Donkey

November 27, 2015. Nebraska v Iowa (football) and Nebraska v Cincinnati (basketball). Games were right after each other.

Robin Washut has reported of at least one recruit who was set to sign with Nebraska but backed off when it was pointed out that Miles contract, at the time, expired in 2020. Washut has not identified the the kid but has stated the recruit signed with a BIG school. Speculation is that the recruit was Eric Hunter who went to Purdue. Opine all you want, but I trust Robin Washut’s reporting. Coaching stability matters to kids. The easiest way to overcome it is by having coaches signed for 5 year periods.

The phrase “dumpster fire” gets thrown around too often similar to how everyone uses the term “perfect storm”. Moos is definitely mishandling the situation, but the result will hardly be a calamity. Sadly enough, worst case scenario will be no different than where we were a year ago, eg losing 10+ conference games and worrying about losing to schools like Incarnate Word. 2017-2018 was an exceptional year for Nebraska but most other schools, 22-10 is an average year. I agree Moos needs to make a clear, unequivocal move. Moos did not create this mess, but he must fix it. He is gambling that the mess will fix itself. Lots of people take that gamble and end up with mediocre results. Moos wants Miles to prove himself to get the extension. A second consecutive winning season shows Miles is building something. A losing season in 2018-2019 means this last season was an aberration, and Miles is gone. Bad strategy. If Miles had been taking his job seriously, Xiaver Johnson would be a nonissue. The kid was Miles #1 recruit and it is being reported that Miles did not have much of a relationship with Xavier. That raises red flags. Miles is the head man. Kids should want to play for him and not just an assist coach. If the kid is not loyal to Miles, will the kid follow Miles coaching? No inside info, but Kenya Hunter leaving is likely more about Kenya than Miles and Moos. This situation is not the first time an assist left to coach with one of the Hurley clan. Dan Hurley is considered an up and comer, and UConn is a good school with a national reputation. In the history of college basketball only 8 of the national championship matchups featured schools not from the Eastern Time zone, and Kenya seems to want to get back to the east coast.

Yes, it would dent our APR: https://informedathlete.com/how-gpa-affects-di-student-athlete-transfers/ However, I do not think it is a matter of concern. Unless some of these transfers have GPAs below 2.6, the transfers should have no affect on Nebraska's APR. To my knowledge, most of the transfers went to four year schools or were graduate transfers.

Option #3 is the worst choice of all. If you have not noticed, few kids have been talking Nebraska the last few years. Miles was recruiting Roby, Morrow, and Watson their sophomore years and was in on Jacobson,Allen, and Nana their early junior years. We are not hearing the buzz from sophomores and juniors like in previous years. Evelyn, Smith, Horne, and Jordy were recruited and signed late in the process, and only Jordy has panned out from that group (assuming he stays). Kids are going to see a program in flux and will cross Nebraska off their lists because of the uncertainty. In one year, Nebraska could easily lose Watson, Palmer, Copeland, Roby, and Jordy which will likely comprise of 95% of next year's squad scoring. It will only be worse if Nebraska has to replace its coach as well. To maintain the program, this year is critical to recruiting, and Moos just gave all of the other schools ammunition for negative recruiting. I could care less whether Moos took Option 1 or 2, but Option 3 gives the appearance Moos cannot make a decision.

Sure Miles is good collecting pieces but struggles putting and keeping it all together to build program momentum. Winning with constant turnover is not easy. If Palmer, Copeland, or Jordy were to leave, getting to the dance next season would only be harder. None of the incoming freshmen would adequately replace any of those three. There is no one on the bench who could replace Jordy. I am really not sure who would replace Copeland. Nana and Allen need another season before stepping in for Palmer. Finally, regarding Miles inability to bring in and evaluate players. You have to admit he has made mistakes. He did not anticipate Hawkins, Pitchford, Smith, Morrow, and Jacobson leaving and had to scramble to replace them. He does not seem to have a plan for Jordy, Copeland, and Palmer leaving either.

