olsontex

Nice detailed article with video illustrations on how TJD could find his place with the Warriors. An uphill battle no doubt, but the subtle skills on display in the summer league were the type of "little things" that matter for carving out a career as a non-spacer big. https://www.goldenstateofmind.com/2023/7/18/23798598/warriors-summer-league-2023-trayce-jackson-davis-film-breakdown

Yes, now that's what I'm talking about. May not be as splashy a get as Love but fits the need from a lineup construction perspective much better. How much eligibility left?

Since Caleb Love appears to be the only prospect above the surface right now, thought I'd throw my two cents in. I don't have a problem with Love as a basketball player (although there's reason for concern regarding him as a "player" player). I attribute his poor season more towards the dysfunctional NC offense. Nor do I doubt the ability of CMW to get him to buy into an off-ball role and playing within a team concept. If for whatever reason Love can't adapt or becomes a disruptive presence, there are simple remedies: (1) bury him on the bench or (2) dismiss him. I'm not worried about the optics of the worst case scenario because Love's negative reputation is widely known (whether deserved or not). However, I still would prefer IU to pass on Love for two reasons: 1) We have 1 remaining scholarship and our only glaring need is a high percentage / moderate volume outside shooter. I don't think that's Love's forte. 2) It's difficult to balance the minutes of 8-9 worthy players, never mind 13 players. The jury is still out on Gunn and we haven't even seen Cupps and Newton in action yet. I'd prefer to see the minutes Love would consume go to the development of these players (who could be important for maintaining some semblance of continuity next year). Unless we are able to land a 1-year rental who fills the specific need of the current roster, I think we should bank the scholarship and play with 12 guys. For what it's worth I'm higher than most on Galloway as the 5th scoring option, and the more I watch Cupps in-game-action the more I believe he has the physical and mental maturity to hold his own as a freshman.

Who gets up this early, checks a board, and makes a post??? Oh, wait... never mind.

That's what I was thinking, though I might lean towards a "1A and 1B" perspective. He has a year of experience playing on one the better teams from last season. While he isn't the consistent outside threat we desperately need, he would still be a highly valuable offensive asset. At 6'8" he also has the length to be a disruptive element on the def side. (I think) it's unlikely he stays in the draft, and now that he's entered the portal I hope CMW is putting on the full court press.

Julian Phillips? He was a hot target for IU not too long ago.

If you don't have at least 2 ex-wives by your 50s... you haven't been doing it right.

Hopefully a helpful suggestion -> maybe we should start a new thread titled "Transfers With IU Interest". P.S. I apologize if someone already made this suggestion, somewhere over the last 8-10 pages I couldn't F-ing take it anymore so I stopped reading.

Words is hard.... laughing with you, not at you.

One Swedish Penis Pump, one receipt for Swedish Penis Pump signed by Austin Powers... Wait a tic, how did that get in here? It's not mine baby... I swear it!

I know... I honestly start each post thinking, "This time is going to be different for sure! I know I can write a post of reasonable length.". But I fail every time. I want to be like the other kids but I just can't do it.

