throwback

The Gibber won't need to be put out if he's ever on fire. He's an expert at the drop and roll. Of course, his technique requires dropping onto another person wearing a different colored shirt and rolling around on top of them with his elbows flailing wildly. But he'd surely put himself out eventually.

I counted at least 7 players who played high school baseball in the state of Nebraska that were drafted out of college last week - 4 in the top 11 rounds - and 0 of them played at NU this past year. (Chandler was here and did nothing in 2 years before transferring and becoming a 6th rounder in one year.) NU had 12 in-state players on its roster in 2018, 8 of whom were draft eligible, and 0 were drafted. I can't see any of the other 4 ever becoming draft picks. There's your talent gap. I get that not every Nebraska-born kid wants to play at NU. But if you get 4-5 of those 7 kids in your program -- and you absolutely should, if your talent evaluation is worth anything & if you have any kind of relationships built, which you should after 7 years -- I guarantee we'd have challenged for the B1G title this year. I mean with most baseball players paying roughly 2/3 of their own tuition, you should have a huge advantage recruiting in-state players. You should have your pick, whether it's straight out of high school or after they go to juco for a year or two. We've been picking the wrong ones. In college baseball, you just have to have several professional-level, draftable players in the program, or you can't win at a high level. We had 3 this year. We had 3 last year ... and, technically, we had 4 different players drafted, as Schreiber and Alvarado were drafted both this year and last year. 4 is nowhere near enough over a 2-year span. And next year may be worse as far as number of draft picks. If Luensmann & Tillotson prove they're healthy, they'll get drafted. Beyond that, there aren't any sure things. Barring someone making a huge step forward, 2 might be it. We're going to have to rely on a bunch of newcomers in 2019, which has not worked well under this staff and in the B1G in general. Hopefully the coaches can put their heads together, figure out what's been holding them back, switch around some roles, and make '18 look like the blip on the radar. But they can't turn around the talent gap overnight, so that means a lot of things must go perfectly in '19 to get back to an NCAA bubble team. That's asking a lot. They were able to do it during the regular season in '16 and '17 with similarly talent-challenged teams, so maybe there's some hope. But the drop in '18 was so fast and so far, it's going to be tougher to climb back up to that level and get the players to believe in that same message that worked in '16 and '17 after they watched it fail so badly in '18.

Agree - RPI is an extremely simplistic formula that was fine in the days when you had to try to figure out formulas by hand with a calculator or a simple spreadsheet, but we should be able to do way better now with a formula that's far more precise - let the computer do the work. The NSAA has the same problem with its playoff point system that uses quadrants - it was OK when we were trying to do the calculations by hand 3 and 4 decades ago, but that formula could be so much more precise now with some tweaks.

Exactly - the quad system would be better with a mixture of metrics. Also, it might be better if they had a couple of additional sections, making the ranges smaller at the top (since those are the only ones that seem to matter) and larger at the bottom. Rather than giving the same weight to a road win vs RPI #1 and #75, shrinking the section range at the top would give a truer picture. Maybe something like: S1 = H 1-15, N 1-25, A 1-35 S2 = H 16-35, N 26-55, A 36-75 S3 = H 36-65, N 56-95, A 76-125 S4 = H 66-110, N 96-150, A 126-190 S5 = all others At some point, it becomes a matter of balancing how many quads/sections you have with how simple the system is to understand - too many sections, and you take away the simplicity of comparing teams by using it. Or maybe they could just create a formula - you play RPI #13 at home, you get X points if you win, you get X points if you lose, something like that, for all RPI teams in different locations - and then compare teams based on that point formula. That would take the range out of it, where a win over #1 RPI on the road gets the same weight as a win over #75 RPI on the road. I see what they're trying to do with the quads, but there's a lot of room for improvement.

