Dean Smith

First of all, a college degree is more important in determining your employment chances and pay today than ever before. According to the latest statistics I saw, college graduates earned on average 56% more than those with just a high school degree. That's right at about $2.3 million in a lifetime. And just in the last couple of years the number of those employed holding college degree now outnumbers those without. Those with a college degree are more likely to be employed, more likely to be married, own their own home, and be saving for retirement. The advantage it gives today is larger than in the past where it was possible to drop out of high school and go work on the Ford or Chevy assembly line for $20-30 an hour. Those jobs are gone now. I agree with you about the effects of college debt but it is not a primary function of supply and demand. Other developed counties send people to college without the debt and have much better occupation internship programs for high school students. Post World War II GI benefit users created the largest increase in demand for college education in our history but did not create the rising costs. The economy and politics of the '70's created the jump in cost. We have recordings from the Oval Office of both Johnson (Democrat) and Nixon (Republican) discussing how increasing the debt of college graduates would be the best way to control and limit anti-war and civil rights protesters. That and the simple economics of the effects of double-digit inflation lead to a great reduction in government support to universities. Schools had to make up that money from somewhere and that that lead to the rise in tuition and fees. It has also lead to universities relying heavily on adjunct professors that earn around $25 thousand a year with no benefits but that's for a different discussion. Our economy soared in the '50's due largely to the increased number of college graduates earning more and then spending more money. There are your effects of supply and demand. The quickest way to jumpstart our economy would be to allow more people to graduate with some sort of tertiary education and without the debt. That would lead to a huge infusion of cash into our economy. Really all my first post was trying to say I don't think we as a nation value education and science as much as we should (in hindsight since my evidence was mostly anecdotal I should have said Nebraskans don't value education and science as much as we should) and I am really looking forward to the start basketball season.

That’s sort of my point. Education used to be valued for more than its ability to get you a job. As we reduce our high schools to trade schools with its curriculum created by the Chamber of Commerce and devalue liberal arts education we get people that know how to do a skill that will get them paid but never given the chance to develope higher learning and critical thinking skills. We end up with a lot of people that struggle thinking for themselves and being able to analyze information to sort facts from beliefs. Don’t get me wrong, education needs to give people skills to succeed in like and that includes employment, but there are a lot of other skills needed to be successful in life that we are missing out on as we devalue a well rounded education.

Those have to be earned. They aren’t random and they aren’t worthless. Sociology is a science. Not many people could handle the math or suffer the tedium needed to successfully complete a sociological study. This field has offered great insight into the workings of society and explanations and possible solutions for many disfunctions. I think a great sociological study would be the connection between the susceptibility of people to believe lies and misinformation in this country and the debasing and unappreciation of science and education that exist here like no other developed nation.

I don't think you can just wander through and pick up a "random" masters degree. They make you actually learn stuff and earn those things.

Wha Wha What?

People are talking about coaches taking advantage of the rule by playing them in certain big games through out the season to get an advantage and still have them for four more years. I don’t see that happening a lot. If they are difference makers as freshmen they will be played full time. If they are that good and you only play them four games their freshman year they aren’t going to be spending 5 years in college anyway.

You keep making capitalism comparisons on the board but I don’t think most people, and that includes most people in sports (except the owners) don’t look at sports that way. You could be right but I just don’t think most sports are looked at the same.

I was told by Kerry Trotter that if Tom Brosnihan had been given the head Creighton job instead of Willis Reed, he, Vic lazzaretti (Marquette) Ron Kellogg (Kansas) and Dave Hoppen (duh) had agreed to go together to play for him and Cedric Hunter (Kansas) promised to follow the next year. That would have changed the landscape a little if true.

I remember at least one “zone” technical called every game that I watched. The Pistons were infamous for its use. One reason given for legalizing the zone was that everybody was doing it all ready. The most common way to create 1 on 1’s and avoid the double/zone in that era was to iso you player in the post. So Jordan did benefit but they guys that really benefited were the Barkley’s and Aguirre’s of The world. Zone and man man aren’t really that different. A good man team will have the help side defenders that meet the original rules of being a zone in the NBA.

And we have a couple of our own if not to the degree of venom you find in other forums.