This argument assumes Miles poorly evaluated the high school kids and made up for his mistakes by bringing in transfers. It still does not make Miles look good. With graduate transfers, I will give you Vucetic for Abraham as a trade up, Okeke for Morrow or Jacobson is a loss. Petteway, Pitchford, and Biggs came in as a result of Doc's poor roster management. So I will agree there is a trade up of something for nothing. However, Biggs leaving led to Smith coming in (a wash at best, but really a 3* for a 2* trade). I will give you Hawkins for White though (3* for a 5*). Morrow, Watson, McVeigh, and Jacobson were already in the mix when Pitchford and Petteway left. You do trade Petteway for Gill (a 3* for a 4* but a loss when comparing actual results). Smith for Evelyn is a wash (2* for 2*). You do lose on White for Taylor (5* for a 2*), but I will give you Copeland for Hammond and Evelyn for Palmer. Based on those numbers, there were 4 trade ups with the rest being washes or losses. It will look worse if Copeland or Palmer leave. @Swan88 You are right about Oregon from 2012-2017. There was turnover. However, Oregon out recruited Nebraska (2x as many 4* and 1 5*) during the same period which led to 4 NBA draft picks.

I checked out the numbers. Per Verbal Commits, transfers have skyrocketed the last six seasons from 577 in 2012 to 883 in 2017. Factor in that 134 college kids declared early for the draft in 2017, the average number of kids leaving early is 3 per year (out of 351 division 1 schools). Approximately 2/3s of the kids transferring were less than 3 stars coming out of high school and left to play at smaller schools. Many of the kids transferring were similar to Sergej Vucetic, Nick Fuller, or Bakari Evelyn was to Nebraska (e.g. kids who likely were not going to play much the next season). I completely understand these kids leaving. Let's look at Miles' retention while at Nebraska. I am not including graduate transfers as they only had one year of eligibility when they arrived on campus. 2012: (4) 50% exhausted their eligibility as both Vucetic and Biggs left early. Parker was encouraged to leave but opted to stay. Both Parker and Shields were Doc's recruits, but I am counting them toward Miles because he had to convince them to stay (although Shields did not take any convincing). If you include Petteway and Pitchford in this list, Miles numbers go down to 33% retention as both left early as well. 2013: (4) 50% exhausted their eligibility as Hawkins and Fuller both left early. Fuller transferring was understandable as he was at the end of the bench. Leslee Smith exhausted his eligibility but was a JUCO transfer. Tai Webster was the only 4 year player in this class. 2014: (2) 0% retention. Both Smith and Hammond left before playing as juniors. White transferred in and failed to exhaust his eligibility at Nebraska as well. 2015: (4) 25% retention. Evelyn, Morrow, and Jacobson all left before playing as juniors. Watson is the only player remaining from this class, and it is assumed he is staying. 2016: (4) 75% retention with Horne leaving after 1 season (included Taylor as a JUCO transfer). Jordy considered transferring, and it is not clear whether he will be with Nebraska next year. If you include Palmer and Copeland in this class, whose status is up in the air, the retention rate could go up. 2017: (3) 100% for the moment. Without including 2017, of the 18 kids (both high school and JUCO) that Miles has brought in 8 are still with the team or exhausted their eligibility. One of those 8, Jordy, has considered transferring. Of the 5 transfers Miles has brought in, 3 have left before exhausting their eligibility and the remaining 2 are on the fence right now whether to stay. Assuming Jordy, Roby, Copeland, Watson, and Palmer stay for next year, Miles has a 43% retention rate over a 5 year period. Assuming Watson plays for Nebraska next season, he will be only the 4th player in 5 years to play 4 seasons at Nebraska. Worse yet, Miles has not used at least 1 scholarship each year (which is worse than losing a kid to transfer). Those turnover numbers are too high. It is hard to build a program when only 1 player stays in a 2 year period. If any of the 2016 or 2017 kids leave, those numbers are only getting worse. Both Doc and Miles seem to have the same problem losing high school kids. Both also relied on transfers (JUCO for Doc) to keep things propped up but only had the kids for a limited time. AND both Doc and Miles had zero NBA picks.