So I was a little concerned NU is overdoing the schedule, trying to over-compensate for 17-18. Thought I'd take a look at what this 18-19 schedule looks like using the beloved Quad system. (Just what we need - Quad system discussions in June. I sicken myself with this post.) So here's a projected Quad ranking for 18-19 (based on P5 opponents only since that's all that seems to really matter), using the average RPI of the last 3 years for each team. (I believe all of these RPIs are as of Selection Sunday each year - hopefully I successfully filtered out NCAA & NIT games.) 2018-19 NU P5 Games Proj Quad, off 3-yr avg RPI 3-yr Avg RPI 2018 RPI 2017 RPI 2016 RPI A Purdue 1 14 9 19 15 Purdue 1 14 9 19 15 A Mich St 1 25 14 50 12 Mich St 1 25 14 50 12 A Michigan 1 31 12 25 57 A Maryland 1 41 74 34 14 N USC 1 42 34 41 51 A Clemson 1 70 11 68 131 Seton Hall 2 31 31 44 19 Maryland 2 41 74 34 14 bluebirds 2 57 44 26 100 N Tex Tech 2 61 23 123 36 Ohio St 2 61 20 90 74 Wisconsin 2 64 113 36 43 A Indiana 2 76 125 79 24 A Iowa 2 89 157 81 29 A Penn St 2 99 77 101 119 N Okla St 2 100 88 40 172 A Illinois 2 131 181 64 149 Iowa 3 89 157 81 29 Penn St 3 99 77 101 119 N'western 3 112 169 51 115 Illinois 3 131 181 64 149 A Minnesota 3 149 171 20 257 Minnesota 3 149 171 20 257 A Rutgers 3 223 203 172 294 Q1 = H 1-30; N 1-50; A 1-75 Q2 = H 31-75; N 51-100; A 76-135 Q3 = H 76-160; N 101-200; A 136-240 That yields this as the projected number of games in each quad - top row is based on 3-year RPI average, second row based just on 17-18 RPI (again P5 opponents only): P5 Opponents Q1 gms Q2 gms Q3 gms Tot Q1-Q2 Q4 gms 2018-19 (proj. off 3-Yr avg RPI) 8 11 7 19 2018-19 (proj. only off 17-18 RPIs) 10 6 10 16 These projections assume we play both USC & Tech in KC, so the number could be 1 less. Other than the total number of P5 games, the number of Q1 and Q2 games for 18-19 isn't all that different from what NU has played in the past under Miles. (Again, these numbers below are P5 games only) Q1 Q2 Q3 Tot Q1-Q2 Q4 NU AVG LAST 5 YRS 10.2 5.8 6 16 1.6 2017-18 8 4 8 12 (3 Q4 games) 2016-17 12 6 6 18 2015-16 12 5 5 17 (4 Q4 games) 2014-15 8 8 5 16 (1 Q4 game) 2013-14 11 6 6 17 It looks like the number of Q1 games may even end up being less than the 5-year average, but we're picking up a few Q2 games potentially over the average. Now these last 5 years include Big Ten Tourney games, so 18-19 will add at least 1 more Q1-Q3 game as part of the B1G Tourney and hopefully more than that. But overall, the projection for 18-19 is not as different as I was expecting from NU's average over the past 5 years for Q1 and Q2 games, which seem to be the primary criteria for the NCAA committee. '18-19 Q1 & Q2 projected games: Between 16 and 19 NU 5-year average Q1 & Q2 games: 16 And if you take out the oddball season in '17-18, NU's average over the previous 4 years of Q1 & Q2 games is 17 . Certainly, these are only projected RPIs, and things could change dramatically by the time March rolls around. For example, there's a pretty good chance the road games at Iowa & Indiana become Q1 games, but the home game vs Purdue could drop to Q2, so I'd guess it'll come close to evening out. Here's how many Quad 1-4 games some other teams had last year - just picked a few B1G teams, NCAA qualifiers, and NIT qualifiers at random (all as of Selection Sunday and only including Power 5 teams): OTHER TEAMS Q1 Q2 Q3 Tot Q1-Q2 Q4 Villanova 17-18 13 8 8 21 (2 Q4 games) Michigan 17-18 12 5 6 17 (3 Q4 games) Purdue 17-18 11 6 7 17 (2 Q4 games) Penn St 17-18 11 3 7 14 (3 Q4 games) bluebirds 17-18 10 7 4 17 (2 Q4 games) UCLA 17-18 10 7 7 17 (2 Q4 games) Texas 17-18 16 4 5 20 Oklahoma 17-18 15 6 4 21 Missi St 17-18 9 7 5 16 I'm still not 100% sold we needed the neutral site Okla St game, but if some of these B1G teams don't improve on their 3-year average RPI numbers, we may end up needing it (as long as OK St can stay in the Q2 range, of course, and we win it). So with a veteran team, it's probably better to have the game available than wish you had it come March.

