Fullbacksympathy

I stopped at the top 5... but here are a couple more: Iowa = 40% (Baer) Northwestern = 47% (Taphorn), 40% (Law) ... No. 1 and 2 on the team So, what are you talking about? 7 of the top 9 teams have at least one forward who is a three point threat. 77%. MSU and Minnesota are your outliers, big time. Lastly, just because two of those players can also bang inside does not negate the fact that they have to be guarded at the 3 point line. A 30+% 3pt shooter has to be guarded on the perimeter whether you personally think those are good percentages or not. Swanigan and Hayes are unicorns because they can play inside or outside. They are also future NBA players.

I've never pulled for a kid more.

I don't think we can lump these two losses at all. Morrow is a true loss. He was a game changer when healthy and a true enforcer. Jacobson was a body that we all wanted to be better than he was, but he's easily replaceable. Having said this, neither of them are good perimeter defenders, and both of them were offensive liabilities because Miles' offense relies on open driving lanes and neither player could stretch the court. Morrow is a very good finisher and such a general disrupter on both ends of the court that he made up for it, but Jacobson simply missed jumpers all over the place. The jury is definitely out. No question about that. But I think it actually is out. I don't look at the current returning players and pieces and panic. I'm still pretty optimistic about it.

No doubt about that. Losing makes recruiting a hell of a lot harder. I look at more as "...coming off a losing season" would be an indicator that our talent needs to be upgraded. That's pretty easy to do with Jacobson's departure and, in the right system, Ed's departure, but I say that hesitantly because I loved Ed and I believe his usage was a shitshow.

Seriously? If we're defining B1G stretch 4s as 3pt threats who stretch the defense? Here are your top 5 teams' forwards 3pt shooting percentages. All of these guys logged significant minutes: Purdue = 45% 3pt shooter (Swanigan) Wisconsin = 31% (Hayes), 31% (Brown), 33% (Thomas) Maryland = 44% (Jackson) Minnesota = 34% (Coffey) Michigan = 50% (Donnal), 42% (Robinson), 40% (Wagner), 37% (Wilson) ---- That's just the top 5, but pretending this is the B1G from 1988 is silly. We need a stretch 4 to open up driving lanes and isolate the post. We also need one who can guard and switch on the perimeter. The only team that looks like a "traditional" B1G is Minnesota. Most of the other teams' best 3pt shooters are forwards.

MJ was a low 3* whose only power 5 offer came from Nebraska. His numbers, skill, and athleticism reflect that. I don't know what else to say. I didn't think he should've been starting last year.

OK. I think your concerns are valid, but we had 100 power forwards on the roster for next year. We need a backup center and a backup PG. Nothing really changes from a recruiting perspective with these losses. If Miles fills those two spots, we're a better team than last year because we can actually score with the newcomers and put out a roster who can spread the floor offensively. We'll be better at the 4 defensively because Roby and Copeland can both switch on the perimeter.

Am I crazy that I keep counting 9, man? Which one is the walkon I am unaware of? 1. Watson 2. Akenten 3. Copeland 4. Roby 5. Tshimanga 6. Gill 7. Palmer 8. Taylor 9. McVeigh As for Jacobson, I've always said I liked the kid, and I still do, but I think we all wanted him to be better than he was because he was such a hard worker. He didn't just struggle a tad on offense--he was a bonafide liability. He just had decent shooting form and good footwork, so it didn't look as bad when the ball clanked off the front of the rim. But he was a worse shooter than Morrow--even from midrange--and shared his FT percentage.

I think losing Morrow was a bad loss no matter how you slice it. Jacobson? No.

We're 9 deep right now and actively recruiting. Our starting front court center is back and prepped for a breakout season. Our PF position was always going to be a logjam, and we have a player coming in who is better than either of the guys who left. Now we lose Watson? Fire Miles. That would be inexcusable because of the playing time he's going to garner. Losing Morrow (and his usage when he was here) was a big enough mistake. I'm not really worried about MJ though. Both of those guys were going to have trouble with sharing minutes next year due to newcomers (Jordy, Copeland). Also, I thought Roby was every bit as good as Jacobson at the 4 last year. They are different players, but it was only a matter of time before Roby was going to be seeing the court with big minutes. It probably happens next year for him as a utility player. But yeah, we're 9 deep.

