GBRFAN

I mean......not really. We should have a pretty good idea of everyone else's program by now....Year 5. Maryland is in year 2 and appears to be doing more than just fine. Nothing like apples & oranges! He said "newcomer". They fit that description a lot more than we do....Year 5 in the Miles era and about to be another losing season. Meanwhile, Iowa is about to be ranked in the Top 10 and is in 1st place in the B1G. A team that consistently has worse recruiting classes than us. What does that spell? C-O-A-C-H-I-N-G! Your logic is not the best... If you continue to come with these angles to strengthen your opinion on how bad our coaching is then your creditability will continue to fade. to save yourself some words why don't you just post "I think the coaching is bad" Okay, I think the coaching is bad. Care to share your opinion? I think Miles is building something here!!! He couldn't get the type of players in years 1 and 2 that he wanted so he went juco and transfers to try to help with the talent. This got him some W's and got better recruits to start looking at NU. He is now showing signs that he can recruit better players - thou he has missed on the 5. However I'm glad that he has not reached at that position and has decided to play smaller (there are only so many quality 5 that get recruited each year and ours will come). We will know soon enough how well he does at developing the better recruits and if he can lock a solid recruit for the 5 spot. Miles has some resources that NO coach has ever had at Nebraska, however those same coaches gave Miles zero wins in the NCAA and no b-ball tradition. Let's see if he can take what the admin gave him and do what hasn't been done here before!!!

Also interesting that we may get both and those two schools get zero!!!

agree with this ^ Building the spirits of the walk on's and playing your hand when you might be dealt better cards in 17!!! wishin and hopin , not the best way to run a ship I guess a better word would have been "should" instead of "might" --- Either way I would prefer to "wish and hope" instead of "piss and moan"

agree with this ^ Building the spirits of the walk on's and playing your hand when you might be dealt better cards in 17!!!

I don't get this logic at all. Regardless if those 2 decided to leave or not, you recruit DT's for the future not for the next year. After this year there are only 4, would be awfully nice to have a RFr. Be ready to add depth in 2017 as the 5th DT. I'm sure the staff sees a bigger depth issue then DT and might be happy to save a couple scholarships for the 17 cycle. Us fans don't see any upperclassmen with experience after this year - so we as fans seem concerned. The staff knows what they have in the young guys and it must be GOOD!!! We have 22 seniors plus any other attrition. There's no need to save any spots. I Thought our 17 class was looking to be in the range of 17 recruits. With 2 guys leaving early (vv and collins) this year that would make next years class 15 (assuming we fill up this cycle). 15 is very low so by "saving" 2 or 3 from this class - we would help balance out the 4 year cycle to become closer to the standard 20ish. I wouldn't think that we would save them if we have solid recruits from top to bottom, however many have stated that the 17 cycle will be the one were Riley and company have had enough time to build strong relationships and a record of 9-4 10-3 next season would make it easier to get 2 or 3 extra SOLID recruits next year over this year.

Poor you!!! I hope you aren't forced to watch the game. I can't believe that NU would make you have to deal with this. Maybe a sleeping pill and then wakeup tomorrow so you don't have to deal with a terrible game. You seem to spend more time trolling other peoples posts then posting about the subject. You must have a terrible home life that pushes you to constantly try to troll others. It's funny that you would post such a thing - based on your posting history. If you look at my post I have a mix of mostly positive comments with info to backup my feelings, some negative comments with backup and then a good amount of replying to post that are mostly negative with no valuable information to back it up. The amount of negative post that seem to look like they come from individuals that could not possibly be fans with their outlook on NU is comical at times. If they truly are fans and the outlook is so poor - I feel sorry for them.... If being positive most of the time leads you to believe that I have a TERRIBLE home life - I guess all I can say is that's your opinion. My posting history? You mean not being happy about how things have gone? You think that is trolling? I have also backed up my feelings with facts! This post makes it very clear what you think, and that is anyone who doesn't post happy thoughts about basketball you call a bad fan. A large number of your posts are pointed at the poster, and the tone is usually how bad of a fan they are because they dare to post negative comments. I have asked you to back up some of your thoughts, but you just disappear. Like the comment about how Miles has turned every program he has been at around.. I asked if you would like to discuss this but you disappeared. and to the bold.. not what i said, but good job in trying to turn it around. The bold in not true, I can't recall one time where that is true. Please show me so I can learn from the mistake. I probably open my mouth more than I should - and I will improve on that. Making a negative comment with facts is way different (and better) then just some random comment over and over that shows no signs of support for NU - not specific to YOU, just a comment in general.

That makes sense. Sorry for blasting him... Not the two best teams in the Big Ten, however sometimes those become good games!!!!