Moos could have extended Miles contract at any time. It has been almost a week and Moos has not come out with a clear statement that Miles will be coaching Nebraska next season. It has also been reported that Miles' short term contract has likely cost Nebraska at least one recruit the staff believed was already in the fold. Kids are not dumb. They see Miles go through a 20 win season and still have no reassurance that the program wants Miles around for the long term. Go to the recruiting page and see that only two 2019 kids are mentioned on the first page. Miles lack of an extension is already hurting the 2019 class. Kids were talking Nebrasketball as sophomores and juniors in 2013-2016. Now, its crickets. Moos knows what he is doing, and I guarantee you he is not sold on Miles. The extension would have been signed weeks ago had Moos decided Miles was they guy. Miles would not be pitching Moos a five year plan sometime this week if Moos was set on Miles. However, Moos will not let Miles go unless a clearly better coach is locked in. The potential hire cannot be seen as a marginal improvement. The closest equivalent to Scott Frost for Nebrasketball would be Tyron Lue and Dana Altman. I note that Lue is reportedly taking a leave of absence from the Cavs which essentially eliminates him. Altman, who knows. Either way, I guarantee you Moos has put out feeler calls just to placate certain people. Thad Matta, whom I am not sold on (and am not sure would be seen as a splash hire as well). Also, Thad Matta is available and would have been hired by now had Moos wanted him. That leaves Altman or someone who coached last weekend. The longer Moos takes to make an announcement, the less I think Miles will be retained.

There is some value to mixing the con/non-con schedules. I really believe the Big 12/SEC scheduling games January 27/28 really helped them in the committee's eyes. Alabama beat Oklahoma. Baylor lost to Florida. Kentucky beat West Virginia. Ten years ago mid-majors used to have a late January/early February showcase for the same reason. It helped their tournament resume. Duke has been scheduling Big East games (mostly Georgetown and St. Johns) the last 10-15 years during the same period with some great results.

The standard created this year was supposed to help non-P5/Big East schools who struggled to get quality non-con games. In the end, the mid-majors/small schools got screwed. Had Nevada and Rhode Island won out, only the AAC would have received at large bids. St. Mary's was penalized under this new system because they did not schedule enough strong opponents. The committee just made it harder for mid-majors (with the exception of the AAC and Gonzaga) to schedule quality games. Nebraska also got screwed for scheduling too many mid-major/small school games. The Advocare Invite probably did more damage than people think. Losing to CFU and then beating Marist and LBSU was not helpful at all. Comparatively, Purdue played in the "Bad Boy Battle 4 Atlantis" with games against Tennessee (loss), WKU (loss), and Arizona (win). Purdue had 3 quad 1 opportunities. Right now that 2018 Hall of Fame Classic Nebraska has scheduled with a potential match up against Missouri St does not look appealing. I understand what happened in the Gavitt Games and Big Ten/ACC challenge. Nebraska was not projected to do well and was given the "JV" match up. If I were Delany, I would schedule a Pac-12/Big Ten match up each year as well. I also think the Big 12/SEC February match up was a stroke of scheduling genius. While the Big 10 is limiting its non-con scheduling by scheduling games no one is watching in December, the Big 12/SEC were playing high profile games during a slow sports weekend (right before the Super Bowl and not having to compete with the NFL).

Thanks. Cliff notes: Nebraska should be in based upon his metrics. Penn State is in the same boat as Nebraska. Middle Tennessee and USC should be out. Oklahoma would not be in the conversation had the Committee not listed the Sooners as the #16 team in the initial bracket projections.

Final 20 games record assuming the school wins out (e.g. best case scenario finish): TCU: 11-9 Baylor: 12-8 Oklahoma: 11-9 Kentucky: 12-8 TAMU: 11-9 Airzona St: 13-7 Florida St: 13-7 Miami: 12-8 Seton Hall: 13-7 All of the above are projected to get into the tournament over Nebraska (best case finish 16-4, worst case finish 13-7) and all of the above have a .500 or worse conference record. None of them have an easy slate of schools remaining on their schedules. At best, I could see all of them going 2-2 to close out the season. Doublechecked BracketMatrix, all of the above schools except TCU are projected in 100% of the brackets (74 total brackets) and are projected to be an 8 seed or better. TCU is in 73/74 brackets and projected to be a 9 seed. Just keep winning. We control our own destiny.

