Norm Peterson

Same. I have some hope that off-season personnel moves have made a big difference. Taking a decidedly wait-and-see approach.

I'm struggling here. Objectively, you look at our roster and our history and we have no world beaters on this team and I think they should be picking us no higher than 150 or so. And I think to myself, yeah, objectively, that's where you'd think we should be. AND I think we'll be better than that. But then they pick us at 108, and Torvik at 92 for goodness sake, and I'm thinking man they're acting like a bunch of Husker homers. Drinking the red Kool-Aid. I mean, that's kinda the ballpark where I think we'll be. But I'm assuming I've got a lot of red-color-glasses influence there. Of course I would think we'll be better than the 150ish that we should have been picked at. The thing I'm struggling with is why the hell do they think we'll be as good as I think we'll be? That almost never happens.

Ever notice how no one ever suggests a player work on his length? Personally, I'd like to see Walker be about 6'11". And mid-40s on his 3-pointer. But that's all about the off-season. If he didn't grow 3 inches while he was worrying about making NIL deals in June and July, it's probably too late now. Same with Keisei. If he doesn't come back 6'4", it's like he's not even trying.

Well there is that possibility too. Not sure which one is worse: the one you can't do anything about; or the one you maybe could do something about but haven't.

The "we didn't hire Dana Altman and so he did some voodoo shit and hexed us" curse?

I think Wisconsin firing Paul Crist just broke the Frank Solich curse. I’m hoping there was some basketball anomaly curse rolled up in there too.

After last year, Norm be like "do you have anything stronger than Everclear?"

I'm getting wisps of info suggesting that Hoiberg is "adjusting." There appear to be hints of accountability taking place that would have been probably ignored a year ago. And this might not have simply come from Trev. I'm just going by tea leaves on this, but I have to imagine staff would have also been a bit frustrated at the lack of the head guy holding the line on some discipline issues. Last year be like: "Dammit, you gotta have my back on this." This year be more like: "Thanks for having my back on this." So, I mean, I agree that it sure looks like Fred is not acting like a dead man walking, and your assessment that it's sort of year 2 might not be far off.

Just an observation, but that's not a very descriptive thread title. It doesn't really give me a summary of what the thread will be about. For all I know, you could be making reference to International Podcast Day. Or maybe International Translation Day. I mean, who knows? Here's some helpful guidance:

Danny said that on Sports Nightly and the compliance people lost their shit thinking the NCAA might view it as an attempt to circumvent the eligibility rules and deny the extra year. He had to walk back that comment very carefully. Also, it's no coincidence that Cookie played until the Creighton game that year.

On the subject of Kedrick Ford, what's your all-time favorite Kedrick Ford Husker Hoops moment? What one play stands out in your memory?

OK, so you've given us the rationale/justification/excuse for why we might/should lose all but five of our first 13 games. That leaves Maine, Pine Bluff, Omaha, Boston College and Queens. I'll stand by what I said before: If the Huskers walk off the floor on 12/20 with fewer than 6 wins, Fred Hoiberg should not be the coach on 12/21. Five wins in the first 13 games is an incredibly low bar. And, to be honest, I don't actually think we'll have to face this question. I think we'll be better than 5-8 after our first 13. But if we're not, there's no reason to suspect it'll get any better as the season progresses. If we don't have at least six wins by December 21, then someone else should be our coach when we face Iowa on December 29.

A competent basketball team will not be 5-8 on December 21.

Agreed. I'm hoping against hope that Fred's team gets off to a good start. And has a good middle. And a good end, even. However, I'm really worn out on 7-10-win seasons. Really worn out. So, let me ask you this: If we're 6-7 or worse after the Battle in the Vault, heading into conference play, do you make a coaching change? What's your cutoff? What if, by that point, we only have wins over Maine, UNO, Pine Bluff, Boston College and Queens U? There is now historical precedence for Trev to call the dugout in the third inning and bring in a reliever. If we only have 5 wins heading into the bulk of conference play, how can you justify leaving Fred at the helm? Can you justify it? How many wins do you realistically think Fred needs to have on 12/20 to be allowed to continue to coach the rest of the season? For me? It's gotta be at least 6. Six would still be under .500 during the "easy" part of the schedule. If the Huskers only have 5 or fewer wins when they walk off the floor after the 12/20 game against Queens, Fred should not be the coach on 12/21 in my opinion.

