Jump to content

Anthony Leal is a Hoosier !


Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, CrimsonV said:

IU Scott and milehiiu 

CE45AD05-820E-4110-A7E7-908DA97BAC1F.jpeg

I guess when you grow up when we did and saw most of your favorite players stay 3-4 years and you get to see them grow as players you appreciate those guys.  Now that you don't get that as much you just don't get to know them as well so you won't view those players in the same light.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
9 hours ago, IndyResident16 said:

OAD’s also got tremendous exposure, especially playing at Duke or UK. Duke played less than 40 games last year yet were nationally televised more than all but 5 NBA franchises. Think about that?

Someone like Zion could have very easily accepted a six figure salary to play overseas for a year and while he would have put cash in his pocket, there’s nowhere he’s anywhere close to being as marketable as he is today. That’s strictly the platform the college basketball gives OAD’s and a reason why college basketball is the best avenue to the NBA even if it is “unpaid”. 

I don't disagree with you and believe this is why the majority of OAD's go to college instead of playing overseas for one year. But it's not like those athletes are like 'give me that exposure over the guaranteed money of a lottery pick.'

And let's not act like it's an even trade off. Duke got just as much exposure off of Zion and their unbelievable recruiting class, but the difference is that Duke received all the tangible monetary benefits. These athletes are still more valuable to the teams they are committing to than the other way around. If that wasn't the case they would not be recruited by coaching staffs and ogled at by fans far and wide on social media to come to their school.

Again, i'm just saying it's not fair to jump to conclusions and accuse OAD's of 'using' a university because they only decide to stay there for 1 year. (and here I go) This may be just me, but I feel I get a strange feeling that when it comes to athletes (and specifically OADs) there's a strange undertone of superiority over them. That because they are getting money to 'play a game' that somehow their right to capitalize off of their abilities to further themselves is less deserved. You hear language like 'they should be happy with a free year of college', 'they use teams', 'they are just kids', 'they don't deserve it', 'they are just in it for the money', etc.  And my question is: in what other walk of life in a capitalistic society are these same messages uttered? Who looks down at Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates for dropping out of Harvard to pursue riches? Why is alright for an executive to negotiate their salary, but not alright for an athlete?

....Sorry that this got off track and inspired a 'Deep Thoughts by Jack Handy' session. And now I'm aiding in derailing a thread that  should be devoted to Anthony Leal - so I promise not to post any more on this topic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, BGleas said:

While they were here, the latter gave just as much and still rep IU in a big way, and while the former are also great the only reason they were at IU 4 years is because they weren’t good enough to leave

This is where I am at. I doubt we have had a single player come through the program who would not have left early had they not had the opportunity. Tim Duncan is about the only player that I can think of that was a guaranteed top 5 pick that went back to school for his senior season.

To put it in perspective, in 10 years at UK with the OAD model Calipari has been to 7 E8's and 4 Final 4's. In the last 40 years we have been to 6 E8's, and 4 Final 4's. We can all look back at the '75 and '76 teams for the great teams they were in that era, however, if Kent Benson and Scott May were playing today, they would have never made it to their senior years and probably would have never been around for their sophomore seasons.

I am not in the camp of we should only go after OAD's. I am very excited about Leal and Galloway and I hope they both develop into players that have the opportunity to leave early like Vic. But I don't feel we will ever be a top team in the B1G year in and year out without a OAD here and there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tdhoosier said:

I don't disagree with you and believe this is why the majority of OAD's go to college instead of playing overseas for one year. But it's not like those athletes are like 'give me that exposure over the guaranteed money of a lottery pick.'

And let's not act like it's an even trade off. Duke got just as much exposure off of Zion and their unbelievable recruiting class, but the difference is that Duke received all the tangible monetary benefits. These athletes are still more valuable to the teams they are committing to than the other way around. If that wasn't the case they would not be recruited by coaching staffs and ogled at by fans far and wide on social media to come to their school.