Happy to see confirmation that I wasn't over-reaching with my statement. It wasn't an accident I listed the impressive performance sans TJD and Bates as my first takeaway. TJD is obviously #1 in the rotation and Bates is likely #5/#6 and no lower than #7. When we slide everyone else down to slot these guys in, some exciting dynamics emerge. The fact that our two 5* freshman appear ready to make immediate contributions is of course another major factor. I don't want to write another long post so I'll cut it off at mentioning six of these dynamics (but there are more and despite my intention this post still won't end up all that short). Two colliding line-up considerations: (1) The chemistry Schifino and Reneau bring in from HS was evident against Marion. (2) Race Thompson was our 3rd most important contributor last year and is poised to be just as valuable in 22-23. By all rights Race should be a starter, but if Schifino ends up starting (which I think he will) then perhaps having Race anchor the 2nd unit along side Bates and Geronimo could be a potent combination (and lead to higher utilization than if Race were the 3rd or 4th option as a starter). Otherwise, pairing up Schifino and Reneau in the 2nd Unit could be interesting. However, it's not my preference - I want to see TJD and Reneau on the floor together, and leads to dynamic #2... TJD is going to attract a lot of defensive attention (double teams). If Reneau's performance is indicative facing the 3 former D1 players mentioned by IUFLA, he's going to be hard to defend 1-on-1 too. Two big men on the floor at the same time who can't be handled without committing multiple defenders, is a mouth-watering implication. It directly leads to dynamic #3... No slight against Miller Kopp, his outside shooting will be critical this year. But he's not one of our 5 best players. However, he's ideally suited to be in the starting five as the primary kick-out option. Whether an opponent has to leave him open to stop penetration from Xavier or Schifino, or to double TJD or Reneau, Kopp is set up to feast on catch-and-shoots. To get it out of the way, my definition of a 2nd Unit isn't a full 5 player package simultaneously checking in. It's a core of 3.5 players who consistently play as a package, supplemented by staggered starters and a few minutes from players in the 10-12 rotation slots. At this stage, I think the Top 8 players in IU's rotation are TJD, Xavier, Race, Schefino, Bates, Reneau, Kopp, and Geronimo. Regardless of who starts, if the team remains relatively healthy 5 players will get minutes in the 25-30 range, 3 players in the 15-21 min range, and a spark player in the 7-10 min range (he's the .5 in the 3.5 core). A total of 9 players will get consistent minutes, which is no different than most teams. A handful of teams have starters who are elite enough to carry the load on their own but this isn't the norm. For a vast majority of teams the difference maker will be the strength of their 2nd Unit, especially when considering the impact of foul trouble or injuries. I won't go so far as to say no team has a 9 player rotation as strong as IU, but I will say no other team is coming to mind. The aforementioned "spark/energy" player is the #9 player in the rotation. The profile of my ideal spark player: suited for position-less basketball, tough/fearless, and possesses a high motor. I think the most likely candidate is Galloway. Here's the thing about energy players -> the role is intended to deliver a short stretch of highly productive minutes. The impact may be measured in tangible stats, it may be simply shifting momentum, or igniting the effort of teammates during a stretch of waning energy level. Either way, it requires the player to go balls-to-the-wall for their entire stretch on the floor, and it's unsustainable past a certain minutes threshold. Across 15 games in 21-22, Galloway was essentially the 6th man and averaged 21.5 MPG. That's a workload more than double what I consider the sweet-spot for a spark player, and would likely be the root cause for anyone questioning his suitability. I've seen stretches from Galloway that leave no doubt in my mind he's the right guy for this type of role. It's not that I question his ability to function in a higher rotation slot, but unfortunately there are 8 guys who are likely in front of him at the moment. Finally, the rest of IU's scholarship players aren't exactly chopped liver. We've endured plenty of seasons were "oh no... coach is sending in John Doe" has popped in our minds. In my initial message I mentioned liking the long-term potential of Duncomb and Gunn, but I see no reason they can't make meaningful contributions this season. I also like aspects of Leal's game and consider him in the Top 12 for 22-23, but at the moment I'm having a hard time pin-pointing his specific role for this season. Banks didn't leave as strong of an initial impression as his class mates in the Marion game but it would be ludicrous at this stage to discount the potential of a rangy 6'8" forward to provide something in 2023. I don't think many teams have the luxury of 4 players of this caliber and diverse skill-sets sitting at the end of their bench. My expectations are justifiably high for the first time in a long time.

Agreed. That's a large part of what I was alluding to about Race Thompson. If he can become a legitimate 3P threat this year, it will really help our floor spacing... and allow our slashers to do what they do best. As for Xavier Johnson, he hit a respectable 37% of his 3's last year but I think he's at his best attacking the basket. Of the guards who will be in the rotation, Xavier is still arguably our best 3P shooter though.

