HuskerBB

Respectfully disagree with your middle paragraph. Agree with your last one.

Very accurate. This is a great group - but talent level is not where we were in 90-91 or 95-96 NIT championship team - or really even in most of the years in between those two. BigRed22 likely is too young to remember those groups.

Thanks Norm. The other video I had seen did not really have any jump shots. This one is a much better reflection I think. I agree that his shooting for looks better than the reviews or numbers might reflect - which is a good sign for future improvement.

1 Miles 2 Miles 3 Miles (by a country mile) 4 Miles 5 Miles 6 Collier (by a nose over Miles) Would put Sadler #3 in every category - although would be close to Collier in #1 and #2.

I certainly agree with #2

Outrebounded 25-15 ! Lots of those were just them giving a better effort unfortunately.

I think I figured the new rule out - if you are inside the lane no offensive violations can occur - no traveling, no 3 seconds anything goes inside the lane.

Seems like we are getting a lot of cheap fouls called and then they swallow the whistle when a real foul happens.

I know 3 seconds is rarely called - but it is being completely ignored in this game.

We struggle rebounding out of the zone - but we are really struggling rebounding tonight anyway.

This nails it. There was a time - not long ago - when you sort of assumed that you had to have at least a .500 conference record to get in. Don't think it was ever a "rule" but it generally was applied like one. That was when the ACC had 9 teams. When the ACC expanded are brought in more good BB teams they made exceptions to that rule. Now they have disregarded it completely and I think that is BS. Not saying an above .500 conference record should get you in - but if you can't finish even .500 in your conference (maybe including conference tournament games) then you do NOT belong in the NCAA tournament (absent extraordinary circumstances i.e. a very key player missing a month during the conference season and being back by the end). Conference records should mean something - this year they decided to ignore them completely. That produced ridiculous results. Leaving us out and taking Oklahoma is bad. Leaving USC out and taking Arizona State is completely asinine - there is no possible way to justify that decision. The other thing I object to is Rasmussen saying that wins in November mean the same as wins in February/March. I am not saying wins in November should be meaningless - but this is supposed to be a tournament with the best teams at the end of the year - which is when the tournament happens. A team that might have played a couple good games early - but is then horsesh*t at the end of the year (i.e. Oklahoma) should not be allowed to compete in a tournament at the end of the year. Also the goal should be for a team to improve during the year and peak at the end. Maybe those early wins by teams like OU are further overrated by the fact that the teams they played went the right direction - improved during the year but were not that good when OU beat them in November or December. Record in the last 10 games used to be an important metric. I am not saying it should be the most important one - but it still should mean something if you are trying to put the teams that are the best into the tournament - at the time the tournament is played.

I am shocked. Why would they not have wanted us to play at home ?? Would have easily been the highest attended NIT 1st round game.

Yeah Charles was great in pointing out the OU selection idiocy.

I would have agreed with this 100% when they were in the Mo Valley - dynamic between the schools changes a lot with that move. I do plan to remember this and hope we get a big opportunity to boo Rassmussen at PBA next year.

Would love to see the Big 12 go 0-8 (or whatever ridiculous # of teams they got it).