As someone who watched a lot basketball during that time, zone was illegal but used often. And there was no freedom of movement rules without E.J. defender being able to hand check the ball handler and when you did get to the basket, many times you found a clothes line waiting for you so personally I.think 1 v 1 is easier today but that’s just my opinion. Jabbar was amazing. Freshmen were ineligible at that time but his UCLA freshmen team beat the varsity in a preseason open scrimmage and then the varsity went on to win the national championship. Didn’t have the titles but has to be in the discussion of all time college player is one Ralph Sampson.

It’s fun to discuss different players and different eras, but I don’t understand how some people get so worked up and offended when someone else disagrees. We are talking about opinions and there is no right answers. I would start any team with Magic and I think the late 80’s early 90’s teams would dominate today’s teams because of depth (especially in the post) and how expansion has watered the league down. Cleveland and Golden State are starting people that I don’t don’t think would be good enough to make the roster of the championship teams from that earlier era but that’s my opinion. I also don’t understand all the hate for Lebron. I know who is on his team affects the style of play but right now but I think his style is ugly. IMO I think he has too many careless turnovers, always seems to mishandle the ball when he is setting up a 1v1 move. Defensively he is a very good on ball defender but off ball he loses focus and loses his man for cuts and too many offensive rebounds. For these reason he wouldn’t be my goat but I can acknowledge he is a special, special player and off the court he has been a pillar of virtue and been admirably socially active.

Sorry I’m so confusing. I agree he can be important. If he shoots the three at a good percentage you can justify playing him, if not he becomes a liability and needs to sit because he doesn’t really offer anything else.

I said through through the Boston series. And I really only watched the last three games of that series. I am not not googling stats but I know his shooting percentage was not good last night and I don’t believe it was very good against Boston. His defense is just not good. He’s often not in the proper position to help and he doesn’t really adjust his play based on the strengths and weaknesses of his opponent. So based on the small sample size that I’ve watched these playoffs, if he is not shooting a very good clip from behind the line, I don’t think you really get anything out of him.

I agree with Green but Korver has been atrocious all the way through the Boston series.

I hope he ends up 6’10, gets a jump shot and comes to NU, but humans are about topped out in height. As a species we stayed the same height for centuries until the mid 19th century. The scientific world attributes the growth to improved childhood nutrition and healthcare. When starvation showed up in Europe during WWII, children actually got shorter for awhile. So as a species, there are always outliers but humans have topped out.

I don’t think it has anything to do with selfishness. Labron is not a catch and shoot guy, his strength is coming off a pick and roll. It’s a style thing. Different players have different strengths and CP3, Harding and James all need the ball in their hands to be at their most effective. I think two of them could make it work but three players would be rough. It’s not like any of the three would be willing to move to the second unit where they would be dominant. I think they would be alright but just not the best fit together.

I think that causes the same problems that OKC went through this year. You would have three people that need the ball in their hands to be effect. I don’t think basketball wise it’s a good fit. I really think his best fit is Boston. Don’t know if that would ever happen. Also staying in the East gives you a much easier road to the finals.

If winning a title is all that is considered his best bet is goimg to Boston. Kyrie would be furious but he’d also get a ring.

I assume there is a bit of humor intended in your reply, well because there is a bit of humor in almost all of your reply’s. I trust our staff to do their due diligence and if they offer they will be comfortable with that offer. I don’t want Nebraska, in any sport to ever get to the, “ Damn the torpedoes, it is win now time!” - David Farragut

If they used the college definition then every pick and roll last night was a moving screen. But on ball defenders used to be able to put their hand on the offensive players hip and hold them there.

If officials are consistent then OK. They were not last night. The NBA is a lot less physical then the 80’s and 90’s. The Jordan rules were actually pretty complicated but basically they just determined which Piston would foul the hell out of him on this possession.

I don’t usually point at the officials but now second half they finally called a foul as Hardin made the three but somehow waved it off and gave them a sideline out of bounds. Eric Gordon gets taken out by two Warriors on a layup and then they have a massive moving screen to get Curry an open three. That’s a 15 point swing on obviously horrible calls.

Two possessions in row Harding should have gotten three free throws and got neither call. Play by play was saying how obvious it was. If he shoots his average that’s 5 points they didn’t get. We’ll how important that is by the end of the game.

If you are lifting haphazardly then your not getting stronger. If you are lifting on a regular program while you continue to shoot, the concensus of all the experts is it cannot hurt your shooting but only help. It’s not that trickery.