hhcscott

This means very little.It's a shame you feel that way.You mean an unscientific opinionated poll for players of the game by a random guy on a message board should be used to justify a player's starting for the coming season?Look, I think Gallegos will start next season. HHC's Player of the Game totals is about the last reason why I think he will. Nope. A coach's evaluation of his team's contributors and roles should be used for that, and since Coach Miles did not seem to have a problem with the number/quality of shots Gallegos was taking, since he almost never left the floor, I'm guessing it was Coach's call to use him that way. Look forward to more consistent production next year when there are other options.Unfortunately "unscientific and opinionated" are the domain of sports and sports bulletin boards in general. There is no absolute scientific formula to know who was the most important contributor in a given game even with all the analytics in vogue today. Maybe Gallegos scored 20+ points not because he shot the ball or even because of who fed him the ball, but because of how one player set really solid screens in that game that made all the shots have that extra nanosecond to be perfect. Maybe that guy should have been player of the game, but if roles were reversed and Ray set the screens, would anonymous screener have been the MVP? Part of science is observation. HHC staff observed Gallegos as being the top contributor in 11 games. The only way to check it would be to replay those 11 without him and see if anyone else stepped up. Thank you for proving my point with the top paragraph. If Gallegos starts next year it's because Miles feels he's the best we have...not because he won 11 Player of the Game trophys on a message board. Winning 11 POTG awards isn't going to help him in practice when he's competing.It's not unfortunate. It's just the way it is. There's nothing wrong with random guy having opinions on who the player of the game is. That's all it is. An opinion from random people. It's no more valid than if I did one or if Norm did or if CWG did one. And I'm just saying...trying to use those opinions to justify a starting position isn't exactly the best way to go about it. Nobody proved your point, unless you are granting me status above "random guy." My opinion is mine yours is yours. We come together to discuss them. What I like is when folks present their views and reasons so I can understand their perspective rather than add one dismissive line to the commentary, but that's just my opinion.What if one's view can be expriessed by one dismissive line. Then you win the Internet.

This means very little.It's a shame you feel that way.You mean an unscientific opinionated poll for players of the game by a random guy on a message board should be used to justify a player's starting for the coming season?Look, I think Gallegos will start next season. HHC's Player of the Game totals is about the last reason why I think he will. Nope. A coach's evaluation of his team's contributors and roles should be used for that, and since Coach Miles did not seem to have a problem with the number/quality of shots Gallegos was taking, since he almost never left the floor, I'm guessing it was Coach's call to use him that way. Look forward to more consistent production next year when there are other options. Unfortunately "unscientific and opinionated" are the domain of sports and sports bulletin boards in general. There is no absolute scientific formula to know who was the most important contributor in a given game even with all the analytics in vogue today. Maybe Gallegos scored 20+ points not because he shot the ball or even because of who fed him the ball, but because of how one player set really solid screens in that game that made all the shots have that extra nanosecond to be perfect. Maybe that guy should have been player of the game, but if roles were reversed and Ray set the screens, would anonymous screener have been the MVP? Part of science is observation. HHC staff observed Gallegos as being the top contributor in 11 games. The only way to check it would be to replay those 11 without him and see if anyone else stepped up. Thank you for proving my point with the top paragraph. If Gallegos starts next year it's because Miles feels he's the best we have...not because he won 11 Player of the Game trophys on a message board. Winning 11 POTG awards isn't going to help him in practice when he's competing. It's not unfortunate. It's just the way it is. There's nothing wrong with random guy having opinions on who the player of the game is. That's all it is. An opinion from random people. It's no more valid than if I did one or if Norm did or if CWG did one. And I'm just saying...trying to use those opinions to justify a starting position isn't exactly the best way to go about it. Nobody proved your point, unless you are granting me status above "random guy." My opinion is mine yours is yours. We come together to discuss them. What I like is when folks present their views and reasons so I can understand their perspective rather than add one dismissive line to the commentary, but that's just my opinion.

This means very little.It's a shame you feel that way. You mean an unscientific opinionated poll for players of the game by a random guy on a message board should be used to justify a player's starting for the coming season? Look, I think Gallegos will start next season. HHC's Player of the Game totals is about the last reason why I think he will. Nope. A coach's evaluation of his team's contributors and roles should be used for that, and since Coach Miles did not seem to have a problem with the number/quality of shots Gallegos was taking, since he almost never left the floor, I'm guessing it was Coach's call to use him that way. Look forward to more consistent production next year when there are other options. Unfortunately "unscientific and opinionated" are the domain of sports and sports bulletin boards in general. There is no absolute scientific formula to know who was the most important contributor in a given game even with all the analytics in vogue today. Maybe Gallegos scored 20+ points not because he shot the ball or even because of who fed him the ball, but because of how one player set really solid screens in that game that made all the shots have that extra nanosecond to be perfect. Maybe that guy should have been player of the game, but if roles were reversed and Ray set the screens, would anonymous screener have been the MVP? Part of science is observation. HHC staff observed Gallegos as being the top contributor in 11 games. The only way to check it would be to replay those 11 without him and see if anyone else stepped up.