Not to read too much into it, but I can only think of a couple of reasons to play a neutral site P5 game in Sioux Falls -- 1) playing an opponent where we're splitting the difference in travel, Iowa State would be about the only non-conference P5 team that would fit that one - or - 2) we're playing someone who has a player from the Sioux Falls area on its roster and they want to let him play close to home - no idea who that would be, if anyone. 25 or 26 High-Major Games 20 B1G games bluebirds Seton Hall ACC game Neutral site game in Sioux Falls 1 or 2 games in KC So if there's a chance we're playing 2 high major games in KC, that means one of two things -- 1) we have to be playing USC or Tech on the first night. - or - 2) we still don't know who we're playing in KC. I guess the one thing we know for sure is that we haven't been assigned Missouri St for the first night, at least not yet. Additionally, this could mean -- depending on where the ACC game ends up being (possibly in Lincoln, as was mentioned a few weeks ago) -- our longest trips in the non-con will be Sioux Falls & KC with everything else in Lincoln, with the possibility of 0 non-con road games.

And he's a good young man off the court as well - OWH story today (behind the pay wall) about his community outreach work. Very cool. http://www.omaha.com/huskers/plus/barfknecht-nebraska-s-isaiah-roby-is-a-big-man-on/article_7ffa9bf4-78df-501c-b9d4-568f4889e0bf.html

That photo of Palmer and Gill did not crop well.

I don't have an answer on the stolen base thing - they certainly don't recruit that type of player. They have been aggressive at taking the extra base - trying to stretch singles into doubles, 1st to 3rd on singles, etc., so maybe that's more his thinking. At least this year, it's also tough to steal many bases when you're always behind by multiple runs after a few innings. But that doesn't explain the lack of stolen base attempts previous years. And not to go all Bill Callahan here, but this 2018 team played some of the dumbest baseball I've seen out of an NU team. Just huge mental lapses and defensive mistakes that didn't show up as official errors, but that cost them, allowing opponents' innings to stay alive, etc. And of course, you had things like a baserunner trying to tag from 1st to 2nd after the second out is caught, when you have the tying run tagging from 3rd, and getting thrown out at 2nd to end the inning before the runner crosses home, like happened Thursday. Just mind-boggling, simple high school level stuff. Certainly, physical defensive lapses come when you can't throw strikes consistently, so it all kind of feeds on itself. But as far as the mental blunders, just awful decisions on basic baseball fundamentals, even if your pitchers aren't throwing strikes, you have to have the mental discipline to keep your head in it. Whatever message the coaches were giving was being tuned out. Another reason why a fresh perspective, a fresh voice would be a good idea in my eyes. And perhaps this coaching staff can do that by changing some roles around, etc. Will be curious to see what comes out of the study of the program. I will give the coaches credit in instilling a fight in this group. This team didn't have a lot of talent or feel for the nuances of the game, but they did fight. Unfortunately, they were just behind far too often and by far too much. I mean we had one stretch this season where I believe we scored 70+ runs over a 6-game stretch, and only went 4-2, as we faced deficits of 7, 9, and 13 in three of the games ... and we won the game we trailed by 7 runs in. Mind-boggling.

