NUdiehard

Are you still growing? What is your current weight? What is your wing span? What is your vertical? Why did you choose NU? How has your game developed over the past year? How do you hope to continue to develop your game this year?

Petteway needs to understand that Shavon is the best player on this team and the number one option. I mentioned after last game that Petteway shoots it too quick and takes bad shots. I saw it in the scrimmage, I saw it in the exhibition and I saw it in the first game. He took the very first shot the first time he touched the ball last game (got lucky and banked it in). This game, he shot the very first TWO times he touched the ball to start the 2nd half. Shavon owned WIU the entire first half, yet NOBODY on this team tried to get Shavon the ball in the 2nd half. Norm is absolutely right, a lot of selfish (and in come case just poor recognition) play going on. But I see Petteway as being a potential dividing player unless he gets reined in a bit. But, it is early, these are things I am sure Miles recognizes and will get worked out. Petteway does a lot of things well, plays hard and rebounds well. He can be a very valuable player, but he just needs to find his role on the offensive end. I think Tai's assists will go up once Gallegos get back in the lineup. There were multiple times when Tai drove and kicked it to either Peltz or Benny for wide open jumpers, but neither of them can convert. Ray will add a new dimension to this team. Pitchford seems to get easily frustrated (although he had reason to with some of the calls tonight) and allows that to take him out of the game a bit mentally. As others have said, he is going to really struggle guarding in the post. But boy, he can shoot. He is another guy that they need to create shots for. Smith did some nice things and played pretty good post defense. Not sure how he will match up against a taller post player, but he seems to do well with what he has. Tai played like a freshman who is still feeling it out. But I think he needs to keep driving it in there and making things happen. That is his bread and butter and he needs to just keep going to the well. It will start producing sooner than later. UGLY second half, but nice first half. Looking forward to getting our full lineup, I think that will make a difference. Playing Benny and Peltz at the same time tonight was rough. Hopefully, that will never have to happen again this year.

Dean, I know that a lot of us had a long discussion about this topic after the end of last season. I can't remember if you commented on it at the time, but I guess I don't know if I want to go into the detail I did at that time all over again now. In short, I think the grabbing, clutching, holding, pushing, etc. in the college game has gotten out of hand. Louisville rode this strategy all the way to a national championship. Allowing elite athletes (who may or may not be elite basketball players skill wise) to completely shut down their opponents by constantly grabbing, clutching, holding, etc simply is not basketball as it was intended to be played. There are many coaches who have openly admitted that they teach their players to constantly foul the entire game b/c they know that the refs simply will not call a foul every time down the court. The coach is basically saying "Even though we clearly are fouling the crap out of the opponent every time down the court, I dare you to blow that whistle every time!" That is crap IMO. The refs need to blow that whistle every time down the court until that coach and his players cut the crap out. As for the NBA, maybe that isn't the best example b/c I believe the NBA has gone through different phases and different "styles" of physicality. For instance, there certainly was a time when teams were "physical" in the sense that they would initiate "hard fouls". If a player like Jordan came in the lane, the opponent (ie, Bill Lambier) would knock the crap out of him to intimidate him from coming back in the lane. But here is the important point. That was still called a foul! Jordan would go to the line and get his 2 points. Heck, Jordan scored about half his points at the free throw line, so any who says they didn't call fouls back then if full of crap. The type of fouls I think need to be eliminated are the fouls that aren't called in the college game. The grabbing, clutching, holding, pushing, impeding, etc. The NBA has elimiated hand checking on the perimeter, but it is still very physical underneath. Defense also is still more intense than the era you are refering to. I was watching a game from the 80s on NBA channel (A Lakers vs. Boston game, ie Magic, Kareem, McKale, Bird, etc) and I was almost laughing at how soft the defense was for most of the game. The guards didn't even guard out to the 3 point line. Dennis Johnson for Boston could dribble around INSIDE THE 3 POINT LINE without anyone within 5 feet of him. There simply was no pressure until he got to about 17 feet from the basket. That is totally different from the pressure defense of today, even without the hand check rule. We also have to be very specific in defining a time period. The early 80s were much different than the late 80s, and so forth. Anyway, we will just have to agree to disagree. I hope the refs continue to call the fouls and force these coaches who teach their players to mug the opponent every time down the court to adjust.

How is Miami #79 after their terrible loss?

