Danny's Miracle: The Improbable Rise of Neebrasketball

seaofred92

seaofred92

New member
http://www.omaha.com/huskers/blogs/danny-s-miracle-the-improbable-rise-of-nee-brasketball/article_84ab63c2-0eaf-5303-b8f0-e6deb1e093ad.html

I’ll be honest, I forgot how good they were.

The past two years, I’ve spent hundreds of hours mining the Danny Nee era for incredible facts and never-published tales. I’ve interviewed almost 50 sources, including 21 former players. I’ve written more than 40,000 words — basically half a novel. I know the events of the 1990s better than the participants do.

But Thursday I was sitting at a computer cutting highlights with my editor standing over my shoulder. We marveled at the footage on the screen. The skill and athleticism. The effort and pace.

There’s Eric Piatkowski bombing from 25 feet — that’s a clip readers will love.

There’s Erick Strickland whipping a baseball pass 50 feet through traffic — we better keep that one.

There’s Jaron Boone pulling up on a fast break and draining a jumper — that’s a must.

Nebraska basketball’s glory years (1991-94) were even better than I remembered. And I remember a lot.

I grew up on a farm north of Rising City — 60 miles northwest of the Devaney Center. I had my own version in the basement. A small steel rim and backboard mounted on the wall — thanks, dad. A 3-point arc and free-throw lane mapped out in masking tape — my red Sharpie bled into the carpet. All the college basketball magazines I could find — I knew every Top-25 starting lineup by heart.

If I’d spent half as many hours on a real court as I did in the basement, I may have been a real player. … Nah.

In the winter of 1990-91, if you went down the hallway of that basement you would’ve found a schedule poster of Danny Nee’s fifth Nebraska team. A team picked eighth in the Big Eight! A team that hosted Steve Smith and Michigan State on a November school night at the Devaney Center. I was there, 9 years old and 10 rows from the top, when Beau Reid buried a 3 to win.

I was hooked.
Click to expand...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mavric said:
Dang.  The first part was really interesting.  Then they went and put the second part behind the paywall.   :(
Click to expand...
Not only is it behind the pay wall, but the version in the paper was a shortened version.

Did you see the article that Shatel had in the Sunday paper?  Talked about how he got his start, but then threw out a couple lines about having to pay to read OWH content (it's not behind the pay wall).

http://www.omaha.com/sports/shatel-in-ever-changing-world-of-journalism-connection-with-reader/article_1948e5e6-13be-5452-be45-2ff7c7358238.html

 
ECisGod said:
Not only is it behind the pay wall, but the version in the paper was a shortened version.

Did you see the article that Shatel had in the Sunday paper?  Talked about how he got his start, but then threw out a couple lines about having to pay to read OWH content (it's not behind the pay wall).

http://www.omaha.com/sports/shatel-in-ever-changing-world-of-journalism-connection-with-reader/article_1948e5e6-13be-5452-be45-2ff7c7358238.html
Click to expand...


I hadn't seen that.  

It's a tough line to walk for the newspapers I would think.  On one hand, he is exactly right.  Nothing is "free".  And newspapers need to make money to pay their employees to write these articles.  

On the other hand, there is a lot available on the internet that is "free".  Newspapers are already losing subscribers like crazy.  I would suspect that younger generations will also be less likely to subscribe to the actual paper.  And I would also guess they will not be a likely to subscribe to a digital paper when they feel they can get a lot of the same information elsewhere for free.  So they may be cutting their link to the next generation with this move.  I can tell you that I'm far less likely to try to read OWH articles now, and I'm one who grew up reading the paper.

I don't know if other sources of revenue (ads basically) are enough to cover their costs.  But I'm not sure this is the greatest plan for them long-term.

 
I completely get the "Nothing's Free" part, but if I subscribe to the paper or pick it up at the newsstand I should get the same content I would get online except videos and some pictures.

 
ECisGod said:
I completely get the "Nothing's Free" part, but if I subscribe to the paper or pick it up at the newsstand I should get the same content I would get online except videos and some pictures.
Click to expand...
I don't believe that this series that Dirk is putting out there is "online-only".  I don't get a hard copy of the OWH, but these articles should be in the paper every day.  Also, if you are a subscriber to the hard copy of the newspaper, you get access to the online articles.

 
ColoradoHusk said:
I don't believe that this series that Dirk is putting out there is "online-only".  I don't get a hard copy of the OWH, but these articles should be in the paper every day.  Also, if you are a subscriber to the hard copy of the newspaper, you get access to the online articles.
Click to expand...
I have a weekend subscription because my boss brings the paper into the office every day.  I checked today. If you want full unlimited access to the website, even with a 7 days a week subscription, requires paying extra.

The first installment on Sunday was complete in the paper. The second installment was abbreviated in the paper and ended by directing readers to the web to read the full article.

 
ECisGod said:
I have a weekend subscription because my boss brings the paper into the office every day.  I checked today. If you want full unlimited access to the website, even with a 7 days a week subscription, requires paying extra.

The first installment on Sunday was complete in the paper. The second installment was abbreviated in the paper and ended by directing readers to the web to read the full article.
Click to expand...


So even with a subscription you need another subscription?

OK

 
It's called "Subscriber Plus" and complete BS.  The cost of my weekend only subscription has basically doubled in the last 3 or 4 years too.

 
ECisGod said:
It's called "Subscriber Plus" and complete BS.  The cost of my weekend only subscription has basically doubled in the last 3 or 4 years too.
Click to expand...


Agree with you there.  I have zero qualms paying a subscription for the OWH as I still enjoy the process of physically reading the paper.  Where I take issue is when I need to pay extra to read content that is created by OWH writers that should be in the paper.

 
OWH has me <this close> to digital subscribing to read this series.  It's $1 for the fist month, then $10/month thereafter.    $5/month and I would do it.  Odd how my brain works...

Edit - Its either $1 for first month then $10/month thereafter or $100 for the year.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top