Meltor1

I agree that there are some obvious warts, i.e. the fact that it appeared we simply didn't show up for a few games post-Copeland. But every team on the bubble has similar warts. I'm curious though if the fact that our NET ranking was so strong pre-injury that we may get extra consideration because of that. We were 15-20 around that time. And I really think the no bad losses will be a differentiator that will help us compared to our bubble peers.

I respectfully disagree. The two games we played before the OSU game that Copeland was injured was vs. Michigan State, a game we almost won, and Rutgers on the road, who went on to win a couple more games in a row after beating us. We were 6-4 in his last 10 before OSU, with 3 of those losses coming against Maryland and Iowa on the road, and that close MSU game at home.

I know the chance of us getting selected for a spot on the big dance is small. However, I'm looking at the resumes of the bubble teams most often mentioned and I'm comparing them against ours, and I really think we still have a chance to get in. We're on life support, but I don't think we're dead yet. Remember 2016 Tulsa? When VCU got in unexpectedly when they made their big run? I can see the narrative playing out like this: Before Copeland's injury, we were projected to be a 4 seed by some bracketologists. Once the injury hit, we fell into our swoon. However, by the end of the year, we proved to the committee that we found our new identity and have recovered. I think we showed the committee enough that the hard metrics that really support us against those on the bubble can also be buoyed by such a narrative so they don't feel embarrassed when getting cross examined by the talking heads about the decision. Furthermore, people have said they don't consider bad losses or the lack thereof, but when they put in Tulsa in 2016 to the shock of everyone, they cited their lack of bad losses when compared to their bubble peers. The bubble is weak enough, and along with our strong NET ranking, injury narrative, and 0 bad losses, I think we still have a chance. When you compare our resume last year to this year, we definitely have a better resume this year, and yet we were all glued to our t.v.'s last year for Selection Sunday. I put the chance of selection at...eh...15% instead of zero.

Someone please post the gif of Tim biffing it, lol.

I'll respectfully disagree with you, as Altman is definitely a big time coach. Since he's been at Oregon, he's been to 2 rounds of 32, a sweet 16, an elite eight, and a final four. We would be silly if we didn't try to pursue him. At 60, he may just be open to one last stop before he retires, and coming home might hit the sweet spot for him.

I know I'm in the minority, and that's fine, but I think we should retain Miles unless we can bring in a surefire coach. Matta, Altmann, Hoiberg, essentially any coach with proven NCAA success who doesn't bring baggage. I know it's year 7. I know if Moos fires Miles, it's easily justifiable. But Miles has led one team to the tournament, had another one that should have been in last year, and at one point this year, had a team that was being discussed as a 4 seed in the NCAA tourney. I think he's a young coach who is still trying to figure some things out. I think the good news about him is he knows his flaws. The question now is if he can fix them. He knew at the start of the year that his team didn't have a natural leader. He talked often at the start of the season about his worries concerning his team's mental deficits. So, he got help. I think it's interesting that we had a swagger with the Navy SEAL on board that we lost when he left. I think it's interesting that we lost to Rutgers, Illinois, and Penn State this year all as they were hitting their stride, losses that don't look as shocking now as they did then. I think it's interesting that if one less bucket goes in against KU last year and we're in the tourney, we're not having this retention conversation. My long-winded point is this: I think everything that could have gone wrong this year went wrong, we played teams at the wrong times as they were getting hot, and we lost who I think is our best player in Copeland when we needed him most. Yes, this year sucked, but I don't think it's indicative of what's to come. I think Tim Miles is on the verge of having a breakthrough year soon, I just hope it's with us and not someone else. This post may get some laughs, and after the Penn St and Michigan games, I was thinking he should be let go. However, I really think he's the best coach we've had since Nee (though I liked how Sadler's teams scrapped). I don't think it's a slam dunk that he's being let go.

Long time lurker, first time poster. Sorry if someone already posted this, but I thought it was interesting. I can't see the current Heady article due to the paywall, but found this from late last year. https://www.omaha.com/huskers/mens-basketball/we-re-still-building-that-culture-ex-navy-seal-helps/article_0243dbf2-e2c3-572b-8be1-3905f9f419f7.html