aphilso1

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.

I think Dwayne can afford to buy a few shirts and hoodies for whatever team his son chooses

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.

Stan sure had a hard dinger.

Sek Henry. IIRC, we picked him up like a month before the season started and he had no other decent scholarship offers.

So, hot take from a guy who was a casual NBA fan and is getting closer to just not caring at all anymore: The Warriors are ruining the league. It's not entirely their fault, but as a generality I blame them for why me and lots of people like me are walking away from the NBA. 1. They've worn out their welcome. Most casual fans only find dynasties interesting when it's a Goliath (Lakers, Yankees, Alabama, Barcelona soccer, etc) that can be toppled by either a) David or b) another Goliath. It's not their fault that they're a small-ish market team with no history, but I know a LOT of people that didn't watch the Finals but would have if it had been the Lakers or Celtics going for their third title in four years. Parity would be even better. 2. Style of play. This is purely subjective, but the Splash Brothers style of offense is incredibly boring to watch. I'm a young guy (31), but hate the new style of play that has overtaken the league. It was interesting when it was only a handful of teams doing it, because it allowed for some interesting clashes of styles. But now that most NBA games just feel like a 3 point shooting contest (ugh...), I've literally stopped watching all NBA games other than playoffs. And again, I know a bunch of people with the same opinion. 3. Increased viewership of other sports, specifically soccer. This is happening at a time when it's easier than ever before to order your sports programming a la carte via streaming subscriptions. No longer are the days of quasi-monopolies where a sports league can be the only show for a season. So if the NBA is boring, I can subscribe to MLS (which is the fastest growing professional sports league in America, BTW) or any number of international soccer leagues. English Premier League, for example, runs on close to the same calendar as NBA/NHL. As it is, I'd rather watch a regular season MLB, MLS, Premier League, or Bundesliga game over a regular season NBA game. But it's getting to where I'd rather watch a regular season game in one of those leagues rather than a playoff game in the NBA. The style of play is unappealing, and the outcome is not in doubt. So why watch?

I was standing courtside in the student section for that game. I remember walking away and saying KD would never make it in the NBA ? In fairness, I didn't anticipate him creating the template as the ultimate lanky 6'10" SG/wing. I figured he'd need to bulk up and play PF, and knew he was too soft of a player to do that. So I was kind of right in way...he DIDN'T make it in the league as a PF...because the league evolved and no longer really even has many traditional PF anymore...

I attended DONU for the last couple Collier years and first couple Sadler years. At the time, I liked Barry. His teams seemed to play their most competitive basketball in home games against big teams. It was a lot of fun to be in the student section for those contests. I also liked his interaction with the students. He used to come talk to us before the games and buy us a bunch of pizzas as we watched team warm-ups. With a decade+ of hindsight though, I wish the University had moved on from Barry quicker. He walked into a great situation, inheriting a program with excellent talent but not a ton of history. Expectations were reasonable. But he mostly squandered the talent he inherited, and recruited terribly. By the time he left, the Huskers basically just had Aleks Maric surrounded by a bunch of guys that wouldn't have cracked the rotation for the majority of major conference programs. The talent was bad enough that whoever followed Collier had very little chance of success. TL;DR -- I liked him at the time but now I realize that he was the key figure driving the program into the ground.

Any mention is a good mention. I'll take gladly take #25.

If healthy, I fully expect Davis to get more minutes than either Thor or Nana. I also expect he will be the guy that fans say "why the f is Davis playing more minutes than (insert player x)?" I see him as a dude who will show up everyday in practice and be willing to do all of the little non-stat filling things that coaches love but fan don't fully appreciate. Like Evan Taylor, or Benny Parker, or David Rivers, the list goes on and on. He'll be that guy. Obviously all that goes out the window if he's not fully recovered, in which case my guess is Thor takes the last spot in the rotation over Nana.

This. Is. Awesome!!!!!!!!!!

Well it depends on match-ups since you are who you guard. Against a big bruising lineup he's a 4, and can create mismatches with his athleticism and strong pick-and-roll game. Against a small ball lineup he's clearly a rim-protecting/rebounding 5.

We were literally the worst rebounding team in the league the second MJ and Ed transferred. I will never understand how so many fans continue to say they weren't missed. Rebounding Margin G Team Avg. Opponent Avg. Margin 1. Michigan State 35 1439 41.1 1063 30.4 +10.7 2. Iowa 33 1258 38.1 1092 33.1 +5.0 3. Ohio State 34 1244 36.6 1079 31.7 +4.9 4. Maryland 32 1149 35.9 994 31.1 +4.8 5. Rutgers 34 1316 38.7 1221 35.9 +2.8 6. Purdue 37 1295 35.0 1200 32.4 +2.6 7. Penn State 39 1386 35.5 1286 33.0 +2.6 8. Indiana 31 1099 35.5 1054 34.0 +1.5 9. Northwestern 32 1059 33.1 1042 32.6 +0.5 10. Michigan 41 1365 33.3 1354 33.0 +0.3 11. Minnesota 32 1221 38.2 1222 38.2 -0.0 12. Illinois 32 1053 32.9 1063 33.2 -0.3 13. Wisconsin 33 1008 30.5 1023 31.0 -0.5 14. Nebraska 33 1191 36.1 1257 38.1 -2.0

I'm much higher on Davis than most. He's already experienced what most kids go through as freshmen-- learn how to live away from Mom & Dad, learn how to adapt to being a role player rather than big man on campus, etc. Because of that (plus body type and skillset) I expect him to be more adaptable and willing to do whatever the coaches want him to from day one. He appears to me to be the most versatile outside of our clear top 6 dudes, and that's exactly what you want out of the seventh and eighth guys in your rotation. I'm calling it now: barring a slow injury recovery, he's a lock IMO to be in the regular rotation. As for Nana, I didn't like his game coming out of HS and I haven't seen anything on the floor to change my mind. Thor I have no opinion on, since I couldn't make heads or tales of his HS tape and I never saw him get meaningful minutes last year. Harris' chance at decent minutes is contingent on what the coaches want to do with Allen. If Allen is allowed to settle in exclusively as a SG, then Harris should get at least 5-8 MPG as Glynn's sole backup. But if Allen still plays the combo guard role, then he'll just slide up to the 1 when Glynn rests and I don't see much time for Harris.