go_iu_bb

I was open to the possibility but it turns out I'm correct. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_Division_I#Rules_for_multi-sport_athletes

Athletes who play football always receive a football scholarship (or no scholarship) regardless of other sports they play.

I'm not positive and might be wrong but I don't think he could walk-on to the basketball team and then have scholarship for baseball. I think he would be required to have a basketball scholarship or no scholarship at all.

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.