nustudent

I think some things he could improve on. But some big reasons why I'm not optimistic are that two of his weaknesses are generally things that can't be improved upon, or drastically, because that's just how they are.. His hands are terrible and he's not explosive. Tigers generally can't change their stripes. His basketball IQ, which certainly seems low, can be improved upon. His free throw shooting, can be improved upon. While, he can get stronger and in better shape through workouts, he's not going to all of a sudden be an explosive player who plays above the rim. My hopes for him are a guy who can keep his strength and hold his own on the block and improves his awareness so he doesn't force things offensively or commit 2-3 dumb fouls a game in less than 15 minutes of playing time. He's a great depth player. But I have a real hard time seeing us winning 20+ games and making the dance if he is starting and playing 20-25 minutes night in and night out.

Bingo.

Agree with this

Crap. Really thought they might fall off

Won't disagree with any of that as it pertains to him specifically. But again, depending on what happens, he is at least a semi-warm body. If Copeland and Palmer go, then your front court is Jordy, who has already tried to leave once and wakes up in the morning with 3 fouls and Roby, who is fantastic. Not a lot of depth there.

Interesting point on McVeigh. Not a big fan of his game and there was a noticeable improvement of the team when his minutes went down. That being said....if things don't go our way on Palmer and Copeland, we get thin very very quick. McVeigh wasn't great but he is better than nobody. If both (JP & IC) come back, we won't miss McVeigh at all. If they both leave, he couldve helped fill a void

It was a perfect storm. The teams that ended up being good, we only played once (and only once at home). Teams that were supposed to be weren't. Some of that was just due to falling short of expectations (Northwestern and Iowa) and others were bad luck due to injuries/suspensions. The top 4 was like it normally is. The problem is after that....teams 5-8 were extremely below par for from a Big 10 historical perspective.

And something that was pretty widely known/expected for quite a while

I think that's probably true. But also we were wrong in the approach. We should have been gone a lot harder after the best out there. Not just a warm body to back someone up.

Agreed that they don't grow on trees. I don't expect us to land the next Hakeem Olajuwon here. But I think we can find a competent player. When guys in their 4th year of college are averaging 2 ppg and 2.5 rpg....it's a pretty good sign of what they are. No matter how much we try to talk ourselves into there being a bigger reason for it. At quick glance, there were already no less than 5-6 guys who were frontcourt type players who averaged double figures last year. Yes...some were at a low level...but we just took a guy who averaged 3ppg at a low level. So there is some definite grey area between what we have taken and the elite transfers. IMO, a guy like Finke would be a home run for us.

This would be easier to accept if.... 1. The lack of depth didn't very much have to do with Miles decision making and 2. There were an actual abundance of injuries excessive to the average. I don't think Moos has any long term hope for Miles, I do think he recognized we had a good year, and at least potentially, bring back quite a bit of talent. I think he's willing to give him next year. But IMO, I don't think Moos has made any long term decisions on Miles yet.

Number is obviously fluid right now. We have one open spot for sure. Two if you don't renew Borchardt's scholarship. That doesn't consider Copeland or Palmer not returning or any other attrition. And I can all but guarantee that we will lose at least one more player based on the law of averages and our past. Easy answer is that you want one who can do it all. If you can't find that, you'd want one who is very good at one or the other. I'd personally rather have someone who can score around the rim, but if you can't find an elite scorer, find an elite defender and rebounder.

About 3-4 other bigs who averaged double figures are grad transferring. Need to land one legit (and by legit, I mean good, not Moses or Duby who we talk ourselves into) who can play right away

IMO, it's because people don't view us as truly being 3/4 of the way up the stairs. They view last season as an isolated incident and not as a sign that we have truly elevated the program to a level where we will be consistent.

