nustudent

Got the waiver. Huge!

$100?

Huge pro and huge con with our two early Big 10 games. Opening in East Lansing, I thought was terrific. It's highly unlikely that we win that game with or without Copeland. That is a game that I really don't think the outcome changes with or without him. The Minnesota game at home is unfortunate. IMO...they will be a top 4 conference team next year. It's a winnable game without him...but our chances go up dramatically with him. Going 1-1 in this stretch would've been/would be massive. All in all....the schedule this year sets up as well as one can reasonably hope for. We have a solid but not overly difficult non-con. Our home and homes are as advantageous as we could've hoped for and we have an opportunity to really close the year strong.

Exactly....especially with us likely missing Copeland for 4 of those.

That's one hell of a stretch from November 23rd to December 16th. Likewise....our final 10 games is as favorable finish as you could hope for.

IMO, potentially Jordy as a true 5. But not every team operates with a true 5. I think a healthy, fully eligible Copeland could be at the 4.

This schedule is perfect AFAIC. Coupled with as favorable a conference slate as you can get and we're not going to get a better chance than this

We have December Friday pay games though.

Should be able to swing 9-4 there even without Copeland. Do that and you have a chance to break even in the Big 10 and dance.

I think Glynn, Jordy and Isaiah are locks. I'm hoping Palmer and one of Nana or Allen start. But it's more likely that one, if not both of Taylor or McVeigh start as well.

If he can play- it's smart. You're already down 2 spots. A 3rd isn't eligible until mid December and a 4th will always be up in there as to his effectiveness from an injury. Plus it breaks up the classes. Having a class of 5 isn't ideal

Never said you specifically did. But many on here have dismissed/marginalized Morrow and Jacobson's departures, mostly in part because of Copeland's presence.

Don't think the season necessarily depends on him. But I don't think anyone can honestly say that we are better, or even at a similar level without him, than we are with him. Our upside is far higher with him on the floor than it is with him in street clothes. And yes, it may only be 9-10 games. But as Dimes pointed out....does Copeland change the outcome in 2-3 of those games. Those 2-3 games can mean the difference between 19 wins and 17 wins (NCAA vs. NIT) or 17 wins and 15 wins (NIT vs. Staying home). Chemistry, experience and having the team mesh were already huge ?s. Delaying Copeland's addition to the team only adds to that questions and delays things.

This is where I am at. I won't blame them specifically for him not being eligible. But that leaves us basically without 3 scholarship spots for the first part of the season with lots of youth. inexperience and uncertainty mixed in to the remaining 10. Ultimately, all that matters is the season's performance. Copeland's absence just lowers the ceiling.

Would we also have scoffed at the transfers of Penn State starters after the season because they had him coming in like many on here did?

Considering the potential talent and the makings of the team we have returning, he's a huge variable in the potential success of the team

The fact of the matter is this...the view on Copeland falls into one singular category. We have more potential with him than we do without him. He's at worst the second most accomplished player on the roster based on performance to date. Is it possible to be successful without him? Sure it is. Technically anything is possible. But do our odd for success go up exponentially with him as opposed to without him. Absolutely. Don't buy the two sided coin view on him. We (message board posters) don't get to hype him as our first 5* and talk about how great he is and then turn around and say out the other side of their mouth that it's no big deal if he misses 10 games. Certainly seems like we have a number of posters here talking Copeland up about how good he is (and I agree, he has a very high ceiling) but then dismissing his absence when he might not be eligible. Generally when a team loses one of its top players, it experiences a setback. Which is it. Copeland is either good and his loss hurts or if his loss doesn't hurt, it probably means he's not that special. Always amazes me how things get played on both sides here.

Nonsense. Common sense is not allowed here

Gill has never proven to be an elite college player. Copeland averaged double figures as a sophomore. Copelands also further along in his recovery. There are also more capable replacements for Gill then there are for Copeland.

While they are correct it shouldn't....the fact that had he not transferred, he'd still have two full years left...he shouldn't be penalized since he would've been able to take the redshirt.

Bingo

I understand the point. I just don't think it is fair. And again...that's from an overall viewpoint, not just this Husker specific team. If you take what is arguably the best player off of most teams for 1/3 of the season, they are all likely to suffer. And in this case where the difference between post season and non can be as little as 2-3 games...that loss can have impact. You can say this about virtually every team. There are 20-30 teams every year in this same boat. If we are going to be legitimately good, it will be because we have more than just Copeland. But his absence for 33% of the season can make or break the difference. If he's as good as advertised, he can elevate other player's games as well.

I'm not complaining about taking him...but having him for 2/3 a season may very well not end up being a net gain this year. Agree Jacobson was a role guy. I think Morrow, provided good health, was a well above average player and could have been a strong contributor on quality teams.

Maybe. I think each had concerns about fit here. I think the potential impact of becoming reserves/bench players/playing out of position coupled with that fit only aggravated each situation

Not sure that is fair. The difference in making the NIT or not, could just be 2-3 games. The difference in making the NCAA as opposed to the NIT could also just be a game or two. I think it's fair to say that most 'expect' that Copeland will be one of the top 2 players on the team. If that is the case, losing one of your top players can definitely impact a couple games. And this doesn't apply to simply NU. All bubble teams, would struggle if they lost their best player for 1/3 of the season.