Where to start… Recruiting overall – The talent level on this team simply isn’t high enough. Sure, we have 2 or 3 guys who will be drafted high in a couple of weeks, but the talent level falls way off after that. I believe in this staff’s 2nd or 3rd year they had a handful of high level recruits signed, but they chose to turn professional. Since then, NU has shied away from going after those players, not wanting to be burned again by the draft. You just can’t do that – you have to try, that’s just the nature of college baseball. Recruiting in-state – NU’s in-state recruiting has been awful the past few years. Just awful. You look at the number of in-state kids they’ve given scholarship money to who are non-contributors (and have been for multiple seasons), it’s almost criminal … especially when you think about how many Nebraska kids are having success elsewhere. Among NU’s returning in-state players for 2019, you could argue that Hagge is the best of the bunch, and they didn’t deem him worthy of a scholarship out of high school, so technically they whiffed on him too. Miss after miss after miss on in-state kids. NU has a nice crop of in-state kids coming in next season, so hopefully they can turn this around, but some of the stories you hear about Silva and many Omaha coaches not getting along doesn’t make me hopeful. Pitching injuries – Something isn’t right here. I don’t quite know what’s happening, but NU’s serious arm injuries numbers the past few years are staggering. It has to be more than just bad luck. This problem is going to start hurting NU on the recruiting trail … if it hasn’t already. Then you have the added factor of NU’s guys coming back from injury struggling to stay healthy or just not rebounding as quickly as expected, Hohensee probably being the exception, and you end up with the mess that you had on the mound in 2018. Friday night starter – For whatever reason, this NU staff has not been interested in giving extra scholarship money to a top flight pitcher to put that dominant Friday night guy out there. Perhaps Silva believes he can develop Friday night worthy starters? It isn’t working. Relying on an extremely inexperienced pitcher like Alvarado as your Friday night guy was a dangerous plan in 2018, and put a lot of pressure on him. Then NU had no backup plan, and the starting rotation was a disaster much of the season. In college baseball, it all starts with that Friday night guy having success and everyone else feeding off him. NU needs a new thought process here. 2018 – The above problems are nothing new, but NU was able to win at a relatively high level the past couple of years, and this staff deserves credit for gaining the most from what they had on the roster in 2016 and 2017. But to win at that high level with so little talent and with no dominant Friday night guy in college baseball, you have to do almost everything else right. NU has been really good in the late innings on the mound the past few years, excelled on defense, and did a decent job moving runners. In 2018, the pitching injuries decimated NU’s mid-level bullpen, making it tougher to hold leads. Then the starting pitching collapsed, and NU was constantly playing from behind. The defense was atrocious most of the season. And NU’s ability to move runners and batting average with runners in scoring position was horrible much of the season. NU did not have anywhere near enough talent on the roster to overcome all of this crashing down at once and even have the bare minimum success level in a season of making the Big Ten Tourney. 2019 – It’s hard to imagine this getting much better next season. NU loses its 2 best hitters by a mile (assuming Wilkening turns pro) and its best pitcher in Hohensee. Some guys are going to have to take huge steps forward, which could happen – Wilkening certainly did it in 2018. The Waldron twins also made some nice strides in 2018. Otherwise, you’re relying on a lot of freshman arms, who typically have not excelled under this staff; guys coming off serious injuries, which did not work well in 2018; and hitters who did not do much to impress in 2018. Plus the Big Ten the past several seasons has been dominated by teams with older players, so relying on a bunch of freshman has not been a recipe for success. Perhaps the staff can get the defense fixed and avoid the arm injuries in 2019, which would help quite a bit to avoid missing the Big Ten Tourney. But this program is a long way away talent wise from being a team that competes to host regionals. I really hate to see this going on, as I’m a big Erstad fan and want him to have success. But I really think the team could use a fresh perspective on the recruiting trail at the bare minimum. And they absolutely have to get this pitching injury issue figured out. The coaches, to their credit, have been very careful about pitch counts and holding guys back when they aren’t feeling right, so it has to be something on the training end. It's going to be one of the strangest sporting events in this state’s history this week with the Big Ten Tourney in Omaha and no NU playing. That can never happen again.

