Chuck Taylor

I would like this also applied to the players. A lot of people like the coach, so they project negative personal flaws on the players. They're lazy, selfish, unmanly (an unbelievable suggestion from an anonymous message poster). The proof is what is on the court. If we don't make the tournament, it's because we weren't talented enough or weren't coached well enough, or a combination. But it doesn't have to be because of the coach's and players' negative qualities.

Yeah, I didn't count 2000 since he didn't get here until the spring. I don't know if those guys were Danny's or he just grabbed a bunch of JCs to fill out a depleted roster. I will say this: He had more guys who played here 4 years and were well-regarded than TM. So measuring by heatfelt senior nights, Collier did well. But of course, there were a lot of complete busts too.

I'm usually the one who rolls his eyes at some of the optimism here. But I keep looking at the ratings, and at this point we're still in the NCAA. KenPom 27, for example. So if you're giving up now, then you just don't believe this team is capable of playing decent ball. Not great, just decent. And if Bart Torvik is reading this, how the heck are we still at 21 in T-Rank? Just can't figure that one out.

I don't think that's fair. He took the best he could get, and that was highly rated guys who were leaving their previous schools for more playing time. Pitchford, White and Palmer all wanted to play and they came here with the promise of playing, not because they thought they were going to a great program. In some ways, you can see now why they didn't get more playing time at their previous programs, but in the beginning here, they blossomed when getting a chance to play. Worked well until it didn't. TP was a little different, left Tech after a coaching change.

Didn't Collier's first class include Turek and Muhleisen?

Got it. No starter over 6-5 IIRC, but all ballers.

Sheesh, my first season was the Stu Lantz team. Where did the decades go?

With just 3 years as a head coach, with Daum already on the roster. He might be terrific, but like Miles when he was named, there's not a proven track record of winning.

I think he means north in South Dakota, not Omaha.

22 in KenPom this morning, so there's that. With the No. 24 offense. ?

I'll turn out the lights. See you tomorrow.

The climb back up begins. NU 59 WU 57

Dude, I'm trying to be optimistic!

Along those same lines, I'd turn the team over to the current Coach Mo. His teams always knew how to take the air out of the ball and squeeze each possession. Keep the games in the 50s and 60s, and let JPJ and Glynn throw up a wild-ass shot at the end of the shot clock. Seriously, I think we could still make the NCAA with this style, even though it would be ugly as heck.

A lot of schools and churches do that. And the reason NU does it is that almost everyone would just donate to football. Regarding where the money will come from for a new coach, well, that's how you counter the comment everyone hates: we're a football school. If we can't come up with the money to bring somebody like Matta or Pitino (not pushing them, just examples) even though we haven't won a conference title since 1950 or whatever and have never won an NCAA game, then we're a football school. If you want to roll the dice one more time on the flavor-of-the-month midmajor coach who won a game in March, well, it might work this time. But jeez, what does it take for people to develop some urgency about the hoops program?

I'm not going to argue with all that, and yet why are we still a top 25 team in NET, KenPom and other analytics? We've looked terrible at times and have a poor BIG record, but on paper we look really good. Copeland has changed everything going forward, of course, but we were in good shape even after the OSU and Rutgers losses.

I'm probably going to take heat for this, but if you want to know how to build a real basketball program, then go outside. People who know Nebraska basketball don't know winning on a high level. So maybe put someone on a committee as a courtesy, but otherwise, find somebody who understands how to win.

Sorry, here's the ESPN link: http://www.espn.com/nba/draft/bestavailable/_/position/ovr/page/2

Didn't see this posted elsewhere, shows up at 28 in the latest SBNation mock draft. https://www.sbnation.com/nba/2019/1/23/18190748/nba-mock-draft-2019-zion-williamson-rj-barrett-ja-morant-order

Purdue not so impressed with them.

True, although he now plays with the idea that he can give fouls because they only need 10 good minutes out of him. The fifth starter has to be a wing, keep bringing Tanner off the bench to sub for Roby. Copeland's injury points out how sad the roster is. Seriously, you couldn't make an argument for any of the reserves to start. It's more like, "Well, (fill in the blank) looked pretty good against (fill in the blank)" and that would be based mostly on whether they hit their shots.

The schedule is favorable, and I'd say .500 was very doable even with our recent stumbles. Six home games, all of them very winnable, two of five road games very winnable. But Copeland changes the equation so much. While the pressure's off in a lot of ways now, the giant hole in the roster might be too much to overcome. Doc's 2008-2009 team somehow went 8-8 in the Big 12 with a weak roster, so there's that.

I was thinking more of Aykroyd and Murphy trading OJ futures, but that one's better!

Just for the record, Kenpom has us as the 16th most efficient offense in the country. It doesn't look like it to me either, but that's what the numbers say.

Personally, I don't think it's a bad system. It's hard to spend money on the whole package if you don't know how far you'll advance. The scalpers hit the losers on the way out, ask who wants to sell. The winners usually stay longer celebrating, and when they come out, the scalpers ask who wants to buy. Kind of like Trading Places, if somebody wants to put up a video today.