aphilso1

Frankly, these guys are good at purging your brain of all bad 90's pop music. Need to delete N' Sync from your brain? Here ya go: Wish Britney Spears never happened? You can thank me later:

I would like to rescind my previous submission and replace it with this beauty. Do you wish the boy band era of the 90's never happened? Would you prefer to remember the songs as a modern funk rendition instead? If so, then you're welcome. Here's Scary Pockets' cover of the Backstreet Boys' "I Want it That Way." I will not sully this board by posting the original. You know you know it.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on cause & effect. There's a reason why Miles wasn't getting long-term extensions. In my opinion, that reason is also why top caliber HS players stopped wanting to play here. A lack of contract extension and lack of ability to land top HS players were both effects of the same cause -- losing.

You've stated this view many times, and it's never made sense to me. Has any kid every said something like "I would've considered Nebraska, but I heard that Miles' contract wasn't extended"? Seems extremely unlikely that kids actually care if a coach has a contract running 5+ years. As an example, Brian Kelly just went to the College Football Playoff and he consistently strings together top 10 recruiting classes. His contract only runs through 2021, the same as Tim Miles' did. And before anyone states the obvious "well yeah, but basketball is different than football," I agree they're different. Long term contracts actually matter even less in basketball, because kids a) can turn pro younger, b) transfer at a higher rate, and c) redshirt at a lower rate. Whereas a football player has an interest in whether a coach will be around for 4-5 years, basketball players don't typically stick around more than 3 years.

A close second would be Luca Stricagnoli's newest cover: Eminem's "Slim Shady." Can you tell that I'm an acoustic guitarist? This one might be an example of recency bias though. But it's so good!

Gangsta's Paradise Original: Coolio Cover: Taylor Reed

This is the correct answer.

We also have zero guys that have played a minute together. Hence why this is a tough year to predict.

Well he’s playing in the Big East now, so won’t he have a couple games against 9th year senior Grant Gibbs? Or did Gibbs finally exhaust his eligibility?

Well, I've had plenty of time to digest the final roster. Still have no clue what the starting lineup will be. In decreasing order of probability, my guesses are: 1. Mack: LOCK. The only guy that is for sure going to be a day 1 starter. True point guard with elite level athleticism and vision, and can fill it up too. He's for sure one of the five. 2. Green: 90%. I'm dropping him from a lock to a near lock due to the addition of Curtis. I think their skills are similar enough that only one of the two will start. I'm still guessing that will be Green, with Curtis essentially backing up both Mack and Green. Or maybe Burke slides into this spot over both Green and Curtis. I don't know. Now I'm wondering if 90% is actually too high. Whoa are these guys again? And where's my beer? My head hurts already, and we're just getting started. 3. Kavas: 60%. Dude is a sniper, and he's the only one of those we've got. Hoi-ball requires snipers. On the other hand, I'm not sure he's quick enough to cover a B1G SG or SF, nor strong enough to bang with a B1G PF (or even C, out of necessity). So maybe he comes off the bench with the ultimate green light, and told to shoot a bunch in not a lot of minutes to minimize the amount of possessions he defends. I don't know. My headache is getting worse. 4. Ouedraogo: 50%. Based on Hoiberg's ISU lineups, I'm assuming he wants someone built like Yvan/Cross/Walker to earn a starting spot. Walker isn't eligible, so Drago and Cross will be given every opportunity to duke it out for that spot. Drago looks like the better of the two to my eye, so he gets the nod here. But there's always the chance that neither are ready to be a starter, and we go really small instead. 5. Cheatham: 40%. Seems like a guy who can do a little bit of everything. Very versatile. While I think he's likely one of our 5 best players, that versatility also makes him an ideal 6th man candidate. Hence why my confidence level isn't higher that he'll start, although I've got a got feeling he'll be top 5 in minutes played even if he comes off the bench. The non-starters, ordered by likelihood of proving me wrong: Stevenson: 35% Cross: 30% Burke: 30% Curtis: 20% Arop: 10% Thor Squared: 10% Some weirdness happens and a guy not currently on our roster starts, because Nebrasketball: 25%

Wow. He seems to have progressed even more since the end of the season. Sure looks like a first rounder to me.

Winner.

This is part of why I love the strategy of always having a couple guys sitting out as transfers. That's two people that you don't have to manage their ego and explain why they're not getting more minutes. If you have 13 scholarship players and an 8 man rotation, that means at least 5 guys are unhappy. But if two of them are ineligble, then you've just shrunk the # of players unhappy with their spot in the rotation by 40%.

After 2 minutes of reviewing highlights, my initial reaction is that he's a poor man's James Palmer.

My not-quite-a-conspiracy theory is that Thorir's spot is contingent upon Roby not coming back. Which would mean Thorir will have a spot, since all signs point toward Roby moving on.