go_iu_bb

Who's talking about the selection committee? kyhoosier said they've improved every year in every possible statistical category. Posters like that try to make it seem that any criticism is unwarranted. Not true. Also, conference play is 2/3 of the season so it very much matters. The worse you do there the better your OOC record will have to be. It's also the same teams so comparing that season to season would give a better idea of a team than OOC.

Except in conference. As you yourself pointed out, it's hard to compare OOC between seasons so the logical conclusion would be that conference record would be the best indicator since that would be closest season to season. Season 1: 9-9 (0.500) Season 2: 8-12 (0.400) Season 3: 9-11 (0.450) Once again, they're not improving in every possible statistical category as you claimed.

Wins and losses make up at least one statistical category. So, no, not in "EVERY possible statistical category" have they improved. Through 9 B1G games last season IU was 5-4. This season they're 4-5. In the regular season last season IU had a record of 15-12 if you remove the 4 extra cupcakes. They're currently 9-7 so they'd need to go 6-5 the rest of the way just to match that. Can they do that? It remains to be seen. The bottom line in basketball is wins and losses. Eventually the improvements need to show up in that statistical category. You've obviously made up your mind but it's not misleading to look at the most important statistic and point out that a positive change there is lacking.

If that tweet is correct, it's not just location or team he's unsure of. It sounds as if he's unsure if he wants to even play sports and which sport he wants to play if so.

Sounds like an confused kid who isn't sure what he wants.

I'm getting Matt Carlino vibes. He eventually stayed in one place for 3 seasons so maybe the next stop will stick for this Matt.

I really hope we get to make up the game against MSU. That should be a W.

A "Help is on the way" thread?

I know I'm rooting for them! Rooting for them to finish under 0.500, that is.

So what did you mean when you said "he's a solid recruiter" in the quote above? That implies that the recruiting has been just fine so I must've not seen your other post. Apologies if I misunderstood that statement. I personally wouldn't say that someone is a solid recruiter if I doubted how well they've recruited. The backcourt and the thinness up front are reasons for doubt in my opinion.

Apparently, you're one of these people. You come right out and say it's not coaching and not recruiting/talent yet the players still can't execute. Good coaches can get players to execute within a 3.5 years timespan. Unless, of course, those players just aren't talented enough.

Yes, there are plenty of those threads. Notice that I didn't say "everyone." In these threads are the same people defending both coaching and recruiting (i.e. talent level), saying they're both fine. Then when specific incidents are brought up, these same posters then say it was just that the players didn't execute. It's like a broken record.

It says that those freshmen aren't the immediate impact needed to win consistently their first (only) year in college. They lack experience and make freshman mistakes. There could also be chemistry and selfishness issues. This is a one off season for those teams. It's SOP for IU. That's the point. If it was one game or maybe even just one season then it could be shrugged off as "the players just didn't execute." But it's been consistent under Miller. At some point it has to be either the players aren't talented enough to execute or they aren't coached well enough to prepare them to execute. Possibly both. Yet people say that it's not a talent issue nor a coaching issue so I'd like to know what they think is causing the players to fail to execute so often is.

Right. So the only blame is on the players and the coaching staff bears none of it? It's the coach's job to recruit players that can execute at the this level and then to prepare them to do so. Miller is failing at least one of these aspects. Maybe Coach K and Cal failed at the recruiting part for this year as the players obviously aren't the immediate impact players they need to be for those teams to be successful this season. But do you really believe that if those players stay for another season or two that both of those teams would continue to be bad? No. Coaching and experience would make them tough to beat.

Those can be explained by lack of experience. Freshmen having trouble acclimating to the college game as well as just making freshman mistakes. It's a risk that they make with their recruiting strategy. IU isn't lacking in that experience. Besides, this isn't a new issue under Miller.

Yet somehow there is no issue with either coaching or the talent level. How does that work?

Yes, I understand that. You said he would go pro after his freshman year if he didn't go out of HS. Hence the question about 3 years if he chooses to go to school. Re-read my question.

I thought with baseball if the player chose to go to school they had to be there for 3 years before entering the draft. Is that no longer the case?

Miller doesn't even use them all for full time basketball players. Why do you think he would use one for a baseball player?

Also, I don't see Miller using a scholarship on him and I don't see him going without any scholarship. As stated earlier in this thread, those are the choices if he plays basketball - basketball scholarship or no scholarship.

Part of their reaction seems to be due to the fact that it's the new strain which is much more easily transmitted. The ESPN article I just read that was linked in another thread here said "positive tests" which indicates more than one person has it. That article does sound like they're erring on the side of caution but I still think it's likely not just athletes and/or coaches from a single sport that has it but probably someone in the athletic department who could have spread it between sports.

Maybe. Or a tutor. Or some other personnel that is in frequent contact. I have a friend that has worked in Athlete Departments at multiple schools. She was neither of those positions but still interacted with the athletes quite a lot. I'm sure the coaches meet with people in the department on a regular basis so there's probably at least one person there that sees all of them often, as well. The point is that there is nothing "fishy," "odd," or "strange" about this. I'll give you that it's "not normal," but what is normal this season? It makes perfect sense if it's someone in the AD that interacts with many or all the teams in some fashion on a regular basis. If it was a single athlete or coach in a single sport then it might be an overreaction.

Not if it's someone that has regular contact with the athletes and/or coaching staffs of many or all of the sports.

I look at it as an advantage. This is time that can be used to make up for the interrupted off season and abbreviated preseason. They have also have the advantage of having plenty of film for things to work on. They had no games for a week before Iowa and they obviously worked on more than just preparing for them. They looked better in many aspects of the game. Games getting postponed and/or cancelled sucks, but they can use that time to their advantage.

The vote on the change to the transfer rule was delayed again. They'll have to vote on that and the NIL rules sometime but the NCAA will delay for as long as possible. Probably in hope that people forget about them. They've already delayed voting on the transfer rule for a year.