CBHusker

I understand the Pac-10/16 move. Have LA, the nation's #2 TV market, have San Fran, Seattle, Phoenix - all top TV markets, join in with DFW and Houston TV markets. That's an unbeatable TV market because NYC doesn't have a singular big-time college football program tied to it. Now, if Miami-Florida-FSU joined up in a single conference, does anyone believe the South Florida TV market would ONLY watch those three teams? I don't. Every Dade County viewer would still have interests in non-SEC teams, too. As well as Orlando and Tampa Bay - massive TV markets in their own right. But nothing compared to LA-DFW-Houston-SanFran-Phoenix-Tucson-Seattle. I still think the NCAA is being foolish - they don't need 16-team conferences in two 8-team divisions that only play each other in 1 non-div game - the Championship game. They NEED sixteen 8-team conferences, period. Then let those sixteen champions play in 8 games, and let those 8 winners go on to a 4-game playoff, then a 2-game playoff, then a single one. Easily done. 8 team conferences = 7 conference games. Stack in 3 or 4 pre-conference games, including traditional rivalries if teams want. Then stack in an end of season Every Team In Conference "A" plays Every Team In Conference "B" so that every team has a 'post season' bragging rights game. And the Conf Winners play each other for the NCAA Playoffs. Each team can have 11 or 12 games, therefore, plus Conf Champ Winners might play 14 into the National Title Game. All those Univ Presidents who claim to need TV money couldn't find a BIGGER dollar sign than a true playoff scenario. Texas is the nation's largest revenue generator in college sports at, what?, $88 million? And Ohio State was #2 at $54 million? And Tom O thinks Michigan, Penn State and Ohio State aren't big dawgs? Neb was used to being the big dawg in a very puny Big 2 conference for decades. Then he suffered when his VB program got swept this season. Time to jump ship. I hate to point out that Penn State's won VB titles by going SEASONS in an undefeated status. Something tells me his nose won't get straightened by fleeing into the Big 10. But I know Chicago is a more likely TV market for Neb than DFW or Houston was. For the 6 Big-12 teams that could jump to the Pac-16, creating an 8-team division with AZ and ArizState - that's a win-win for them. No more weather whining about baseball games getting snowed out. No more fretting about travel plans killed because of inclement weather. The travel between Phoenix to Houston (for A&M) will be the most extreme until Conf championships, and some of those Big 12 teams have done very well playing in Phoenix or San Diego or Pasadena. I don't think they'd mind one bit. Kinda wonder what Houston humidity would do to a team like the Sun Devils, though.

I am so glad that Nebraska will join the Big 10 and go back to lowest academic standards so we can field the kind of football players we need! No need for passing grades, no need for brains at all! No more living up to the ridiculous standards of Texas! Now, we can finally get into a conference that is full of Have-Not's, low-lifes and there isn't a Big Dawg in that conference - no one of the Big 10 schools have any reputation or history to uphold! Tom O's right - we're gonna RULE that conference from top to bottom! Football, Volleyball, Softball, Baseball, Basketball - it's going to be Nebraska's conference, top to bottom! Tom O is SO right in fleeing into the Big 10! I can't wait to start pulling in all those fertile recruiting grounds. "Indiana R Us"!

Havoc, you challenged me in some other message to locate possible regional coaches for suggestible alternatives to Anderson. I agree - that's what should be done. I have been distracted by another idea: "Is the region producing baseball talent, or are we in a dearth of players?" Actually, yes. There is a rather precipitous drop in Nebraska-Kansas-Iowa HS players in the pro's in the last four years, compared to the previous 4, and the previous 4 to that. In fact, the 3-state region has less than half of the players in minor league systems now than they did 12 years ago. A major drop-off. This is a tidal issue, I believe. Maybe talent isn't truly lacking, but DISCOVERED and SIGNED talent is, and that could be a function of economic (travel) cut-backs. "Why travel 1000 miles when I can sign up equal talent within 100 or 200?" Fair point. Pro Baseball moves to LA and SF (away from New York) to gain some geographically-based income, but "geographical fairness" was NEVER the issue. What "less Regional Talent" means rather undercuts my argument that "Regional Coach can tap into Regional Talent", however. If the perception is that the region isn't producing a lot of baseball talent, fewer high schoolers aim for baseball excellence. And it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. All of which means "A regional coach with regional ties won't necessarily benefit the program more quickly than a good coach with no regional ties." I'm not finished looking, of course, but when I fell into those "talent numbers", I was aware that's only a tidal issue - it comes and goes. I think those are probably a reflection of Scout Travel Expenses as much as true baseball talent among the 15-18 year-old set. I was not impressed with the season-ending sweep at all. Tech was fairly shell-shocked by the DQ'ing of their best arm - all of which showed what kind of Head Case that player is. I'm rather surprised that the Tech team didn't fully understand this player's weak-link and that they hadn't learned to compensate for him in the past. But obviously, they didn't. OR ELSE they truly showed their .500 season-status against the Big 12's other .500 season-status team. Nebraska could have easily given away Game 3 and no one would have thought less of them, I think. But the Huskers' decision not to give up and try to win was the impressive point of this past weekend. Thanks again for your good posts over the end of this season.