Umm...what? Since when do quarterbacks get passing yards for incompletions? I think he's saying 18 completions is more than 14 in his example. However, since Gallegos is about scoring, not yardage, the number in the hypothetical should be 18 for 30 with 4 touchdowns versus 14 for 18 with 2 touchdowns. Now maybe the RB and kicker pick up the slack for the 14 of 18 guy but if they don't, my "volume passer" is getting more points on the board. Crap! For some reason I read it as 13-for-30 and 13-for-18. Oops!!!!! I misread it too, using 14 instead of 13.

PSU at Nebraska for the NIT.

Umm...what? Since when do quarterbacks get passing yards for incompletions? I think he's saying 18 completions is more than 14 in his example. However, since Gallegos is about scoring, not yardage, the number in the hypothetical should be 18 for 30 with 4 touchdowns versus 14 for 18 with 2 touchdowns. Now maybe the RB and kicker pick up the slack for the 14 of 18 guy but if they don't, my "volume passer" is getting more points on the board.

This means very little.+1It only takes into consideration the 11 games. It doesn't illustrate the many games that he couldn't buy a bucket. Wildly inconsistent. But that's the point. Everyone in that list was inconsistent. Talley's numbers weren't All-B1G either, Ubel had great nights and nights he was overmatched. Everyone, me included, likes this Shields kids, but he and Rivers were hit or miss all season. Gallegos had more nights where he was the top contributor. If everyone returning steps up their game and any of the newcomers are as advertised, Gallegos may have more time and space to work with. On 11 nights last season, he was the best Husker on the floor. I think he has best chance to build on that success with more talent drawing defensive attention.

They should go with a $1,000 donation every time someone banks in a jumper or free throw

Whether by his choice or the U 's choice most young assistants are going to move in < 5 years. Most long-term assistants are guys who are older and find their niche as the "capable lieutenant". But young ambitious assistants are always angling for résumé building. Mike Dunlap had four jobs in five years to get to an NBA HC job. I don't think any ambitious assistants are looking at job stability in making their moves.

This means very little.It's a shame you feel that way.

I'd look at Bill Carmody. He's familiar with th B1G and has experience recruiting to an underdog. He'd have a year before the transition to get his program started. Plus he's a Jersey native

So, was this like 5th grade girls or 8th grade girls? Was the other coach, um, how do I say this? Was he ... fixated on only having an 8-player rotation? Did he have an unholy hatred for ginger haired big men from the Kansas City metro area? Nah..,in Minnesota dose funny lookin' guys wind up in da woodchipper doncha know.

Back when I coached girls JV we had a game against our rival from 10 miles up the frozen tundra. After the third girl (from both teams) was thrown to the floor without a foul I called a timeout and the other coach and I both told the officials in no uncertain terms that they would call fouls or we would pull our teams from the floor. We were both on our players to settle down but the hostility between the towns required some officiating to keep them from taking out their grudges. Players and coaches are responsible but officials are there for a reason

Hal9000, you rock! This is our HGOTW, for this week.

Two "major" jobs in the Pac12. Arizona and UCLA. Washington is close and Oregon is trying to buy up. Everyone else is cyclical.

It didn't it is at USC

Sorry for the terrible tracking at the beginning. It improves later.

Just cause I am "that guy" I'm guessing the University is alleging trademark infringement rather than copyright as "Huskers" is a registered trademark.

With all the flipping timeouts in both, George R.R. Martin would have time to finish WRITING A Song of Ice and Fire let alone for me to read a book. When I taught, I saved grading for NFL games since there were so many long breaks.

OSU not quite as impressive when fouls called evenly. Craft on the bench with two, first time he has had two fouls called on him in a half since preschool.

So did Bobby, hence the job change. (Ba doom Ching) Sorry, I actually really like Bobby Hurley and hope things go great at Buffalo. Funny that it is the same metro area as Laettner's hometown

But he didn't tweet it so it hardly seems legitimate.

Sorry Jimmy. Before my time. I'll give you one though. Who is the former La Salle player who won a professional basketball championship, and a league scoring title while playing in Nebraska?

Flip Saunders would be my pick.

Into Ames to battle Johnny Orr and the Cyclones.