Donkey

Watch enough game film on a team and you start seeing the nuances which make a team good or hold it back. Izzo probably noted a difference when Biggs was on the floor.

I have seen 10 seeds advance over 7's but that is usually the result of a good, underrated mid-major hitting a AQ school which limped into the tournament. Then the 10 seed has to play a #2 seed the next round. A 12 seed would be better. With the exception of at least one season, there has been at least 1, and often 2-3, 12 seeds beating 5 seeds. Usually 5 seeds are either (a) overrated mid-majors or (b ) AQ schools who finished flat. The 12 seeds are normally schools that fought to get into the tournament (whether through a strong AQ conference schedule or a rough mid-major conference tourney) and are still hungry. Also, the 12 seed plays the 4 seed in the second which is better than playing a 2 seed which probably either won or dominated its conference.

There are usually 3 criteria which factor into the "bad loss" equation: 1. Location of the game. Road wins are paramount in sports. Since the NCAA tournament is played away from home court, teams need to demonstrate the mental toughness needed to play through games in unfamiliar territory and, potentially, without crowd support. 2. Quality of the opponent. This criteria is usually the most subjective of the three. Some pundits look at the quality of the opponent at the time the game was played while others examine the quality of the opponent at the time of discussion. I will discuss this issue in specific losses below. To illustrate, I will be using the KenPom's rankings at the time the game was played and current ranking as of today. 3. Final score. Any loss of 15 points or more. Some pundits look for scores of 10 points or more; however, a 10-12 point win may be the result of a team fouling at the end of the game to stop the clock and reduce opportunities. I will apply this criteria to each loss individually. 1. UMass: Neutral court, 6 pt loss, 47/19 Nebraska's rank at the time of the game: 70 Good loss: Nebraska remained competitive throughout the game but just could not pull it off in the end. UMass has kept itself in the top 50 since the time of the game. 2. UAB Neutral court, 13 pt loss, 90/165 Nebraska's rank at the time of the game: 74 Bad loss: This one hits pretty much all of the criteria. UAB was lower ranked than Nebraska at the time of tip off and remains more than 100 spots below Nebraska. 3. Creighton, road game, 15 pt loss, 24/8 Nebraska's rank at the time of the game: 94 Bad loss: Even though this game was on the road and Creighton was and still is highly rated, the margin of loss is too high for a rivalry game. 4. Cincinnati, road game, 15 pt loss, 39/14 Nebraska's rank at the time of the game: 92 Bad loss: See Creighton. 5. Iowa, road game, 10 pt loss, 13/24 Nebraska's rank at the time of the game: 94 Neutral: Yes Nebraska was really never in this game, but it did close the gap and pushed Iowa at the end of the game. 6. tOSU, road game, 29 pt loss, 2/15 Nebraska's rank at the time of the game: 92 Bad loss: 29 pt margin, it does not matter whether Nebraska won the second go-around. This loss still stings. 7. Michigan, home game, 1 pt loss, 20/16 Nebraska's rank at the time of the game: 96 Good loss: even though Nebraska lost at home, the game was tight and Nebraska should have won 8. Purdue, road game, 6 pt loss, 93/108 Nebraska's rank at the time of the game: 90 Neutral: Even though Nebraska is substantially better now, a 6 pt loss at Purdue is all right, now if Nebraska was a top 25 program . . . it would be a bad loss. 9. Penn State, road game, 4 pt loss, 110/112 Nebraska's rank at the time of the game: 77 Neutral/Bad loss: Most will consider this a bad loss due PSU's bad ranking; but others see a 4 pt loss on the road. Unlike the tOSU games, a big win against PSU at home will neutralize this loss. 10. Michigan road game, 29 pt loss, 15/16 Nebraska's rank at the time of the game: 76 Bad loss: 29 pt loss. That Nebraska with 5-6 bad losses, 2-3 Neutral losses, and 2 Good losses. Those 5-6 Bad losses alone could keep Nebraska from dancing.

For Nebrasketball to seriously be considered for the tourney, we need to win out. That will leave us at 20-10. 12-6 in the conference, and, probably, a 3-4 seed in the BIG tourney. Most importantly, we would be 9-1 going into the BIG and clearly putting our bad losses well behind us. I think it could happen.