I absolutely loved what I saw from Tai. He was able to get to the basket almost at will. Early in the game he was driving to his right hand every time, I commented that I was concerned he doesn't have a left hand. Sure enough, FGCU came out of a timeout and the defender was playing Tai strongly to his right to take away his right hand penetration. Without hesitation, Tai darted straight to the basket with his left handle and got right to the rack again. His height and athleticism allow him to do things that many smaller PGs simply can't do. He can penetrate, get in with the trees, but still be tall enough and strong enough to see over them for the pass or get all the way to the basket. His midrange and 3-pt game still need to develop, but he has all the tools. Regarding Webster, I am surprised nobody has mentioned this yet. In Miles' postgame radio comments, he said that Webster "took over the game" for a period in the first half. Miles then said that he believes Webster will be an All-Big 10 player before he is done here. I thought that was a pretty bold, and telling, proclamation from Miles. I have never even heard him say that about Shavon (although that certainly doesn't mean he may not feel that way about him as well). Shavon is such is crafty player. He has really developed a strong baseline game. I saw at least 2 times where he caught the ball in the corner, started driving the basket along the baseline, and then when the help defense game, he did some sort of Euro 2 footed jump stop to the side (away from the baseline and away from the defender) and then leaned in for the finger roll lay up. The first time he did it I was blown away but thought he just got lucky. When he did it again, it was apparent that this is something he has worked on. He seems a lot stronger, more athletic and more confident this year. tbowman may be on to something when he says that Shavon could be an All-Big 10 type player. That may be a bit much to ask from him as just a sophmore, but he appears to be on the right track. I like Petteway a lot, but I am worried that he has a bit of a quick trigger. Sometimes it seems like he makes up his mind ahead of time that he is going to shoot no matter what rather than allowing the offense to work. But would probably rather have that than the windshield wiper offense we had under Doc for so many years. Great to have multiple players on the court who aren't afraid to make things happen and often have the skill to back it up. Pitchfor, I agree with most of what has been said. Seems to have so much potential, but not sure yet if he has the mentality. He just does not seem to be comfortable in the low post. I remember one time he caught the ball in the low block (maybe the only time) and had one-on-one coverage. He basically just turned and jumped straight up with 2 hands on the ball. The ref bailed him out and called a foul on the defender, but the whole shot process looked very awkward. Parker was a lot of fun to watch. He can finish on the break. With that said, I still question how much he will play once Gallegos and Biggs can play. As for the officiating, like most, I don't like seeing a lot of fouls. But I am strongly in favor of the new rules. For all those who keep saying "How is this better seeing a lot of fouls?" Seriously? Do you really think that is the "intent" of the new rules and that it will "always" be this way. No. The coaches and players will adapt. The players in the NBA have already adapted and now the NBA is a far more pleasing game to watch than it used to be. Similarly, once the players and coaches in the college game adapt, the game will be much more pleasing to watch and much more in alignment with the original intent of the game. Skill should be rewarded in basketball, not unskilled athletes who can simply mug the opponent into submission. The new rules (which really is simply enforcing the rules that have always been in place), if they stick to calling it, will open up the game and allow playmakers to make plays. I personally hope the refs don't recoil and go back to the old ways simply because they meet up with a little backlash. When I say this, I am speaking mostly of the handchecking, grabbing, clutching type calls. I am still not sure about the block/charge rules. I thought Shavon got away with simply ramming right into his defender multiple times. The defender looked set on a couple of them to me, I am not sure allowing an offensive player to do this rewards skill.

Count me in as one who would like to see Serg at least get a chance out there. We were up 30+ with plenty of time on the clock last night. I guess I would like to see what he could do with the other starters out there for a few minutes. I wouldn't even mind seeing him get a few meaningful minutes in a close game if we need to give Pitchford or Smith a blow or something. He is really tall. For those who say he is unathletic, well, of course he is. If he was athletic at that height he probably would have gone to Kentucky of Indianna. He is really tall (towers over Pitchford).

I would rather he start Rivers instead of Smith. If both Smith and Pitchford start, this means there likely will be times when both Smith and Pitchford are on the bench at the same time. This leaves leaves us with a very small lineup on the floor. I would rather Rivers start and then Smith come in to spell Pitchford/Rivers. I wouldn't be opposed at all to Peltz getting minutes. I wouldn't even mind if he started. But that is just my opinion. Maybe Miles feels he can balance the minutes such that either Pitchford or Smith will be on the court at all times. If so, then this could work.