Just keep winning and let others make excuses. The way things are playing out, I can see 2-3 schools in the Big 12, ACC, and SEC that are projected to be in now but end up with .500 or worse records over the last 20 games. Nebraska will be 16-4 in its last 20 games, assuming it wins out the rest of the regular season. Even if Oklahoma wins out, it finishes 12-8 in its last 20 games. Kentucky and Arizona St., assuming both win out, will be 14-6 in their last 20. Florida St, best case scenario, will finish 13-7. Oklahoma, Kentucky, Arizona St., and Florida St. are all in the discussion with Oklahoma, Kentucky, and Arizona St down as "should be in". It will be interesting to hear the argument how Nebraska is left out if those four schools (or some of the similarly situated schools) are let in after limping to the finish.

1. I would be surprised if any school is dancing with a sub .500 record. Watch the schools with conference records of 7-5/6-6/5-7. Lots of them in the P5 conferences, and they are playing each other in the next 5-6 games. Many of these schools already have 7+ losses and could easily finish with 10-12 losses before it’s all over (counting their respective conference tourneys). This attrition should help. I know some disagree that conference record is a consideration by the committee, but a sub.500 record over the last 15-20 games would be significant under any criteria. I spoke with my Kentucky friends and there is a concern Kentucky could struggle to get in the tournament this year because the SEC has a bunch of good schools but none of them are really dominant (like how the ACC has Duke and Virginia and the Big East has Xavier and Villanova) the SEC schools could knock themselves out. I see the same happening with the Big 12 and Pac12. That is the reason why we are seeing questionable schools from the Big 12, PAC 12 and SEC in the bubble discussion. One of them could go in a run but at the expense of 2-3 others. I could see 4 at large bids opening up (one for each conference, Pac12, Big12, SEC, and Big East) under this scenario with a possible 2-3 bids lost from the Big 12 and SEC due to sub .500 conference record schools. 2. 3-4 Mid Major bids are still being projected. I could see another 2-3 bids going out if #1 occurs. Boise St and St Bonaventure may have a case. I am not sold on WKU just yet. 3. I am keeping with most of my original prediction 14-4 in, 13-5 need a BIG tourney win and in. I will change on my 12-6 prediction. I still expect Nebraska to be out. However, I could see a scenario where both losses would have to be to Maryland and Penn State, both of whom would need very strong finishes, ie win out. Also there would need to be a lot of attrition as outlined in #1 above, and Nebraska would have to get to the BIG final. I love this team. The game to game improvement is clear and these kids are not near their ceiling. The remaining schedule is winnable but not exactly weak. That Rutgers game was a true test. Rutgers plays hard and kept coming back. It was a very winnable game but the kids kept focused until the end.

Looks like the injury bug has bitten Maryland. Admittedly, you want to play teams when they are at their best, but Nebraska needs all the help it can get. http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/terps/tracking-the-terps/bs-sp-cekovsky-maryland-purdue-0131-story.html After losing forwards Justin Jackson and Ivan Bender last month with season-ending injuries, and now Cekovsky, Maryland is down to eight healthy scholarship players and only three big men: 6-10 freshman Bruno Fernando, 6-9 redshirt freshman Joshua Tomaic and 6-9 graduate student Sean Obi. Just win. http://www.espn.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/120827/weekend-lookahead-tough-stretch-will-reveal-if-vols-are-for-real Big Ten's best hope? The Big Ten basketball standings look a lot like the football ones the past few seasons. The league is extremely top heavy, with two or three really good teams at the top, followed by a bunch of mediocre teams or worse. Oh, and Illinois and Rutgers are occupying the cellar. ESPN bracket guru Joe Lunardi currently projects four Big Ten teams to make the NCAA tournament field: Purdue, Michigan State, Ohio State and Michigan. Barring a late collapse by the Wolverines, each of those teams seems pretty safe. At least half of the Big Ten's 14 teams were included in every NCAA tournament since 2011, but the league isn't going to get anywhere close to that this season. An even bigger surprise: Nebraska might have the best chance at being the fifth Big Ten team to make it, barring a big upset at the league tourney at Madison Square Garden. The Cornhuskers (17-8, 8-4 Big Ten) have won five of their past six games to climb into fourth place (a half-game ahead of Michigan) in the Big Ten standings. They're getting a week off before playing at Minnesota on Tuesday night. Nebraska has one victory over an RPI top-50 opponent -- 72-52 over Michigan on Jan. 18 -- and it doesn't play another top-50 foe the rest of the way. There's no margin for error. Maryland (15-9, 4-7 Big Ten) has been undone by injuries -- center Michal Cekovsky became the latest frontcourt player to go down, with a left heel injury -- and is struggling to stay afloat, losing five of its past six games. The Terps host struggling Wisconsin on Sunday.