Poor you!!! I hope you aren't forced to watch the game. I can't believe that NU would make you have to deal with this. Maybe a sleeping pill and then wakeup tomorrow so you don't have to deal with a terrible game. You seem to spend more time trolling other peoples posts then posting about the subject. You must have a terrible home life that pushes you to constantly try to troll others. It's funny that you would post such a thing - based on your posting history. If you look at my post I have a mix of mostly positive comments with info to backup my feelings, some negative comments with backup and then a good amount of replying to post that are mostly negative with no valuable information to back it up. The amount of negative post that seem to look like they come from individuals that could not possibly be fans with their outlook on NU is comical at times. If they truly are fans and the outlook is so poor - I feel sorry for them.... If being positive most of the time leads you to believe that I have a TERRIBLE home life - I guess all I can say is that's your opinion.

I don't get this logic at all. Regardless if those 2 decided to leave or not, you recruit DT's for the future not for the next year. After this year there are only 4, would be awfully nice to have a RFr. Be ready to add depth in 2017 as the 5th DT. I'm sure the staff sees a bigger depth issue then DT and might be happy to save a couple scholarships for the 17 cycle. Us fans don't see any upperclassmen with experience after this year - so we as fans seem concerned. The staff knows what they have in the young guys and it must be GOOD!!!

Poor you!!! I hope you aren't forced to watch the game. I can't believe that NU would make you have to deal with this. Maybe a sleeping pill and then wakeup tomorrow so you don't have to deal with a terrible game.

Offense Pod 1 3 WR/S Isaiah Simmons 3 WR Desmond Fitzpatrick 0 WR Kalija Lipscomb 0 WR Zach Farrar Offense Pod 2 3 OT Matt Farniok 0 OT Royce Newman 0 OT Jauan Williams 3 OT Alaric Jackson Defense Pod 1 2 CB Lamar Jackson 3 S Tony Butler 1 JUCO CB Devron Davis 0 DT Amir Watts Defense Pod 2 3 JUCO DE Tramal Ivy 3 DE Collin Miller 0 JUCO LB Kapri Doucet 0 LB Cameron Goode

When people complained about throwing the ball so much I think people forgot what our strongest position on offense was Which is great evidence of why recruiting heavily at WR isn't really that important. Can't believe I missed this CM Husker gem. Gonna have to paste that one in the archives. Anyway, I love Stanley Morgan, Jr., and not just because his potentially hot mom might be reading this. You could see his superstar tendencies immediately, and how he made the most of his limited opportunities. Can't say who I'd bench in his favor at the moment, not a bad problem to have, but to my eye he's better rounded at WR than DPE, and stands to have two years to himself as veteran leader of the WR corps. In other matters, I suppose Tom Osborne's run-first offenses were not as reliant on receivers, and could have made excuses for not recruiting heavily at the position. Yet over the years Tom delivered some pretty good WRs into the NFL, including Tim Smith and Irving Fryar, and ball-catching tight ends like Junior Miller and Johnny Mitchell. More recently, guys like Niles Paul and Quincy Enunwa have been getting their touches in the pros. Good receivers have always helped Nebraska win games, and the position is not a dead end at Nebraska, regardless of the offense in vogue. You need good receivers in any offense. But having an offense that needs 3+ "elite receiver threats" is going to be hard to support over time. It is interesting that you bring up a local kid in Niles Paul. I remember him being often maligned as a receiver at NU, which I thought was completely unwarranted. NU has been lucky to have such a high success rate with receivers as of late. But it would be interesting to track the running average number of kids signed to scholarships at each position going back to the 90s. My opinion: it's good to run a system that can rely on walkon receivers to provide the types of plays in the #2 and #3 WR spots that you need to be made in your offense. By doing so, you can reallocate those resources to other positions (that's not just the scholarship itself, but also the time and effort required to recruit). Then, it's bonus production when you get "lucky" with a recruit, whether because you can convince him to come to a system that doesn't, on paper, highlight receivers or if you have a local elite athlete who wants to play for Nebraska. If I have any time in my schedule, I may go through and track scholarships by position going back to the 1980s... I'm not even sure if we are signing that many more receivers than we have historically. But it feels like we are. Can you cite such a system that exists with the exception of the triple option offense? Your theory is a good one, as you can load up on other positions, the issue is when you run up against teams that have equal or more talent in the secondary they can absolutely lock down those guys in single coverage and then stack the box against your presumably tough running game (I'm guessing that is where the extra schollies are going). I can't see how you can consistently beat tOSU and UM (because that is the goal right? Win the BIG?) with walk-ons in the #2 and #3 WR spot. You just need more talent. I was exaggerating a bit with "walk on" talent being at #2 and #3, but I don't think NU should run a system that needs 3 or 4 4* or better WRs. We happen to have that talent (or close to it) on the roster now, but (a) apparently that wasn't enough this year, and (b) I don't think we can expect to consistently recruit to that system. But yes, I would go back to a ground based attack at Nebraska, which I would hope would have a lot of option incorporated. Between 1990 and 1996 (the main classes comprising the run), recruited roughly 13 receivers (WR, SE or WB). A number of those guys were Nebraska kids, who I doubt were rated highly or would be today, despite their productivity at Nebraska (e.g., Lance Brown). Compare that to the 12 that were signed in Callahan's 3 full classes (2005-2007), which is what he thought was necessary to run his version of the WCO. As far as needing more talent than OSU and Michigan to win, that doesn't bode well for Nebraska. Rather, I think NU should try to stay within 10% to 15% of those teams' talent levels and out scheme/execute them, but that requires superior coaching. Not sure we have that, or will obtain it any easier than we recruit depth. Employing a system that requires NU to "out talent" our opponents will never result in the consistency we'd like to see (and have enjoyed). It needs to be about scheme more than pure matchups. Based on what you are saying above (in bold) you want to give two teams that we inspire to beat on a regular basis a 10-15% advantage in recruiting because we can out scheme and execute them by 11-16% with superior coaching. Don't know how you regard OSU and Mich coaches but I would love to see your list of coaches that are available that meet this upgrade requirement. Please forward this list to the board so that we can make this hire soon!!!! Sarcasm - I will stick with Riley and getting the best players at ALL positions.