I can definitely see Petteway being a late first round draft pick if he puts on some additional weight. Depending upon the talent depth of a particular draft, most teams' focus changes somewhere between pick #10-15. By that time the most developed/high ceiling guys are gone and most teams draft needs. Most teams have three options: (1) add to their bench depth; (2) pick up a high ceiling guy with issues (character, injury, etc); or (3) trade the pick for cash. Unless the team is fortunate to have a deep, young bench (Oklahoma City) or has the cap space, most teams do not draft high ceiling guys with issues until the second round as the contracts are not guaranteed. A team could sign them at a relatively low cost and send them on to the D League if necessary. Teams drafting for bench depth focus on players who are good defenders first. The thought is that a players' offensive game can be developed, especially if the player already had a good offensive game. Petteway fits into that mold. His defensive fundamentals are good. He plays in a defensive system which is diverse and he can score if necessary. Plus, Petteway has ball handling skills. I think Petteway needs some more size to play in the NBA, but otherwise, I think he would be a good role player.

Chalk this entire discussion up to growing pains and emotional development. Outside of Gallegos and Rivers, everyone is in their first or second year at Nebraska. It is very rare for a team of youngsters to gel quickly, which is why the 2011/2012 Kentucky team was so incredible. I would only worry if/when Miles seems unable to correct the issue.

I am not sure bringing in a JUCO with 2 years of experience would be the best route. Right now we have Pitchford, Parker, Petteway, Shields, and Vucetic all sophomores. Adding a typical 2 for 2 JUCO will mean six spots opening up after the 2016 season. Losing five players is rough, and losing six an additional player to coach up. Similarly, adding a graduate transfer will have a similar impact as you now have to replace Smith, Rivers, Biggs and the graduate transfer after the 2015 season. I really appreciated all the heart Almedia, Ubel and Talley gave us last year, but I do not want another season where Miles is limited to five starters and two reserves. I would prefer Miles brings in 3 guys a year with the 13th scholarship being used for a quality transfer (JUCO or graduate) or redshirt a raw big man.

Good point here. The offense last year was . . . lackluster. However, Nebraska did a good job of limiting giveaways by controlling the clock. As a result, opponents had fewer scoring opportunities. Combine that with decent defensive rebounding (e.g. reducing second chance points) and a good number of takeaways, opponents were forced to either (1) force a fast break (which was ineffective when Nebraska defenders were able to press and/or get back quickly); (2) pass the ball around until a opportune shot was available (thus draining the clock more); (3) hope for a strong night shooting; or (4) slug it out and pull ahead in the second half once Nebraska started wearing down. Of last year's opponents, Wisconsin is the only one that I can recall was able completely dominate us from wire-to-wire. Most teams opted for strategies (2) and (4). Impatient teams seemed to force shots and let us stay in the game unnecessarily. That being said, if the offense is greatly improved, opponents will see scoring chances increase over last year as Nebraska may not milk the clock quite the same as it used to. Potentially, you could see the defense "worsen" statistically for that reason alone.

Well if we have a legitimate shot with Robinson, and the coaches would know, then we can't just give up because we have to wait. Miles doesn't have to "wait" for Robinson at all if he is signing in the spring. Miles can easily sign 2 players in November and still sign Robinson in April. Miles could sign 3 players in Nov and still sign Robinson in April. Heck, Miles could even sign 3 players in Nov and another 2 or even 3 players in April if he wants. My point is that if Robinson truly is waiting until April, then Miles does not need to save a scholarship for him because if Robinson wants to sign with NU in April, then Miles will simply "create" room for him. It is that simple. There is no way Miles is going to turn down Robinson if he wants to commit in April no matter what his scholarship situation is. There will just have to be a current player (or 2 or 3) who "decide to transfer closer to home" or whatever they decide to call it. Doesn't B1G rules limit basketball oversigning to 1 player over the scholarship limit? If that is the case, the most we could sign would be 3. Miles could only sign 2 in November and make room for Robinson in April correct?

The more I think about it, the more I am not surprised Elbert visited LSU. LSU's current coach, Johnny Jones, built North Texas into a solid program and even recruited Tony Mitchell, a 2013 NBA draft pick, to play there after Mitchell left Mizzu. I would not be suprised if Johns had kids go to North Texas to play for Jones over the years. Johns probably wanted to maintain that relationship by taking Elbert to LSU.

We have heard nothing about Pinders academics. I would not be surprised if Pinder is a 2015 recruit and spends next year in a prep school.

