basketballjones

@aphilso1 Hoiberg's brilliance knows no bounds. Much like China, his plans are measured in 6 years of eligibility.

For what it's worth, I believe that's just part of the game since its inception. To make the game more palatable to the average fan, different things need to be emphasized and adapted.

Hmmm.... I respect your opinion and think there are definitely some solid points here. But your thesis here reminds me of the people who say they don't play defense in the NBA. I think you are highly underestimating the skill of the athletic and large players you are referencing. It just looks a little different than what you think because they are so large. Similar to the NBA argument - when you actually go to a game, and sit close enough, you are immediately blown away by how athletic, skilled, quick, and hard they are playing. For instance - do you feel Nebraska has mostly lost their games in the past few years because of size and athleticism? I don't. I feel like we lose because we can't make shots and don't have guys skilled/explosive enough to get their own shot and/or finish in the paint. And I feel like we mostly get beat because we give up open 3's after open 3's that lead to other things. However, in the same fashion, I think the game is so ugly because of your point about how athletic and big they are now, which means you have more athletic, larger players playing on the same size floor - coached by mercenary maniacs for only ~30 games with plenty of rest between them. I do think the game is officiated very poorly. Not called poorly (as in I believe there's tons of bad calls over and over - that's always been a part of the game), but officiated poorly from the general rules and emphasis point. Players get away with murder and we have the patients running the asylum. I believe if they got back to a more black and white, straightforward view of the basic rules of the game players and coaches would be forced to adjust. This would also lead to an increase in scoring and pace in my opinion.

Every time he hits a shot: "Joson, what a great shot man, you looked great doing that. Do you feel you're getting paid your value at Arizona State?" - Hoiberg

I mean, that’s part of coaching.

Oil money, or what? University of Nebraska has almost double the operating Athletic budget than Texas Tech, fwiw. Not that that is a 1:1 comparison, but it says something.

Yes. Definitely one of those things where the truth is somewhere in the middle. Was their tampering? "Yes." Could Tucker DeVries played all year with his shoulder thing, "yes."

Playing level Tweener. Better than mid-major talent. Struggles against high-major talent. Has to get a lot stronger.

But NIL/your payroll is the only thing that matters? Surely Texas Tech doesn't outspend us. And Lubbock is horrible.

Can anyone explain Texas tech’s continued bball success?

There will never be a question of if Indiana is playing hard and bought in under him. FWIW, DD had the Husker scout almost every year and found ways to make it super personal each time.

Indiana just gained a quasi-fan. I think Devries is as good as it gets out there. He is a true basketball coach. I wish he and Indiana nothing but success (except against us).

I do every time! No one ever seems to want a failed hs coach.

Crazy... starting to think coaching matters.

I wouldn’t say it’s incredible. Just par for the course.

The “our NIL is bad” side of this argument just getting a first round bye in this discussion is pretty unfair imo. I have been following NU Athletics closely my entire life. We are a conservative athletic department that is never at the top of spending. But rarely are we ever the flat out bottom. We typically are competitive. There’s also always many other perks and benefits, along with cost of living, that gets factored in.

If we’re being fair and honest, and looking at this from an outsiders perspective - did he/we almost get in? I know it felt like we were due to how things were when we were an inflated 12-2. But we finished with 17 wins, 1 more game than 2 years ago, where we definitely weren’t “almost in.” We didn’t make our own conference tournament. In a couple years it will be hard for me to consider this a team that “almost made the tourney.”

Fwiw, and @hhcmatt has convinced me on this, I highly doubt those guys redshirted because they were told to. In 2025 you gotta imagine they directly chose to.

Maryland would agree, ha.

That doesn’t matter. You guys are all insinuating coaching/X’s and O’s just does not matter anymore. Spend the most money = winning. That’s what you’re all saying. Even by all your logic who are so obsessed with NIL/1890/Spending money - we should have, at the very minimum - been in the big 10 tourney. I doubt we’re bottom 3-4 in spending in the conference. Especially if you do any “cost of living” adjustments. I mean, if we are, then F me I guess. But I don’t think we are.

How many teams did we lose to, at home, that either 1. Had a worse record than us or 2. Probably don’t spend much or any more than we do in NIL?

I would type a response to address all the things you’re putting in my mouth that I didn’t say, but my thumb broke trying to scroll through this entire post.

Does NIL money help first team all conference players make their free throws or stop them from late/over helping off 3pt shooters in over time with a lead? Or does it stop coaches from teaching doubling non threat posts and over rotating to non shooters to leave open shooters? Does it help put a 7’1” freak lob catch guy by the rim and not 25’ from the hoop trying to dribble?

He, unfortunately, has "best player on a bad team" written all over him. Like if you said we're gonna create this thing around Berke - he could probably thrive but it'll be relatively inefficient and won't make anyone else better. What I have noticed as the biggest flaws in his game are that he just does not know how to "GO" and how to instantly take the angle he was given and maintain it with physicality to attempt to finish. He wants every drive and every move in the paint to be 100% clear/open. Almost like he wants everything to be a "trick/gotcha" to the defender so he ends up with an easy/uncontested shot. Instead dudes just stay in front, stayed on the floor, and he ended up pivoting around like an idiot into nothing. He's gotta develop a more decisive first step and learn how to, without hesitation, take what was given to him and handle the physicality that comes with it.

Agree. If you are only getting a guy for a year you're are only - at best - getting what they have previously done. Often it is worse as they make the adjustment to the new team/conference. If you can get a guy for more than 1 year, that is the only way you will ever get "improvement" over their last contributions.