Jump to content

IUProfessor

Members
  • Posts

    330
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by IUProfessor

  1. I don't think that starting back court provides nearly enough 3 point shooting, especially with Tucker at the 3. I also think they'll both expect to run the show, and have the ball in their hands a good share of the time. Could be wrong, but unless both are simply looking for a pay day, I don't see why they'd sign up to play together. Could certainly be wrong, though.
  2. UofM is playing catch up on NIL for football. Basketball is a distant second in terms of priority (maybe even third behind hockey). So I wouldn't assume the NIL package May will be working with is great.
  3. The issue with Reneau is overall fit, not offensive statistics. If Reneau could defend the 5 then he'd be a no brainer building block given his offensive prowess. The problem is that -- rightly or wrongly -- the widely held perception is that he can't be a quality defender and rebounder at the 5 without consistently being in foul trouble. Thus, Woodson feels compelled to pair him with a rim protector. But covering Reneau defensively like that not only exposes him against 4s on defense, but also clogs up the offense with two post players. Again, Reneau is a fantastic scorer. I don't think anyone is denying that. Some just question whether he can be part of a championship level team given his other shortcomings, especially given how Woodson seems determined to use him.
  4. Offense is only half the game. Running back Reneau at the 4 and Mbgako at the 3 severely lowers our ceiling at the defensive end.
  5. Not saying you're wrong, but that's no way to build a championship roster. Just a mishmash of poorly fitting parts. Edit: To clarify, not suggesting you think otherwise. Just talking out loud.
  6. 1. Over 2. Under 3. Depends on how you define guard versus wing. If guard is just 1/2 then under. If guard equals the 1/2/3 spots, then over.
  7. I'm not sure why we would want to run back the exact same team given how ugly this one has played at times at both ends. I think it's clear that while Ware and Reneau are both individually talented, they aren't a championship duo given their imperfect fit together. So if Ware comes back, I think you'd need Reneau to look elsewhere if you hope to improve the outlook considerably.
  8. Honest question: what makes you think you can assemble a winning roster by just recruiting a cast of players who left their prior schools in search of big paydays? The problems with that approach seem abundantly evident to me.
  9. So I wonder if we interpret that to mean he doesn't know, or that he knows but can't disclose?
  10. True, but if we're seriously exploring Pearl, someone is going to have to pony up serious cash to buy him out, pay him ~$7 million per year, etc.
  11. I agree wholeheartedly. Just saying I can understand why the deep pockets expect a bit of input when they've been called upon so frequently of late.
  12. I agree 100% in general. In this particular instance, though, as much as I agree that a leadership change for the program is needed, I can also understand why the deep pockets are reluctant to buy out another HC so soon, just 3 years removed from Archie and less than 4 months after Allen. Especially when the current AD -- justifiably or not -- extended Allen and recently gave Woodson a raise, jacking up the cost of the buyouts.
  13. Simplest explanations are usually the best. McNeeley either saw IU with Woodson as a sinking ship. Or he got wind Mbgako is back at the 3 next year.
  14. Would like to believe it's #3, but yesterday's news seems too definitive for that. I think there would have been other ways to give a vote of confidence that were less definitive if that was the purpose.
  15. Seems odd so many relatively prominent national media folks would report it if it's not true. What say Trilly and Rabby?
  16. If it were confirmed Reneau, Mgbako, and Galloway are all leaving (along with Ware) should Woodson be retained, would any of the Woodson defenders still give him another year?
  17. Depends on how you define it. If you are just looking at W/L record absent all other context, sure. But I don't think that you could find many examples of coaches with no long-term track record of success who appear to have lost all recruiting momentum, as well as the confidence of much of the fan base, and underperformed so starkly on the court given the existing talent base, but yet were able to rebound quickly to achieve the goals that Woodson himself set (B1G and National championships). And if you could find one, they probably wouldn't have been talking as stubbornly, or running as antiquated a scheme, as Woodson is. So the context matters. Which, again, is why the analogy of Pearl's first three years at Auburn is apples to oranges.
×
×
  • Create New...