dustystehl

Is he anti-Kobe? Or just pro-Tai?

Probably not. But I was in a good mood so I finally posted something positive!

Love to read that Copeland and Palmer were a big part of Dachon's recruiting process! Leads me to believe that if they don't go pro, they'll both be back at Nebraska next season. Dachon had great things to say about Miles' recruiting pitch (most notably about how well prepared he was for the in-home visit), which is also good to read! Now let's hope we can beat out Pittsburgh again and get Xavier Johnson to re-commit!

I hear and understand your point of view, we just have different thoughts/feelings. And that's okay.

I doubt that it's an officially licensed product of the University of Nebraska as "Nebrasketball" is not an official trademark of the University. (But it should be.) I have a "Protect the Vault" t-shirt, but it definitely was not designed, manufactured, distributed, or sold by the University. I bought it on Amazon.

Is it an Adidas brand shirt?

What if "the guy" Moos wants wasn't available? Why fire Tim Miles only to hire someone else who isn't "the guy"? That could set the program back even further! I like Tim. I want him to be "the guy" at Nebraska. I want him to be a winner here. After last season, I am genuinely curious what he can do this next season. I obviously have my doubts that Tim can lead this program to the heights I'd like to see it achieve. So, to me, a one-year extension was fitting.

You're right. We didn't "fold". Even the loss at Illinois wasn't exactly "folding". I was bummed at the end of the season - it felt like a giant letdown. But you're right in that it was different this season.

Should the AD or any of those other folks you mentioned have full confidence in Miles, though? Surely you're not surprised that the AD isn't all-in on Tim Miles. How is any of this a shock to people?

1. There may have been SOME positive momentum. Personally, I was pretty bummed finishing the season 0-2 and not making the NCAA Tournament. The end of the season was a big letdown. It felt very Nebrasketball-esque. That's our reputation/brand: another letdown. So, yeah. I suppose we could have furthered that brand, but I'm not sure we want to? 2. My concern throughout the season was that we would fold down the stretch. (This was based on Miles' - the CEO's - track record.) I suppose those negative thoughts could have been mitigated with winning postseason games? We did not do that. 3. I think the brand had remained unchanged. We won 22 games, finished 4th in the Big Ten and still didn't make the NCAA Tournament. What's more Nebrasketball than that?! If we want to further the Nebrasketball brand, we need to win games that matter. We didn't do much of that this past season.

Good companies don't evaluate CEO's based on the most recent quarter or even year. They take into account the entire time that CEO has been with the company (and perhaps even before that). The CEO reflects the company and its brand, so the company has to be very diligent with their review of the CEO. This can take time. If a CEO has struggled for a few years but then has a decent/good year, the company still has every right to be hesitant. The company may reward the CEO for a job well done with a small raise or extension, but very few companies would say, "Now he's getting it! Give him at least 5 more years!" because nothing has happened that proves that CEO can sustain success for multiple years in a row. The company is not sure they want to tie their brand to that CEO for the long term. And that's okay. The company said that as soon as the year was over, they would inform the public (its consumers) what they were going to do with their CEO. The company informed its consumers just 15 days after the end of the year that they've given their CEO a one-year extension for a job well done this past year. The "brand" of the company will most likely remain the same as it was the year before, except to the hardcore consumers who really like that CEO. But to the general public (especially nationally), they probably didn't even notice a thing. (The title of this thread made me laugh. The university has yet to embrace using "Nebrasketball" in marketing. I've always thought "Nebrasketball" was cool and catchy, but you can't even buy a "Nebrasketball" t-shirt in the shop at PBA. What a missed BRANDING opportunity!)

One could argue that extending a .500 coach five years would be an even greater implication that Moos doesn't care about winning basketball games. At Nebraska, Miles is 4-13 in March road and neutral site games (3-13 in such games at Colorado State, so 7-26 as a D-I coach). He's 0-6 against Creighton (many of which have been blowouts). If you're happy with going to the NIT every other year, then I guess Miles is your guy. I just want more than that. And I think Moos does, too.

We're the only Power Five school to never win a Tournament game. How much deeper can the ditch get?

1) Miles' contract length is the same as it was at the beginning of last season. Most everyone on this board thought last year's roster was one of the most talented we've had in a long time. The eight-man rotation we utilized late in the year consisted of 5 players who did not play at Nebraska as freshmen. They were transfers who joined the program while Miles' contract was NOT being extended. I see little evidence that extending the coach's contract will hurt recruiting. 2) We were 12-19 in 2016-17 and were still in the top 15 nationally for attendance. I can't imagine extending the coach will hurt attendance. 3) I'm failing to see how extending the coach's contract "sets the program back years". Typically, a .500 coach does not move a program forward at a rate that is pleasing to administrators and/or fan bases. If Miles does well next year, he'll get a better extension. If he doesn't do well and is let go, we will hire a new coach that could potentially move the program forward. So I'm also struggling to see how one more year with a .500 coach "sets the program back years".

Moos only makes $1M per year - half of what Miles gets paid. I understand the point you're trying to make, but (if basing things on salaries) one could argue that Miles should carry 2/3 of the blame here. When it comes down to it, some people support Moos more than Miles, others support Miles more than Moos. We may never agree, but we all just want to know what the heck is going to happen. And who you support impacts how long you're willing to wait.

Had Oregon become "Oregon" (if that makes any sense) while Moos was still there? I didn't think that really happened until right before they hired Chip Kelly.

Has he ever had the budget to hire a $3M+ a year coach? I'm just curious if the resources available to him now will allow him to do some things in a way he's never been able to.

I get what you're saying, but man, what a tough spot to be in. Personally, I don't think Moos views Miles as the guy to run this program long-term. But you can't really justify firing a coach who just won 22 games unless you replace him with a coach who REALLY gets the juices flowing. It's just tough, man.

Who says he doesn't have a plan?

We will never hire Ernie Kent. Stop wasting space on here with Ernie Kent stuff.

Stop blaming the AD. He inherited a tough situation and he's not going to fire Miles just to hire another Miles.

Tough not to blame the head coach when the kid says he doesn't have much of a relationship with him.

Xavier said his relationship with Hunter was the biggest reason he chose Nebraska. He said he will try to build a relationship with Miles and the other coaches while he reevaluates his recruitment. It's head scratching (to say the least) that the head coach didn't have much of a relationship with his top recruit.

I have a bad feeling that even bigger band-aids will be ripped off yet this spring...

Surely, no one is genuinely surprised by this, right?