Hmmmm Walter Pitchford...he played paltry minutes for Florida and then transferred. We are counting on Walter for significant minutes, scoring, leadership, rebounds, et al. What should we really expect? Pitchford was a Freshman at Florida. Most Freshman come in needing strength and conditioning to play a full NCAA schedule. There are exceptions to the rule, but those players usually head off to the NBA pretty quickly. Pitchford is two years older and has had a full year in the Nebraska strength and conditioning program. He SHOULD physically ready to play significant minutes. Production largely depends upon his comfort with the system. Considering it has been almost 18 months since he last suited up for a game, it may take him a few games to get back into the groove. I think his production will be based upon his game day match ups. Leadership? Not sure but he does have a good rep within the team. Gallegos...played a lot of minutes for and was our main scoring threat...will he hoist prayers this year or will he shoot a much better percentage? Rey is a volume shooter and will need shots to get moving. I think his shooting percentage will improve because other teams will not be able to smother him with two defenders or always put their best perimeter defender on him at all times. Let Rey find his spots, penetrate down the middle, kick out to him and let Rey shoot. Petteway...He was a role player for Texas Tech. He averaged 3.3 points and 2.1 rebounds for a rather pedestrian team. We have heard a number of positive reports about his practice habits...will he be a difference maker right away? Every team has a "glue" guy who may not be a difference maker per se but simply makes everyone around him better. Think Shane Battier. I think Petteway may be that guy. Shavon...two words...sophomore jinx...Hope it doesn't happen, pray that it doesn't happen, but it has happened before. If the reports of his development are true, Shavon may turn out to be the best player recruited by Doc. Benny...two words...last year. Hope that he is better, but if he isn't... He should be better. The better question would be how much playing time will he get? Biggs...terrific in HS, terrific in Juco, but oftentimes it takes a season or a major portion of a season to get your basketball legs under you. I have no feel for Biggs at all. Listening to people talk about him, he seems to be a paradox for me. Smith...same as Biggs, but had a reputation of being a bit, uhhh lazy. He certainly looks the part...but...who knows. He is brought in to do two things: (1) rebound; and (2) defend. We will find out quickly whether he is lazy. Rivers...showed nice improvement from his freshman year to his sophomore year. That improvement must continue. Will it? See Shavon. Webster, Fuller, Hawkins...we have heard enough to be excited. Will they be as good, or better than billed? Other than Webster, give Fuller and Hawkins time to develop. Webster we need at PG. Serg...he has to be better than last year...right? Right? RIGHT? Wait . . . Serg is still with the team? Based upon numerous statements from board members, he and Benny were supposed to be gone. Did I read something wrong here? Seriously though, Serg, like Benny can only improve.

With Hammond committed (but not signed), who do we have left? Is it necessary to sign another big guy now or would it be wise pursue another Pitchford-like stretch forward? What about a true point guard to play with Tai? How about a shooter? It seems like we have a lot of remaining options. However, I think we should NOT pursue any more JUCO's unless the player takes us over the hump or a position of need suddenly develops. Some of the remaining high school guys include: Leon Gilmore, Jonah Bolden and Torry Miller (please let me know if I am missing anyone else). The Miller/Miles relationship has lasted a long time; however, the question remains why he has not committed. Is the offer only contingent? Is there an issue with qualification? Or is he holding out for something better? Gilmore seems to be ready, willing and able to visit Nebraska at any time. However, I find it interesting that the coaching staff has not scheduled a visit yet. Could it be that Gilmore is option B or C? Bolden seems to be the most intriguing. I have not reviewed any video but I get the impression he could both bang around the hoop or step outside and shoot. If that is the case, he would be my top pick. However, it is not clear his level of interest with Nebraska. I think it would be unfair to compare him to Webster as Tai's father seemingly heavily pushed Nebraska. Conversely, Bolden seems to be exploring his options, and Nebraska is a definite consideration due to his father's relationship with Harriman. Would it be worth the wait to slow-play, and potentially lose, Gilmore and/or Miller to hold out for Bolden? Just a few of my thoughts. Kind of a nice position to be in nonetheless.

Four is such an arbitrary number. I think we need to have a formal poll followed by further discussion that concludes with a non-binding vote. Then it may be complete.

Scotty Thurman, Corey Beck, Clint McDaniel. Lots of horses on that team. Williamson was the top NBA player on that team. He ended up having a good career as a sixth man but was a bit undersized though.

