Jump to content

It's time to be like UNC/Nova/MSU

Long Duk Dong

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 107
  • Created
  • Last Reply
ButlerHoosier

ButlerHoosier

Posted
Posted

Which is why we slouched on the offensive side then? Cause he was trying to construct an offensive system to fit personnel? Not being sarcastic just asking a question cause I want to know peoples opinion. Maybe that's why we saw some flex offense and just a mismatch and sometimes disorganized offense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cohete15

cohete15

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, JWoolsey said:

I'm still trying to figure out what Archie's even trying to build. What's his dream team look like? What identity is he going for?

Being tough is nice but that's not enough. Top 30 defenses are important but what about the offense? How can he get us in the 75 range?

 

UNC has a run and gun system that works every few years.

Jay Wright has what I consider to be the perfect system at the moment. 

Tom Izzo puts a lot of wins on the board but he keeps getting slapped in the final rounds. I think he's adjusting though so this year might be different.

I think we get to 75 range in two ways...

1. We have to make some shots. If you watch IU, you see that we get open shots. 
2. The defense has to be better than it's been. Being undersized and young has hindered that. Better defense = more transition offense = easier scoring opportunities

I see Archie trying to build IU in to what MSU has been the past 20 years. Strong defense, crashing boards, upperclassmen, hard play. Offensively, it seems MSU could/can put up 85 some nights and play a game in the 50s on other nights, but regardless, getting wins. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NotIThatLives

NotIThatLives

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, ButlerHoosier said:

Which is why we slouched on the offensive side then? Cause he was trying to construct an offensive system to fit personnel? Not being sarcastic just asking a question cause I want to know peoples opinion. Maybe that's why we saw some flex offense and just a mismatch and sometimes disorganized offense. 

I think the offense got tight back late in the pre conference after a 22 turnover game.  I think it was.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JWoolsey

JWoolsey

Posted
Posted
32 minutes ago, cohete15 said:

I think we get to 75 range in two ways...

1. We have to make some shots. If you watch IU, you see that we get open shots. 
2. The defense has to be better than it's been. Being undersized and young has hindered that. Better defense = more transition offense = easier scoring opportunities

I see Archie trying to build IU in to what MSU has been the past 20 years. Strong defense, crashing boards, upperclassmen, hard play. Offensively, it seems MSU could/can put up 85 some nights and play a game in the 50s on other nights, but regardless, getting wins. 

I think after saying it 3 or 4 more times is enough but I messed up pretty badly with how I handled things. 

Speaking in absolutes and via aggressive and abrasive method was bad bad form. Even if every word I said was true.

 

That MSU style is a good comparison I think. I've always been annoyed by it though because it always seems to get slapped around by the big boys when it counts. I think he's done some adjusting though and this season it might pay off.

 

I'm giving Archie another shot. He deserves four years and he will be better. He can obviously adapt as well.

 

I've always wondered why our shooters seemed to shoot worse than they should under Archie and couldn't settle on anything. A little more fatigue maybe? More focus on making better plays and not on scoring? Weird.. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JWoolsey

JWoolsey

Posted
Posted
59 minutes ago, cohete15 said:

I think we get to 75 range in two ways...

1. We have to make some shots. If you watch IU, you see that we get open shots. 
2. The defense has to be better than it's been. Being undersized and young has hindered that. Better defense = more transition offense = easier scoring opportunities

I see Archie trying to build IU in to what MSU has been the past 20 years. Strong defense, crashing boards, upperclassmen, hard play. Offensively, it seems MSU could/can put up 85 some nights and play a game in the 50s on other nights, but regardless, getting wins. 

 

I'm laughing at your post and deserved that comment in the other thread btw.

How do I word it when I was exactly right! 

There are 'super indicators' that point to who will do well and who won't do well in tournaments.

Assisting well and high volume 3's are major keys. Low shooting volume and poor assist rates are deadly.

 

Joking about the super indicators but recently teams that do that do EXTREMELY well.

Keep an eye on Auburn, Wofford, Marquette, and Purdue. Of course NOVA and UM. It's the next step in the game and the biggest way to improve instantly.

I'm backing off the doom and gloom but the hot trend he's not interested in. MSU shoots it well and with more volume and gonzaga is doing it slightly well.

I'm really excited to see if the non-trend teams do well this season or not, your cincy types, va tech, kansas even.

 

Part of me wants to see UVA win it all just throw a major wrench into the game. He won't shoot 3's but they shoot it over 40% and 4th in the nation. That's some bold denial of math there! Props to him for doubling down.

 

I love this stuff man it's really exciting ****!

I don't even care about results

It's the theory and application of figuring out if what game theory is appearing to tell you ends up being true or not that's really fun.

There's always new things, new adjustments, and outliers. I'm back in on basketball again.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NotIThatLives

NotIThatLives

Posted
Posted
36 minutes ago, milehiiu said:

Honesty, after watching much of UNC this season.... I can't see them going deep in the NCAAT this year.  I would pick a Duke  team with a healthy  Zion, or even Virginia over UNC this year. 