So many college B-Ball dynamics have changed since I graduated in the early 90s, I wonder sometimes if my perspectives are still accurate. While far from comprehensive, some of the big changes include: Roster fluidity stemming from the ease and high frequency of transfers Pessimistic perspective on "NBA prospects" who stay past sophomore season (and upperclassmen in general) Impact of NIL on school commitment decisions (along with AAU and shoe affiliations) Ego-inflating aspect of social media - in the "old days" players dreamed of going pro, now every player is convinced they're NBA bound My enthusiasm and support for IU Basketball hasn't waned over the years but my expectation for IU performance has become fairly pessimistic (I think I'm a realist). Is this the year I'll have a reason to become optimistic again? Before addressing the takeaway that motivated my first post in quite a while, I'd like to mention a few surface-level thoughts from the Marion exhibition. Some D2 teams are relatively competitive and some not-so-much. Marion is a good D2 team, but even if they belonged in the "not-so-much" category, there are elements of the game uncorrelated to the competition (open shooting, communication, cohesiveness, unselfishness, energy/effort, etc.). I'd argue these intangible elements are of equal importance to raw talent and athleticism, and in my opinion IU's performance was entirely positive. My thoughts: Since Jackson-Davis and Bates missed the game, we were given a good look at IU's depth. Let's pretend for a moment these two stars aren't on the team. On every level, the IU team on the floor looked capable of making noise in the NCAA tournament, even without TJD and Bates. Some teams have a bench and some have a SECOND UNIT (the key word is UNIT). While the difference is tied to familiarity, repetition, buy-in, and cohesiveness, there's a prerequisite needed to transition from a bench -> to a unit. That component is depth. I can't remember the last time I've seen an IU team this deep. In an era of dunks and 3's the mid-range jumper is a lost art. It's no less important though. Schifino's mid-range game really caught my attention. At times his handle made me a bit nervous but I'll chalk it up to nerves at this stage. IU has reeled in it's share of highly-touted big men over the years but more than a few have been busts. Before this game, it was hard to get a sense of Reneau, given his late recruitment. We shouldn't over-react to one game vs. a D2, but all I have to say is wow... just wow. I think I've underestimated Race Thompson's full skillset over the past few seasons. IU has the personnel in 22-23 for a potent offense, and the flexibility to focus either inside or outside based on match-ups. This certainly hasn't been the case for a while. IU's strength last year was defense, no logical reason to expect a relapse this year. OK, time to address my post-header. Over the years I've admired the "over-achieving" teams that Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota have fielded on occasion. They proved a collection of less heralded 3-Stars could take down teams loaded with stars when the right elements are in place. I eventually recognized the impact of experienced role players was a large reason for their success - and they weren't "over-achieving". They were benefiting from contributions made by players who didn't come in B10 ready but developed into B10 players by their junior or senior season. Is that still a possibility in the transfer age? I don't know, but if it is I saw one emerge last year (Galloway) and two more hit the radar in the Marion game. Duncomb isn't the most fluid or graceful player but he certainly demonstrated momentum changing effort and energy. He defended well, rebounded well, and showed a competent offensive game. Gunn was also impressive, playing solid defense and knocking down contested 3's. I hope both stick around if they receive low minutes this year because I think they could be valuable in the future.

Quick, shifty, next-level passer... yes please. After Clowney, Fears has got to be our next #1 priority recruit in my opinion. Don't mean to sell Kaleb Glenn short (I hope we get him too), but everything starts at PG and IU's current/committed PG's are all unlikely to stay more than two years (including Lander). I think by the end of the season Lander will have either established himself as the 5 star NBA bound player he was projected to become (or at least headed in that direction) or he will transfer for a change of scenery. My hope is we have him for 2 more seasons and he becomes a 1st Round pick. Obviously time will tell for Bates and Hood-Schifino but I don't think I need to comment on their current trajectories. In case anyone is questioning my classification of Bates or Hood-Schifino as PGs, I should add that I don't consider the guy who brings the ball up the court or guards the other team's "PG" to be the PG. For me it's whoever is directing the offense in a half-court set and I expect it to be these two guys if Lander doesn't establish himself.

This video is from a few months ago, hadn't seen it before. My biggest take-away was that he plays under control and with purpose. He also seems physically tougher than a lot of his peers in this game. * I would be remiss not to mention I was a LOT more impressed with Leland Walker (247 #170) than I thought I'd be. He certainly passes the eye test against D1 talent. Unranked 3* Pete Suder also showed out well. Given the number of fairly high rated recruits in this game it's a good reminder of how little separates players in the 80-100 range from many guys outside of the Top 150. I'm not suggesting we target them but impressed none the less.