Again, i'm just saying it's not fair to jump to conclusions and accuse OAD's of 'using' a university because they only decide to stay there for 1 year. (and here I go) This may be just me, but I feel I get a strange feeling that when it comes to athletes (and specifically OADs) there's a strange undertone of superiority over them. That because they are getting money to 'play a game' that somehow their right to capitalize off of their abilities to further themselves is less deserved. You hear language like 'they should be happy with a free year of college', 'they use teams', 'they are just kids', 'they don't deserve it', 'they are just in it for the money', etc.  And my question is: in what other walk of life in a capitalistic society are these same messages uttered? Who looks down at Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates for dropping out of Harvard to pursue riches? Why is alright for an executive to negotiate their salary, but not alright for an athlete?

....Sorry that this got off track and inspired a 'Deep Thoughts by Jack Handy' session. And now I'm aiding in derailing a thread that  should be devoted to Anthony Leal - so I promise not to post any more on this topic. 

But that isn't the NCAA's problem. Not being able to go directly to the NBA is a rule set forth by the NBA, not the NCAA. The next best options are either, "give me free exposure" or go play G-League/overseas for a year. I'd concede that Zion Williamson is still a lottery pick with whatever path he chose, but he's nowhere near as marketable had he chose to go to Europe or play in the G-League and that's because those leagues don't get a tenth of the coverage that a program like Duke does. You could make a case that aside from LeBron James, Zion Williamson is the most marketable basketball player in the world and that's because the world got to see his coming out party playing on national television every night. He doesn't get that luxury playing overseas or in the G-League, even though he's technically getting paid. Zion is set up much better long term (especially in terms of endorsements) by playing at Duke for a year even if he technically wasn't "paid". Most OAD's realize this and why college basketball is still the preferred route until they're draft eligible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, IUaic said:

This is where I am at. I doubt we have had a single player come through the program who would not have left early had they not had the opportunity. Tim Duncan is about the only player that I can think of that was a guaranteed top 5 pick that went back to school for his senior season.

To put it in perspective, in 10 years at UK with the OAD model Calipari has been to 7 E8's and 4 Final 4's. In the last 40 years we have been to 6 E8's, and 4 Final 4's. We can all look back at the '75 and '76 teams for the great teams they were in that era, however, if Kent Benson and Scott May were playing today, they would have never made it to their senior years and probably would have never been around for their sophomore seasons.

I am not in the camp of we should only go after OAD's. I am very excited about Leal and Galloway and I hope they both develop into players that have the opportunity to leave early like Vic. But I don't feel we will ever be a top team in the B1G year in and year out without a OAD here and there.

I would say we had plenty of guys over the years who were good enough to leave early but it wasn't something that kids did much back then.   If players like Calbert and Henderson was playing today they would have left early but kids in that era did not leave early that often.  Some guys like Buckner, May and Benson would have left early if they played today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, tdhoosier said:

And let's not act like it's an even trade off. Duke got just as much exposure off of Zion and their unbelievable recruiting class, but the difference is that Duke received all the tangible monetary benefits. These athletes are still more valuable to the teams they are committing to than the other way around. If that wasn't the case they would not be recruited by coaching staffs and ogled at by fans far and wide on social media to come to their school.

College athletes are expendable. Yes there are rare, generational athletes like Zion Williamson, but for the most part every D1 college basketball player is expendable, even at schools like Duke and Kentucky. The faces and names on the jersey's change every year yet Duke and Kentucky are still consistently the top revenue generating basketball program's in the country. Fans are tied to the university and/or the program, not the players because they only have a finite time at the school. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

I would say we had plenty of guys over the years who were good enough to leave early but it wasn't something that kids did much back then.   If players like Calbert and Henderson was playing today they would have left early but kids in that era did not leave early that often.  Some guys like Buckner, May and Benson would have left early if they played today.

That's an interesting point about May, Buckner, and Benson.  In today's climate I agree they would have left early.  Also, considering his late-season improvement, strong tournament, and winning a title, Landon Turner likely would go too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Zuckerkorn said:

That's an interesting point about May, Buckner, and Benson.  In today's climate I agree they would have left early.  Also, considering his late-season improvement, strong tournament, and winning a title, Landon Turner likely would go too.

Exactly. Turner would have been the poster child for great run in 2nd half of season and strong run to Final 4, title,etc....almost like Sam Dekker a few years ago where his strong tourney play elevated him to 1st round status.Of course Dekker hated Ryan so there's that too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Zuckerkorn said:

That's an interesting point about May, Buckner, and Benson.  In today's climate I agree they would have left early.  Also, considering his late-season improvement, strong tournament, and winning a title, Landon Turner likely would go too.