Really?  I'm taking UNC.  I think they are the best team, thought they were better than Duke the other day actually and let that game slip away.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
milehiiu

milehiiu

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, NotIThatLives said:

Really?  I'm taking UNC.  I think they are the best team, thought they were better than Duke the other day actually and let that game slip away.  

I love it. That's what the NCAAT is all about.  OH... how I hope you are right, and I am wrong.  The very reason, I no longer participate in picking the brackets.  Best of luck to you. 

Thanks for being a great member of HSN. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NotIThatLives

NotIThatLives

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, milehiiu said:

I love it. That's what the NCAAT is all about.  OH... how I hope you are right, and I am wrong.  The very reason, I no longer participate in picking the brackets.  Best of luck to you. 

Thanks for being a great member of HSN. 

Mile, I'm not a gambling man.  I told man my wife guaranteed money the msuwould stomp IU,  proves not to gamble.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
milehiiu

milehiiu

Posted
Posted
54 minutes ago, NotIThatLives said:

Mile, I'm not a gambling man.  I told man my wife guaranteed money the msu would stomp IU,  proves not to gamble.  

Well, if it means anything.... I doubt many on this fabulous forum gave IU any chance of beating MSU on MSU's home court.

Really.... that's what I love about our Hoosiers, and the college game.

If only we had found a way to win just one more game along the way.  Oh well.  Gonna enjoy watching our Hoosiers in the NIT. 

________________________

Wonderful to have you a part of HSN.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
Feathery

Feathery

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, hoosiertildeath said:

Top 5 D1 schools with total NCAA Tournament Championship Banners ? UCLA Cheaters 11 , Ky Cheaters 8 , UNC Cheaters 6  , Indiana 5 , and Duke 5 ! These are the only 5 schools with at least ,5 NCA A total Banners !! IU has done pretty good without the Cheating !!

The landscape has changed. The FBI probe proved that nothing happens to the schools and how to keep plausible deniability. Time to play in the grey. 

To me it’s not cheating. A rule is only a rule if enforced. The NCAA has no interest in hammering schools that make $$$. IU definitely is a money maker. Use it to our advantage. 

Just change the philosophy of the compliance office to help basketball, not police basketball. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
IU Scott

IU Scott

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Feathery said:

The landscape has changed. The FBI probe proved that nothing happens to the schools and how to keep plausible deniability. Time to play in the grey. 

To me it’s not cheating. A rule is only a rule if enforced. The NCAA has no interest in hammering schools that make $$$. IU definitely is a money maker. Use it to our advantage. 

Just change the philosophy of the compliance office to help basketball, not police basketball. 

No way integrity is worth more than winning a championship but cheating to get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Feathery

Feathery

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

No way integrity is worth more than winning a championship but cheating to get it.

Integrity? I see nothing wrong with paying kids for their skills and labor. It’s called capitalism. I’m for all basketball and football players getting paid to be honest.  

It’s also perfectly legal for a kids parent to run his AAU team. That parent “aau team”, then gets paid by shoe company’s as sponsorship. Yet it’s perceived as dirty. Not against the law and not against the rules.

Why have  some mythical higher standard that’s above the rules? That’s not integrity, that’s stupidity  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
IU Scott

IU Scott

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Feathery said:

Integrity? I see nothing wrong with paying kids for their skills and labor. It’s called capitalism. I’m for all basketball and football players getting paid to be honest.  

It’s also perfectly legal for a kids parent to run his AAU team. That parent “aau team”, then gets paid by shoe company’s as sponsorship. Yet it’s perceived as dirty. Not against the law and not against the rules.

Why have  some mythical higher standard that’s above the rules? That’s not integrity, that’s stupidity  

 

It is against he rules to pay players so yes it would be a lack of integrity to pay them.  Also they are already fairly compensated sot there is no need to pa them anymore than they already get.  They get over 25.000 just in cost of attendance to go with all the enmities that athletes get from training to the medical and all the free meals they get.  Also they get about an additional 1200.00 a month for living expenses and another 1000.00 so tell me how many college students.  Also don't forget all the free advertising these top players get when every game is on TV which they would not get if the did not play college basketball.  Also nobody is making these players go to college and live in such an impoverished conditions so if they don't like it go over seas or go to the Gleague.  Leave the college game to the actual student athlete which wants to be there and not cater to entitled athletes who they think are bigger than the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PoHoosier

PoHoosier

Posted
Posted

To clear up the financial mess that is the NCAA, I would love to see a 3rd party report.  How much revenue is generated be college athletics and where does that money go?  Probably not possible, not to mention, once done, the capitolistic nature would then be to have the top money generators garnering top athletes.  Not too different than now.  A can of worms would be opened as a larger sense of entitlement would be fostered.  If it we're done, at least it would be somewhat more transparent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...