Jump to content

HoosierDom

Members
  • Posts

    680
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by HoosierDom

  1. I disagree, but that's not my actual point. My real point is that refs wouldn't let kids be that physical 30 years ago. It's a lot harder to hit a 12 footer when you're bumped hard on your way to your spot.
  2. I love a good mid-range jumper, but if you're looking at points scored in the past and comparing that to now, you have to account for the changed officiating. The kind of physical defense kids play today wasn't allowed back then. I would also argue overall defense is just better now, but I concede that is up for interpretation.
  3. I guess I don't know how it works now. How much money are they sharing with them?
  4. Where is this talk of the power conferences breaking from the NCAA coming from? My understanding of the issue was that there was talk of this a few years ago because they wanted to be able to pay players and be free from the murky area created by NCAA rules and lack of enforcement that made it very hard not to cheat. Now that is less of a concern, so seems the the impetus to break away is gone. Why is this coming up now?
  5. I believe you're correct, but I think the point was no one on our team is in it, so there's no room for Dennis and not much time to make room.
  6. What if those top 50 players all went to the MAC (I think that still exists, right?)? Don't think the fans would care if their Blue Devils consistently get stomped by Buffalo?
  7. Right, that's why I put "cut" in quotes. To emphasize it needs to be in proportion to the amount being raised overall. In the old system, it was not. Again, you seem to be ignoring what I said. I made reference to "rotation players" being valuable. But, more importantly, no one is saying everyone has to be paid: merely that anyone can be paid if someone else thinks he is worthwhile to pay. Schools don't have to pay, neither do boosters or businesses, but all three groups have long wanted to be able to. Players want to be paid. The old rules said that two parties cannot do what they both want even though one party, and plenty of outside parties, are making boat-loads of money. That's just wrong. If you make a lot of money off someone else, you pay them.
  8. Winning is what brings in the big money.
  9. That's not a "cut" - basketball and football bring in millions of dollars, benefits worth 30k do not count as a cut. I'm not sure which kids you are talking about when you say they "weren't the reason" for schools making money. If you mean volleyball players, then of course you're right. If you mean any other rotation player in basketball and football, then they contribute to the team winning and that's where the money comes from. You seem to be pointing to the idea that, under the old system, kids chose to come play anyway. But, you are ignoring the fact that, under the new system, people (whoever they may be) choose to pay. A system that pays the people who do the work with money that was always there seems way better than one that says they can't receive money even though people want to pay them.
  10. You're answering your own question. That's how they were supposed to stop it. That said, I don't see any reason not to like the way things are. We will see what happens in the future, but I've got no problem with the fact that the guys who go out and win games get a chunk of the money.
  11. So far NIL has been in place for about a year and during that time we have picked up 3 5-star recruits, we've got next year's number 2 coming to campus, and my guess is we hang on to our all-American big man. Too soon to say for sure, but it seems like it might help us.
  12. I don't agree. There are small money deals out there that are actually business decisions, but the real money here is just boosters supporting their teams. Just as donations to an athletic program have never been about return on investment, so to NIL deals are not about making money. Donors want their teams to win, they want to feel like they're a real part of that winning and they want to be treated like big-shots.
  13. It would be very easy to set these up as separate monthly contracts that dry up if the player leaves. At the end of the day, this isn't going to be a big deal. There are plenty of coaches that don't usually use their 13 scholarships, I don't see much value in going beyond 13 on a regular basis. There might be the occasional guy that it makes sense for, but there aren't 14 balls on the court, so this won't get used much. I could see it being a bigger deal in football, though.
  14. Yeah, because if it's known for anything, the NCAA is known for quick and effective rule making.
  15. This guy and Hood-Schifino seem to lack the elite athleticism that would quickly get them to the league, so they are either going to be very good 3-4 year players, or, if they do make it to the league sooner than that, it will because they are great college players, not merely good players with potential. TJD probably fits in that category as well, and it's exactly the kind of guy we should be after.
  16. I'm trying to get on board with this (and I have never been terribly down on Kopp, I think he had an okay year and is a good guy to have for 15 minutes a game off the bench), but, looking at the game logs, I'm having a hard time seeing when the bulb went on. He didn't score at all in the tournament, missed a lot of shots against Iowa, was not existent against Illinois. Was solid against Michigan and Purdue, but I'm not seeing anything to suggest next year will be better than this year.
  17. The negativity comes from the fact that coach didn't feel like he could play him at all last year. Even when we had 7 scholarship players available, coach still didn't think he was worth a try. Now, if he's back next year then coach must have hope and think he will help the team more than some transfer, so, if he's back, I'll regain a bit of optimism. Right now, I don't have a lot.
  18. I'm not seeing anybody suggest it's a scandal, merely that we have some degree of interest. Not page 1 news, but still news.
  19. While certainly against the spirit of the rules, I am fairly certain that is not against the letter of the rules. The bigger problem is just that the kind of big we will need if TJD leaves (one that can start from day one) is likely only going to come here if TJD leaves.
  20. My guess is that it's more like monthly and they won't be offered another month if they leave.
  21. I have to assume that both Lander and Rob leaving means that X is staying; seems like we would have to work hard to keep at least one option at pg. I'm sure Rob would have stayed if Woodson pushed hard to get him to - which he would have it he wasn't sure X was staying.
  22. I can't speak to how many techs he got while at Pitt, but it wasn't much of a problem here.
  23. Rabjohns seems to have supported Coach Woodson - I would think that would put him in good graces with Coach and others who support Coach. Assuming everything Rabjohns said came from legit information, I generally think the things he says do, then I have no problem with it at all. It's his job to report what he knows about IU basketball - that's what he did. There is a line to be drawn where things about a player's personal life don't need to come out, and a less forgiving line where things about a coach's personal life don't need to come out, but this wasn't about Fife the person, it was about Fife the coach.
  24. I haven't heard people say this about him. I don't know much about him, but the numbers I have seen don't seem to back that up.
  25. For the most part, I think the extent that creaning ever happened was greatly over-stated. The one exception being when Patterson (do I have the right guy?) was forced out after summer session. I think the current situation is different though: telling a guy he has to go after 4 years in college, even if he is eligible for a 5th, is perfectly okay in my book.
×
×
  • Create New...