I mean......not really. We should have a pretty good idea of everyone else's program by now....Year 5. Maryland is in year 2 and appears to be doing more than just fine. Nothing like apples & oranges! He said "newcomer". They fit that description a lot more than we do....Year 5 in the Miles era and about to be another losing season. Meanwhile, Iowa is about to be ranked in the Top 10 and is in 1st place in the B1G. A team that consistently has worse recruiting classes than us. What does that spell? C-O-A-C-H-I-N-G! Your logic is not the best... If you continue to come with these angles to strengthen your opinion on how bad our coaching is then your creditability will continue to fade. to save yourself some words why don't you just post "I think the coaching is bad"

Way to set your standards high. If you're ok with results that resulted in 11 years with 0 conference championships then we have very different goals. So you want me to be unhappy that we're doing better than 9 out of the past 11 years? Sounds like your priorities are a bit skewed. I said nothing about results...this is recruiting. Skewed is you comparing our current average star ranking to past years final average star ranking. Right now arguably we have only taken our "plan A's", usually higher rated guys. What happens to that average when we start taking plan b's, c's and d's? Recruiting is a big part of the results on the field, that's undeniable. I don't need include things that 'might' happen when dealing with statistics and facts. You can't say you are dealing with "statistics and facts" when you are comparing two unlike things (this year's unfinished class to finished classes of past years). He's making assumptions and so are you. Yes, how dare I compare average class rankings so far in this recruiting cycle to finished cycles!!! That's like comparing batting averages during the baseball season to ending season batting average! How dare I right?!?!?! So, instead of focusing on the misses we've had, I have decided to be optimistic about how we can finish because of the FACT of where we are. Can't believe you didn't get your data from the 247 site called "Past Team Recruiting Ranks 20 days before NSD".... What a rookie. Everybody knows that's the only way to compare apples to apples. I wish I could find that link again

I guess you could think that they aren't ready to be a top 20 team. Guessing with the youth on the team they will become more competitive with those types of teams as the year goes on. Women B-Ball isn't as deep as the men - The top 5 or 10 teams usually have their way with the teams outside the top 25.

Nothing wrong with a little pride about being competitive with Illinois, and competitive (ish) with Purdue. Nothing wrong with being happy that we didn't get torched by a 3rd or 4th best team in the Big Ten East by 50+ and seeing the bigger picture that with a couple adjustments by the staff and some depth at key positions - we could consistently win 8/9/10/11/12 games and have our butts kicked zero times per season. It's fine to feel that way, but there's no real evidence supporting that view. 90% of the post on this board are opinions - thanks for pointing that out. If you look at the scores of 13 games this year it is pretty easy to see that what I stated "could" happen.