Completely agree. In fact, I think just about all of the ranked B10 teams seemed 1-2 spots lower than I expected (Penn State maybe 3-4 spots). The knock on OSU is youth and new QB??? Take a look at a majority of the other top ranked schools and you could say the same thing about them. New QBs - #1 Alabama, #3 Clemson, #5 Ohio State, and #6 Texas A&M. OSU is no different than these schools in terms of reloading with an elite recruiting class year after year. My Top 5 +1 and Big 10 reshuffling would be: 1 - Alabama (until it's shown their reload isn't superior to everyone else year-after-year I can't discount them) 2 - Georgia (return pretty much everybody) 3 - Ohio State (very similar to Clemson except OSU has a defense) 4 - Texas A&M (least QB reliant power program in the country, host Alabama and Auburn this year) 5 - Clemson (very similar to OSU except they don't have a defense) 6 - Oklahoma (weak schedule, host both Iowa State and Texas) 14 (up from 16) - Wisconsin (a much better team than their 4-3 COVID ravaged 2020 showing) 15 (up from 20) - Penn State (2020 pre-season #8 before everything unraveled, another deep and loaded team in '21) 16 (up from 17) - Indiana (tough schedule, added more talent than lost, survive Iowa+Cincinnati and this is too low 19 (down from 18) - Iowa (not a slight - couldn't bump Miami any further) 25 (unranked) - Northwestern (sorry Louisiana) Other BIG 10 teams with potential to crack Top 25 - Minnesota and Michigan Reality Check SEC: At the end of the season it would be extremely tough for 3 SEC teams to remain in the Top 4. I seriously considered ranking Georgia ahead of Alabama. If the new Aggie QB pans out, this might be the year they beat Alabama. LSU seems a bit high at #14. BIG 12: Oklahoma is going to start the season 3-4 spots higher than #6 and has a reasonable chance of running the table. They're going to stay in the Top 3 until they lose. Doesn't mean I have to give them credit for hype and a weak schedule. Iowa State might be a much bigger threat to OU than some realize. ACC: Clemson's ranking speaks a lot to past performance... with Trevor Lawrence at QB. They might be too high at #3 or #5 and it would not be a surprise if North Carolina wins the ACC and ends up in the Top 5. Miami might have the talent to dethrone Clemson but they open with Alabama and don't play Clemson in the regular season. PAC 12: Oregon and USC will be ranked reasonably high to start the season, keeping them in CFP striking range. Oregon hosts Ohio State and USC travels to Notre Dame. If the PAC 12 schools lose these games the conference will be buried and likely locked out of the playoffs. If they win is it enough to regain the amount of respect needed to re-enter the playoff landscape? BIG 10: Despite the rankings, smallest talent gap between Ohio State and everyone else in recent years. The relatively low starting position for the rest of the BIG 10 might be problematic for post season positioning. There is no clear cut #2 team in the conference to start the season. A 1 loss season by anyone not named Ohio State will not be enough to make the playoffs. Group of 5: Three Group of 5 teams made the ESPN Pre-Season Top 25. I'd categorize two as good teams being rewarded for strong 2020 seasons. However, Cincinnati is on a different level and with road games against Notre Dame and Indiana they'll have a chance to prove it. The sad thing is an undefeated season including two statement wins still might not be enough to matter for post season opportunity.

ESPN College Football Power Rankings - Season Kickoff (Aug 3, 2021) A surprisingly high amount of love given to IU from this crew (which included former OSU stud Joey Galloway). Here are the timestamps for the three primary discussions on Indiana if you don't feel like sitting through the entire 45 minutes: 10:16 Top 5 Returning QBs - Penix was one of a handful of names mentioned in "others" 19:21 Top 25 - #17 Indiana 21:15 More IU commentary (discussion was a lot more in depth than most of the other teams in Top 25) Big 10 schools in the Top 25 #20 Penn State, #18 Iowa, #17 Indiana, #16 Wisconsin, #5 Ohio State Other Notables #11 Cincinnati, #9 Notre Dame, #7 Iowa State

If things go reasonably well for James on the field, I have a feeling he's going to become a fan favorite. I can't pinpoint exactly what is, but there's something really likeable this kid.

