Basically....but not really at all. David Rivers averaged 4.3 PPG and 4.2 rebounds a game as a Senior. Morrow this past year as a soph averaged 9.4 PPG and 7.5 rebounds a game. Even at his size Morrow provided far more presence down low than Rivers ever did. Morrow was leading the Big 10 in offensive rebounds before his injury....can't imagine how much worse our offensive would have been if we didn't have that.
Miles should be done....
- Thread starter HuskerDana_rivals188993
- Start date
Basically....but not really at all. David Rivers averaged 4.3 PPG and 4.2 rebounds a game as a Senior. Morrow this past year as a soph averaged 9.4 PPG and 7.5 rebounds a game. Even at his size Morrow provided far more presence down low than Rivers ever did. Morrow was leading the Big 10 in offensive rebounds before his injury....can't imagine how much worse our offensive would have been if we didn't have that.
While a coaching change is probably warranted and needed, it feels like something deeper needs to change as well for the program to truly take the next step. I’m not saying I know what else needs to change, but when I took a look at the winning percentages of the basketball, football, and baseball programs since 2000, they all appear to be trending fairly flat (maybe slightly downward). Of course, there are some peaks and valleys, but the general trendlines seem to indicate a slight downward track. Obviously, this is just a simple analysis of one metric and the full performance of a program/department would be analyzed on many other factors as well (on field, off field, academics, financial, etc), but from a fans perspective wins and losses rule. When you take into account that there have been 3 baseball coaches, 4 football coaches, 4 basketball coaches (only 1 year for Nee), numerous assistant coaching changes, 4 ADs, 2 Chancelors (mostly Perlman though), 4 Presidents, 2 conferences with a couple division alignments, and significant facility upgrades, the flat trends seem to indicate that these types of changes have had very little impact on the winning percentage of the programs. Does it mean that the athletic department and university as a whole need a new level of commitment, a clear goal or mission, some significant re-branding or clear identity? Perhaps the administration is happy with where things are, they are making money, still receive donations, stands are full, still selling merchandise. Hopefully they aren’t too short sighted to realize that the fans want more wins and if it doesn’t happen, eventually the gravy train will start to slow. The volleyball program has been built into a destination program with a clear identity. It happened over years of hard work with grass root development. Perhaps Riley is making progress down this path with the football program. I do like his idea of selling Nebraska football as a centralized training and NFL preparation facility. Maybe they should jump on that notion and brand around it. Basically making a college level IMG academy. They probably should promote the NAPL and CB3 and bring in professional athletes of all sports for training, evaluations, analysis, etc. and really highlight that to recruits.
As far as the basketball program, it would probably be the easiest of the 3 to be significantly impacted by a coaching change. But again it needs an identity and brand with connections to recruits. If the program doesn’t have that identity and connection, the AD needs to bring in a coach who has his own identity/brand/connections. Right now it feels like they are in a perpetual state of trial and error when selecting coaches, hoping the next one will be the magic bullet.
And yes, I realize that this thread has evolved in a different direction, but I wanted to address the original question.
I think Morrow played more minutes than Rivers which might explain some of those stats.
Rivers averaged 23.6 minutes per game that year and Morrow averaged 23.4.
@*$&^^#&^%# facts! They always get in the way!
The problem with programs having an identity is that your pool of coaching candidates shrinks. Sometimes that's not a problem sometimes it is.
I would rather hire a coach that has an identity and an offensive philosophy that players want to play in.
Outside of Callahan hire, and that wasn't by design, Nebraska has a history of hiring conservative and safe coaches. While some may say Pelini doesn't fit that mold, he and Gill were the only real candidates, both would have been easily acceptable to the fan base.
I guess Riley would be considered outside the box, but he was the nice guy, antithesis of Pelini.
I would rather hire a coach that has an identity and an offensive philosophy that players want to play in.
Outside of Callahan hire, and that wasn't by design, Nebraska has a history of hiring conservative and safe coaches. While some may say Pelini doesn't fit that mold, he and Gill were the only real candidates, both would have been easily acceptable to the fan base.
I guess Riley would be considered outside the box, but he was the nice guy, antithesis of Pelini.
You are a genius and all these other coaches are idiots.
https://n.rivals.com/content/prospects/7198
Rivers averaged .2 more minutes per game. So no, that's not the case. Morrow>>>>>Rivers and it's not really all that close.
That is a fair point. I guess I was thinking more of a university identity or brand. Something that attracts kids, that they can identify with. If you ask most kids what they know about Duke, Notre Dame, USC, Arizona State, Oregon, Miami, Texas, etc, they can come up with an answer of some sort. If you ask them about UNL, they will most likely answer cornfields.
The issue I was alluding to, is that if you keep making changes and getting the same results, eventually you need to look internally or systemically at what other variables need to be addressed.
Thinking there should be a faux Tim Miles tweeter if he is let go.
Maybe something like, "At Nebraska, you don't measure your success by wins and losses, but rather how many kids come back for their next season".
Maybe something like, "At Nebraska, you don't measure your success by wins and losses, but rather how many kids come back for their next season".
If Watson leaves he will basically be Benny Parker.
dingle, you should......at least when we are talking about a Tim Miles coached Nebraska basketball team. :Cool:
Nebraska spent millions building one of the coolest places to play basketball in the USA. Tim Miles was hired to fill the joint and he said I'm your guy. Year 1 was great now the difference makers he needed are jumping ship. I won't say Nebraska Basketball is sinking under Captain Miles but more life boat drills may be in order.
His contract runs through March 31, 2020. His payout if he is terminated is $75,000 per month for the remainder of the contract term, subject to certain reductions and buyout provisions if he lands another job that pays more than the YSU Penguins.
A
anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi
Guest
Very bad. Duh. Ed leaving was bad for depth reasons. Jacobsen on top of that would be terrible. We wouldn't have enough size left to guard anybody.
A
anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi
Guest
That's a trick question. If Jacobson stays he's a guy with major upside and it's only a matter of time before his shots start falling - even those 3s that he knocks down at an 18% clip.
If he leaves, he was a slow-footed bricklayer. Basically Quincy Hankins-Cole with better hair.
I see this mentioned in the basketball argument, and I hate to harp on it, but it needs to be mentioned. In regards to the Pinnacle Bank Arena, "Nebraska", as in the University of Nebraska-Lincoln did not "spend millions" to build it. The Pinnacle Bank Arena is a City of Lincoln thing, and Nebraska Basketball is a tenant in the arena. Lincoln had been talking about building a new arena to replace aging Pershing Auditorium for years, and Nebraska Basketball was never really a factor in those discussions. Obviously, with the Devaney Sports Center aging and factors surrounding that, when the idea of building a new arena started to come closer to reality, it was kind of just natural that Nebraska Basketball would be a tenant.
Certainly the fact that Nebraska Basketball would be using the facility was a factor in the process of building the arena, and some money was put towards it by the University, but they didn't build the arena. It was put to a vote in Lincoln, and was passed, and the city of Lincoln took out bonds and built the arena, as well as the surrounding Railyard area.
None of this is to say that Nebraska hasn't invested a decent amount in the basketball program, with the building of the practice facility attached to Devaney (which is used by numerous other sports as well); but the arena doesn't really factor into what Nebraska has spent on the basketball program.
I stand corrected. I had no idea that the City of Lincoln's PBA was a stand alone facility and the success or failure of attendance to Nebraska basketball games was irrelevant to the success of PBR. My apologies.