aphilso1

You can't assume that we will have more defectors transitioning under a new coach than we would by retaining Miles. Or I guess you could assume that, it just wouldn't be based on anything other than your gut. Here's a list of scholarship players that left with eligibility remaining during the Tim Miles era, with contributing players (meaning starters or first couple off the bench) in bold. 2016: AWIII Hammond Evelyn 2015: Petteway Pitchford Tarin Smith 2014: Hawkins Vucetic 2013: Biggs 2012 (transition year after Doc's firing): Brian Diaz Josiah Moore Corey Hilliard Chris Niemann So yeah, we did lose JBD when transitioning from Doc to Miles. But you should expect to lose a couple of players regardless of if Miles is retained. And with only one exception, we have lost key players every year, not just the "normal" attrition of guys getting drafted in the NBA (none), or they're buried on the depth chart (Hawk, Vuc, etc), or they have a career ending injury (Niemann). The only season we kept the band together was in '14, and it's not too hard to figure out why. We were actually good that year. That's clearly not the case now, so I'm not sure how you can assume we won't lose some combination of Roby, Watson, Jordy, Horne, etc.

I really don't want to turn this into the 197th "should we fire Tim Miles thread," but your argument actually provides a compelling reason to give Tim the boot now rather than later. The current sophomore class is the strength of the team, meaning an incoming coach would inherit a team that should be pretty talented for his first two years. Now is the time to pull the trigger on a coaching change, if leaving the cupboard stocked is really a priority.

You, Madam, deserve a plethora of up votes. A cornucopia even. Alas, I have just one to offer, but I offer it freely. (or I guess I could have just said "THIS")

Didn't realize until I started it, but the main character in the book I'm reading this week is named Tai. Cool coincidence. Especially for this week.

Both.

There's a risk of transfers either way. We've had more than our fair share of early departures during Miles' tenure. There also appears to be a lack of effort recently, which implies that the coaching staff may be starting to lose the locker room. There isn't enough publicly available information to say whether we'd lose more players by retaining or firing the staff, and I don't have any insider info.

PSU 75 Huskers 65 0 wins.

I see three main aspects of coaching success: recruiting, in-game coaching, & development. Each of these can also be viewed using both a short-term (next season) and long-term (18/19 season and beyond) lens. That makes six total criteria. I’m assuming we don’t get a “wow” big name hire; given Nebraska’s current situation and resources, would you rather have a random/average coach or Tim Miles? Short-term Recruiting: Advantage Random Coach Miles’ hands are tied. Eichorst didn’t give him an extension last year, and it’s hard to see him giving Tim an extension now. But even if Miles did get an extension, there’s clearly blood in the water and recruiting is a game played among sharks. Long-term Recruiting: Advantage Tim Miles This roster is set up to make the Dance in the next two years. And I’d even say we’ve got better odds at making it twice in the next two years than getting shut out twice. I’ll put the over/under of Tournament appearances in the next couple years at 1.25. If we have that kind of success, then whoever is the coach will get a recruiting boost. Miles is an excellent recruiter, he just needs to get his on-court mojo back to keep success on the recruiting trails. Short-term In-game Coaching: Advantage Random Coach Not much to say. It appears game management, play calling, etc. is not Tim’s strength. Long-term In-game Coaching: Advantage Random Coach Ditto. Short-term Development: Advantage Random Coach We’ve seen transfers make a big jump after redshirting. What we haven’t seen a lot of is four-year players making big jumps in year two, and only limited examples of guys making big jumps in year three. Then there’s the whole revolving door/attrition aspect that impacts everyone in college basketball, but seems to affect us more than most. Long-term Development: Advantage Tim Miles Every year we have a senior leader that appears impossible to replace. And then the next year a different senior elevates his game drastically, to the point that we can’t see how he could ever be replaced. This coaching staff does some exemplary long-term development for guys that are willing to put in the work over four seasons. No reason to think this batch of frosh/sophs couldn’t be special by the time they graduate. Totals: Random Coach 4, Tim Miles 2. And that makes me sad.

http://journalstar.com/sports/huskers/life-in-the-red/driving-for-case-to-fire-miles-strengthens-webster-s-streak/article_5be3374a-027c-11e7-869b-3b7388fe8ef5.html I like Miles. I badly want(ed) him to succeed. But I also agree with a lot of what Sip says in the article.

I asked this earlier in the season, but don't remember if a decision was ever made. What happens if Ken Pomeroy wins? Does that mean that Ken is the champion for this year, or do you award to the next in line, or does this year just not have any champion?