Agreed, we've strung together a couple of nice seasons but it will take a few more before sports writers and fans take IU seriously. I don't think the opposition programs share their opinion (unfortunately no more sneaking up on anyone). I can understand the fans bias/ignorance, and even the motivation of local market writers, but I don't appreciate the agenda/shallow research of national sports writers. I don't mind the program flying under the radar until the point comes that it impacts CFP and bowl placements. It doesn't seem to be hurting IU recruiting at all.

She reminds me of Molly Shannon.. and you can bet she didn't need anyone to tell her the record and setup the passive aggressive slight. It's no exaggeration that people (all people) around here follow their flavor of college and high school football in the same way most people in Indiana feel about basketball. The difference is it's WAY more fragmented here than in Indiana. There is no such thing as the "Texas TV Market". There's about 10 of them. We're also a rather politically corrupt state, and you can bet that if this committee had a path to punishing UT they'd do it in a heartbeat.

I got my MBA at SMU and I literally live across the street from the campus. I can throw fruit from my front yard and hit SMU players on their practice field. As for Michigan State, I spent 5 years of my childhood in East Lansing during the Kirk Gibson and Magic Johnson era. I can still taste the hot chocolate and not feel my toes. As for TCU and Texas A&M, both of my sisters went to TCU and a majority of the rest of family are Aggies. It's just easier not to root against them. Plus I have to root for somebody to upset the order of things in the SEC, and outside of Vanderbilt, the Aggies are the least offensive option.