I do not follow recruiting as closely as I used to (espically in football, but I will keep this post focused on basketball). With that said, I will never undermine the importance of recruiting. In essence, it is 90% of the battle. Coach Miles can't win with "lesser" recruits any more than Doc could (maybe a little more, but is there a huge difference between 12th and 10th?). Is he looking for guys who "fit" his system. Absolutely. But he also is looking for (and must get if he wants to be successful) really talented players. Do you think Miles got Tai Webster because Miles himself identified him as someone who would best "fit" his program? Heck no. He got Tai because he hired Harriman who had an inside track on Tai. Beyond being a good person and teammate, I doubt Miles spent a whole lot of time debating whether Tai was a proper "fit" for his system. You say that coaches know best who they should recruit for "their" system. Well, Doc had a system and he recruited to that system and it didn't get him anywhere. Same with Collier. Have both of those coaches forgot more basketball than than you or I will ever know? Absolutely. But does that mean they are the only ones that know whether a recruiting class will take the team to the next level? Not IMO. I remember reading about Collier's recruiting class. It had a guy that averaged 3 points in junior college. Seriously! Are you going to tell me that I am supposed to just have faith that he will turn out to be good "fit" for Collier's system? Same with Doc. Alex Chapman? Chris Nieman (who averaged 3.5 pts on the exact same team that Standhardinger averaged about 27 points/game. And I can't read anything into that?) This isn't rocket science. Let's look at it from another "current" perspective. Who was the highest "ranked" recruit this year? As we all know, it was Tai Webster. And yes, I celebrated the day he verbally committed, the day he signed, and the day he qualified. Why? Because I know it will take players like Tai to get us to the next level. And yes, I could make a very educated evaluation that Tai would be an impact player just based on what I read about him (and not just me, but all of us who follow recruiting). Oh, and by the way, who is clearly the most talented recruit this year? Tai of course. He is starting from day 1 and he will be an impact player while Fuller and Hawkins are scratching and clawing just to get playing time. Miles needs more recruits like Tai. Impact players. Difference makers. If he doesn't get them, then he is going to continue to finish in the bottom half of the league. It is that simple. Recruiting is not an exact science. I don't give a whole lot of credence to Rivals rankings either b/c they only really evaluate the top 100 to 200 recruits. But who else is recruiting a player does factor into my opinion of a recruit. Is it a perfect evaluation. Of course not. There are always sleepers. But that doesn't mean you throw out the baby with the bathwater. It still holds value in evaluating a recruit. Plus, if you truly believe that "coaches" are the only ones qualified to "rank" a recruit, then you should give that factor great weight. Because these are "coaches" "experts" who ARE evaluating these players, and watching them play live, and evaluating all their film. If only coaches are truly qualified, then whether or not other coaches offer a player should carry some weight in your opinion of that recruit. I also look at how many points they scored in high school, how many rebounds, what level of competition, what do his HS coaches say about him, what do other coaches say about him, what do I see on his film, how tall is he, how long is he, how athletic is he, did his own state university recruit him (obviously, the coach in his home state would have seen him plenty of times to make an evaluation). Evaluation of a player isn't always that complicated. I always made it a habit to attend at least one preseason practice of Doc's almost every year and almost without fail I could size up his new "recruits" in about 10 minutes of watching. Just like watching Amercan Idol, it doesn't take weeks of evaluation to figure out who has "it" and who doesn't.

Miles could "go big" and start Rivers at the 3 or 4 and put Terran at the 2. Or, Miles could starts the "Bro" at the 2, which I would have no problem with. I love his fire! I doubt he starts Smith b/c of Smith's knee issues and he needs Smith to spell Pitchford. I suppose he could start Parker, but then would Tai move over the 2 spot? I don't think Miles wants to do this b/c he wants to see how Tai handles the PG and I don't think he wants Parker at the 2. So, I go with either Rivers or Bro Man, and give the nod to Peltz.

Watch the very first video on page one with Smith, Rivers and Vooch. Smith looks like his knees are really bothering him.

Just watch the practice video on the homepage with Smith, Rivers and Vooch. Smith takes about two steps and begins to wobble like he is about to collapse. Based on that video, his knees appear to be a huge issue. I'm guessing this is the reason not many other teams offered him a scholarship.

What is the ranking for South Dakota State?