Drawing a blank. Did it get much attention at the time?

Reasons to wait 3 weeks: $7.5 million in additional buyout money that we someone will have to pony up. Reasons not to wait 3 weeks: What if he beats OU? Improbable, but what if? What if he wins the next three? Do you still fire him at the beginning of October? Or do you have to wait at that point for the remainder of the season and field all the "what does Frost need to do at this point to keep his job" questions? And, while you've made up your mind and don't think there's any real chance he'll go on a winning streak, you'll still have to deal with those questions and you'll still have to give the ol' "We'll make an announcement at the end of the season" line. What if he loses to OU but wins the two games after that? Do you still fire him come October 1? What if he loses all three between now and then, and you proceed to fire him on October 1? If you do that, then everyone will wonder why you didn't just fire him after he lost at home to Georgia. Sorry, Georgia *Southern.* Have you done institutional damage to the program by allowing a floundering coach to continue to swing in the breeze? He won't be an effective recruiter with the cloud of termination hanging over him. Is the damage done to our institutional reputation by letting him hang on a few more games a bigger cost than paying the bigger buyout and getting rid of him now? One thing I was told in the midst of all the Hoiberg termination discussion at the end of last season: Money isn't an issue for Trev. He'll do what needs to be done. If we keep a guy, it'll be because he thinks it's the right call rather than because we can't scrape together enough cash to put that coach out of our collective misery. We have the money. Money is not an obstacle. Sometimes fans get fixated on the amount of what they see as undeserved cash a losing coach is going to walk away with after getting fired for not winning enough. We'll just have to get over it. It still baffles me that people were pissed that Doc Sadler was going to get a relatively tiny buyout when he was fired. Coaches cost big money. When you decide to make a change, you're just going to have to pony up. It's just a part of doing business. It ain't affecting your pocket book so don't worry about it.

Did you see Mac McClung just signed a two-way deal with Golden State? "Mac McClung delivered the goods in the 2022-2023 Las Vegas Summer League. Since then, the Warriors never took their eyes off him. He averaged 13.4 points, 3.6 rebounds, and 4.8 assists while shooting 45.6 percent from the floor and 50.0 percent from the 3-point range." Golden State Grabs Lakers’ Summer League Standout Mac McClung - Last Word On Basketball (lastwordonsports.com) How many players who grew up in this country and were unranked by Rivals have played in the NBA? So, I stand by my position expressed the first semester of his freshman year of college that Rivals just whiffed on him.

It's official.

You and I seem to be on the exact same wavelength on this. I mean, anyone born before the industrialized age, who didn't have access to reliable electric lighting, air conditioning, etc., is automatically at least a category beneath HRM Queen Elizabeth. Andrew Carnegie? Schmuck. Sure, he had a nice house, but he never knew what air conditioning felt like. Ah, you're extremely wealthy AND you grew up in the modern era with air conditioning and all the modern conveniences. But did you spend your summers in a place like Balmoral Castle? With a staff waiting on you hand and foot? Alright. So, your last name is Walton. Or Ford. Or Hilton. And you have a virtually inexhaustible trust fund. Great. OK, but how's your health? And your marriage? And did you live to 96 basically with your wits about you the whole time before drifting peacefully into the great beyond? I mean, the lady who inherited the L'Oréal fortune is doing pretty well, but the list is very, very short.

Well, first of all, my joke about fighting extradition obviously blew right past most everyone. But, second, I have no antipathy for Elizabeth. I think she's remarkable in a lot of ways. But this sort of vicarious mourning through wall-to-wall coverage of this event struck me as over-the-top. I'm not one of these people dancing on her grave. I'm repulsed by that, to be honest. But I mean it when I say, rather than being sad at her passing, I'm just giving her two thumbs up on the way out the door and thinking there might be two or three people in the history of the world who had it better. Good job, Elizabeth. Well done.

Hell, if I'd known there was a Queen Elizabeth Jinx, I'd been fighting extradition the last 20 years.

Yeah, up until just now, 90% of the royal subjects have only sung "God Save the King" in jest.

Boy, that was fast.