Yes blowing up. Recent offers added include Baylor, Georgia Tech, Kansas State, Colorado, Arizona State, and Cal. Add those offers to Nebraska, Arkansas, Penn State, Iowa, Creighton, Wichita State, Marquette, and Minnesota.Arkansas and Tim Miles at CSU were his first two offers on the same day. A month later Coach Miles extended an NU offer when he came here. Miller came up for an unofficial last summer. Then Miller reclassified from 2013 to 2014. Tory's uncle is former Arkansas player Clint McDaniel. So weve got that working against us. But at one point last year he eliminated Arkansas from his list. I'm pretty sure Robin wrote an article about this, I'll have to go back and do some reading. Now that he's got all these other offers who knows where we stand. Hopefully Miles can get him in here for an official. Clint McDaniel? He was on the 1994 Arkansas National Championship team. McDaniel and Beck, the other guard, were outstanding defenders. Good bloodlines.

But the first thing we need to do is finish those near misses. Close that gap and that's 3 to 5 games from last year, suddenly, that season takes on a whole different feel. You close that gap with better talent, and if what we're hearing about the guys coming in is only halfway true, they've improved the talent from last year. Will that translate into wins? Time will tell, but the Big Ten won't be as strong as it was last year and NU should be stronger than it was. It's not unreasonable to expect some of those games to tip in favor of the Big Red. I hear ya but its not usually that simple. The games against better opponents that we almost won were ugly and it was usually due to the other team having a bad game. I would argue that they simply weren't up to play us. If we start doing better than we will get more respect and we won't be able to sneak up on MSU or Wisky. It is often easier to over simplify, and thus minimize, a well played defensive game by asserting "the other team [had] a bad game" than to actually examine the reason for Nebraska's success last season. Some of the games were ugly but that was designed to play to Nebraska's strengths. 1. The starting talent was not that bad. Granted they were not a bunch of surefire lottery picks (or even 2nd round picks for that matter). The starters played well together and matched up decently against many of the teams they played against. 2. The defense, for the most part, was fundamentally sound. Doc Sadler was a good defensive coach. Some posted on here that Miles' defense was not much different than Sadlers. As a result, the kids had good fundamentals and knew how to play good defense. With these strengths in mind, Miles attempted to slow down games by running more half court offensive sets which moved the ball around, walk the ball up the court, limit fast break opportunities by having players crash the boards all in an effort to eat time off the clock. To reduce fouls Miles sometimes ran zone defenses (although they were less effective). The result were some ugly, but effective, games. This same strategy was used by John Cheney while coaching at Temple. Temple regularly had a shallow bench but played some of the best teams in the national every season. If one of the starters got into foul trouble or was hurt, only Almedia or Parker normally came off the bench (Tyrance sometimes played but it was primarily based upon match ups or other players being unavailable). Further complicating matters, Nebraska needed decent scoring which did not always happen. There were a few games which Nebraska would have won had it shot 35-40% instead of 25-30%. Teams that did well in the areas of defensive rebounding and fast break points dominated Nebraska because it played right into Nebraska's weaknesses. By the end of some games, the starters were getting worn down and things got out of control.

I like Rivers too, but has he put on any size? Huskers.com has him listed at 6'7" 191 lbs. Has he, or better question can he, put on more weight?

when did we get Jamal Crawford? LOL Assuming you meant Pitchford. DOH!

Shields adding another inch and getting additional weight is very good. This last season, I felt Shields showed glimpses of a PF game but lacked the height and weight to really run with it. If he can keep his speed and coordination, Shields could be a good match up against some of the slower big guys out there. Picture a lineup of: G: Gallegos G: Fuller G: Petteway F: Shields F: Smith That group could probably run up and down the court with anyone. Maybe even take out Fuller; insert Crawford. Leave Shields and Smith in the post. Let Crawford play out along the perimeter. Maybe I am just thinking too much.

It is unfair to compare athletes in different eras with regard to the NBA. Rule changes on defense alone the past 20 years have had a dramatic effect. It used to be more of a strength and power league. Zone defenses were not permitted and defenders could have their hands all over guys when they had the ball. Plus, the defenders could only double players when they had the ball. Remember back in 2001 in the Knicks/Raptors series when the games would end with basically a Vince Carter/Latrell Spreewell one-on-one game? In about the mid to late 90's, defenders were not permitted to reach out and grab players while handling the ball. The result was an increase in scoring. Then starting in the 2001/2002 season, zone defenses were permitted. However, many coaches still preferred the man defenses. Over time the emphasis on defense has shifted to more speed and less strength/power. Also, zone defenses have become more sophisticated. By focusing more on speed, defenders can shift between offensive players quickly. These types of zone defenses have led to the creation of offenses like the Heat and Knicks which feature a multi-dimensional SF/PF driving and kicking the ball out to snipers near the 3 point line. Speed is needed to stop those types offenses so you can still double down on the driving player and cover the guys on the wings. It stands to reason that Zeller scored higher than Dwight Howard because NBA offenses were focusing on different skill sets. Kids were being developed differently with more focus on power than speed. Finally, this comparison of players through metrics is a waste of time. Player development in high school and college has vastly changed from 5 to 10 to 15 to 20 years ago. With different offenses and defenses comes different training styles and focuses. Remember when people scoffed at Kevin Durant because he could not bench 225 lbs. Barnes defended Durant explaining that Texas did not make its players do bench presses but developed its players using other methods. Under those antiquated NBA metrics Kevin Durant was a bad athlete. Fortunately, Seattle ignored those metrics and still took him second overall.

