nustudent

Struggling to see what the difference is between me posting a thread about McDermott staying and you starting one about Burke and Hardaway leaving. Seems to be quite the double standard. I didn't start the thread because it dealt with Creighton hoops. I started it because it has an impact on NU hoops. That game just got tougher for us next year.

Exactly.

Never said you couldn't. I don't care where you think it belongs. That's your call not mine. But YOU ASKED why it was relevant to us. So don't get bent out of shape when I answer. I put it here because it's my opinion that it's very relevant to us. We play them. It's a part of our non-con schedule. It just turned a game that would have looked very good for us, into a game that will be difficult. We play against him and as such....it's relevant to us. Also trying to figure out why you responded in the thread about Burke and Hardaway going pro and didn't seem to have a problem with that one being on this board and not the other? Why the double standard?

Debateable. It's relevant to us. Why is it relevant to us? He plays for another team so it should go in the other team file. Now tell me how I'm wrong and we can all get our pants in a knot. Correct me if I'm wrong here...but does Creighton and Nebraska play each other each year? Assuming that is correct, I would think that arguably the best player we'll play all year deciding to come back as opposed to leaving is somewhat relevant to us in the manner that it implicates our schedule. The Creighton game just got a lot more formidible as opposed to if he would have decided to leave. His presence could very well be the deciding factor in that game I give up because I know this will end about 10 pages from now and it ain't worth it. But could you lighten up a bit there Francis? I just don't get why it wouldn't be relevant to us. I mean...it's not like we play Creighton or anything next year.

Debateable. It's relevant to us. Why is it relevant to us? He plays for another team so it should go in the other team file. Now tell me how I'm wrong and we can all get our pants in a knot. Correct me if I'm wrong here...but does Creighton and Nebraska play each other each year? Assuming that is correct, I would think that arguably the best player we'll play all year deciding to come back as opposed to leaving is somewhat relevant to us in the manner that it implicates our schedule. The Creighton game just got a lot more formidible as opposed to if he would have decided to leave. His presence could very well be the deciding factor in that game

Debateable. It's relevant to us.

Staying

Excellent point. Let's hope this "jucos and euros" doesn't become the foil to jab Miles' fans that "baseline to baseline" became. Don't think it will be. Like he said...enjoy in moderation. He took 1 last year in Biggs. 1 this year (with the possibility of another) in addition to 3 high school guys. Could be alot worse.

Link to story on. 24/7 http://nebraska.247sports.com/Article/Nebraska-Tim-Miles-impresses-JUCO-forward-Sai-Tummala-126379

This means very little.It's a shame you feel that way.You mean an unscientific opinionated poll for players of the game by a random guy on a message board should be used to justify a player's starting for the coming season?Look, I think Gallegos will start next season. HHC's Player of the Game totals is about the last reason why I think he will. Nope. A coach's evaluation of his team's contributors and roles should be used for that, and since Coach Miles did not seem to have a problem with the number/quality of shots Gallegos was taking, since he almost never left the floor, I'm guessing it was Coach's call to use him that way. Look forward to more consistent production next year when there are other options. Unfortunately "unscientific and opinionated" are the domain of sports and sports bulletin boards in general. There is no absolute scientific formula to know who was the most important contributor in a given game even with all the analytics in vogue today. Maybe Gallegos scored 20+ points not because he shot the ball or even because of who fed him the ball, but because of how one player set really solid screens in that game that made all the shots have that extra nanosecond to be perfect. Maybe that guy should have been player of the game, but if roles were reversed and Ray set the screens, would anonymous screener have been the MVP? Part of science is observation. HHC staff observed Gallegos as being the top contributor in 11 games. The only way to check it would be to replay those 11 without him and see if anyone else stepped up. Thank you for proving my point with the top paragraph. If Gallegos starts next year it's because Miles feels he's the best we have...not because he won 11 Player of the Game trophys on a message board. Winning 11 POTG awards isn't going to help him in practice when he's competing.It's not unfortunate. It's just the way it is. There's nothing wrong with random guy having opinions on who the player of the game is. That's all it is. An opinion from random people. It's no more valid than if I did one or if Norm did or if CWG did one. And I'm just saying...trying to use those opinions to justify a starting position isn't exactly the best way to go about it. Nobody proved your point, unless you are granting me status above "random guy." My opinion is mine yours is yours. We come together to discuss them. What I like is when folks present their views and reasons so I can understand their perspective rather than add one dismissive line to the commentary, but that's just my opinion. What if one's view can be expriessed by one dismissive line.

