Norm Peterson

Sucks we didn't get Simeon.

No, seriously. Who was it? It wasn’t me. I like the kid and I thought he would play. But I think it was @Nebrasketballer who called for him to start. I could be wrong.

Colorado starts out at #35, so that should actually be a really good test for us coming up.

So are we. Good early test for how legit we may or may not be. Good barometer.

One of the best defenders. One of the best shooters. Also an explosive dunker. Who was calling for him to start earlier this fall?

I know, right?

In addition to a big ego, Heady also has thin skin. I took a humorous dig at him on Twitter one day and he blocked me. And, I mean, it was just a harmless little poke. Not bombastic or repeated or anything. Just ... blocked. Michael Severe blocked me too, so I've got that going for me.

Diagnose those 20-loss seasons and ask yourself if the reasons for those 20-loss seasons still exist.

Ouch.

Numbers, at this point (in terms of team ranking), don't mean much to me. We're not the #81 team. We're probably among a group of 100 or so that are "on the bubble" so to speak. Until we prove it on the floor. But, unlike the last couple of years, I see some reason to believe they might actually be able to field a competitive team. Two years ago, it was like, no, not gonna happen. Did not have the horses. Grabbed a whole bunch of whoever was available to fill out a roster, and the only question was how bad was it going to be? Going into last year, I had the same reservations. Turned the roster over again, brought in another group of unprovens, and I remember asking why there was any more reason for optimism going into Year 2 than there had been going into Hoiberg Year 1. This year, though, we have some dudes. We have some skilled players. We have good backcourt length, some shooters, and some athletes, and you kinda look at our group and think they ought to be able to play some defense and score. Last year, we had no regular rotation guys who shot the ball better than 38% from three and just as many who were under 30% as were over 35%. Guards. In our regular rotation. Who couldn't hit at least 30% from 3. Three of them. That's terrible. And that won't happen this year. I don't know about 81. Rankings outside the top 25 or so are pretty arbitrary at this point. The computers don't have much reason to like us right now. But I do.

So, uh, about those expectations ... Trey Mac says it's NCAA or bust -- at a minimum. Their *expectation* is that they get that first NCAA win this season. But, you probably know you were picked 11th. What do you think about that? "We know how hard we work; we know the pieces we have."

And @millerhusker with his first 3-pointer of the season, GOT IT!

Great analysis. I will never forget that PSU game where Trey CLEARLY didn't want to pass the ball to Teddy who was CLEARLY begging for it and, as a result, we got a shit shot at the end. I'll be happy if that particular aspect of having Teddy on the team doesn't show up in some way with any other player this year.

@throwback was posting links in the official media thread about the OWH breakdowns of our position groups. I think the OWH dude was doing some good reporting. Depth of analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of our players was better than anyone I've seen outside of this board. We're now less than 1 week out from the first exhibition and I've been very emphatic in my belief that our reserves are a significant upgrade over last year. But, I'm curious for y'all's views on our starting 5 this year compared to last year's. At the peak of the season, when we had all hands on deck, the starters were Dalano, Trey, Teddy, Lat and Derrick. The presumptive starters going into this season are Alonzo, Trey, Bryce, Lat and Derrick. That's the apples-to-apples comparison, as far as I'm concerned. How much does it matter that we have 3 returning starters? Just in terms of system familiarity? A little? A lot? How much does it matter that each of the 3 returning starters has an added year of development? A little? A lot? So, we're swapping a true-freshman 5-star for a troubled journeyman wing. But, like him or not, Teddy was putting up 16.5 points and almost 5 rebounds on nearly 45% from the field and almost 38% from three. What can Bryce give us that Teddy didn't? What did Teddy give us that Bryce likely won't? Anything? Is this a net gain for us this year? A push? How long will it take for Bryce to get up to speed before he produces enough to fill the gap for what we lose in Teddy? Also, was Teddy a net positive or negative for the team last year? This is something we haven't really touched on, at least that I recall. But the coaches all seem to think we began playing our best basketball in the period of time, coincidentally, AFTER Teddy left the team. Is that true? If so, is it really a coincidence? Finally, Banton (definitely an NBA player) vs. Verge (purportedly offered a 2-way contract): Is this a net loss for us? Net gain? Interestingly, about the same time Teddy quit the team, Dalano was demoted to the bench and Kobe Webster was promoted into the starting lineup. And this, again, is about when the coaches were saying we began to play our best basketball. So, there is some basis to infer that whatever we were getting out of Dalano that made him an NBA-caliber player (rebounding and passing for a guy his size?) was offset by something we were able to get with Kobe Webster. But it's not Webster being mentioned as a potential starter this year, it's Verge. So, does THAT say anything very loudly? Bottom line question: Will our starters this year be a substantial upgrade, moderate upgrade, slight upgrade, no upgrade/push, slight downgrade, etc. compared to last year's starters? Thoughts?

Coin flip, you're saying?