I was going to say the same thing about Turner and Tolbert would have probably left early as well.  In todays game kids leave early who had not had great seasons go early so kids like the ones we mentioned who were really good would have left.  Thank goodness that we were able to see great basketball back then when the stars stayed 3 or 4 years which produced great basketball.  To me when I say that I thought basketball was way better back then does not mean I think the players back then were so much better but the kids were more experience and played together longer.  With this it just produces better product on the court and it usually means some tough competition between the top teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Seeking6 said:

Exactly. Turner would have been the poster child for great run in 2nd half of season and strong run to Final 4, title,etc....almost like Sam Dekker a few years ago where his strong tourney play elevated him to 1st round status.Of course Dekker hated Ryan so there's that too.

Dekker hates Ryan?  Didn’t know that.  Interesting

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

I would say we had plenty of guys over the years who were good enough to leave early but it wasn't something that kids did much back then.   If players like Calbert and Henderson was playing today they would have left early but kids in that era did not leave early that often.  Some guys like Buckner, May and Benson would have left early if they played today.

That's also the era of the NBA. You're a first round draft pick in today's game and you're in the 1%. Get a second contract and you're set for life. Someone like Magic Johnson back in the 80s got a record deal for $1mil/yr over 25 years and was the highest paid player in the sport. Thomas Bryant just got $25mil over 3 years and shouldn't have to work another day in his life if it doesn't pan out. That opportunity just didn't exist back in the day. You got your degree, played in the NBA if you were lucky enough, and for most guys you ended up finding work after your playing days because you couldn't retire off your NBA earnings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, IUwins0708 said:

Dekker hates Ryan?  Didn’t know that.  Interesting

Hate probably wrong word....but they didn't like each other toward the end. Ryan was obviously team, team, team....Dekker wanted more freedom to play. When he started doing his thing at the end of his junior year people were asking where has this been all along. His brother came out and basically said it's always been there but just not in this offense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, IndyResident16 said:

That's also the era of the NBA. You're a first round draft pick in today's game and you're in the 1%. Get a second contract and you're set for life. Someone like Magic Johnson back in the 80s got a record deal for $1mil/yr over 25 years and was the highest paid player in the sport. Thomas Bryant just got $25mil over 3 years and shouldn't have to work another day in his life if it doesn't pan out. That opportunity just didn't exist back in the day. You got your degree, played in the NBA if you were lucky enough, and for most guys you ended up finding work after your playing days because you couldn't retire off your NBA earnings.

Some people don’t like change and continue to live in the past, outdated. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, BDB said:

Some people don’t like change and continue to live in the past, outdated. 

I understand people appreciating players who stick around all four years, I'm one of them. But also weary enough to know that if today's NBA culture existed back in the 1970's, 1980's, and into the early 90's, many of IU's stars would have left early as well. And not just for the NBA. The incentive to become a professional basketball player has significantly increased with even more avenues existing with varying leagues overseas. You can make 6 figures comfortably in most European leagues and China with tenure and even starting salaries are in the $50-70k range which is a good amount of money for a 20-21 year old. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, BDB said:

Some people don’t like change and continue to live in the past, outdated. 

Believe it or not but not all change is for the better.  Those that deride others for their fondness for "the past" often are ones who are too young to have lived it and will likely hold similar fondness for today in the future.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Zuckerkorn said:

Believe it or not but not all change is for the better.  Those that deride others for their fondness for "the past" often are ones who are too young to have lived it and will likely hold similar fondness for today in the future.

 

Which has no basis on being aware and behaving accordingly. But clinging to the past and believing it was better simply because it was the past is a problem. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, BDB said:

Some people don’t like change and continue to live in the past, outdated. 

 

3 minutes ago, Zuckerkorn said:

Believe it or not but not all change is for the better.  Those that deride others for their fondness for "the past" often are ones who are too young to have lived it and will likely hold similar fondness for today in the future.