I am not worrying about whether we are in brackets right now. There are a number of schools being discussed for at large bids that have around the same number of losses as Nebraska. But all of these schools have 9-10 games left to play while Nebraska has 6 winnable games. If any of those schools have 3 or more losses in the next 9-10 games, Nebraska should be part of the conversation more and more. The mental make up of this team compared to a year ago is incredible. This year Nebraska has swept Michigan and Wisconsin (2-16 against both schools since entering the BIG). Keep it up, finish 14-4, and Nebraska is dancing.

1. The BIG went 16-33 v P5/Big East. MD, PSU, Rutgers, and Minnesota only scheduled 2 P5/Big East games and loaded up on mostly small schools. Northwestern, Rutgers, Illinois, and Indiana lost a combined 7 games to out of conference schools with 100+ RPIs. MSU/Purdue were the only schools with winning records going a combined 7-2. The rest of the conference went 9-32. The BIG schools also had a losing record, 5-9, against mid major/small schools with RPIs of 1-99. That means as the average BIG school scheduled 3.5 P5/Big East schools with one mid major/small school with a sub100 RPI. The remaining 8 schools on the schedule were cupcakes. Comparatively, the Big East went 19-17 against P5 schools with botton feeders DePaul and Georgetown going 0-6. Georgetown’s scheduling was poor (only 1 P5 games, no other schools with a sub100 RPI on its schedule). The Big East only lost 2 games to RPI 100+ schools (Illinois and Rutgers). Interestingly enough, the Big East schools scheduled 20 games against mid major/small schools with sub100 RPIs going 14-6. Disregarding Georgtown, each BIg East school scheduled an average of 4 P5 schools and 2 schools from mid major/small conferences with sub100 RPIs. That is half of their non conference schedule. Clearly, the BIG needs to schedule better. 2. The more I look over the remaining schedules, I can see the BIG getting 5 bids but things need to break in Nebraska’s favor. 3. Penn State may be the most interesting to watch over the month. It plays Iowa, Illinois, MSU, tOSU, Purdue, Michigan, Maryland, and Nebraska to close out the season. Before it won the tOSU game, I figured 2-6 would be best case scenario.

Most years I would agree with you. Take a look at RPI by conference. The BIG has 6 RPI 100+ rated schools with Minnesota and Northwestern in the 90s. The P5 and Big East conferences have a combined 9 RPI 100+ schools. All those conferences are deeper than the BIG as well. Try not to pay attention to supposed bubble teams. Somehow Baylor is a bubble team per Lunardi.

It has been reported that the committee has put an emphasis on road wins over home wins. Looking at the quadrants, that makes sense. Assume Nebraska wins at Minnesota on February 6. Because the game is played in Minneapolis and Minnesota's RPI is 99, Nebraska would have a quadrant 2 win. Basically a win at Minnesota is lumped in with Nebraska's home win against Michigan because Michigan has an RPI of 36. However, Nebraska's December home win against Minnesota is a quadrant 3 win. Even though Minnesota was at full strength in December, the win loses its luster because it was a win in Lincoln. Unfortunately, Nebraska's upcoming schedule only has two (2) quadrant 2 potential wins: @ Minnesota and Maryland at home. Wisconsin could be a quadrant 2 win if it moves up 3 more RPI spots. Otherwise, the rest of Nebraska's games are looking like quadrant 3 games (ouch). That is what makes losing to Penn State so painful. It would have been a quadrant 2 win because it was on the road.