6pts, 6rebs per game. 17% 3pt shooting. 65% FT shooting. Not quick enough to guard stretch 4s. Too small to guard the 5. Couldn't make a shot from 5 feet. I'm a little baffled by everyone freaking out on this one. The kid wasn't even going to start next year. Compare it to a healthy Copeland during his sophomore campaign at GTown: 6'9", 11pts, 5rebs, 30% 3pt shooting, 80%FT. I loved Jacobson's contributions, but I don't remember a more Role Player! role player than him in recent memory. He's getting replaced by a 5*. Relax. The more I think about MJ and Ed, the more I think they both might be transferring because they weren't going to get minutes because of the way the roster is shaking out. Ed's made a lot less sense to me because he was always going to be good enough to get on the court. But Jacobson? He's going to be behind a guy who can score 15-25 points on any given night at the 4 and a true center at the 5. Again, it still shakes out well, imo: Watson/Taylor Akenten/Gill McVeigh/Palmer Copeland/Roby Tshimanga/?? Again, 1-4 can shoot the ball. I'm sorry. That matters.

Does opportunity cost fall anywhere into your math here? Are all college kids exploited despite the fact that a college education still overwhelmingly results in higher incomes? Is the monetary value you're giving that education seriously only over a four year period? No blue sky value? I'm working on my 4th degree at the moment, and each of the prior ones I've earned increased my income significantly. That's a value of hundreds of thousands--even millions--over the span of a career. I don't disagree that serving the institution's interest is the primary purpose of the college athlete. That doesn't make the agreement between player and institution any less consensual, nor does it necessitate their education to be worth less than a minimum wage worker. I feel like that insinuation is a little dishonest, though I do enjoy reading what you have to say overall. I agree with all of this. I believe you're making a false dichotomy here. It should absolutely be a profit motive for an institution to have good player development. That's how games are won, programs are built, and money is made. Therefore, player development is a mutual benefit to the institution and the player. Yeah, I'm not sure how this could be quantified, but a lot of fans are selfish, insecure assholes. There's no question about that. I agree there is dissonance here. As a slightly connected tangent, I look at radio programming as incredibly dissonant. The AM stations that cover Husker athletics are loaded with hate radio at all times besides games where athletes who look like the people they demonize regularly are suddenly the darlings of our community. Unless, of course, as you point out, the athletes aren't winning games. That said, I'm probably just a little less cynical. I think the athletes who stick it out and show growth are pretty much universally celebrated and can win over most fans on a personal level. Sure. The college athlete thinking independently and the transfer "epidemic" is definitely chickens coming home to roost in many respects. My personal concern is that today's obsession with victimhood on both sides of the isle has contributed to a lack of grit among the backend of my generation. I don't believe this to be a theory or a different lens. I think there is a noticeable difference between this generation's inability to handle adversity compared to the ones prior. Having said this, the main reason for this lack of grit has as much to do with apathy as toughness (I should've said that earlier), and the apathy is the result of cynicism derived from growing up such glaringly hypocritical times. The apathy is the fault of generations prior. All are punished.

Good post. I have a few thoughts: I think exploitation is beyond a stretch, and I tend to land fairly left on the political spectrum. College athletes aren't minimum wage or outsourced factory workers. If skilled players are the only thing giving college basketball value, then the D-League should be killing college basketball revenues. Like all commercial products, college basketball's value will always be determined by the consumer dollar. Therefore, there must be something about the amateurish nature of college athletics that is meaningful to the consumer. But even that is a non-argument because most athletic programs lose money on every sport besides football--which funds the other sports. So, when you are referring to college athletes, I can only assume you're referring to women as well, who lose tens of millions of dollars a year for most major universities. Who is being exploited in that situation? Lastly, an extremely low percentage of college athletes turn pro, so how is a college education, food, housing, tutors, trainers, etc., not adequate payment for what the vast majority of players are bringing to the table? Now, do players have rights within their contract that they are using? Absolutely, and more power to them for using the limited contractual freedom they have to maximize their value as they see fit. I agree that loyalty in college athletics is, indeed, hypocrisy, but only because other universities' donors are willing to buy out contracts. I also don't believe that consumers can be summed up so simply. Yes, there are the blue hairs that want players to essentially be unquestioning, patriotic yesmen to their alma matter, which is basically a stupid, conservative, lingering baby boomer ideal. But I think a lot fans--be them older or younger (me, a millennial)--are concerned for the players and their lack of toughness and grit in their willingness to face adversity rather than transfer. It's usually more about seeing potential squandered due to a player being too mentally soft to learn. We look at the Tai Websters of the world as what so many players could be if they just stick to the plan for four years, and so many aren't doing that because, quite frankly, they aren't as tough as Tai Webster, and we worry about those kids. Changes that I think should be made: 1. High end players should be able to receive endorsements from non-conflicting brands. 2. All players should be allowed to have jobs, period. 3. Individual players should be allowed to split money with universities on the use of their likeness. 4. Any player should be allowed to have an agent.