OWH mentioned today that the NU has been contacting former Big 12 North brethren to try and add the neutral site game that was mentioned earlier. No luck thus far.

I believe there have only been a dozen or so 7-foot high jumpers in Nebraska HS track history, and one of them was in Class B this year, so 3rd place is a really good accomplishment. I'm pretty sure 6-8 would've won the all-class gold medal several times over the past couple of decades.

I'm guessing road. Auto correct is a fickle bastard. I guess I'd be curious to see what we do in years where we're assigned road games in both ACC and Gavitt games. With the 20-game conference schedule, that's 12 road games vs P5 teams. If you add in 2-3 neutral site games in a tournament, you could easily play 13-14-15 games vs P5 teams away from home, plus whatever you'd play in a conference tournament setting at the end of the season. That's crazy. (And that's assuming it's a year we get the birds in Lincoln.) It's kind of crazy to compare this to something like the 90-91 season, where we had 30 regular season games and the conference assigned 14 of them to us (47%). Danny took them to The Citadel, Eastern Illinois, UMKC, and Wis-Green Bay to fill out the schedule. In 18-19, we're going to play 31 regular season games, but the conference will assign 22 of them to us (71%) and we might not even play a road game in the non-con.

Agree - wonder if we're looking at a neutral site game because we found out we've drawn Missouri St in the first game in KC, so they feel like they have to try to add another Power 5 team? Even if we are playing Mo St, I'm not sure they need another P5 game, but if we don't get assigned high RPI teams in the ACC & Gavitt challenges, then they could be in some trouble. Has to be frustrating/challenging from a scheduling standpoint when you don't have control over the opponents picked for 2 of your marquee games - especially with a smaller number of non-con games available now. Also, if we actually are getting a home game in ACC challenge, that would mean we're playing zero road games in the non-con. Wonder if that's ever happened.

A few schedule nuggets from Katz's article: NU will be home for Gavitt Games - "hoping for an elite BE opponent" NU looking for a neutral site power 5 matchup Article says we'll have a home game BIG/ACC challenge, which could happen, even though we were at home last season - I assume to make the matchups work, teams occasionally end up getting 2 straight home or road games ... or it's a typo and we'll be on the road So that means: -2 games in KC -2 games at home vs non-power-5 as part of KC tourney -Home/Road game in ACC challenge -Home vs Birds -Home for Gavitt games -? Neutral site Power 5 game If that last one happens, that would leave 3 "paycheck" games at home yet to add. Depending on who we end up with in the 2 challenges, that's potentially a really good slate.

Certainly a much more balanced schedule, but it's also easier to balance when you have 20 conference games instead of 18.

If KU wins, I believe it'll be the first time since 1988 NU will have played both teams in the title game. Also should UM win Monday, 1988 was the last time NU beat the eventual national champion during the season, I believe. Glad I doubled down on UM with the halftime number to go with the -5.5 before the game. Easy money - never a doubt.

NU has now beaten a Final Four qualifier three of the past five years.

S-E-C! S-E-C! S-E-C! Oh wait. Do they use that cheer when they're getting their ass kicked? Not sure. Whew - Michigan looks serious about winning the whole thing tonight.

Not sure what the committee was thinking, but the eye test says if UMBC was a #16 seed, K-State should've been about a #14 seed, and CU should've been roughly a #27 seed.