Tough game to pick. Part of me thinks we'll win by double digits in an emotional Senior Day. The other part thinks we lose by double digits because we're colder than a witch's tit right now. The only outcome I don't see is a down-to-the-wire tightly contested ballgame. Michigan 78 Huskers 68 3 players

I just looked up two notorious names from Husker hoops recruiting's recent past: Elbert Robinson and Matthew Atewe. Atewe spent most of his first two years on the bench at Auburn, sat out last year as a transfer, and now is in his redshirt junior year at Washington. Robinson is in his third year at LSU and has yet to make any kind of impact. Both players are averaging only 2 points and 2 rebounds per game this year, and neither is getting more than 8 minutes/game of PT. Pretty amazing that these were two guys that Nebraska couldn't afford to miss out on, and we at HHC drooled over to the tune of 40ish page recruiting threads. Time has a way of putting things in perspective, and my perspective is that I'd much rather have the three-headed monster of Ed/Jordy/Jacobson than the Atewe/Robinson combo we thought we "needed."

Outside of the great state of Nebraska, it seems like people are consistently dumbfounded by Miles being on the hot seat. This situation feels a lot more like Peterson firing Solich than Eichorst firing Pelini. When Bo got the can, people understood why. Bo's record alone was decent, but his childish antics and blowouts on primetime TV tainted the program's image. So when he got fired, you could safely assume that we'd be able to easily hire a good coach to replace him. With Solich though, only people associated with the program understood the firing (and even then there were a lot of dissenters). 100% of the comments I read or heard from national media and other coaches were in agreement at the time: Nebraska's expectations were WAY out of whack with reality. And frankly, no one wants to take a job where the standard for success (a.k.a. the standard to remain employed) is unobtainable.

Gophers 70 Huskers 65

Why do people keep saying that Nebraska needs "an identity" in basketball and football? The defending National Champions in both college football and basketball don't have "an identity" in the way you're describing. Clemson was a great football team this year, but they don't have an identity like Oregon, Navy, Wisconsin, Alabama, Ohio State, Washington State, USC, etc. Each of those other teams clearly have a specific brand/style of play. And yet Clemson was better. Same situation with Villanova in college basketball. I would argue that Kentucky, Wisconsin, Georgetown, Virginia, Texas, and UCLA all have a more unique style of play associated with them, and yet Nova is the defending champ. "Identity" is only brought up by fans when their team is losing. No one cares what style a team plays with if they're winning.

"Kezo and Nana interacting on twitter." A 1997 version of me would be baffled by that sentence. What's a Kezo? And why's it interacting with an old lady? And what are they doing to that poor fool you called a twit? My, how language (and names) have changed.

Very cool story, Dean.

While I may not be as optimistic as others on here that we can make a run in the B1G tourney to close out the season, I did see a couple of bright spots for next season. 1. Jack and Evan have some serious tools to their offensive game. Both are deferring to others a lot this year, but will be way more aggressive next season. In Evan's case, I think being a late addition to the roster has really made him focus on being a glue guy rather than a stat filler. In Jack's case, that long cold streak in December/January has made him trigger shy if the first couple of treys don't go in. But those were two guys that showed some glimmers last night, and were willing to be aggressive when most of the team was hanging their heads. Calling it now: both will be among our five best players next year. That doesn't mean they will both start, but I think in crunch time you'll see them both on the court. I expect that those are the two that will make the biggest advancements in the offseason. 2. Miles is willing to commit to the zone. It's hard to teach an old dog new tricks, but Tim has gone to the 1-3-1 a lot the last two games. Part of that is because we weren't getting any stops while playing man, but I really think that the coaches will make zone defense a major emphasis in the offseason. With the size/length of next year's team, that has me very excited. There's been a lot of talk with certain players not having the lateral foot speed to guard smaller players, and not having the bulk to guard B1G post players (McVeigh, Copeland, Roby, Horne, etc). Most of those players are also more advanced offensively than defensively, so you still want to get them on the floor. Going zone more frequently (dare I even say make it our primary D) would go a long way toward masking our defensive liabilities while maximizing the number of offensive threats we can put on the floor.

I really dig those jerseys, but I'm a sucker for old school cursive on the front of unis. Those shorts though...I'll withhold judgement until I see them in action, but the look in warmups is not good.

Interesting premise on whether Miles could learn to "manage the refs better." Care to elaborate?

Oi Oi Oi!!!

Yeah, kind of. Except that the 'one' is used more as a rim protector, rather than shadowing the offense's best player. But now that you mention it, I do see similarities.

Agreed. It was nice seeing it for such a lengthy stretch, if for no other reason I feel like I understand it better. Makes a lot more sense now why we place our big man under the basket rather than our PG, as you'd usually see in a more traditional 1-3-1.

70-68, bad guys win