This means very little.It's a shame you feel that way. You mean an unscientific opinionated poll for players of the game by a random guy on a message board should be used to justify a player's starting for the coming season? Look, I think Gallegos will start next season. HHC's Player of the Game totals is about the last reason why I think he will. Nope. A coach's evaluation of his team's contributors and roles should be used for that, and since Coach Miles did not seem to have a problem with the number/quality of shots Gallegos was taking, since he almost never left the floor, I'm guessing it was Coach's call to use him that way. Look forward to more consistent production next year when there are other options. Unfortunately "unscientific and opinionated" are the domain of sports and sports bulletin boards in general. There is no absolute scientific formula to know who was the most important contributor in a given game even with all the analytics in vogue today. Maybe Gallegos scored 20+ points not because he shot the ball or even because of who fed him the ball, but because of how one player set really solid screens in that game that made all the shots have that extra nanosecond to be perfect. Maybe that guy should have been player of the game, but if roles were reversed and Ray set the screens, would anonymous screener have been the MVP? Part of science is observation. HHC staff observed Gallegos as being the top contributor in 11 games. The only way to check it would be to replay those 11 without him and see if anyone else stepped up. Thank you for proving my point with the top paragraph. If Gallegos starts next year it's because Miles feels he's the best we have...not because he won 11 Player of the Game trophys on a message board. Winning 11 POTG awards isn't going to help him in practice when he's competing. It's not unfortunate. It's just the way it is. There's nothing wrong with random guy having opinions on who the player of the game is. That's all it is. An opinion from random people. It's no more valid than if I did one or if Norm did or if CWG did one. And I'm just saying...trying to use those opinions to justify a starting position isn't exactly the best way to go about it.

I don't see too many people saying he should not start so much as they are saying he isn't a lock to start. There's no one out there that has 'proven' they deserve to start over Rey in terms of game situations. But Rey also hasn't proven to be good enough that we couldn't replace his contributions either. Rey is getting a lot of run for playing a lot of minutes. And it's safe to say that the volume of minutes he played had more to do with our roster situation that he fell into and Miles was a victim of than Rey's actual talent

This means very little.+1It only takes into consideration the 11 games. It doesn't illustrate the many games that he couldn't buy a bucket. Wildly inconsistent. But that's the point. Everyone in that list was inconsistent. Talley's numbers weren't All-B1G either, Ubel had great nights and nights he was overmatched. Everyone, me included, likes this Shields kids, but he and Rivers were hit or miss all season. Gallegos had more nights where he was the top contributor. If everyone returning steps up their game and any of the newcomers are as advertised, Gallegos may have more time and space to work with. On 11 nights last season, he was the best Husker on the floor. I think he has best chance to build on that success with more talent drawing defensive attention. Real debateable that he had more nights where he was the biggest contributor. And as Norm mentioned...it doesn't account for how bad Rey was in his off nights.

This means very little.It's a shame you feel that way. You mean an unscientific opinionated poll for players of the game by a random guy on a message board should be used to justify a player's starting for the coming season? Look, I think Gallegos will start next season. HHC's Player of the Game totals is about the last reason why I think he will.

This means very little.

Give him the choice....2 games or additional community service

A giant step talent wise over last year. Now...it may not be a giant step record wise based on scheduling and experience, etc but it's a massive improvement in talent.

Yep...would have been absolutely ideal

Fixed it for you.

Mine are too, but it's hard to fault the BTN for putting us there right now.

Memphis Center Tarik Black transferring http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2013/04/memphis_junior_forward_tarik_b.html

Key phrase is 'some of the elements' A guy like Dieng was pretty crucial along the way for Ville too. We have no one like him right now and that may be our biggest setback for next year.

It's still a gamble...a gamble that the guy you're turning away this year isn't going to have as much of an impact than the one you're bringing in next year. It's a gamble that leaving a hole on your roster isn't going to negatively affect your team's outcome this year more than any potential recruit for next year will help. It's a strong assumption that we are automatically going to be in on high enough prospects for 2014 to make it worth it. It's a strong assumption that players aren't going to transfer out after next year anyway. So you'll have only one scholarship available for '14. Big deal. If you're to the point where you have 4* guys beating a path to your door in that class, well, guess what? Somebody's gotta go, potential APR hit be damned. But I'm willing to bet that won't be something we're gonna need to worry about, to be honest. We need to have 13 scholarship guys this year. I've gotta think if we would have had 5 more even MODERATELY serviceable guys on our bench this year (yeah I know three of them were sitting out as transfers) we'd be easily in the NIT this year. Point is, often times sports are games of attrition. You don't automatically put yourself at a disadvantage from the beginning just for some perceived advantage you could maybe gain somewhere down the road. At least, that's the way I see it. I'd agree with you if this was 2015. Miles is still building his program and he's shown thus far he can be a solid recruiter and he's done that while only here 1 year. IYAM, his target all along was the 2014 class with all the early visitors. I think we stand a better chance to land someone of quality in that class that he's had two years to prepare and build relationships with over someone late in the game in this class that he's had a year to prepare for. It's a gamble to leave yourself short. As I said if it was 2015, I'd be right there with you. But this is still the early phase of this rebuilding project. Let's see Miles build it the right way as opposed to his predecessors If we had 5 more players...maybe that would've made a difference. Those players weren't on the roster though. And Miles can't change NCAA rules to make WP and TP eligible. You say you don't want to put yourself at a disadvantage for the possible future advantages. Getting desperate and taking the wrong player late can in fact put you at a disadvantage though. We've been bad long enough. We don't need to get desperate and take a guy just because right now. For the time being...I believe in Miles ability to recruit.

You leave it open for the next signing class. You make a run at any senior transfers that are eligibile immediately, so that way it would not effect the numbers in the next class.. Generally, I don't believe in holding back spots, but we are building a program. There's no need to stretch now when we are still laying the foundation. Save it and focus on recruiting for the next recruiting year.

Things have changed then. When I was in school, they just selected a frat and that frat dominated.