Don't forget that JuCo's can offer 24-25 scholarships for their baseball programs. If MLB is getting "all the good players", what about the JuCo route? If a player understands he could use 1-2 more years of development and then try again, the JuCo route is logical. He can get into the draft in at least 2 years, if not 1. But if he goes the 4-year-route, he's relatively stuck for 3 seasons of "development". If he's a near-tops prospect, I'm sure JuCo makes all the sense for him AND for the Pros who want to keep an eye on his progress. I have a feeling that's a fairly significant siphon for 4-year-college talent, too.

With Texas Tech having their best reliever suspended (after serving up a grand-slam HR, he hits that batter the next rotation and is tossed; never quite understood that - he serves up a beachball and he blames the HITTER for crankin' it outta the park?!!), there's a great chance for the Huskers to sweep this series here in Lincoln. I'm not sure the Huskers even need to bring bats to the plate to roll up the RBIs against the Tech 'pitching' staff. At least we're not the worst team in the conference now! One more win, and we've cemented 9th Place. Coaches named Anderson, however, are not faring well in the Big 12.

FOURTH hit-batter in the top of the 9th! Nebraska now only trails 6-5, top of the 9th, 2 outs and bases loaded. C'mon, bats... or a wild pitch, or another HBP. SWING AND A MISS! GAME OVER, Mizzou, the 'other worst-team' in the conference for the last several weeks, sweeps Nebraska. Ugh. The Huskers have played their way into sole ownership of the cellar, and by a hefty margin now.

Here it is, top of the 9th during Sunday's Game 3 against Mizzou, bases loaded up with Huskers, down 6-4. A base-hit could tie the game here. The tension is pretty thick at this point. Mizzou's been capable of giving games away all season long - last weekend, they did it time after time to Kansas. All the Huskers need is a hit, extend this inning for a few more runs and Mizzou will fold up.

Saturday's 12-7 loss at Missouri makes it more difficult to not want to make judgments now. Sloppy play from the first batter on (a game-opening walk), then errors, poor choices for throws to bases - the Huskers didn't come out prepared to play, and Mizzou did so they had a big lead (8-2?) after just three innings. I thought the 2nd inning response (scoring two runs then holding Mizzou to nothing in their 2nd inning) was positive but then giving up 5 more in Mizzou's 3rd undermined it all. I do think the Huskers have played their way into the total loser's place as the firm cellar-dweller. This was their chance, and they've still got 4 games left to extricate themselves. It's not impossible - but losing a series to the other worst-team doesn't give me high hopes.

Havoc, my comments about "Ark winning when SEC is down" remain. This isn't a degradation to THIS or any other season of SEC's capabilities but Ark's SEC champ seasons were - in my opinion - more due to a lack of SEC strength than Ark's talent levels. "Down" for the SEC is only relative TO THEM, not to some other conference. Frankly, I can't think of any of Ark's programs that have shown any in-conference (or national) dominance over even 2 consecutive seasons since they joined the SEC. I can think of a few 1-every-4-5-seasons of SEC Champ Level performance in their sports programs, but that's not a sustained dominance from their SWC days, when they rourtinely battled for conf champ in a variety of sports. (Which always begs the question - was Ark that good in the SWC, or was the SWC that bad? Well, both, I suspect. Ark Football in the '60s lost a critical game or two, but they won a lot more, and they were a Top 5 team nationally for a good part of that decade, and into the '70s as well. Plus, they had the direct pipeline into Texas HS talent. They haven't had that kind of geographic donation to that program since they joined the SEC, though.) But back to Nebraska Baseball... I am noncommittal to judgments on Anderson because I've been waiting to see End Of Season improvements (or lack of). To me, this is where selecting the right pitching match-ups, inserting the right pinch-hitter, making the occasional but fine-pointed tune-up mods to fielding line-ups - all of these show me what a coach understands about his team. Or may not understand. Or simply can't change because no one's skill-set has improved enough to warrant an insertion. "Coach, you HAVE to be responsible for those players because THOSE are the ones you recruited." That's a traditiona criticism. But College Baseball's queer scholarship numbers castrate that argument. He can recruit all he wants, but I doubt ANY program gets even half of the first-line players that the coaches wanted. Heck, I'd be surprised if it was 25% of their front-line Wish List players. I think a good many rosters are filled mostly with "Here's the leftovers from my Acceptance List, not my Wants List." Coaches can't abrogate their teaching abilities, though. Heck, in some cases - and Nebraska's top teams were perfect examples - College Baseball shows off this coaching talent more often than any other program. I get a tad pessimist when I see 2-0 games against the "other leading candidate for the cellar" though. I shouldn't pass judgment yet, but, well, 2-0 games certainly does stain my vision. WORTHY REPLACEMENT CANDIDATES: Deggs' lack of regionalism is my knock against him because I don't want Nebraska to APPEAR to have favoritism or any dependence on recruiting inside Texas. If I was a regional HS or club coach and I thought my good players would be cast aside because they weren't from Texas, I'd be shoveling those good players to every OTHER program. And I know that any new coach is going to try to fill up his cupboard as quickly - AND easily - as possible - which means he'll probably use "what he knows" first. So, I'm hoping to find a more local coach, someone with a history of regional ties.

