kleitus

I just think it's fun to know we will probably average in the low 80s offensively. Even if our defense sucks that'll be a fun brand of basketball. And with doc I doubt it will suck. Average would probably be good enough to be a very decent team. 83-75 type scores.

Please pick us 12th or 13th. Please. Rank us high we implode. Rank us low we severely overachieve. Hell, pick us 14th so we make the final four.

That's extremely beyond conservative imo... it is basically assuming we win around 7 or 8 conference games out of 20 because our nonconference schedule is light. 8 conference wins with our roster is flat low. You'd need a collapse similar to last year. And this team is much deeper.

Sometimes having talent that knows each other is overrated. You fall into ruts and get eaten alive We have the talent to be absurdly good by our historical standards. Sure the proof is in the pudding. But no reason to be negative either.

Yes please.

Ok duh blonde moment. Some years they suck some years they don't

Yep... Sadler will make our d above average by the end of the year at minimum. The gelling process... if it is half as fast as this recruiting insanity, this team is a sweet 16 team and a very difficult ncaa out due to guard play Nobody has a clue because I cant think of a team that has ever turned over like this with this kind of talent.

That team is going to light it up some nights. We've never had a team that plays like this (much less had the talent) so people have no idea. If this team keeps it close defensively you'll blink and be up 15. Edit : I need to add... against anybody.

This is a ridiculously good turnover. We basically had our pick of juco and grad transfer markets and picked up a 17 year old interior beast and another flexible big in the process. Growing pains will happen. Lack of experience will be an issue. But top to bottom this team is probably better talentwise than last year pre copeland. Definitely deeper. If we gel before we lose too many games we could EASILY make an ncaa run. Given all that and the fact that he stepped into a fairly hard situation with graduation we almost literally could not have asked for better short term results. It needs to play out but anything below an A- is in my opinion just short of nuts.

Difference maker.

Yeah, like i said it depends on gelling etc. I'm seeing a team roughly as talented and deeper than the pre Copeland injury team. Doesnt mean we won't suck. But you absolutely have to be impressed by the quality of the turnover.

Have to see them to know. They'll for sure be entertaining. Very high scoring. If everyone is eligible yes imo... sweet 16 caliber as the team gels. Might be rough early though (similar to how michigan state can struggle early but generally gets better substantially as the year goes on)

I dont have the ability to upvote this enough. I'm pretty vocal in dislike of the obnoxious husker fans in any sport -- and yes we have them. The last 20 years or so it has been the purists who (sometimes rightly) have undercut coaches of the football and basketball teams. Even when they were right that doesnt make them any less obnoxious. It made it significantly worse more often than not. Those of you who dislike the cardinals in baseball and Patriots in pro football.. yep you get it. And I'm a cardinal fan. Sit down, shut up and enjoy the ride (or even better, get up and CHEER. Loudly.) It definitely looks like we just hired our Devaney or terry pettit in mens basketball. Finally.

I want so badly to go off over this one. Oh I'm sure she means well and all that jazz. Wonderful persons and family. "We don't do things that way here" Oh for *bleeps* sake. Let's call this for what it is. And it is ALL about locals defending our local kids (in this case brady). We can shut this down in like 60 seconds. There was this team in the early 90s that was slow, fairly homegrown, consistently good but never great. What did that team do? It grew up. We accepted those players from out of state like our own like we always did and most of them love this place like a 2nd home for a reason. ....back to the original point. This team compared to that other team? Yeah, it sucks. And in a couple months, the facelift on this program has put together a team that could go some very big places within a couple years if not immediately (can argue they're better than pre Copeland injury team last year). And they aren't done yet. I don't know whoever wrote this. Like I said they're probably fine people. But the absolute kindest words I have right now are "please shut the f--- up".

First impression? Would help this staff/team long term.

