Leaderboard

I think we, as fans, will love the brand of basketball played in the end. As long as the NCAA and the conferences remain vigilant in holding the refs accountable to the new standards, the game will ultimately morph back into what it was originally designed to be . It was never intended to be as physical as it's become. It should be a game of flow and movement, and should be played and executed with anticipation and adjustment, rather than force and leverage. With player evolution to a point where even the 18 and 19 year old kids are long, strong, and athletic, the offensive angles and lanes are constricted far more than when I played, based strictly on the physical attributes of the players. The way the game was being called, allowing defenses to redirect offenses consistently, there were points where it was almost impossible to get any look at the basket that wasn't 22 feet and out. That's NOT basketball. I agree with other members above who are saying the players will figure it out, and will ultimately learn to play defense the right way. Teams like Miles has typically put on the floor throughout his career, will excel and thrive in an environment like that, I think. Precision offense and disciplined execution will be rewarded far more than the standard fare isolation and out-athlete-the-opponent type will. All of this is exciting to me, and I believe should be for Nebraska fans in general. We're well-suited to take advantage of this because we've got pretty skilled players, and it will serve to make the games more enjoyable to watch - if not immediately, at least eventually. GBR!!

Caught me - I plagiarized the topic headline from Lopers Hoops Central / Health & Sports Center Dungeon.

Well, I'm no expert, but I'd say the likely starters for UNK would probably be: Taylor Shipley Tyler Shields Connor Beranek Kendal Glidden, and Mike Dentlinger But that's all pretty much just a guess on my part.

I thought he died the same day as Thomas Jefferson, July 4th, 1826....

Let's display this comparison somewhat more graphically: 2013-14 2012-13 Pitchford ====== Ubel (Pitchford some better, some worse than Ubes) Smith >=>=>= Almeida (Smith better athlete, hopefully more durable) Rivers >>>>>> Vucetic (This backup to the backup might get minutes) Shields >>>>>> Rivers (Self-evident fact) Petteway >=>=>= Shields (Shields was just a true frosh last year) Gallegos >=>=>= Gallegos (A year older should mean a year better) Webster <=<=<= Talley (Got to give the senior a bit of a nod here) Peltz >=>=>= Peltz (Healthier, more experience, FWIW) Biggs >>>>>> Empty Seat (Nuff said) Fuller >>>>>> Empty Seat (Nuff said) Hawkins >>>>>> Empty Seat (Still worried about Rivers being the backup?) Vucetic >=>=>= Kurkowski (OK, Kye is a walk-on who really didn't play) That's my comparison, roster to roster, this year to last. Wouldn't get worried about Rivers being in the rotation down low.

so Rivers is our backup center? People might want to lower the expectations a tad. If we finish with a better record than last year, I would be pretty satisfied with that.

GOD I HATE MY IPAD WHEN I TRY TO GIVE POSITIVE POINTS. I totally agree with what you are saying did not mean to give you a negitive. No worries

Welcome to the board, ShirtBot. That might be the best first post ever.

Someone tacked it on to the Wagner thread. I hope it's nothing to worry about. Well, there haven't been any Creighton fans posting in that thread, so from a moderation perspective, tacking it onto the Wagner thread is probably nothing to worry about. I meant I hoped the injury was nothing to worry about. If you took that in any other way, my apologies. I knew what you meant. I was just being a smartass. Your "it" was a dangling modifier and I took full advantage of misconstruing the ambiguity. It was fun. To misconstrue the ambiguity, that is.

Rosenthal 3:16

Once again, I think all the freshman will all play important roles on this years team.

Well, they're here. KenPom for 2013-14! Once again, we start off dead last in the B1G. But at least this year we aren't starting off in the 200's. :shrug: Nothing much really stands out to me other than maybe how high Iowa starts off, and maybe outside the strength of the Charleston Classic, there appears to be a lot of winnable games on our non-con schedule. In fact, it may not be a whole lot more difficult than last years Kenpom rankings as of 10-27-13. ============================== B1G (0-0): 2. Michigan State 7. Ohio State 12. Michigan 15. Iowa 22. Wisconsin 25. Indiana 30. Purdue 35. Minnesota 46. Illinois 79. Penn State 87. Northwestern 123. Nebraska Non-Conference (0-0): 112. Florida Gulf Coast 261. Western Illinois 343. South Carolina State ---Charleston Classic--- 60. Umass 17./82. New Mexico/UAB 96./81./122./88. Clemson/Davidson/Georgia/Temple 336. Northern Illinois ---B1G/ACC Challenge--- 62. Miami 13. @Creighton 189. Arkansas State 342. The Citadel 45. @Cincinnati Other teams of interest: 44. Maryland (0-0) 107. Rutgers (0-0)

Rhetorical Question: How much should someone be punished for something they said in the past they probably wish they could take back?