Unlike previous drafts, there are no real superstars, e.g. players who could immediately take a lottery team into the playoffs (think Lebron, Duncan, Shaq). Probably the closest talent is Ben McLamore but he is a bit too . . . soft maybe. I talked to some of my Kentucky friends who felt Noel really progressed as the season wore on, but have reservations because of his injury (naturally so). Most people forget Alex Lenn dominated Noel early in the season. Porter and Olapido are considered the most ready-to-play guys coming in. Porter though seems like a great complimentary guy (Scottie Pippen possibly) while Olapido is a bit "undersized" (a 6'5" SG is undersized now I guess) and needs more time developing his offensive game. Both are considered fantastic defenders though and can move the ball around. Many compare Bennett out of UNLV as a Larry Johnson tweener type player; however, I think people forget Johnson's defensive game. Johnson matched up against Tim Duncan in the '99 NBA finals as well as possible considering he was giving up about 6". I am not sure Bennett's defense is on that level. I do see a lot of good complementary players. Outside of Porter, a lot of the top 50 guys seem to do one or two things well and simply need more time to develop. The number of defensive minded players has increased in this draft which is a big deal in the NBA. Teams are more willing to draft a solid defensive player beyond the top ten than an offensive specialist (think K. Leonard with the Spurs, Avery Bradley with the Celtics). If the kid can do one or two things offensively (rebounding, passing, three point shooting) even better. Sadly, with the exception of the Washington Wizards (who are really 1-2 players away from being a playoff mainstay, if they got both Porter and Bennett, they could be good), the top 7 teams need that superstar player. Cleveland needs another star to line up with Kyrie. Orlando is simply a reclamation project. Charlotte . . . do I really need to say more? Phoenix is in ashes. Sacramento and New Orleans have unrealized potential that may not mature or succumb to injuries (not to mention a ton of wasted draft picks by Sacramento). Other than Toronto and Milwaukee, I think the remaining teams in the lottery (Detroit, Portland, Utah, Dallas, and Minnesota) could be playoff caliber next season with the players potentially available. Portland (depth), Utah (point guard), Dallas, and Minnesota (injuries) would not need the draft to compete for playoff spots (Dallas will definitely address most, if not all, of its issues via free agency).

1. I would be very surprised if Gallegos was not in the starting lineup. He strikes me as a rhythm shooter who needs minutes to get into the groove. It is not easy for a shooter to come off the bench cold and light it up (think Jason Terry). 2. I do expect Smith to come off the bench. I see him being part of many different combinations on the floor depending on match ups and playing minutes. I have not seen any film on him, but I am curious how well he runs the floor. 3. Vooch. I am very surprised people give up on him already. If he is riding the bench as a junior, then I understand the criticism. Until then, give him time to develop. Whenever I hear people talking about college big men, you always hear about the success stories. You never hear about the failures. Many of these big kids grow so fast, they loose coordination. If they do not have good training, their skills take a hit. I have one nephew who grew 6 inches in one year. Before that, he was a good athlete. It took him a couple of years to regain his coordination. 4. Redshirting. I doubt Miles will redshirt a player unless the kid requests it. It has been well documented that many of these kids do not want to redshirt. With the prevalence of post grad schools, we are seeing more kids coming in at age 19 and graduating at age 23. Factor in a redshirt, and these kids would be considered "old" by NBA standards. 5. I do not think it matters which position Petteway plays, he will be on the floor.

Considering that his father wanted Enes to go to school and get an education, I doubt Kerem is a one-and-done guy. http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketball/feed/2010-09/enes-kanter/story/enes-kanters-father-says-turkish-club-is-trying-to-make-an-example-of-his-son

Isn't that Enes Kanter who was a first round NBA draft pick by Utah? His father was very upset how the whole thing went down. If there are any qualification issues, they probably have been addressed.