 

Exactly, all change is not for the better and I bet when the younger generation gets older they will think the same way we do today.  Everything seems better when you are younger because when you are young you have a different view on life and you don't have major problems that you have as adults.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Brass Cannon said:

Which has no basis on being aware and behaving accordingly. But clinging to the past and believing it was better simply because it was the past is a problem. 

Why is that a problem? because everyone has his or her own opinion on what they like.  If you are old enough to have seen more than one era you have things to base those opinions on.  Like I said earlier every generation thinks that their era is the best when they were young and the younger generation today will think the same thing in 20 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, IU Scott said:

Why is that a problem? because everyone has his or her own opinion on what they like.  If you are old enough to have seen more than one era you have things to base those opinions on.  Like I said earlier every generation thinks that their era is the best when they were young and the younger generation today will think the same thing in 20 years.

Just because everybody does it. Doesn’t mean it’s not a problem. And besides thinking your era is better is fine  but don’t live in the past  

And I would caution using hyperbole like “everyone”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Zuckerkorn said:

Believe it or not but not all change is for the better.  Those that deride others for their fondness for "the past" often are ones who are too young to have lived it and will likely hold similar fondness for today in the future.

 

Very true, but for ones who have lived in the past, it's important to understand why things are different today than they once were. It would be unheard of for an average player to leave early in the 1970s and 1980s. The average NBA salary in 1970 was $35k. That number rose to $180k in 1980. In 1995 there were 4 players in the NBA who made $6mil or more a year. In 2019, there will be 195 players in the NBA who make $6mil or more in a year. The NBA minimum salary for 2019-2020 is $895k. The average NBA player in the 70s and 80s wouldn't have come close to grossing $895k for their entire NBA career. It wouldn't make sense for someone like Thomas Bryant to leave two years before graduating in the 70s because chances are he was only going to make at most $500k (if that) with a lengthy NBA career. A degree would be needed because he most definitely would need to find another job where a degree potentially goes a long away. In today's world, Thomas Bryant is making $25 million dollars over the next 3 years where he shouldn't have to work another day in his life. And he always has the opportunity to come back to get a degree if it's a top priority.

I understand the appreciation for 4 year players, but I don't think it's fair at all to equate the two era's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Brass Cannon said:

Just because everybody does it. Doesn’t mean it’s not a problem. And besides thinking your era is better is fine  but don’t live in the past  

And I would caution using hyperbole like “everyone”

Alright most think that way.  Just like when I hear the theme music of the this week in baseball it just makes me think of a great time because I was young.  I fi here announcers form the past like Vic Scully or Dick Enberg it makes me think back to easier times in my life where I could truly just love sports.   To me that is not living in the past but remembering them fondly.  Also thinking the product on the court in college basketball back in the 80's and 90's is not living in the past but just my opinion on the sport.  Maybe it has to do with the fact that I liked the style of play on the offensive end back then compared today.  I like seeing motion offense with players and the ball moving without dribbling compared to more of the balls screen and the dribble drive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Zuckerkorn said:

Believe it or not but not all change is for the better.  Those that deride others for their fondness for "the past" often are ones who are too young to have lived it and will likely hold similar fondness for today in the future.

 

That was deep, bro. 

I'm almost 40 - so not young. I'm nostalgic about the 90's, miss grunge music and hemp necklaces (thank God Birkenstocks have come back). 

I'm not sure 'deride' is the correct word - because I don't see much 'deriding' on here. It's more like accepting the new reality change has brought (good or bad). When 'change' has changed factors we use to solve a problem, we can't always rely on the past's solutions to fix a problem. Like the example above about how the NBA's pay scale has adjusted. I don't deride people that long for the days when great players stayed 4 years. I wish it was that way too, but changing factors have made it more desirable for those great player to leave school early. So why waste energy complaining about a situation nostalgia ain't going to fix? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, tdhoosier said:

That was deep, bro. 

I'm almost 40 - so not young. I'm nostalgic about the 90's, miss grunge music and hemp necklaces (thank God Birkenstocks have come back). 

I'm not sure 'deride' is the correct word - because I don't see much 'deriding' on here. It's more like accepting the new reality change has brought (good or bad). When 'change' has changed factors we use to solve a problem, we can't always rely on the past's solutions to fix a problem. Like the example above about how the NBA's pay scale has adjusted. I don't deride people that long for the days when great players stayed 4 years. I wish it was that way too, but changing factors have made it more desirable for those great player to leave school early. So why waste energy complaining about a situation nostalgia ain't going to fix? 

