Jump to content

Pitino: Adidas Won Battle to Keep Romeo Langford


Recommended Posts

The NCAA should take steps to eliminate the power of the shoe companies.  Phase in policy that makes a player that partipates in AAU ball ineligible.  Ban universities from having apparrel contracts.  I realixe these are extreme, but it is going to require that level of policy to truly force a change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 197
  • Created
  • Last Reply
5 minutes ago, CauseThatsMyDJ said:

Back to the subject matter. Going off topic is fine, getting into a personal spat is not.

Thank you.

And, as a bit of constructive criticism, why is it that whenever a thread gets steered off into the weeds (way OT) it always seems to be with the involvement of administrators? (see the Juwan Morgan/Damon Bailey/Dennis Rodman thread as an example).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Indykev said:

This is the system. You want to start an AAU team, you go to the Shoe companies who run most events and ask for money. Not sure why all the drama. If you have good players lined up you have a bidding war and your kids eat better than McDonlds on the road.

Definitely how the system works, and there’s nothing wrong with it per se.  That being said, you really think that’s all that Langford got out of it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the current climate around Adidas and college basketball with the FBI. I have a hard time believing IU or any Adidias school would do something unsavory. It would just be stupid. Sounds like folks are trying to get some clicks in the off season using one of the highest ranked kids choosing from all Adidas schools. 

 

Also, if we are getting more and more 5 stars expect more stories like this one. Unfortunately it seems to come with the territory with highly regarded kids. I trust this staff until they give me a reason not to and I trust the Langford's wouldn't jeopardize their childs eligibility with something like this. I'm not losing any sleep over it. I just think we as IU fans expect the other shoe to drop  with some negative news. Here's hoping we have years of continued recruiting and on court success to ease some of your minds 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

For me basketball was way better in the 80's and 90's especially the college game.  You can have your opinion just like I can have mine.

The basketball may have been better, but GSW would smoke any team from those eras. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, FW_Hoosier said:

Definitely how the system works, and there’s nothing wrong with it per se.  That being said, you really think that’s all that Langford got out of it?

Until other wise proven, yes. Mr.Langford said he didnt even handle the money. So follow the paper trail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Zuckerkorn said:

Thank you.

And, as a bit of constructive criticism, why is it that whenever a thread gets steered off into the weeds (way OT) it always seems to be with the involvement of administrators? (see the Juwan Morgan/Damon Bailey/Dennis Rodman thread as an example).

Some of the most entertaing threads on this board are ones that go off topic.  If i want hards news, I'll read it from a news source.  I do agree with DJ in the sense that personsl attacks are not needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

I find some of you young guys who make fun of the past and don't think anything back then was of quality even though you never saw the game back then.  Some of us older guys who have seen both eras are more qualified to judge what is the best.  yes the kids today are bigger and stronger and more athletic but to me that doesn't describe a great basketball player to me.  Also there were plenty of players back in the day who was very athletic but some of you who don't do any research wouldn't know that.  Players like David Thompson, Larry Nance, D. Wilkens, MJ are just a few who were as good of athletes that you see today.

Along with big, faster, stronger and jumping higher, you forgot they can shoot and handle the ball better. And that they can't grab guys on defense to guard those bigger, faster, stronger players. 

Also, you probably are unaware due to your disdain for all things post 1990, but there are methods out there to watch older games. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

Along with big, faster, stronger and jumping higher, you forgot they can shoot and handle the ball better. And that they can't grab guys on defense to guard those bigger, faster, stronger players. 

Also, you probably are unaware due to your disdain for all things post 1990, but there are methods out there to watch older games. 

I would disagree with the shooting and ball handling.  Just because people did not shoot the 3 as much does not mean they were not better shooters.  Thompson and Curry are great shooters and are some of the best but they are not any better than Bird was.

 

I have watched plenty of games on Youtube and some of you might want to do that as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, IU Scott said:

Nope they would be the 4th team in that era behind the Lakers, Celtics and Bulls

The great Bulls teams weren't even in the same era as the Lakers and Celtics great teams? 

And I'm sorry, but the Warriors would absolutely take a dump on those teams. They're more athletic and have three of the top 10 shooters to ever play. The Bulls, Celtics and Lakers didn't have three guys combined who could hit from 30' like the Dubs do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IU Scott said:

For me basketball was way better in the 80's and 90's especially the college game.  You can have your opinion just like I can have mine.