15

Constant negativity brings everyone down. But, high expectations keep a program up. That is a dual edge sword that every coach, athlectic department and fanbase must balance. You do not notice Nebraska basketball fans being negative because there are so many fewer Nebraska basketball fans in general. 99 out of 100 people in this state could care less if the NU basketball team stinks or not. And guess what, the team has been terrible for years. If Nebraskans (in general) ever reach the general level of apathy for football that they have about Nebraska basketball, the NU football team will forever remained mired in mediocrity, you can bank on it. Someone above mentioned Kentucky basketball. This is a good illustration. The Kentucky basketball fans are rabid about their program and its success. When Billy G was there and not having IMMEDIATE success, they ran him out of town on a rail. And guess what, they now have John Calipari and the most talented recruits (and often team) in the country year are year. The fan base demanded it, and the administration had no option but to make it happen. I don't suppose those fans are considered "negative" now, but they sure were "negative" when Billy G was failing to get enough wins. If Bo P were winning conference or national championships by now (his 6th year), you would not be noticing so much "negativity". Obviously. Its funny, because many (including many on this board) called some of us (me included) as being way too negative about the baketball program under Doc Sadler. I feel like some of us just called it like we saw it. I tried not to make it personal, but I did not feel Doc could or would ever lead us to wins in the NCAA tourney and I made that clear. This annoyed a lot of people. I guess I was a bad fan in their view. But now we have Tim Miles and everyone seems to be happy again and most feel like he is the right coach for us. Interesting how that works. One last thing. This comparison really isn't fair. Miles is only in his 2nd year. He is still in his honeymoon stage. Nobody expects immediate results from him after inheriting the mess Doc left. But if this team is still finishing 10th-12th (or 12th-14th as it may be) in 6 years, rest assured, of what few basktball fans are left, many will be negative, and the AD will fire him, and so the cycle will continue. It simply is the nature of the beast.

Our non-conf schedule is not that difficult. We play 12 non-conf games and we have 5 automatic, sure-fire wins. That means we would only have win 1 out of 7 competitive games to get to 6 wins. If this team ends up with 12 wins or less, that would be disappointing to say the least. Non-Conference (0-0) (with KenPom Rankings): 112. Florida Gulf Coast 261. Western Illinois 343. South Carolina State ---Charleston Classic--- 60. Umass 17./82. New Mexico/UAB 96./81./122./88. Clemson/Davidson/Georgia/Temple 336. Northern Illinois ---B1G/ACC Challenge--- 62. Miami 13. @Creighton 189. Arkansas State 342. The Citadel 45. @Cincinnati

http://www.omaha.com/article/20131027/HUSKERS/131028698/1002#husker-men-fall-in-secret-scrimmage

Okay. I understand your point better now. I guess I was also responding to some people who seemed to indicate that almost never is a good idea to RS players in college basketball today. For just one last look at this. Let's say that Hawkins could play "some" minutes this year. Let's say he could play 7-9 minutes per game and average about 2.9pts and 1.2 assists per game. Is that worth it? Let's also assume (based on what we have seen and heard) that he is a talented player that will continue to devlelop each year. This would mean that he could potentially average something in the range of 13pts, 4.6RBs and 3.3 assists per game his 5th year. That is some pretty significant production. Is it worth trading that 5th year of significant production for a few "relief" minutes his freshman year? I don't know. I guess if you just "assume" that by then Miles will be bringing in 4 star and 5 star recruits who can immediately come in and play at that same level, then okay, play him now. But is that really that realistic? Miles may bring in 1 or 2 high profile recruits a year, but all of them? And is a 4 star freshman really the same as a mature, experienced and developed player like a talented 5th year senior? Talented freshman can do some amazing things, but they also can do some really stupid things. Even the best tend to turn the ball over and make plenty of mistakes. It takes freshman time to learn the system, etc. Having mature and experienced leaders on the team and on the floor can make a big difference. This is the balance the coach and player must weigh in making these decisions. And for a coach like Miles, who is trying to build a program from the ashes, he may have to consider it much more strongly than a coach at a more established or esteeemed program. As for the player not wanting to RS. Well, here is the way I see it. If the coach comes to you and says you should RS, you should RS. And if you refuse, then you are immature and ignorant and need an adult to step in and make the decision for you. Basically, the coach is saying "I don't think you will play much this year, it is better for you and the team for you to RS, get stronger, and be a very productive memeber of this team in the following years." In other words, the coach is telling you you won't be playing much. If the coach thought you were going to be a starter or a major contributor, then he wouldn't be asking you to RS. Duh! As for the player still not wanting to RS. If the player is a major project like Vooch, then tough! The coach can decide just to never insert him in the game. What is Vooch going to do about it? Quit? So what. If all he cares about is himself, then he isn't worth the trouble. He is not good enough to be dictating those types of things. Besides, does anyone really think that Vooch is so much more happy and content now that Miles inserted in for a total of 10 minutes of playing time last year? Did this meaningless gesture pacify him? If it did, then he is too stupid to care about whether he quits or not (and I am NOT implying this to Vooch, I am just using this as an illustration of the moranic basis for this type of position). Players who are projects should not be dictating what a coach does. If the only reason the coach has them on roster is in the hope that they can be productive in years 4 and 5, and the player refuses to play to year 5, then open the door for them. If they want to leave, so be it.

