Jump to content

Welcome to Hoosier Sports Nation | Indiana Basketball and Sports Forum

Welcome to HoosierSportsNation 3.0 -- our newest and best iteration.  We promise we won't bite -- come on in and register to join the party!


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

122 Excellent

About Maedhros

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I'll never understand comments like these. Five years after being tasked with starting a roster from scratch, Crean had Indiana ranked first in the country. That's the very opposite of being irrelevant, and something Indiana hadn't achieved since 1993, Cheaney's senior year. Two Big Ten titles and three Sweet Sixteen appearances, outside of Mike Davis's outlier year those are things we also hadn't seen since Knight lost his fastball. It's okay to both recognize that Crean did a lot of good for this program, while also thinking we'd seen his ceiling and Indiana could be even more.
  2. The exception that proves the rule. Jerome was ranked 125-150 when Archie started recruiting him at Dayton. As Jerome climbed the ranking he drew the interest of higher caliber programs. It wasn't until Archie moved to Indiana that the relationship he established early was able to pay off with a commitment. Landing Jerome wasn't so much about beating out other schools for a top 50 recruit, it was about Jerome growing into that top 50 ranking as a player. Jerome also committed before Archie had coached a single game at Indiana. Now there's a track record. The environment is much different than it was two years ago, when Archie was very much in his honeymoon period.
  3. Please, by all means, make the moral case for why that $25.00 should be available to Juwan Morgan, but prohibited for De'Ron Davis.
  4. I genuinely don't see the issue here. The Assembly Call already uses Cameo to hire former players to record bumps for their podcast. The California legislation would provide legal recourse for current players to take advantage of the same opportunity. The kind of endorsement you've described is exactly what is intended.
  5. If a billionaire with a 'b' wanted to throw all his money at a college basketball program, there's already nothing stopping him. I'm sure there's a dollar amount that would pull Chris Beard out of Texas Tech, or Billy Donovan from the NBA. $40 million to renovate Assembly Hall wouldn't be a bother. Of course, Assembly Hall was already renovated for that amount, under the current rules. Your hypothetical scenario is a change in quantity not quality, and like much of the discussion on here has nothing to do with the actual legislation on hand.
  6. Wisconsin is not going to turn down a donation and tell that booster to pay a recruit instead. The very reason the NCAA is fighting so hard to preserve its notion of amateurism is because they want to control that money themselves. If the member schools wanted boosters doing this, they would have allowed NIL compensation long ago and there would be no need for California's legislation. Your hypothetical is literally the opposite of the interests at play in reality.
  7. I think it's important to note that most of Archie's recruits haven't had the chance to fail yet. Justin can frustrate because he remains mostly unrealized potential two years in, but he was a top 80 recruit, ranked as good or better than Jordan Geronimo. Like Justin, Geronimo also earned his rank mostly because of what the scouts think he can become rather than what he is right now. We know now that Clifton Moore didn't work out, but on paper he was a top 150 four-star recruit with a skill set that sparked some NBA talk before he arrived on campus. On paper he was every bit as enticing as Jake Forrester or Damezi Anderson, comparably rated recruits Archie brought in who haven't worked out (yet) either. For all the shade given to Al Durham, you're still talking about the guy who started 30 games last season, played the third most minutes behind only Romeo and Juwan, and projects to be a key part of the rotation against next season. It's an odd claim that Archie showing us he can do better when he's still relying heavily on Al Durham. It's a statement that can't be supported until Franklin, Leal and Galloway take the court, and we see what we have in those pieces. As for Brunk, yes of course Crean would have brought in a kid like him. Brunk had an offer from Indiana before he ever had an offer from Butler. I don't even know what your question is supposed to mean. Of course we're excited for the new commits of the 2020 class. But we get excited for everyone before we see them play. Robert Johnson, half of that backcourt you called the worst we've ever had, was a top 50 prospect, a fast riser, and said to be one of the best shooting prospects in his class. If you don't think he ever met those expectations, then it's worth turning that same critical eye toward your expectations for the kids Archie is bringing in. Remember when Fitzner and Damezi were going to be the sharpshooters this team needed? Remember when Jake Forrester was going to be a pogo-stick energy guy off the bench? Every coach has misses. We won't know how successful Archie actually is at building these 2019 and 2020 classes until we see how this talent develops.