I am in agreement with you: we can definitely beat most, if not all, of those teams on a neutral court. I think we have the makings of a sneaky good team that could get through the first weekend. I mean 14-4 Nebraska is dancing; 13-5 on the bubble with at least a semi-final finish in the BIG; 12-6 hello NIT. The resume is problematic. At this time, Bracket Matrix only shows Nebraska in one bracket. We are not on the bubble as of yet. Of the remaining 9 games, 6 have RPIs of 100+. Minnesota (98) and Indiana (89) will likely go 5-4 at best the remainder of the season and finish with 100+ RPIs as well. That leaves Maryland at 51. At the end of the season, Nebraska cannot have any more 100+ RPI losses. Comparing resumes, of the 26 P5 and Big East schools all had at least 2 Quadrant 1 wins and no RPI 100+ losses. On that metric, Nebraska's 0 Quadrant 1 wins and 1 RPI 100 loss does not stack up well. Losing to anyone other than Maryland from here on out just adds another RPI 100 loss not in our favor.

Fair enough. If Nebraska goes 7-2, it will have to jump over 5 teams referenced above to make the tournament. I have already eliminated the mid-major schools and Boston College, Kansas St, Texas, and Marquette. Please tell me which five teams from the list provided above either (a) Nebraska is better than right now or (b) will go 5-4 or worse over the next 9 games.

I get most of the arguments of Devany and BIG clout. Any other year, I would say 13-5 BIG record would have Nebraska in the dance. However, the committee's standard for evaluating teams is different this year and the BIG's RPI is ranked #6 which puts it at the bottom of the P5 conferences and the Big East. I doubt the BIG will have more schools than those top 5 conferences. Right now, the Pac-12 is projected to have 4 with the rest receiving 7-9 each (29 total potential bids). It is those conferences which are eating up the at large bids not mid-majors. For the sake of discussion, let's assume Nebraska's at large chances are against a mid-major school. I expect 4 mid-major at large bids. That is really a small number of mid-major at large bids. Per Bracket Matrix, only 3 conferences -- A-10, AAC and West Coast -- are expected to receive at large bids (4 total projected) with 3 conferences -- A-10, CUSA and Mountain West -- having 2 schools who are next out. The AAC schools -- Cincinnati, Wichita St, SMU, and Houston -- compared to Nebraska, all have better RPIs, 1-3 Quadrant 1 wins, and only one Quadrant 3 losses (SMU lost to N Iowa). Under any basis, only SMU is comparable to Nebraska and is slightly best at worst. I doubt Mountain West sends 2 schools unless Nevada fails to win the conference tourney (Nevada definitely would get an at-large). Nebraska's RPI is lower than Boise St, but is otherwise better than Boise. West Coast, St. Mary's and Gonzaga have better resumes (although Gonzaga may be comparable). CUSA -- if WKU wins the CUSA tourney, MTSU and Nebraska are comparable but Nebraska has an advantage over WKU. WKU seems boarderline already and 2-3 losses may be enough to knock them out. Another at large bid could be vultured if St. Bonaventure wins the A-10 as Rhode Island is worthy of an at-large. St. Bonaventure could be problematic when comparing resumes with Nebraska. I expect 2 at larges to go to Cincinnati, Wichita St., St. Mary's and Gonzaga (based on remaining games) with 2 of them receiving the automatic bid for winning the conference tournament. I would cheer for Boise St, SMU, Houston, and WKU/MTSU to lose a few more games and St. Bonaventure to not win the A-10. Conversely, let's say Nebraska needs to pull an at large bid from one of the other P5 conferences or the Big East. However, it is more likely many The following schools are not projected to get to the tournament or are projected to be a double digit seed but have a somewhat comparable resume to Nebraska: Colorado, Utah, UCLA, South Carolina, Mississippi, Kansas St, Syracuse, Notre Dame, FSU, Boston College, George, Marquette, USC, Providence, Missouri, and Texas. That is 8 at large seeds for 16 teams. Boston College is the only school with a clearly worse record than Nebraska. Do not forget to include Maryland and Michigan as both resumes are slightly better than Nebraska. That leaves Nebraska in a pool of 26 schools with 10 at large bids at stake. Of the schools, only WKU, St. Bonaventure and Boston College are clearly worse resumes. Assuming the argument made by some that Nebraska will automatically jump over a mid-major school because its in the BIG, eliminate SMU, Houston, and Boise State. That leaves Nebraska behind 10 schools (all of whom from P5 or Big East) for the last at-large spot. I do not see the Pac-12 receiving less than 4 bids. That leaves the ACC, SEC, Big 12, and Big East needing to lose bids. The ACC and SEC are too deep. If any projected teams falter, there are a few with better resumes than Nebraska ready to step up. I could see 2 at large bids opening from the Big East and Big 12 assuming Texas, Kansas St, and Marquette do not pull off any upsets (none of the next tier schools have a better resume than Nebraska). That would increase the bids to 12 and move Nebraska up 3 spots from 20 to 17 (leaving Nebraska behind 5 schools). The above assumes no more than 0-2 more Nebraska losses; poor showings going forward for the mid-major schools; no random schools below Nebraska winning conference tournaments; and 2 bids from the Big East and Big 12 opening up. Way too many ifs here with no guarantee Nebraska will be dancing. Its a tight line, and I doubt 7-2 will allow Nebraska to jump over 5 P5 or Big East schools. 8-1 will close the gap. 9-0 and Nebraska's in.