I'm not sure you could find a better bizarro Morrow. FT % is a concern, but he's definitely tough and super athletic. I don't mind this offer at all.

I think Costello is similar to a Paul Velander. I would be surprised if he doesn't end up having a similar impact, but I hear ya. If I was betting, I'd bet against both, but I'd be holding my breath while I placed it.

I love that we picked up Costello. He's a legit midmajor D1 point guard from what I've seen on the film, and he's a 40+% 3pt shooter. If we don't sign a point guard, I wouldn't be surprised in the least if he ends up backing up Watson and getting 10minutes or so a game. He's an elite passer and plenty explosive (in-game dunker), and he has a knack for playmaking in general, which implies a high IQ. His only weakness is straight line speed. Both of those guys are darkhorses.

wow... interesting development.

This. Also, I think Borchardt might be a dark horse for playing time next year. Seems like a fire has been lit there. He's a luxury walkon, IMO.

True, the whole "wing" thing really caught me off guard. That's completely delusional.

Yep. Oakley and Rodman came to mind for me as well. Ed is completely molded for that sort of skillset, and there's nothing wrong with that. The game has to be won in a bunch of areas, and PFs are often your dirty work guys to get those wins.

First, good points. I view Ed as a "traditional" 4--one that could develop a 10-15 foot jumper (which he did make on occasion), one that could block shots on the weakside, and one that could be a pest on the glass by ruining the day of a soft stretch 4 trying to box him out. When you have a center in Jordy who proved he was legitimately capable of earning double teams around the basket, the dream should've been to have a guy like Ed there to clean up the glass. While his offensive game is definitely unorthodox and not at all "stretch," I would also argue that his non-dunk finishes around the basket were pretty reliable--definitely moreso than Jacobson or Jordy. Defensively, playing the 5 forced him to bog down and lean rather than move around and create havoc with help defense. As a counter point, I'd ask this: what can Jacobson do at the 4 that Ed couldn't? It definitely wasn't making shots, and Jacobson's lack of lateral quickness was exploited in multiple games by 4s with guard skills last year. I don't think Ed would've been a defensive liability in those situations at all. I love Jacobson--he's a very good young player. But I see him more of a utility 4-5 who should get legit minutes as a spot guy in both areas. I don't think he should've ever been starting over Ed or Jordy. Now, since Copeland can knock down open threes and still legitimately guard the 4, and if Roby develops a reliable-enough 3pt shot in the offseason, and if Akenten is as good as advertised, this will probably end up being a net gain. In fact, it could end up being a blessing in disguise if we move Jacobson to the 5, where I think he should play most of his minutes. Watson - Taylor Akenten - please God a great shooter grad transfer - Gill McVeigh - Palmer Copeland - Roby Jordy - Jacobson That's a really nice looking roster to me, and spots 1-4 are all legitimate 3pt threats which means the lane will be open or post game will be hard to double team. With Jacobson, I think the kid will be strong enough, athletic enough, and EASILY tough enough to play the 5 next year. I would love to see him work on nothing but jump hooks. He's capable of getting high percentage shots close to the basket, and he jumps well. Just learn to make a bunny, kid!

Yeah, I just wish we could've seen he and Jordy more though. I don't really care if someone is a "stretch 4" if they can't defend or rebound or are soft in general. Ed would've been dominant as a weakside shotblocker and offensive rebounder. No one his size can handle him down there. Agree with the Jordy angle as well--he's a better 5 than Ed. I felt like Ed lost more minutes to Jacobson than Jordy, which is complete crap. I don't think Jacobson is a better offensive player--face up or other--than Ed. Ed is a way better finisher. (I love Jacobson, btw, but he's a glue guy and role player at this point until he can make a shot to save his life.) I definitely blame Miles from and Xs and Os standpoint, though I know he prefers a stretch 4 for his system. It's his fault. That said, there still might be a net gain with the addition of Copeland, Akenten, and Palmer in terms of overall talent, not to mention whatever he does to fill these three open scholarships. I'm still optimistic.

Morrow doesn't want to play the 5. That's essentially what he told the press. I don't blame him.

Maybe someone with eyes will put Ed at the 4. I would guess that has something to do with this decision. The writing was on the wall for Ed to play the 5 all four years here. Complete incompetence how he was used last season. I don't blame him. That said, I'm by no means sunshine pumping, but Jordy-Jacobson-Copeland-Roby as our front court next year doesn't send me into panic mode AT ALL. Sorry.

Um.. this kid is a ridiculous scorer. Great elevation and release on his jumper, and super confident. He'd help us immediately.