I agree that college was better, mainly just because the best players were in college for 3-4 years, so of course the product was better. But, the NBA the last 10 years is as good as it's been since the 80's and way better than the 90's. Other than romanticizing what MJ was, the 90's weren't really that great. The NBA the last 10 years has been fantastic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kareem, Magic and Worthy were all voted the top 50 of all time and the Celtics had McHale, Bird and Parrish who were also voted the top 50 of all time.  if you had to play the 80's and 90's rules where Curry and Thompson could be man handled then they would not be as effective.  If you had to play today's soft game then the Warriors would have a chance to win a series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Zuckerkorn said:

Thank you.

And, as a bit of constructive criticism, why is it that whenever a thread gets steered off into the weeds (way OT) it always seems to be with the involvement of administrators? (see the Juwan Morgan/Damon Bailey/Dennis Rodman thread as an example).

Because its our site and we do what we want. :coffee: I'll take your Criticism to the mod board and give us all 3 lashes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, IU Scott said:

I would disagree with the shooting and ball handling.  Just because people did not shoot the 3 as much does not mean they were not better shooters.  Thompson and Curry are great shooters and are some of the best but they are not any better than Bird was.

 

I have watched plenty of games on Youtube and some of you might want to do that as well.

Yes, Bird probably could shoot on their level. He is one guy on the three teams you mentioned and he didn't shoot from 30'. Larry Bird, for his career, was a 37% three point shooter on a volumous two attempts per game. 

Steph Curry hit more threes in a two year period, on fewer attempts, than Larry Bird did in his entire career..... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, IU Scott said:

Kareem, Magic and Worthy were all voted the top 50 of all time and the Celtics had McHale, Bird and Parrish who were also voted the top 50 of all time.  if you had to play the 80's and 90's rules where Curry and Thompson could be man handled then they would not be as effective.  If you had to play today's soft game then the Warriors would have a chance to win a series.

Steph and KD will both end up top 20, if not top 10 players. Draymond and Klay could very well end up top 50. 

And your point with the refs.... "if the refs allowed the teams to tackle the better team they could win."  Basketball is not football, asserting a team is better because they can beat the hell out of someone is absolute nonsense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

Kareem, Magic and Worthy were all voted the top 50 of all time and the Celtics had McHale, Bird and Parrish who were also voted the top 50 of all time.  if you had to play the 80's and 90's rules where Curry and Thompson could be man handled then they would not be as effective.  If you had to play today's soft game then the Warriors would have a chance to win a series.

Some of those guys from that "50 greatest players" list would be pushed off the list if they redid it. Clearly LeBron, Kobe, Duncan, Wade, KD and a few others would be on it now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Indykev said:

Because its our site and we do what we want. :coffee: I'll take your Criticism to the mod board and give us all 3 lashes.

Give Blue a few extra.  There has to be some way to justify it.  I'll come up with one for you if you need me to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, KoB2011 said:

Steph and KD will both end up top 20, if not top 10 players. Draymond and Klay could very well end up top 50. 

And your point with the refs.... "if the refs allowed the teams to tackle the better team they could win."  Basketball is not football, asserting a team is better because they can beat the hell out of someone is absolute nonsense. 

Players today don't have to worry going to the basket and getting knocked on their butt.  If those players back then was able to play with the freedom they do today some would average 35 points a game.  MJ and Wilkens and Gervin who were great scorers would be even better today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BGleas said:

Some of those guys from that "50 greatest players" list would be pushed off the list if they redid it. Clearly LeBron, Kobe, Duncan, Wade, KD and a few others would be on it now. 

Not the guys I mentioned wouldn't be left off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

Kareem, Magic and Worthy were all voted the top 50 of all time and the Celtics had McHale, Bird and Parrish who were also voted the top 50 of all time.  if you had to play the 80's and 90's rules where Curry and Thompson could be man handled then they would not be as effective.  If you had to play today's soft game then the Warriors would have a chance to win a series.

The 90's was not that great of basketball. It was half-court, isolation, way too physical basketball. There were some great players obviously, but the game wasn't that great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BGleas said:

The 90's was not that great of basketball. It was half-court, isolation, way too physical basketball. There were some great players obviously, but the game wasn't that great.

I agree with the 90's with the Knicks and Heat was unwatchable.  Since I have always been more of a college fan this is where my main concern with on how much the college game has went down.  To me the best time for the college game was between 85-95 because there was so much great talent and like you said most of them stayed 4 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Indykev said:

Until other wise proven, yes. Mr.Langford said he didnt even handle the money. So follow the paper trail.

Fair enough.  Given what we know about the recruiting world, I highly doubt it, but (hopefully) we’ll never know for sure I guess.

Now back to our regularly scheduled “I Love the ‘90s” programming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...