This is correct. But if the player only plays a few meaningless minutes, he really has not gained anything by "playing" that extra season at the first school. It would be more logical to preserve the opportunity to play significant meaningful minutes in a 5th year of eligibility at the first school. Even if that does not happen and he transfers, he has not lost anything of significant value b/c his minutes were so few and were meaningless in garbage time.

And your point is? You are simply restating my entire point. If there is even a small chance that Vooch could develop into a productive player for us, why would you simply throw away that chance? Why not preserve it, even if remote? And why wouldn't Vooch also want to preserve that chance to develop and contribute for a BCS program in the B1G? Even if Vooch decides to transfer, he gained ABSOLUTEY NOTHING by burning his RS his freshman year. NOTHING. So, the math is as follows: 1. Vooch could RS and preserve the possibility of developing and being a contributor his senior year while losing NOTHING as far as playing time his freshman year; or 2. Burn his RS freshman year while gaining NO meaningful playing time and lose the potential extra year at NU as a contributor, and, even if he transfers, he is no better off than he would have been under scenerio #1. Why would any coach or player choose option #2? I don't get it and will never understand it. It makes no sense.

I fail to see how they are "saving" a year even if they transfer. If the player RS his freshman year, and then transfers later, he will have exactly the same amount of eligibility with his "new" team as he would have had if he had played his freshman year and then used his RS for this transfer year. For instance, if Vooch had RS last year, he would be a RS freshman this year rather than a sophmore. Thus, if he were to transfer after this year, he would have 2 years of eligibility with his new team no matter whether he RS his freshman year or whether he "saved" his RS for the transfer year. The net result is exactly the same. The difference for the original team he signs for (in this case Nebraska) however, can be significant. Because, if Vooch were to develop strength after this year and develop into a good player who can be a contributor next year and thereafter, he has essentially wasted a full year that he could have "saved" until his "5th" year when he would have been at his peak productivity. There is no rationale whatsoever IMO to burn a players eligility for a few garbage minutes his freshman year.

I think the potential value of a redshirt year is greatly misunderstood by fans and young players alike today (and possibly coaches as well). Reading some of the comments in this thread make me shake my head. To suggest that no players (or very, very few) should ever redshirt in college basketball today is unfathomable IMO. It simply cannot be denied that in a majority of cases, a college basketball player is going to be SIGNIFICANTLY better his senior year than his freshman year. Why wouldn't a player and coach (and a fan of the team) want to have a player for an extra "5th" year when that player is at his peak of productivity vs. the (often) limited productivity that player provides his freshman year? I am NOT saying this is true in every case. And I am not saying that every recruit should be redshirted. Obviously, there are many exceptions. For instance, if you have a player that is so skilled that he can immediately be an impact player and a possibly a starter, then you usually should play him right away. If you have a guy who is considered a "one-and-done" type (or even 2 or 3-and-done), then it obviously would be foolish to play him. But NU has not had one of them in a LONG, LONG time (if ever). But for players a step below, who have potential but need to develop, then redshirting should be STRONGLY considered and possibly even strongly suggested by the coach. We are trying to "build" a program here. It will not happen overnight. If redshirting a few players is the best way, then go for it. Let's just take some examples. Brandon Ubel did not RS his freshman year. What did it get him? The team was absolutely terrible his freshman year and he wasn't much better. BUT, he developed into a decent player. If he was returning this year for a 5th year, he could be a valuable piece to the puzzle, especially if Smith struggles with injury. Similarly, had Gallegos not RS, he would not be on the team this year. Can anyone argue that his value this year (his 5th year) will be light years ahead of the minuscule value he provided his freshman year? He will not be All-B1G this year, but he will be a starter and a valuable contributor. I have previously argued ad nauseum why Vooch should have RS last year. He provided absolutely nothing to the team last year. Whether or not he transfers later is irrelevant. He should have RS simply to preserve the chance that he may be able to develop later. Now, that chance is lost unless he decides to RS this year (which would be unfortunate b/c if he is going to RS, it should have been last year). Nebraska is a doormat program. Has been for a long time. We may need to do some "unconventional" things to work our way to the top. Look, if Miles starts pulling in the Elbert Robinsons of the recruiting world. then yes, this argument will become moot. But he is not doing that just yet. So he must keep other options open. With that said, I am not even sure if I was Miles that I would want to RS any of the new players this year. It would be a difficult decision. Realistically, only Hawkins and Fuller are candidates, and from all reports I think Fuller will be significant contributor, so I don't see him RSing this year. That only leaves Hawkins and only Coach Miles has seen enough of him in practice to make that decision. If he can play decent minutes right away and contribute, then play him. But I don't want to see another Vooch situation where he plays a few garbage minutes here and there and wastes a year of eligibility. That would be unfortunately IMO.

