favored dropping it, we haven't. And there's certainly no shame losing to them this year. It puts us in pretty good company. As far as the tournament in Charleston, I cannot believe you continue to beat that drum. I'm not going to even comment. It's time to let it go. As in don't bring it up again. I mentioned it 2 times, that is all. I am sorry you take to so personally, but someone else brought the subject up. They asked about bad losses, I simply responded with my opinion. That is what we do here is give opinions. That is my opinion and I am sticking to it. Sorry you don't like it, but I don't believe the forum is called "tell Norm what he wants to hears forum". Here is a suggestion, why don't just try responding to the post. What bad losses do you see. I've to you mine you tell me yours Icy when does just getting to the tournament good enough? A tough schedule will make a hardened team. There are no guarantees that they would have won any of those games you mentioned. tux
brfrad Posted February 18, 2014 Report Posted February 18, 2014 Donkey, you have Iowa as a neutral loss, saying that we weren't in the game. We were within 5 points with 2 minutes left with the ball. I would say that is a good loss.
Hoopskers Posted February 18, 2014 Report Posted February 18, 2014 I think our SCC losses against UMASS & UAB hurt really bad The UMass loss doesn't hurt bad at all. They are a top 20 RPI team right now.
hhcmatt Posted February 18, 2014 Report Posted February 18, 2014 I mentioned it 2 times, that is all. You have 60+ posts on the board. Over half of them have been in regards to you thinking that the Charleston Classic was some sort of scheduling error. Everyone on the board knows that you think it was a mistake. You have an entire topic dedicated to the topic. If you think that we should schedule only winnable games you will hate the Tim Miles era because that is not what he does. Jadler 1
hhctony Posted February 18, 2014 Report Posted February 18, 2014 Anyone who thinks signing the deal with ESPN was a gaffe is missing the point of building a brand and building a program. No other way to look at it. If you are anybody you play in one of these every year. HB and hhcmatt 2
Silverbacked1 Posted February 18, 2014 Report Posted February 18, 2014 Oh come on guys you know that we can get anybody we want to play us here. Tim just doesn't want to do it.
Recommended Posts