  8. Those ranks, in total points both scored and allowed, are partly explained by tempo. Virginia ranked as the second most efficient offense in college basketball, better than they ranked on defense, but Virginia was also literally the slowest team in all Division I last season. The only reason they didn't score many points is because they had fewer possessions than anyone else. If we're following Virginia's path to a national championship, I sure wouldn't mind seeing us hit threes at nearly a 40% rate as a team on the season, be over 43% in conference play, and take 40% of our field goal attempts from three.
  9. Some of that is a function of time on the court. Measured per minute instead of by total number, Devonte was easily our most frequent shooter from three, followed by Damezi and Evan Fitzner. Al and Romeo shot the same amount, Rob only a little less, but more than Juwan. That distribution makes a lot more sense, especially if Evan had been able to maintain his career hit rate. My concern is as much about volume as it is about percentages. Regardless of who was on the court, we didn't use the three as a weapon last season. We ranked 292nd in attempts per game last season, 300th in the percentage of our field goal attempts that came from distance. If someone has a great way to quickly check, please share it, but the last time I looked it up I think even Romeo - who led the team in minutes and attempts - ranked only in the 30s among Big Ten players in total attempts from three. I expect our percentages to be better. For one, it's hard to get worse as a team than 31.2% and 317th in the nation, 27.5% and dead last in the Big Ten. And I agree that with Rome and Juwan gone, we have more capable shooters taking more of the available minutes and usage on offense. If Rob can improve on his post-concussion number, if Damezi can acclimate to the college game, and if Jerome proves healthy and competent from deep, those are all valid reasons to believe as well. But what I also saw last season was an offense that too often relied on getting the ball to Romeo or Juwan, and hoping they would be able to make something happen. We didn't put in the work to get shots for the shooters we had on the roster, several of whom we'll be relying upon again for this coming season. Too often the three was taken as a last resort, after our two stars or the weave at the top of the key had failed to produce any better options. Small wonder that these unplanned and desperate shots so often failed to go in. More than just the change in personnel or development from our freshman, I'm really wanting to see an offense that gets the ball to our shooters in rhythm, that runs action off the ball to get them open. It was there in small doses last season, just not nearly enough. My hope is that after two years of prioritizing defense, maybe this season Archie feels comfortable shifting to plays on the other side of the ball.
  10. Highlight videos are great because the player makes every shot. He missed a lot of shots as well, and got those 23 points through volume, playing on a bad BABC team that won just one of their thirteen games. He shot less than 40% from the floor and less than 30% from deep. He had almost three turnovers for every two assists. That's not a guard. He has a good looking shot and decent handles for his size, but I don't think he has the speed or is versatile enough to play the wing, especially on defense where he would often float and was late to recover. I agree he's not afraid to be physical in the lane, but he had trouble finishing in traffic. I'd easily call him a stretch four, but there again he's undersized for the position in the Big Ten, and needs to be more efficient from deep to actually be a threat out there - as we saw with Juwan this past season. His skills don't quite match his build, but in a way that makes him a tweener rather than a unicorn. He could be a useful piece in the right lineup, but I'm not sold on him at the high Division I level, where teams have the size and speed to match what Cross does well.
  11. There's no chance Archie is released until after he's had four years here, and most likely five. The contract simply won't allow it. But I'm also sympathetic to something Gary Parrish has said, that once a coach loses the trust of the fanbase he never really gets it back. I think you saw that clearly with Tom Crean and the way the promising 2013 season ended; even another Big Ten title with a tournament defeat of Kentucky wasn't enough to heal those wounds. Another season in the bottom half of the conference and in the NIT won't get Archie fired. But I think a season like that would create a deficit of trust for a lot of fans.