a few questions that need clarity before looking towards the future. 1) Why is the SEC the dominant football conference. could this change in the foreseeable future? a) Superior in-region recruiting talent: 139/247 2022 recruits (56%) Could this change? Unlikely The root dynamics of weather and cultural priorities are responsible, both unlikely to change b) BCS/CFP era performance: 11 of last 15 Champs (4 different teams) Could this change? Yes In the first 8 BCS years the SEC won just 1 Championship. Over the 17 years preceding BCS the SEC was the Champion just once. Let me re-state this. In the 25 seasons preceding the SEC's dominant 15 year run, the SEC won only 2 National Championships. It may seem hard right now to envision the SEC slipping a bit back to Earth but at some point it's likely to happen. Just ask the Yankees, Cowboys, or UCLA/PAC12 Basketball. c) Recruiting success: I'm going to largely leave this for a future topic. For now, I'll just say kids are getting more savvy every year and the ability to access important information for decision making is also getting easier every year. Every scholarship recruit is of course going to the NFL. Alabama's 3rd string could start for most programs in the country and gain far more notoriety as the big fish in a medium sized pond. How did it work out last year for Alabama's draft hopefuls? Fantastic for the 6 superstars drafted in the 1st Round, not so great for the rest of their NFL hopefuls as only 4 more Alabama players were drafted from the 2nd Round on. I have to believe there were plenty more who would have had a decent shot in a less crowded situation, and I also believe kids are going to catch on to this in the very near future. I think this is part of the reason Curry is legitimately considering IU. d) TV exposure and revenue: Could this change? Yes - see 4) below 2) Is the completely football centric nature of this situation warping my (your) perspective? Absolutely. I definitely care about IU football but in order of importance to me: value/status of IU degree, IU basketball, then IU football. As long as moves aren't made that potentially lower the value of my degrees, lower the profile of IU basketball, or exclude IU from a shot at the CFP, this realignment situation is nothing more than a minor frustration from a handful of greedy old men wrecking another national institution. If given the choice to add Stanford/Cal-Berkeley/Virginia/Duke or Alabama/Clemson/Georgia/Florida State to the Big10 - give me the first group. Keeping it just sports related, by now we are all fully aware of just how dominant football economics are in this situation. But what does that have to do with the relative importance of football vs. basketball for the fan base? It's not like I need to curb my enthusiasm by 73.53% to match the ratio of football to basketball revenue generation. Sure, there's no chance basketball will ever equal football popularity in a conference like the SEC. However, I see very little chance of SEC domination in football impacting the quality of basketball in parts of the country where the two sports are on more equal footing. 3) What actually defines "success" for me (you) in terms of college football and the bigger overall picture? I'm not a college football fan, I'm an IU and SMU Football fan. I also like Michigan State, TCU, and Texas A&M enough to hope they do well. Success occurs when IU has a winning record, gets in a decent bowl game, and is at least part of the national conversation. Sure I'd love them to be in the CFP but falling short doesn't wipe out my enjoyment. The bigger picture? Don't cheapen my degree and give me something to talk about around the water cooler no matter where in the country I may be... that won't lead to a dismissive response. 4) Is there a longer term inevitability that will make most of the current realignment issues obsolete? There is no question in my mind. The current kingmakers of college football (ESPN) could care less about tradition, impacts on universities, or anything else without a $ sign in front of it. The fact that we've devolved to a point where an outside commercial entity determines the fate of college athletics is unfathomably F'd Up, but it is reality. TV sports share of viewers has been declining for years and not just in football. This makes year-over-year comparisons less meaningful. However, comparing two games in close time proximity is still reasonable. Consider these two pairs of examples from the 2021 BCS: 1) National Championship: 18.65 M viewers (Alabama vs. Ohio St), Semi Final: 19.15 M viewers (Clemson vs. Ohio St) The less meaningful game without an SEC team was the bigger draw. Not a fluke, the Clemson-OSU game also beat Alabama's Semi Final match-up against Notre Dame (18.89 M viewers) . 2) Cotton Bowl: 5.9 M viewers (Florida vs. Oklahoma), Fiesta Bowl: 6.7 M viewers (Oregon vs. Iowa St) Once again, the game without an SEC team was the bigger draw. This one is particularly eye opening, given the massive pedigree and the perception of Florida and Oklahoma's national popularity. What it speaks to the most is CASUAL fans aren't even tuning in for marquee match-ups of "storied" programs... while on Christmas vacation and trapped at home because of a pandemic! This is a classic inelastic demand problem. So how would one go about forecasting schools with the highest potential TV rating? Here's the formula: Step 1: 10 Yr W-L / # Conf schools bordering state + total jersey sale revenue.... MINUS the entire left-hand side of whatever uncorrelated or perception-based B.S. I throw into this part of the equation Step 2: Find a list ranking the size of the current student base and alumni base by school Step 3: Ignore step 1, consider the potential non-student interest level in the local market (<100 miles) or any unique special interest stories, base 90% of your TV viewership forecast on Step 2. ESPN, Fox, Amazon, Facebook, and every other potential platform with interest in airing games know this. They also know the timezone difference and lack of familiarity with programs West of the Rockies greatly curtails the level of interest around the rest of the country. They know this challenge is unlikely to change without regularly scheduled games with schools East of the Rockies. They also know the games need to actually be meaningful, rivalries need to be ignited, and match-up repitition needs to occur for long-term interest to stick. I'd imagine stakeholders aren't going to be satisfied with "stopping the bleeding" of sagging ratings, they expect growth just like any other business. It's inevitable that coast-to-coast conference alignments are coming in the future to expand the pie.

Is this new, really really old, or just a mistake? Prior to just now seeing IU listed as 1 of 4 "warm" schools, I don't remember seeing anything about Dante Anderson. https://247sports.com/player/dante-anderson-46058581/

For those living in Indiana who have connections with coaches/scouts/etc., is there a perception one way or the other on potential bias in recruit ratings/rankings, PRIOR to commitment to a school (we already know bias exists AFTER but for different and intentional motivations)? I would be a bit surprised if there was any intentional bias prior to commitment. However, I can see potential for kids from Indiana to be ranked slightly lower than their peers in football hotbeds. The most obvious reasons being lack of exposure and in-person scouting. Another potential reason might be perceptions on the relative level of competition (compared to a state like Florida), which would also encompass "State X" doesn't have a very good track record of developing high level players at a specific position. If any of these thoughts have validity, I'd think it's the skill position recruits most likely to be underestimated. I had a somewhat related thought on recruits in states known for producing linemen. When skilled 6'5 285 linemen aren't out of the ordinary within a particular region, it would be easy to lose sight that they would be out of the ordinary and "special" in many other parts of country. To make this a little less abstract, What's the likelihood that #63WR Omar Cooper would be the #38 ranked WR in the class if he played in Georgia or Florida? What's the likelihood that #889 Bray Lynch would be the #603 overall recruit in the class if he played in Indiana?