Not wanting to single you out, but I've seen this mentioned many places and finally decided to respond. So nothing personal. But what exactly is a "great" season? Getting hot down the stretch and making the NCAA tournament isn't a great season? Sure as heck beats the alternative. And we've seen plenty of the alternative the past couple of decades. This team did a lot of great things this season. Sure, I guess people could say it was accomplished against a weak schedule. But considering how few times we've won 22 games against weak, strong, and everything-in-between schedules in our history, I'd still call it a great season. I know this: Both season were a lot of fun as a fan of a team that hasn't had much success in a couple of decades. Yes, both seasons didn't finish on a great note. And there have been clunkers in between. I perfectly understand the frustration with the lack of sustained progress and transfers and losses vs the team in Omaha and failures in the postseason. But if 22 wins doesn't result in him receiving an extension, probably to 4 years total as most coaches receive, I'd be shocked. And that's what should be done. Either give him an extension or fire him. It's the only thing that makes sense. I have no idea what game the Ginger Assassin was trying to play last season. Either Miles is your guy and you extend him, or you fire him. His choice to leave Miles in limbo with no extension made no sense. Buyout money for coaches at NU barely puts a dent in the budget, so there was no reason to try to pinch pennies on this decision. Of course, the previous AD was pretty awful, so such an odd decision shouldn't be a surprise. In part because of the games the previous AD played with him, it's far, far, far more likely Miles chooses to take matters into his own hands, cash in on a 22-win season, and find another job - and he could - versus Moos firing him.

NU 76 MSU 71 5

He may be telling the truth - he also may be playing to the local audience. There's nothing in the the metrics that the committee emphasized that would indicate NU was even on the bubble. NU's metrics looked nothing like Arizona St, Syracuse, Oklahoma, Texas, Baylor, teams that were all close or made it. We played strong down the stretch; that obviously didn't matter when you consider how ASU, OU and even CU finished the season. We only had one Q1 win; every other P5 at-large team, other than CU, had at least 3. To be in contention, we needed the committee to value eye test, value playing well late, value winning games you should, avoiding bad losses, etc. None of that was important, based on who made it. USC had similar but better metrics than we did and they were in the last 4 out. So it's hard to imagine "we were one of the last teams eliminated." So I'm not sure how much to take what he's saying at face value at this point. The actual results would indicate otherwise. And that's not a slam on him, CU, etc, it's just the way the committee chose to do things this year, based on the results. I'd say the above no matter who the chairperson was - it's just that we wouldn't have the chairperson giving local interviews if he wasn't from Omaha, so we wouldn't normally hear things like this.

Full First Round NIT schedule for your viewing pleasure: Tuesday, March 13 Baylor vs. Wagner | 6 p.m. - ESPN2 Louisville vs. Northern Kentucky | 6 p.m. - ESPN Middle Tennessee vs. Vermont | 7 p.m. - ESPNU Western Kentucky vs. Boston College | 7 p.m. - ESPN3 Oklahoma State vs. Florida Gulf Coast | 8 p.m. - ESPN2 Notre Dame vs. Hampton | 8 p.m. - ESPN Saint Mary’s vs. SE Louisiana | 9 p.m. - ESPNU Oregon vs. Rider | 9 p.m. - ESPN3 USC vs. UNC Asheville | 10 p.m. - ESPN2 Wednesday, March 14 LSU vs. Louisiana | 6 p.m. - ESPN3 Marquette vs. Harvard | 6 p.m. - ESPN2 Penn State vs. Temple | 7 p.m. - ESPNU Mississippi State vs. Nebraska | 8 p.m. - ESPN2 Utah vs. UC Davis | 8 p.m. - ESPN3 Stanford vs. BYU | 9 p.m. - ESPNU Washington vs. Boise State | 9 p.m. - ESPN3

Basically, ASU beat Xavier on a neutral site in November, won at Kansas in December and that was enough. They just had to tread water the rest of the way. They had one Q1 win and two Q2 wins after Jan. 1 and got in. Won 2 games vs RPI Top 50 teams after Dec. 10, both at home, and 0 wins against RPI Top 30 teams after Dec. 10. Crazy.