I dont believe this for a second

Arizona State-No. I have more of an issue with them getting in than any of the others. The other schools, yes, I think they match what we did. Maybe, not in the manner that we did. For example, Alabama had some real nice wins, but also some real questionable losses. I think they probably would have been around 22-9 with our schedule. But they probably have an extra impressive win and an extra WTF type of loss. Do I think Alabama deserved to be in? Good question. Under the criteria that was being used....yeah, I had no problem with them being in. As I mentioned right after Selection Sunday....my issues are more the criteria that is used, the non-existence of the eyeball test despite saying there is, and the constant moving of goal posts, moreso than the application of the criteria. Quality wins was the single biggest factor.....and they (Bama) had that. Now do I think the criteria that was used this year should be the end all be all and weighted like it was this year? Now my answer to the question is, no. I think there has to be more than that. I think the eyeball test has to exist. While, I agree it is an entire season resume, I do think finish does deserve some consideration. But that hasn't been the case for 6 years. It's certainly wasn't a recent development that it wasn't a factor. It wasn't just quad 1 wins. It was wins over other tourney teams. Bama for example had 9 compared to our 1. We went 0-7 against teams with winning records at road/neutral sites. Bama went 5-9. So using the criteria that the committee had previously decided on, they had more than just quad 1 wins on a team like us. This criteria wasn't just pulled up on selection sunday out of nowhere. It's what they (and the bracketologists that everyone said was wrong until they weren't) were using all year. Now...again...this opens up another argument, should this have been the criteria? Probably not, but it was. As for winning @ Wisconsin being equivalent to winning at some of the others you mentioned? Winning in Madison isn't easy. But when Wisconsin goes 0-6 against other Power 6 teams in the non-con and struggles through most of its Big 10 schedule, that game just isn't going to carry a lot of weight to non-biased observers. If the shoe was on the other foot...and we went on the road and beat Kansas State and MIss State and an ACC fan was telling you that winning at Wake Forest is just as impressive....I'm guessing you (we) wouldn't be buying that argument. As for Nebraska getting in....I would have loved to watch us play. Am I bent out of shape about it? Without being biased...I can't say that I am. We are probably a borderline top 25 team at home. But we didn't win one game away from home against a team that finished above .500. Not even good teams...just above .500. Not one win. And considering the NCAA would have involved a game away from home against a good team, I can understand the hesitancy to put us in that position based on our resume, because we quite simply were not good in those situations. Do I think we got screwed? Absolutely not. Do I think the pre-determined criteria that was used this year to make the decision is the best form of criteria that can be used? That's also a no.

Watson I can understand why he would try. Roby, though, if I am not mistaken may want to wait. I believe you can only go through the process once. As a sophomore, if you submit your name, you can come back...but then you can't do that again as a junior. I believe you only have a one time chance to test the waters.

Leave it as is. There always have been and always will be middling teams on the bubble. That will not change whether its a 68 team or 128 team tourney. Someone is always going to be upset. Adding a few other bubble teams in favor of Texas Southern and Norfolk State (or whoever) isn't going to change much.

And I don't think this will either. IMO, MIles isn't the guy. But that doesn't mean we stand back and do nothing. You can't handcuff the guy and in the same motion slap him on the butt and tell him to 'go get em tiger'. You either support the guy you have or you get a new guy. As I've mentioned in the past, Eichorst painted Moos into a corner here. We aren't talking about deviating to a 4 year contract from a 5 year industry standard. We're down to a 2 year contract from a 5-year standard. Not extending him at this point is translated as he's fired next year unless he does something spectacular. Well....you have 2 signing periods between now and then. Having that impression out there is basically just wiping your hands and calling it a day there because no decent talent is going to willingly walk into that. Especially with you gift wrapping the "How to Negatively Recruit Against Us" handbook for all your competition. Support him or Fire him. Lousy situation for Moos to be in, but those are his options.

Maybe. But you could stay and coach another year or two under high pressure with what should be your most talented team coming back and you can make almost $2.5 million a year, or you can drop down a level, start all over and take a $1.5 million dollar pay cut

You wouldn’t be a very good AD then. We’re the most success starved program in any major conference and you want to stack the deck further against him? The AD is there to make it easier for coaches, not harder. No quality player wants to walk into a death trap. 1 year of no renewal is one thing. 3 years is another $2-$4 million, if it’s even that, through reduced buyouts, over a couple of years, doesn’t mean a lot in today’s big money works. Especially considering the payoffs for having a successful year

I'd take him in a heartbeat...but this is part of the reason why I never bought the rumor. The only reason would be because he wants to be close to him. And if that was such a priority, don't understand why he ever left Creighton, or didn't hold off long enough until we fired Doc and expressed interest here then.

The extension cools the appearance of the hot seat though. What if we win 20 games again next year but don't make the dance? What happens then? That's why the extension is important. And this is coming from a guy who wanted him fired last year. The extension at least shows you are open to keeping him and want him as your coach. The lack of extension just shows that you are looking for a reason to fire him. Even if you are, you don't show your hand.

Everybody is hung up on Quad 1 wins, etc...but no one seems to focus on record vs. tourney teams, road/neutral site records vs. good teams. Those were factors/variables too and we were horrible in those categories as well.. Quad 1 was just a way to sort that stuff.

Correct. We weren't screwed. Our criteria just didn't fit. Some of it was bad luck. Some of it was not taking care of business. It just didn't work out, for a variety of reasons