Jump to content

Welcome to Hoosier Sports Nation | Indiana Basketball and Sports Forum

Welcome to HoosierSportsNation 3.0 -- our newest and best iteration.  We promise we won't bite -- come on in and register to join the party!


milehiiu

Anthony Leal is a Hoosier !

Recommended Posts

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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”

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Edited by IndyResident16
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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? 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Edited by IndyResident16
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, IndyResident16 said:

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.

Most of the guys who left early for UVA and Villanova were 3 year guys and a couple after 2 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 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.

I am milehiiu.  And I approve of this post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, IndyResident16 said:

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.

Absolutely.  Having guys that are guaranteed high first rounders don't stick around and slightly lesser players will "strike while the iron is hot".  But it all goes into the differences in era's.  Really good players with really good coaching that played together for 4 years produced some really good play that may not be (as) possible today.  It sets a standard in a fan's mind.

Ultimately, you're correct about blending experience with elite talent but IMO you have to develop the veteran play first.  A real difference maker probably won't get you a ring by himself and he won't come here until you're winning. 

We're all weary of hearing/saying it but it's gonna take time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

Most of the guys who left early for UVA and Villanova were 3 year guys and a couple after 2 years.

I think we're spinning ourselves in circles. The easiest and clearest explanation is when Bgleas said: (generally) the players who stay aren't good enough to leave early. 

AND to get those players you need to have good player development and a system they can thrive in. I think we (myself included) tend to whip ourselves into a frenzy debating who we should recruit. I think our success all falls on CAM - the head coach is so important in college basketball. I could care less about how many stars are listed after their name; I want him to recruit players that will help him win and not transfer so we can finally have the semblance of some stability for the first time in forever. If that means getting the occasional OAD then sign them up. BUT I think the focus should be on how good of a coach Archie will prove to be? Will he be like Tom Crean and need talent to thrive (where OAD's will be more crucial to our success)? Or will he be like Bob Knight and be able to recruit a bunch of less talented parts with specific skills to make a strong whole? I really hope he is a good enough coach for it to be the latter, because IMO, the Crean method is a lot harder to sustain. Bottom line though.......I just want to f%&*ing win.

Edited by tdhoosier
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To bring it back a bit to the recruiting side of this discussion, I think for Archie to build a consistent winner IU needs to have a consistent pipeline of players, probably 3-4 per year on the roster, of guys ranked in that 20-40/50 range. Think guys like TJD, Thomas Bryant, Maurice Creek, Yogi, Jerome Hunter, etc., and then fill in with the Phinisee's, Leals, Galloway's, Franklin's, etc. 

IMO, that's the UVA, Villanova, and even for a while there the UNC model. Consistent steady pipeline of these guys that are borderline McDonald's All-American's, but likely to stay 2-3 years, and then fill the roster out with the guys Archie has been signing for the most part. The of course go after a Langford, Gordon type if they're local (Indiana, Ohio, Illinois, etc.).

I do have a small concern that we haven't gotten enough guys in that 20-50 range. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BGleas said:

To bring it back a bit to the recruiting side of this discussion, I think for Archie to build a consistent winner IU needs to have a consistent pipeline of players, probably 3-4 per year on the roster, of guys ranked in that 20-40/50 range. Think guys like TJD, Thomas Bryant, Maurice Creek, Yogi, Jerome Hunter, etc., and then fill in with the Phinisee's, Leals, Galloway's, Franklin's, etc. 

IMO, that's the UVA, Villanova, and even for a while there the UNC model. Consistent steady pipeline of these guys that are borderline McDonald's All-American's, but likely to stay 2-3 years, and then fill the roster out with the guys Archie has been signing for the most part. The of course go after a Langford, Gordon type if they're local (Indiana, Ohio, Illinois, etc.).

I do have a small concern that we haven't gotten enough guys in that 20-50 range. 

No matter what we think of the UNC program, I thought they had the right mix of getting  players ranked 20-80 but they stayed 3-4 years.  I know this year they had 2 one and done playes and Little could not even start for that team.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

No matter what we think of the UNC program, I thought they had the right mix of getting  players ranked 20-80 but they stayed 3-4 years.  I know this year they had 2 one and done playes and Little could not even start for that team.

Yeah, I think that's a model that can/will provide long term success, especially in Archie's system, similar to Bennett. Again, my only small concern so far is not getting enough of the guys in the 20-40/80 range of that criteria. Archie's gotten more of the 80-150 range guys. I don't want to get too hung up on ratings, because they're quite often wrong, but it just helps frame the convo. 

I'm a huge Phinisee fan, but right now there isn't a guard on the roster or in the pipeline as a commit that's in that 20-80 range, which I think you need a couple. Similar to UVA having Guy and Jerome, both top 50 guys, or Villanova with Brunson and Booth. 

By the way, Villanova's in-coming class has #15, #16, #55, and #69. That's a heck of a class, especially if those two high-end guys end up being 2-3 year players. Kind of reminds me of a typical MSU class or and OSU class under Matta when they were rolling.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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.

I believe there is one poster who does and makes sure everyone knows it

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, IowaHoosierFan said:

I believe there is one poster who does and makes sure everyone knows it

Yes I think the product on the court in college basketball was better back in the 80's and 90's but does not mean I am living in the past.  I probably watch more games than most today and don't miss an IU game so if I was living in the past I wouldn't watch the game today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, IU Scott said:

if I was living in the past I wouldn't watch the game today.

Maybe if you bought a Delorean...😁

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...