It's honestly quite laughable that you're using this as an argument to say that Nebraska-Omaha is better than Nebraska. If we both played similar opponents and they completely outplayed that team and we lost, that'd be a valid argument, but RPI is not a concrete understanding of which team is better. If this is a rebuilding year, what was last year? How many rebuilding years can you have? If you'd like to bash on a team that includes SEVEN first year players who previously had no experience, that's fine. But, anyone calling for Tim Miles' head either doesn't remember where this program was before he came to Lincoln or demands national championships to form in 5 years. It's absolutely ludicrous to think that the program has regressed. I wasn't making that argument at all, you seem a bit defensive. The RPI is a factor used in college basketball, and Nebraska a school from a P5 program, has a higher RPI than UNO. Excuse that away however you want. Why is Miles using that many freshman in his 4th year at NU? What we will end up with is one good year every 3-4 years, then back to rebuilding. If you can't see an issue with that, then nobody can help you. This team has regressed in a few ways.. one being the overall record. The biggest issue, though isn't about regression it is about progression, or lack thereof. The bold part of your statement makes no sense. Do you really think that the plan that Miles used in year 1, the year 2 plan, year 3 plan are the same plans that he will use in years 5, 6, 7. If so, your ability to see the future is poor at best. Miles took over a program that had zero tradition and zero NCAA tournament wins. NU built a great facility and hired a coach with a successful history of turning around average to poor programs (similar to us). You can't just build it and they will come - referring to top 100 recruits. So he had to show some early success on the court to draw these quality recruits. How did he choose to do that - go after jucos and transfers. Both these types of players are risky (there usually is a reason that they came down one of those two paths) and are only short-term fixes at best if they pan out. They did pan out because they allowed NU to get on the map (for one year) - to get the better recruits interested. This past class gives him talent at every position except the 5 (we have missed there). He now can take a quality 5 and then be very choosy on using his scholarships to replace the seniors that leave each year. Besides a 5 I doubt you will see any interest from NU in a juco or transfer from 2017 and beyond.....

POB will not redshirt next year if he is backup material - he has already stated that he is coming here prepared to battle for the starting position. By his senior year we will have much better QB depth and his shoes will be filled with no worries.

These numbers are interesting, however Big Ten and Big 12 are two different conferences. Big 12 has a couple nice teams at the top, however things drop off quickly after that.

I Think you should be praising Miles for starting 6 and getting away with it - with that said we should be leading by more than a dozen if he can keep those 6 on the floor. It's silly to try to pull off that we start/play almost entirely upperclassmen. Look at the stats after any game and that is not even close to true. A possible reason Miles doesn't start 2 freshman along with a first year transfer jr is that he is trying to deflect some of that pressure that is being placed on the youth (core of our team). Saying Miles can't coach would be an easier sell once his current players are in their 3rd or 4th year. Miles has used a strategy of getting higher level guys that only have a couple years eligibility remaining which isn't always the best long-term, however it was nice to get us some early wins. Coaching does help with winning, however 16-18 year old kids from around the world have been dreaming of playing for schools like KU and Duke for their entire lives - not sure Miles and NU have that luxury.

Nothing wrong with a little pride about being competitive with Illinois, and competitive (ish) with Purdue. Nothing wrong with being happy that we didn't get torched by a 3rd or 4th best team in the Big Ten East by 50+ and seeing the bigger picture that with a couple adjustments by the staff and some depth at key positions - we could consistently win 8/9/10/11/12 games and have our butts kicked zero times per season.

huskerfan2000 That is the problem you talk about taking these powerhouse conferences and putting a freshman into a successful situation and they can shine. We have a situation where we are trying to take MULTIPLE freshman and expect them to play at the same level as your KU / Duke example - this is not realistic.

There is not a single year in the past 15 that even compares to last years class. How many top 100 recruits have the huskers had in the past 30 years??? 5? 10? 15? - Believe we currently have 4 or 5 on this team. The difference between a 55 and 80 ranked class is one extra decent recruit or a couple guys that are slightly higher than average. The difference between 55 and 33 is much tougher - multiple quality players required to get in the 30's. If Miles finds one more solid player we will see the current year in the low 50's. Giving Miles the 1st and 2nd ranked classes in the past 15 years. Coaching the players up is important, however the expectations put on our freshman are crazy. It's rare to have a freshman come in and be a star we expect this to happen with 3 of the 5 on the court - slow down and let this play out over the next 2 years.. I will say the lack of a big man is strange, however Miles has shown that he isn't going to just take a borderline reach to fill the spot. The Big will come and these younger guys will get older and be allowed to play their true position. At that time this team will find it's spot in the upper half of the Big Ten.

This group in 2016 will probably be equal to 2015. Upper Classmen 2015 > 2016 Talent & Time w/ Coaches 2016 > 2015 Starting in 2017 - should see a strong combination of both Upper Classmen and Talent

I haven't followed his recruitment that closely, however that video makes me think that OSU is NOT his leader!!!!