1. The Penn State loss is hard to judge. If you rely on KenPom (#54), the loss was acceptable. If you rely on RPI (#128), its Nebraska's worst loss this season. It really comes down to which ranking the committee relies on. 2. Sticking with my original projection; tOSU (RPI 19, KP 12) is an acceptable loss provided it is not a blowout. Losing both to Maryland and Minnesota in close games with no other losses would leave us 13-5. I still think 1-2 wins in the BIG tourney would have us dancing. I know other posters disagree, I just feel the BIG will only take 4-5 schools with MSU, tOSU, and Purdue already in. We need to firmly establish we are the 4th best team to be in. Right now, all of Maryland's losses are against top 50 RPI schools but they have only 2 top 100 wins. Michigan has 2 losses against 51-100 ranked schools with the remaining loss to top 50 RPI schools, but Michigan has 3 top 50 RPI wins. Upcoming key games (assuming Michigan, Nebraska, and Maryland win all other games): Nebraska: tOSU, Maryland, Minnesota Michigan: Purdue, tOSU, Minnesota, and Maryland. Maryland: MSU, Purdue, Nebraska, and Michigan. I would not be surprised to see Maryland lose all those 4 games. Conversely, I could see Michigan going 4-0 or 3-1. Michigan would be the 4/5 seed (depending how things play out for us) in that set of circumstances. That would leave Nebraska and Michigan fighting for the pretty much certain 4th BIG spot with a 5th spot still possible. Both Nebraska and Michigan will be dancing at 14-4 (meaning BIG teams make the tourney). 13-5 and then we need to start looking at the losses and BIG tourney wins. Caveat: all of the above falls apart if Nebraska loses to any school other tOSU, Maryland, and Minnesota.

The increased turnover in coaching is fueling this move. I have heard arguments the current rules punish kids who sign with schools because of their relationship with the coach and not desire to play for the school. Think of a guy like Nate Swift who committed to Frank Solich, but then played in completely different schemes with Bill Callahan and Bo Pelini. At least 2 classes at UCF and Oregon will have had 3 head coaches by the time they graduate. I guarantee the kids who signed with FSU and Oklahoma last year truly believed Jimbo Fisher and Bob Stoops would be coaching them after their redshirt years. Heck, Willie Taggart left Western Kentucky 5 years ago and made stops at South Florida and Oregon before ending at FSU. The Western Kentucky 2013 signing class were recruited by Willie Taggart; signed and redshirted under Bobby Petrino; played for 3 years under Jeff Brohm; and played their senior years under Mike Stanford. There is too much coaching turnover, and the kids are punished. It stands to reason that when a coach leaves, for whatever reason, the kid should be able to transfer without penalty. I am not sure about the current proposal though.