Trust, but verify

Some of us have been around long enough to remember all the optimist talking about how Collier was going to take us to the top, then it was Sadler who had finally righted the ship and "clearly was better than Collier" and so forth. I could go back to Iba and Nee as well, but at least each of them at least made the NCAA and had decent years in conference, which apparently is the gold-standard around this long-suffering program. Sometimes it is just hard to be "optimistic" about NU Hoops if you have been following it for more than 30+ years (some on here go back even farther than that, God bless them!). We have been let down year, after year, after year . . . With that said, I think we are all excited about Miles, what he has done so far, and where we all think/hope this program is headed. Personally, I love Miles and everything he is about and what he appears to bring to the table. But there is always room for a little "realism" to mix in with the newbies who tend to go off the board with unbridled and almost limitless "optimism". At some point, what we "hope" will happen (ie, win a game in the NCAA, land a top 20 recruit, etc) must ACTUALLY happen, or the hope begins to fade just like it has so many times before.

I will be very disappointed if we only sign one recruit in November. As we have discussed, this staff could sign 2 or even 3 recruits in November and still make room for another signee in April. There is always turnover in a roster, that should be expected and planned for. Not to mention there are a few spots on the current roster that need to be upgraded, and that is just the truth. It is nice to see us be in on the big boy right to the end, but at some point we need to actually land the big boy, and then another. Teams like Mich. St., Ohio St., Indiana, etc, are not standing still and waiting for us. With that said, I am not writing off the November signing period yet. As has been mentioned, Miles and staff seem to constantly working the recruiting trail, so hopefully there is a quality prospect out there that they are in on and we just don't know about it yet. Hopefully. Why do we HAVE to take someone just to take someone though? Theres no major players currently in the fold for NU so it would be plan c-d guys that we could still get in April. I didn't say we have to take one, and I agree that Miles should not take a c-d type of guy just to fill a spot. I just said that I will be disappointed if we don't sign at least 2 players in November. I should have qualifed that by saying that I will be disappointed if we don't sign 2 quality recruits in November. This is year 2 for Miles. He has been here for over 18 months now. He has a brand new arena and a brand new practice facility to sell. So yes, I will be disappointed if he can't pull in at least 2 quality recruits in November. Not saying I don't like or believe in Miles, or I don't think he can or will get it done, just saying I will be a bit disappointed. It is tough and rare to sign a quality freshman recruit in April. Usually that is a time for jucos. I would much rather sign a quality freshman than a juco at this point. Besides, as I said, if we could sign a quality freshman in November, we could still easily make room to sign a juco or other recruit in April. But again, as I said above, there is still time and I am still holding out hope for another QUALITY recruit. I will actually be even more disappointed if Miles signs a c-d type recruit just to fill the spot. Better to have him hold it than give it to another Doc/Collier type recruit.

I will be very disappointed if we only sign one recruit in November. As we have discussed, this staff could sign 2 or even 3 recruits in November and still make room for another signee in April. There is always turnover in a roster, that should be expected and planned for. Not to mention there are a few spots on the current roster that need to be upgraded, and that is just the truth. It is nice to see us be in on the big boy right to the end, but at some point we need to actually land the big boy, and then another. Teams like Mich. St., Ohio St., Indiana, etc, are not standing still and waiting for us. With that said, I am not writing off the November signing period yet. As has been mentioned, Miles and staff seem to constantly working the recruiting trail, so hopefully there is a quality prospect out there that they are in on and we just don't know about it yet. Hopefully.