They're not. Could brady have become a solid B1G player? Yeah probably. I don't think anyone was disappointed in him overall. But do we really want to wait 3 years for a solid player in the age of transfers that can get you a new one every year if that's what you want? When you get in that loop you're talking about being a good TEAM roughly every 3-4 years... and when things go bad (see: last year) you end up waiting 6-8 years for real runs. Miles built a solid team... that collapsed due to injuries. Hoiberg wants to build a consistently good team. Yeah you'll have bad stuff happen but it will be less devastating. The people complaining can't see the forest for the trees. It would be one thing if he was a superstar type guy.. but he isn't. And fit matters. Period. Note: I concentrated on Brady because well.. Nebraska is Nebraska and they'll defend the hardworking hometown kid every time. Even if the team is better off in a different direction.

to be honest, i'm pretty much at the point where next year doesn't at all feel like a throwaway year that's not saying we don't need some of those guys to be really good...

That ^^^^^^^^ LOL What you need is just enough inside. Length gives you good D and some rebounding. Athleticism gives some as well. Nobody is advocating ignoring the interior. What they're saying is offensive and defensive efficiency is what gives you wins. On the offensive side, it's hard to overcome something that's 50% more efficient than the alternative unless you're essentially not missing much. That is all that's being said by those who advocate lots of 3 pointers. What hoiberg basically wants to do is have a lineup similar to what we had this year pre-cope's injury but with better shooting and a light 'em up offensive philosophy. Get a lead and let Doc keep it. Frankly, for those of us who remember doc's defense -- that's a hell of a way to win a lot of games. Our team the first half of this year was pretty good -- if we're at all honest. it could easily have won an ncaa game and could have had a sweet 16 run. We didn't have the depth etc. so we fell apart but there's nothing here that says we can't win a TON of games doing it. National title? Eh... I'll take an ncaa run or 5 and not complain but that'll be a work in progress. People wonder if frost's offensive philosophy can win a title too... and frankly there's a reason we're just happy he's here in general -- we're going to win games and be competitive.

74% is a lot higher than 50% in 2 point shooting lol... get zion and you win is the message... :P (or just get good players -- period) i like good inside play too... but you can win (and win big) with lots of good shooters so if that's what we're going to do I'm all for it. it's very similar to all the people saying mike leach can't win in football because all he does is pass. it makes some manly ethos' angry for some reason because they like 3 yards and a cloud of dust and good defense. hoiberg's way works, and it's been proven to work. and frankly, at this program we have zero room to nitpick on styles of play if the coach is going to win while doing it.

Yep. 35% 3 point shooting is the rough equivalent of 50% from the rest of the floor (it is actually better -- 35x3=105, 50x2=100). Point being that doing better means exponential returns at the biggest stat of all -- winning. The reason you've seen such a huge jump in 3 point shooting teams in the NBA is mostly because if you shoot a high enough % you win more often than you don't. They did the math on all the extra rebounds a taller team gets too and added it in there. Yeah, the difference in how fouls were called between say... 1995 and now is a huge part of it. But athletes can do mathematics most of the time too and 3 in a trip is a major upgrade over 2 in a trip. Realistically it is an exponential difference and those are things you take advantage of -- not ignore.

If you use a little analytics you'll understand why he doesnt necessarily care about height. In theory anyway. This isnt the pros where you are going against 7'0 like durant every night. You need enough height for some rebounds. But you need shooting from everyone. Shoot 40% from 3 from 4 positions and you'll be fine. A 3 is 50% more efficient than a 2 by definition. That forces the other team to shoot 60% from 2 to keep up. Even with "bad" defense it isnt that easy. In theory anyway. It ends up being a lot more inconsistent is the issue. But can be very fun to watch if you pull it off with a couple stretch 4s in your lineup. Biggest thing is emphasizing what you do well and not playing scared. Classic ncaa tournament runs are usually defined by guard play for a reason.

not even to see iowa go nuclear? pretty please?

i'm an hour south... and can't go. too many things going on. c'est la vie i guess... it'll be back within a decade.

UVA or tech IMO... game like that in the final (defensive top teams) it's a complete crapshoot.

it probably won't hurt. might not help.... but won't hurt. Professionals should be able to identify if a guy can excel in different roles when they've been around each other enough. for all we know, wade may have thought he'd make a great college coach and would be comfortable. or... he could think the opposite. even if he thinks hoiberg would help his kid out, someone like coach k might call so who knows...