aphilso1

Nice. I literally LOL'd at that one.

1. Petteway. His individual success and leading the team to the Dance would probably already have been enough to make him #1 in my book. Now add to that the fact that his success opened the door for Miles to recruit and land more impact transfers. TP3 is #1 by a landslide. 2. Watson. When everyone else left, he stayed. If he had't, the Huskers would likely have a different head coach and we'd no longer still be in the Tim Miles Era. 3. Roby. He's got the best chance to be a recognizable face in the NBA. If he does that, I imagine recruiting and future success will be a lot easier in Lincoln. For that reason he's got a chance to make an impact on our program for years to come.

Your comment on Grand Island didn't make sense to me at first, so I didn't address it. But now I think I know what you're getting at. Are you saying that it'd be better to recruit the hypothetical best player from a big city (we'll use Chicago as an example) rather than the best player from Grand Island? Well yeah, that's obviously true. Because the best player in Chicago is a BIG fish in a BIG pond, while the best player in Grand Island is a BIG fish in a SMALL pond. But here's the question that is answered by the article: would you rather have the 70th best Chicago player (SMALL fish in BIG pond), or the best Grand Island player (BIG fish in SMALL pond)? Chicago is 70x the size of Grand Island so statistically speaking, the Grand Island kid should have a 50/50 chance of being better than the #70 Chicago kid. And taking the cultural differences that you pointed out into account, it would be reasonable to assume that those odds would be even lower for Mr. Grand Island. But the data in this article spins that all on its head. It answers that debate. You take Mr. Grand Island over Mr. #70-in-Chicago. And once you know that, it seems to me like it would be a major recruiting edge. Sure, Duke and Kansas can land the Big fish in Big pond, but teams like Nebraska don't have that luxury.

Yeah, that's what I got out of it to, too. And while the article doesn't directly apply to college basketball, the conclusion is easy to make. If a coach is debating between using the last scholarship on players that appear equally talented, but one was a role player in a great league while the other was a stud in an OK league...well, offer the kid who is used to be being "the man."

Your point is likely the primary difference between NHL (87%) and NBA (71%) figures. But even taking that into account, only 29% of NBA players come from cities greater than 500k. You would assume that, all things being equal, that number would be pretty darn close to 50% since it should reflect America as a whole. The ethnic make-up of the NBA should only drive that number toward the large city end of the scale, but the data shows the opposite. Why? Because there really is a correct answer to the "big fish in small pond vs. small fish in the ocean" debate. The data clearly shows that being the big fish is more advantageous. Personally, I found the data in the study and article to be astounding, and the opposite of what I had assumed. Hence why I shared.

I read a really compelling article on the BBC today. The most interesting part was this little nugget: "Consider an American and Canadian study that analysed where 2,240 professional athletes from the National Hockey League, National Basketball Association, Major League Baseball, and the Professional Golfers’ Association grew up and when they were born. In each case, the researchers found that the professional players were far more likely to come from relatively small cities – where they could have a better chance of rising to the top of a smaller league – rather than bigger cities. Around half the US population come from cities with fewer than 500,000 people, for instance, yet the researchers found that these cities provided a whopping 87% of all NHL players, with similar figures for the MLB and PGA. That’s a huge over-representation. The NBA was slightly more balanced, but not by much: overall, 71% of the players came from those smaller cities – over 20% more than you would expect from chance alone." Wow. Just wow. Statistically speaking, that means that half the county (small cities and towns) will produce 71% of NBA talent, while the other half (large cities) will only produce 29%. It makes me wonder if anyone has ever employed a strategy of solely recruiting non-city kids since they're apparently much more likely to turn into an NBA-caliber player. Miles likes analytics, I wonder if he's seen this data and, if so, if he's at all based his recruiting strategy around it. Full article here: http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20180703-why-it-pays-to-be-a-big-fish-in-a-small-pond

5 of the 6 choices provided in the poll would constitute the greatest season in program history. That seems to be a giant flaw in this poll, since a season shouldn't have to be the best ever to be considered a success. Just make the NCAA tournament - IMO this is the minimum benchmark for a successful season. Got my vote. Need to win at least 1 game in NCAA tournament - if this happens, it makes this the best season we've ever had Need to win at least 2 games in NCAA tournament - this would constitute the greatest Nebrasketball season by a wide margin Win the Big 10 regular season conference title - ditto Win the Big 10 conference tournament title - this one's close, but I'd put a B1G tourney title over an old Big 8 title. So again, would likely make it our best season ever Set the school record for most wins in a season - most = greatest in an over-simplified way

First of all, solid reference. Veblen isn't a name that comes up in most casual dinner conversations. Second, while I'm sure the Veblen comparison was meant to be insulting, it's hard for me to take it that way. The dude was a genius even if he was a little odd. And he didn't live in an era of post-USSR 20/20 hindsight. Some of his thoughts were pretty revolutionary and had yet to be proven wrong via the actual application of socialism.

As a guy in my early 30's who graduated college at the start of the great recession, I've found that many acquaintances my age are a decade behind in their careers. Those were generally the same people that graduated with communications and sociology-types of degrees, or graduated with a more career-specific degree but with poor grades. Those of us that achieved academic success in a career-specific major (finance, engineering, actuarial science, nursing, etc.) still found good jobs right away, regardless of the recession. Granted, the economy has stabilized a lot in the past nine years, but at least in my anecdotal experience there is a giant gap in demand among different majors. Regarding the thought that a college education should be viewed as something other than what it is--- a prerequisite and training for your future job---I could not disagree more. I had lots of friends in college that wandered from major to major wasting their parents' money and/or accumulating debt. They all had this point of view in common, and it drove me bonkers. For some people, college is about finding yourself and enlightenment. That amounts to one very expensive hobby if you're going to college without some specific career opportunities in mind.

You, Sir, are an evil genius.

Oh yeah, and CREIGHTON SUCKS

Given the upward trajectory of health care costs, it definitely sends a wrong message when hospitals decide to spend $20M+ to plaster their name on the side of a building. Kinda burns my biscuits even though I know that amount is basically a rounding error in their annual budget.

I've only ever read that claim from one person -- Fieding Yost. And Yost was openly anti-Catholic throughout his tenure at Michigan, so that's a pretty unreliable source.

Wait...what? He played last year. So he should be a sophomore now, not a RS frosh.

Exactly. It's intentional that it's not just the first four games.