  12. Responding to Rothstein on Matt Denison's radio show, Zach Osterman had Indiana 7th or 8th in the conference and admitted that was a touch optimistic. A bit's changed since April 29, but in his first Offseason Rankings Alex Bozich had us 9th. Rothstein's not a guy I follow, and I don't put a lot of stock in his opinions, but he's not far off from what guys who specifically cover the Indiana beat are saying.
  13. Fred is closer to the situation than anyone else, so I'd be real curious to hear him expand on his definition of "rebuild". From my perspective as a fan outside of the workings of the program, it's not at all the word I would use, but he's done so now repeatedly. We hired Archie just one year after winning the Big Ten and beating a Kentucky team ranked in the top ten of KenPom to earn a spot in the Sweet Sixteen, getting bounced there by the national runner-up. That doesn't suggest a program that needed to be torn down and built back up. I'd argue the great failure of that 2017 season was not having a point on the roster capable of taking over after Yogi. That speaks to issues with recruiting, and maybe recruiting is of sufficient importance that it's reason enough to make a change, but I would never use the term rebuild to describe any program in that situation. It's perhaps easier to argue we're in the middle of a rebuild after the fact, given the results on the court. And if someone wants to claim those results stem in part because we're switching from a coach who knew offense and cared little for defense to a coach who does the opposite, I suppose I wouldn't disagree. But that's not a rebuild in progress when Archie got here, that's a rebuild started only after Archie arrived. That's a rebuild by choice, voluntarily elected based on the coach that was brought in and the style of the coach running the program before him. And it was Fred Glass who made that decision. But the response in that interview I found truly galling was the labeling of trolls anyone who is unhappy with the progress shown in the first two or three years. I'm approaching middle age, and old enough to realize that years are finite. Each season is a chance for us to see the Indiana Basketball program for which we care so deeply find success, and we only have so many chances. Those two or three seasons are not to be flippantly dismissed, they very much count. I don't need Archie to be winning a Big Ten title or getting back to the Sweet Sixteen by year two or three, but I want to see reasons to believe he can get us there in the future. At least in this interview, the only positive to which Fred could point was our in-state recruiting. I agree it's been much improved. But out-of-state recruiting has been non-existent since Race and Jerome were Archie's first two recruits, two years ago next week. Indiana Basketball has never survived on the state of Indiana alone, whether Isiah Thomas, Daryl Thomas, Dean Garrett, Scott May or Victor Oladipo. So telling me Archie is delivering on his promise to build inside-out isn't a sufficient answer. We complain about the lack of shooting on the roster, and the need for a scoring option on the week, and recruiting has failed to deliver either. If we don't start winning more, it doesn't matter how many Indiana kids we recruit. So, if I could interview Fred Glass: I'd ask what specifically it was about the program that needed to be rebuilt before Archie arrived, what does he think Archie has done to address that specific need, and what specifically has he seen from Archie in these first two or three years to support his belief that Archie is going to become an iconic coach with a very long and successful career at Indiana. I'd be very curious to hear these answers, not vague excuses and cheerleading.
  14. If he wasn't getting it done, wouldn't you release him in March, after the season ends? Jettisoning an assistant in June, in the middle of the summer evaluation periods, feels odd to me, as someone admittedly very much on the outside of that process.
  15. I've got about ten years on you. I was on campus for our last Final Four, that miracle run under Mike Davis. It's one of my favorite memories. But I wasn't a passionate Indiana Basketball fan until I arrived on campus. My family wasn't from Indiana originally, we moved to the state shortly after the last title in '87. I have no memory of the success of the 80's, and by the time I was old enough to pay attention Knight had already lost his fastball. My memories of Knight are of losing to Colorado and Pepperdine, not of teams led by Isiah Thomas or Steve Alford. Like you, those years from 2011-2016 are the most sustained success Indiana Basketball has had within memory. Outside that outlier 2002 season, it's the only times we've won the Big Ten or made the Sweet Sixteen since I was not yet 12, in 1994. My expectations for Archie have nothing to do with Indiana Basketball in the 80's. My standard is only that he be better than the guy he replaced. Unfortunately we're still TBD on that account, and some of the early returns haven't inspired confidence.
  • Create New...