Left unsaid is that OK St. paid Underwood far less than other coaches in the Big 12. They did the same thing with his replacement. They hire cheap coaches and promise them a raise if the coach is successful. That’s not much of a commitment to basketball. It may just be the least desirable job in high major CBB and that’s by design.
Yep, he’s right. Maybe at 20 these kids really don’t make particularly good choices. Don’t they have anyone who can reasonably and intelligently help them with these decisions? Will they listen? I actually hope Tony Carr somehow, someday makes it back home…to the NBA. And if he doesn’t, man, I hope he finishes his degree.
Carton gives Ohio State an immediate playmaking guard that can step in and start from the moment he arrives at the Schottenstein Center.
Man what good is your agent if he allows you to play at the combine and finish dead last in everything
^^^I think they easily make the top 3, with MSU and UofM, with the dichotomy of coaching/organic talent v.s. returning, experienced talent
Was recently talking about Nebraska with another Big Ten writer. I’m very high on them but was asked this question: what did Nebraska do to get better this year over last year? Seems like they should be a very similar team, just not sure they did anything to take the next step other than age a year.
2 Likes
Another reason coaching is a tipping factor, coaching–>player development. But when you have good players that still showed room for improvement (Palmer, Roby), and they get more experience, there’s at least an increased chance that they improve. I think everyone would’ve been high on PSU, if Carr returned. Not because they were going to be a newly improved team, but because it’s easy to imagine the core of Carr, Stephens, Watson, and Reeves improving.
Guessing who will improve, other than looking at who’s coaching them at practice, is kind of the the fool’s errand. Sometimes it’s easy: C. Edwards seemed like an easy pick, even if most people undersold the magnitude of improvement; and C. Matthews also an easy pick that basically was true. Then there’s Langford, who many thought would greatly improve but didnt. And Im struggling to think of a trendy 'break out candidate" who definitely did not break out.
As we all know, they would’ve made the tournament if they played a better set of teams at home. This year they don’t get Michigan or Indiana at home.
My point being they may be near the top of the standings again but it won’t matter if this team can’t figure out how to win on the road. Improvement be damned.
Age a year is a big deal
I do not trust Tim Miles until he gives me a reason to.
Is it though? So often we see semi-experienced solid but not great teams take a step back when they return just about everything but don’t make many changes.
Northwestern last year is a great example of this or Michigan in 2010.
One difference is that those NW/UM teams experienced their programs’ first bit of success in a long time, and the players and coaches didn’t handle it well - the whole “hunter” vs “hunted” analogy that Beilein likes to use. In a way, missing the tourney last year might be a blessing in disguise for Nebraska if it keeps the players motivated this offseason.
4 Likes
Agree completely with this analogy. An established program (UM, MSU, Bo Ryan Wisconsin, Purdue) I think aging a year is a big deal and leads to increased development. Like the examples you cited (I would add recent Minnesota as well) just aging a year with no previous success to build off of doesn’t mean as much.
I like Tim Miles and what he has done at Nebraska and would like to think he can get the job done there. But this will be a really interesting case because they have some really talented pieces but can they put it all together? With their schedule last year, it could be possible they are somewhat overrated based off of last year (I could be wrong, but I think NW had the same weak schedule during their “breakout” year)
2 Likes
um who is that