go_iu_bb

247 added an update to his recruiting but it's behind a paywall. The URL does contain IU, Xavier, and Providence but that is just a URL and doesn't really mean anything.

I looked at the gamecast. Purdue had 3 droughts of 4+ minutes. They went on a 6 minute drought after getting that 20 point lead. As we've seen the past few years, it's hard to win games that way, even with a large early lead.

How does he look?

Anyone know how he is? I've seen anywhere from 5'10" to 6'1".

Verbal Commits lists more offers but I think those won't matter as he'll probably end up at Xavier.

https://www.verbalcommits.com/players/leland-walker 247 lists only DePaul and Xavier.

Looks like we still haven't offered according to 247 and verbal commits. I'm going to guess he ends up at Xavier as that's his best offer.

I agree with this. My main problem with it is that it's just another example that if you win enough the rules don't apply to you in college athletics. This is true at the school level (so many examples), conference level (like this), and NCAA level.

What a great win. I'll admit, I wasn't sold before the season began and thought they'd end up 4-4. I was very wrong and this is a very good team. An all around good team on both sides of the ball and special teams which is something IU has been missing.

Wisconsin trails Marquette 35-30 at the half.

Eh, I don't really care how transfers do.

Yes, they are. That's very unusual.

I didn't hear anything. It was just a gut feeling based mostly on him being from Lafayette. I just find it unlikely it would be able to pull another player from there so soon after Phinisee.

I already thought IU was an unlikely destination for him. At least this makes it likely he won't be a Boiler, either.

Yet UI finished 13-7 which was good for 4th place. That means the 2 years prior were even worse than Miller's first 2 so UI made quite an impressive jump which Miller hasn't been able to do. This is your defense? BTW, in this thread you claimed that the difference between 4th and 10th last season was 3 games. It was actually 4.

There are grad transfers and other transfers with immediate eligibility every year that could've filled the shooting void. It's not my job to know all the potential targets, it's the coaching staff's job. You're welcome to look up who all the transfers were before last season and how well they did shooting before the transfer, if you wish. There is probably a thread here somewhere that talks about that. Miller got one the year before (Fitzner) who didn't really work out but I can't fault him for trying. It looked like he either didn't try last year or he completely whiffed on all of them.

I was talking about last season specifically. Hunter was still questionable for the season in regards to how much he'd be able to play and how effective he'd be. Franklin was an incoming freshman who was unlikely to contribute greatly during the season. Sure, they got better as the season went on but, outside of a few games last year, it still wasn't a good shooting team. That caused all kinds of issues on offense. During those 15 games Franklin did shoot well but didn't shoot that much. Only ~1.5 3-point shots per game (22 total shots). That's including 2 games of 5 shots. Outside of those 2 games he was only shooting once per game, which isn't enough to really help. It was expected that would happen entering the season. Or are you saying that you thought last years team actually shot well? Teams didn't pack the lane and IU didn't go on long scoring droughts? Miller had 2 open scholarships which could've been used to more immediately address that glaring weakness.

I agree with you and I hope that the coaching staff is emphasizing that (in a way that is within whatever restrictions they have) to recruits. They could at least point out the size and passion of the IU fan base as well as the resources the AD has already set up to help the athletes.

It does, but if people want to use the excuse of "IU had no shooters" they could maybe explain why they didn't. It wasn't a secret going into last year that it would be a poor shooting team. Yet no shooters were added even with 2 available scholarships. That's a coaching decision so at least part of the blame belongs to Miller.

Yes. And it isn't as though Miller had no available scholarships to use.

I would think more highly of Miller if he had won 74.2% of games overall and 60% in conference last year as opposed to 64.5% and 45%, respectively, that he actually won. I can't speak for Brass Cannon but, yes, that would've done a lot to relieve my doubts. You act as though 3 games isn't much. It's 15% of conference games.

I'm not negative on him but I'm not sold on him, as I've said multiple times. His first three years have not impressed me. Have they impressed you? If so, why? Yes, he has his foundation now. So is thinking that better than 7th place in the B1G in year 4 too much to ask with that foundation and a stud (possibly 2 with Lander)? If so, how much longer does he get with his foundation in place before the team can be realistically expected to see improvements in results and B1G standings? We'll see how he does with Miller and Mohammed but if he doesn't land them, which seems likely at this point, then '21 recruiting doesn't look good. A class in which there was a lot of hype for the state of IN and Miller has been at IU long enough to establish relationships with the recruits. This could still be a great class if he lands those 2. Far from great if he whiffs. If he does whiff do you think that has nothing to do with his first 3 years at IU and how down IU has been during their lifetimes? I think that a 7th place finish in the conference would be disappointing because I think this team is better than that. I've said that multiple times in this thread. How is that "thinking year 4 is already in the toilet"? Round and round we go. You guys can have the last say, I'm tired of this conversation.

You're right. Replacing bad coaches with other bad coaches doesn't help a team have sustained success. Davis was bad then replaced by a good but dirty coach in Sampson. Sampson ended in disaster and was replaced by bad coach Crean. Crean was replaced by Miller. That hire looked good on paper but so far the results have been lacking. Miller may end up being a good hire but it's comical to pretend like the results so far leave no reason for concern. Miller's team have improved each year, true. But they've gone from really bad, to just bad, and last year achieved the level of bad to mediocre. Sure, there have been reasons for those teams to perform badly but many teams have adversity and some of those who are well coached will overcome that. Wisconsin last year. MSU has had some injuries to some of their starters in recent years. Yet they still do well because of good coaching. So what kind timeframe makes sense for judging a coach? Is it really too much to want to see concrete evidence of improvement in year 4 after 3 years of uninspired play without having to delve into the analytics to find it? Lack of results matter to recruits. A lot of players talk about offense so they pay attention to that. IU's under Miller has been disjointed and out of sync. The recruits see that. Recruits also see that IU hasn't really been relevant very often in the time they can remember. Do you think the reasons behind that matter to them? They remember a team that has been bad more often than not with brief bursts of really good only to flare out the next season. I recognize the reasons why IU has been bad for a long time, but I, unlike some, also recognize that the recruits probably don't care about that. They just know that IU hasn't been a consistent winner in their lifetime and still aren't so far under Miller. So I think this year is important. The team needs to start looking like a team and playing better than the sum of its parts. If they do that then they'll finish higher than 7th in the conference. If they don't then recruiting will get even harder.

I'm well aware of what IU has been through the past 20 years. Excuses can be made but results still matter. The point of those posts was to dispute what IU Scott was saying which was essentially that it's unrealistic to expect a team to be able to finish near the top of the B1G every year or at least on a consistent basis. Those numbers show that 2 teams have been able to do that for 20 years, with a few more not every year but still consistently. The 10 year numbers in the post you quoted aren't a good range, either? That is the span of time that the players IU is now recruiting will be able to remember and most closely reflect the current B1G. 1 of the 2 teams that has finished in the top 4 of the B1G in 9/10 seasons had a coaching change in that time, as did IU. Crean either finished 1st in the conference or outside of the top 4. I'm sorry if the numbers don't look good, but the fact is that IU hasn't been very good recently. That is the IU the recruits know. I hope everything works out and this team plays well consistently and that carries over into future teams. That type of consistency has been missing at IU for a long time.

I agree with a lot of your points here except for a couple. While I agree that we know what to expect at this point from Brunk and Durham, Franklin was just a freshman last year and showed flashes of good play. So I don't think we can say we know what he brings this year as it he could make a jump in productivity. It also sounds like Galloway is doing really well in practice so we might get more out of him than you expect.