I'm with you, I'm 43. The 90's were easily my favorite era of NBA basketball but even the NBA Superstars of the early-mid 90s were making chump change compared to guys who are role players in today's league. The salary cap for the 95-96 season was $15.95 million. There's players who are going to make double that this year alone. Jordan had the endorsements but was making $3.8 million a year during the 95-96 season. 

It's disingenuous to equate players from the 70s and 80s to players of today, especially when trying to say things such as having more school pride. I would guarantee that somebody like Cody Zeller loved IU just as much as Scott May or Kent Benson. The only difference is that Scott May and Kent Benson weren't in position to gross nearly $100mil playing basketball professionally. You give either of those guys the opportunity that Zeller had, they're gone before they can even think about it and the perception automatically changes. The guys who stay 4 years at this level of basketball more than likely aren't doing it by choice. They know they aren't going to be able to retire by playing basketball professional and a free college education goes a long way. In the 1970s and 1980s you almost assuredly weren't going to be able to retire playing basketball professionally and the value of a free education and subsequently a degree went just as far as playing in the NBA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, tdhoosier said:

That was deep, bro. 

I'm almost 40 - so not young. I'm nostalgic about the 90's, miss grunge music and hemp necklaces (thank God Birkenstocks have come back). 

I'm not sure 'deride' is the correct word - because I don't see much 'deriding' on here. It's more like accepting the new reality change has brought (good or bad). When 'change' has changed factors we use to solve a problem, we can't always rely on the past's solutions to fix a problem. Like the example above about how the NBA's pay scale has adjusted. I don't deride people that long for the days when great players stayed 4 years. I wish it was that way too, but changing factors have made it more desirable for those great player to leave school early. So why waste energy complaining about a situation nostalgia ain't going to fix? 

I don't think any of the posters are "living in the past", but simply pointing out things that they enjoyed more then than today.  Yet they are all tuned in to today's game and follow it closely.

There are parts of the college game today that are better now than back in the day (recruiting news, video, message boards, etc.) just as there were things that were, arguably, better back then.  I think the root of this whole diversion is what will get us back to being a consistent top-10 team, and some are simply expressing their opinions that we need stability/maturity in the roster to get there (because that's the way it used to be).  Players like Leal remind us of the type of player that provided stability and maturity by contributing for several seasons.  Guys like Gordon, Vonleigh, Zeller, and Langford would be on another level if we had enjoyed the kind of success we used to have but alas we fell short (way short in some cases) while they were here.  One thing I guarantee though is that younger posters/fans will likely never know how amazing it feels to follow a team that was expected to win every game and did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Zuckerkorn said:

I don't think any of the posters are "living in the past", but simply pointing out things that they enjoyed more then than today.  Yet they are all tuned in to today's game and follow it closely.

There are parts of the college game today that are better now than back in the day (recruiting news, video, message boards, etc.) just as there were things that were, arguably, better back then.  I think the root of this whole diversion is what will get us back to being a consistent top-10 team, and some are simply expressing their opinions that we need stability/maturity in the roster to get there (because that's the way it used to be).  Players like Leal remind us of the type of player that provided stability and maturity by contributing for several seasons.  Guys like Gordon, Vonleigh, Zeller, and Langford would be on another level if we had enjoyed the kind of success we used to have but alas we fell short (way short in some cases) while they were here.  One thing I guarantee though is that younger posters/fans will likely never know how amazing it feels to follow a team that was expected to win every game and did.

But you also have to concede that you’re likely never to see a team like 75-76 Hoosiers. You aren’t going to see a team have two All-American’s who go 1 and 2 in the draft as 4 year players like Benson and May. Benson and May would have been long gone before they were seniors had they played in today’s era. Virginia just won the title and had 3 players declare early, just as Villanova did the year before who had 4 guys leave early. I believe Indiana needs a solid foundation of 3-4 year players, but to win you’re going to need 1 or 2 guys who are good enough to play in the NBA after a year or two. That seems to be the winning formula in today’s age.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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




×
×
  • Create New...