Havoc, I just want a well-reasoned argument for some candidate. Like yours for Deggs. I'm not impressed because of his Ark and A&M affiliations. If anything, I think those degrade my overall view of him. "Return to prominence" for Ark wasn't saying much, and it wasn't long-lived. They've done fair in the SEC but their champ teams have been on low-performing conference moments, too, so I don't give him high points for winning in a low-conference. I do give him more credit for the JuCo affiliations, actually, where he's had to do so much with almost nothing. If Big Time NCAA Baseball suffers from the queer scholarship limits and backhanded treatment in the sports world (cast-off and overlooked HS prospects), the JuCo world is even worse - not only cast-offs and overlooked, but under-skilled in the classroom, or financially handicapped to disqualify them from NCAA programs. Having a coach who can get THOSE players up to champ levels - that's really something good. Wayne Graham at Rice (now at Rice, but the long-time head at San Jacinto, a national powerhouse in JuCo Baseball) has been able to take his 20+ years of JuCo success and take Rice from a Never-Was/Never-Will-Be into a team that NOW only raises eyebrows when it's flopping around - like this year. And yet they'll STILL make the NCAAs, I bet. My biggest caution against Deggs is his locale. You listed his Ark-East Texas background. Moving him to Neb would gain him - uh - what territory? He'd no longer be "a hour's drive" from hot JuCo property or hotbeds of HS talent. So, taking Deggs out of that region might not deliver much more than his name on the scorecard. At the same time, you could argue that "Every recruiting year is different and once he builds the inroads, that's how real recruiting success occurs - over time." Yeah. But probably not 3 or 4 years. It's probably a 10-year process to create a pipeline where any HS or JuCo star would seriously consider his program rather than fair-to-middlin' pro bonus packages. That's what he needs to gain - those players' consideration. I'm never sure Deggs can deliver that - but I don't think any coach-prospect can guarantee that. It's an interesting candidate to pose, and well-argued.

Well, it's going to be horrible if the Nebraska Cornhuskers are the total losers in Baseball.

I don't quite get the "young have no ego" equation. Since when? Since when does trying to carve out a name for one's self, driving hard and seeking the right mix by some "young guy" absolve him from any ego? If anything, I think a tried-and-true vet with have a far-less fRagile ego. And the ability to spot and dissect "kids who have a desire to win" - is this easy to do? Only for some "young" coach though? Really? That's REALLY a function of youth, not experience? I just don't get your opening arguments. They seem poorly reasoned. If you want a young replacement, fine. But claiming HE will have the experience to spot, discover and recruit winners - how's that? He's the only one with the lucky coin that, when flipped, always comes up with winners? I mean, that could be - maybe he's discovered a genie's bottle during some Spring Break beach trip? But your claims of finding a non-ego and great-talent-spotter sure sounds like "great, long-time experience" factors to me.

From the silver lining department... This weekend, we head to Columbia to beat Mizzou. A sweep will probably take us out of the cellar entirely. Follow that up with a zeries win against visiting Texas Tech, and we start our second season on a hot streak. We're 10-7 in the last month-and-a-half at home, and Texas Tech usually gives up a massive, lopsided loss as their first game. All we need to do is not gift-wrap at least one of the other two. And a win against Creighton in Omaha would make our conference tournament wins look even better.

I wish I could have tracked the Huskers' team ERA during the season. I'm also impressed with the wide divergence of Coaches' expectations and actual product on the field. Quite a few complete misses.

I think a LOT of people love hearing this news - how many opponent programs will we play this year and next? I think tons of people are cheering. I haven't figured out College Baseball's recruiting hierarchy - I'm not sure it can be. The Perennials will get a lot of attention from prospects that also are first-targets for the pro's. If those programs chase only those 4- and 5-star types, most of those are gone to the Minors. And if those programs have appeared to have turned their back on 'lesser' talent, those players might go to competitors just for pay-back and sweet revenge. "Anywhere but ____" is a frequent comment, from the "Hell hath no fury like a player scorned" Dept. It's got to be a difficult line to balance. I think some of the low- and mid-level school achieve occasional brilliance by snagging some of those vengeful overlooked prospects who use that as motivation to decide to commit to improvement on a level they'd never shown in their high-school years. Then there are others who finally kick in the physical and emotional development capabilities. But at the end of each season, I look at the skill development from beginning to end. That's where a coach demonstrates his worth. I've seen a lot of freshman players in the last couple of weeks demonstrate outstanding skills with only a little bit of on-field time under their belts. That always speaks well of a coaching staff. When I hear "young players" as an excuse this time of year, I know THAT coaching staff isn't doing it like other coaching staffs are - opponents' coaching staffs.