go_iu_bb

I didn't look at all of them but I did notice that you still have an old Composite rating for Trey Kaufman.

6'4" 185 lb from St John's Catholic Prep in Maryland. Doesn't appear to be ranked by 247 or Rivals at this time. Not a lot of info about him out there. https://www.si.com/college/indiana/recruiting/indiana-offers-2022-guard-masai-troutman

And fans will lose their minds if he is offered but doesn't accept on the spot as they have for a few other recruits.

Scott, everyone is aware of where you stand on players staying in college and your opinion on it doesn't change. What also doesn't change is that it makes more sense financially for first round draft picks to get to the pros as early as possible. The window for being paid to play isn't large and even playing overseas they will earn much more than the cost of a degree.

I didn't see him until I saw your post.

Certainly sounds very good from your article. I'm curious, is he old for his class or just an early bloomer?

https://www.thedailyhoosier.com/iu-basketball-recruiting-class-of-2023-jalen-hooks-is-playing-up-two-years-and-on-track-to-be-a-star/

I have YouTube TV and I really like it. The UI is good plus unlimited DVR. They just raised their price from $50 to $65, though, which makes it quite a bit more expensive than the streaming alternatives.

Who did end up at IU even if it wasn't as quick of a commitment as anticipated by some.

Do you believe rich alumni might be more willing to give him a job if he comes back for another year rather than going pro now? He's already been great. Among the honors he's already received are B1G POY and 1st team All-American. You don't think he's an Iowa legend already?

Probably not very often. Maybe the year Kojak Fuller won? I don't remember what the overall talent level of that class was, though.

Leal and Galloway now around 120-130 depending on if it's 247 or 247 composite. They were around 100 before, I think.

They are pretty new rules. This is either the first or second draft for which they've been in effect.

They can now hire an agent and retain eligibility as long as the agent is NCAA approved. They can even go through the draft and return if they're not drafted.

When Adam Silver talked about it, he said he expected it to be changed before the '22 draft. This was last year or '18.

Considering the whole sentence is basically a violent beat down of the English language, it very well could be.

Yes, you are confused. What's being said in this thread is not that we should have passed. No one is saying that it's a bad commitment nor are they saying that it's bad due to no outside shot.

Interest had been shown for PG Braden Smith (currently unranked). I don't believe he's been offered yet.

It's so odd to me to have people arguing against bigs increasing their shooting range. The more versatile any player is, the more that helps them and the team. Big men, especially, who can shoot or play down low create real match up problems for the defenders. And if they can also put it on the floor and/or pass well they are all but unstoppable. They can pull rim protectors away from the basket giving the guards and wings the option to drive or shoot. A versatile big puts a lot of stress on the defense. They don't even have to shoot a lot of 3s, just show that they're willing to and very capable of hitting them. And if they're going to develop range, it makes more sense to extend that range out to 3-point range than just a long 2. It's more efficient plus defenses might be willing to let the big men shoot and possibly hit a few long 2s per game while they would certainly try to defend the 3. Like I said above, if a team can force another team to shoot long 2s, they have a chance to win.

Touche. You are correct but my point stands that it is still not a good shot and certainly not the best shot. And I did say "about the worst." 😉

The thing about analytics is they don't care how you, me, or anyone else feels. They're based on actual numbers from actual games played. The 12'-15' jump shot is about the worst shot you can take. It counts the same as a dunk, layup, or shot from 2' away but is hit at a much lower percentage. It might be hit at a higher percentage than a 3-pointer but not enough to compensate that the 3-pointer is also worth 50% more. It was true "back in the day" and it's still true now that if you force a team to shoot a lot of long range 2-pointers you're more likely than not going to win the game. It wasn't called "analytics" back then (at least not as a widely used term that normal fans knew) but Pitino's Kentucky teams were one of the first to employ this style of play or, at least, the most well known and successful with it. I remember watching the games and the announcers talking about how he wanted his team to either get dunks or shoot a 3. That was 30 years ago so it isn't a new thing to college basketball but is ubiquitous now and was uncommon then.

I read he's a 64% FT shooter. Definitely something I hope he improves on.

Davis didn't live up to his potential out of high school due to injuries, not from trying to hit shots he shouldn't have been taking. He showed that he did have a nice mid-range game but didn't shoot a lot of those. Most of his shots still came from close. If he had been able to stay healthy and work on his game instead of rehabilitating I think he could've developed a nice 3-point shot. This would've totally changed the way other teams guarded him. I would also point out that part of the problem with the offense this season is that there was often 3 players on the floor at the same time who can't hit a shot from more than 5 feet away. Coupled with guards who also had a hard time hitting their shots consistently, this lead to the paint getting packed. If one of the bigs had more range that would've helped alleviate this issue.

Last year Adam Silver said it would likely be gone before the '22 draft.

On another site one guy posted a table he had made which broke down recruiting ranking vs success in the NBA over a recent period of 9 years. He defined success as $5M+ in NBA pay. Now, NBA success doesn't always equal NCAA success and even the $5M is an arbitrary value but he had to define it somehow. So not a perfect measure but still interesting and telling. The most successful group was 1-5 (by a large margin), followed by 6-10, 11-20, 21-30, 31-40 in that order. 40+ the numbers were inconsistent in the way he grouped them but were close enough that I think they can be grouped together and all were less than these other groups in front of them. So while on an individual basis the rankings might not be accurate, overall they do a decent job of predicting success in the NBA. And I'd rather have multiple guys on the team with decent chances of having NBA careers vs a bunch that have little to no chance. The sweat spot would be guys that are ranked high but not too high so there is a good chance that they're in school 2 years, preferably 3 or even 4 years before having successful professional careers.