Jump to content

YouTube Inspiration vs Frustration


Recommended Posts

I started my freshman year at IU in 1988.  Missed the 87 championship by 1 year.  Enjoyed a few good runs afterwards: 1992, 1993 - while on campus.  Remember 2002 like it was yesterday. 

The thing that bugs me is that we've been underachieving since then.  I have probably watched at least 15 games on YouTube over the last 14 days of "time off" from work and it definitely makes me appreciate the past but increases my frustration over the last 18 years of underachieving.  There is no way, with the most passionate college basketball fan base in the world and a state that breeds amazing basketball talent, that we should be concerned about making the tournament, year in and year out. 

I really feel that the chemistry, talent and "attitude"  of the incoming class will push us over the top...in the right direction.  I hope my gut feeling is correct.  I'm tired of  viewing 18-33 year - old YouTube videos for inspiration

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I've marveled at with the older games is how much better we were offensively. We've made offense a lot more difficult than it should be since Knight was fired. When the shot clock was introduced, it was 45 seconds, yet we still scored in the 70's and 80's quite often. Now, with a 30 second clock, we struggle to make it out of the 50's.  I still haven't figured out what Archie Miller's offense is or what it's supposed to look like. 

 

Knight's teams looked crisp and fluid on the offensive end. There wasn't a guard pounding nails into the floor while frantically pointing at the same spots repeatedly, guys weren't just putting their heads down and barreling to the hoop, hoping to get a whistle, and people actually screened off the ball with the full intent to get someone other than themselves an open shot. Sloppy plays, on the rare times they occurred, resulted in an earful from Knight and a seat on the bench, not words of encouragement and more chances to throw the ball all over the gym. 

 

It's just a different world we live in now. I wish I could have grown up in the 70's and 80's. I'm not convinced we'll ever see success like that again here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

's

1 hour ago, TheWatShot said:

What I've marveled at with the older games is how much better we were offensively. We've made offense a lot more difficult than it should be since Knight was fired. When the shot clock was introduced, it was 45 seconds, yet we still scored in the 70's and 80's quite often. Now, with a 30 second clock, we struggle to make it out of the 50's.  I still haven't figured out what Archie Miller's offense is or what it's supposed to look like. 

 

Knight's teams looked crisp and fluid on the offensive end. There wasn't a guard pounding nails into the floor while frantically pointing at the same spots repeatedly, guys weren't just putting their heads down and barreling to the hoop, hoping to get a whistle, and people actually screened off the ball with the full intent to get someone other than themselves an open shot. Sloppy plays, on the rare times they occurred, resulted in an earful from Knight and a seat on the bench, not words of encouragement and more chances to throw the ball all over the gym. 

 

It's just a different world we live in now. I wish I could have grown up in the 70's an's and  I'm not convinced we'll ever see success like that again here. 

It is just not IU but most of college basketball struggles offensively compared to the 80's and 90's.  I think it has more to do with what kind of offense that is ran today compared to the past.  there were way more movement of players and the ball and less dribbling.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

's

It is just not IU but most of college basketball struggles offensively compared to the 80's and 90's.  I think it has more to do with what kind of offense that is ran today compared to the past.  there were way more movement of players and the ball and less dribbling.

It's just as much because defenses are allowed to commit assault without  a whistle.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, FKIM01 said:

It's just as much because defenses are allowed to commit assault without  a whistle.

The 87 semi final game against UNLV there were 50 fouls called because they did not allow hand checks or bumping cutter.  Also back then they seem to call a lot more moving screens off the ball but there are a lot less off the ball screens now so there would be less to call.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Hoosierburgh said:

I love that Knight's teams could play both the slow down game and also run with the best of them.  Either style, their opponent ran into incessant on and off-ball screens.  It'll be interesting to see how Archie's offense evolves with time.

True.  Never more true. Than in '87 when Knight's team faced the 'Runnin Rebels of UNLV, in the NCAAT.   Pre-game.  Billy Packer saying Coach Knight in order to stay in the game needed to slow things down, and use a half court game. So, what did Bobby do ?  He chose to run with the the Rebels !  And ran them out of the stadium.

Indiana vs UNLV - 3/28/87 

Edited by milehiiu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just got done watching the 81 tournament game against Maryland that is my favorite old game to watch non championship game.  That team was so fun to watch and their offense was so efficient and every player on that team ad the confidence to score.  

Watching these old games just makes me see that the players today just don't have the confidence or are not allowed to just play their games.  these old games you see a post man get the ball inside and they already know what they are going to do with the ball.  They either face up or just do a turn around shot or jump hook without hesitation.  The big's back then had the confidence to take that 12-15 foot shot on the baseline or the wing and today they just don't take those shots.  I just don't understand why coaches today listen to the analytics and take away one of the easiest shots to hit in the game.  That 81 IU team hit 57% from the field this season and a lot of those shots were those 12-15 foot shots.  Without 3's and the shot clock that IU team was able to score 99 points against Maryland by hitting 66% from the field.  to me I would rather see teams take high percentage shots that are easier to hit than take 40 3's in a game and hit 35%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I enjoy seeing old college games, and not just IU.  The '74 Maryland-NC State game is a classic.  You had a bunch of seniors. . .in today's world half the guys out there would already be in the NBA and still be learning how to play...but I digress.

JMO, but I think the 3-point shot has caused much of what everyone above me is saying.  In it's infancy it was an exciting option. I grew up watching the ABA for that reason. Everybody had one or two guys (Billy Keller, Louie Dampier, etc.) that could shoot it fairly well (not Steph Curry well,) but not much more than 1-2 per team as I recall.  That was because while a three point shot was an option - it was still a risky one.  It was j-u-s-t far enough out (and so few could hit it) that made it what it was.  

But more isn't necessarily better.  Growing up has trade-offs, and basketball has become a little monotonous that way.  I miss seeing different guys with different skill sets.  Everybody looks the same to me.  They're all good, they all shoot 3's and defense is optional.   Now get off my lawn...there's a virus going around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, morganmonroe said:

I enjoy seeing old college games, and not just IU.  The '74 Maryland-NC State game is a classic.  You had a bunch of seniors. . .in today's world half the guys out there would already be in the NBA and still be learning how to play...but I digress.

JMO, but I think the 3-point shot has caused much of what everyone above me is saying.  In it's infancy it was an exciting option. I grew up watching the ABA for that reason. Everybody had one or two guys (Billy Keller, Louie Dampier, etc.) that could shoot it fairly well (not Steph Curry well,) but not much more than 1-2 per team as I recall.  That was because while a three point shot was an option - it was still a risky one.  It was j-u-s-t far enough out (and so few could hit it) that made it what it was.  

But more isn't necessarily better.  Growing up has trade-offs, and basketball has become a little monotonous that way.  I miss seeing different guys with different skill sets.  Everybody looks the same to me.  They're all good, they all shoot 3's and defense is optional.   Now get off my lawn...there's a virus going around.

Very well said and I think players have less personality as well and every thing seems so robotic today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, morganmonroe said:

I enjoy seeing old college games, and not just IU.  The '74 Maryland-NC State game is a classic.  You had a bunch of seniors. . .in today's world half the guys out there would already be in the NBA and still be learning how to play...but I digress.

JMO, but I think the 3-point shot has caused much of what everyone above me is saying.  In it's infancy it was an exciting option. I grew up watching the ABA for that reason. Everybody had one or two guys (Billy Keller, Louie Dampier, etc.) that could shoot it fairly well (not Steph Curry well,) but not much more than 1-2 per team as I recall.  That was because while a three point shot was an option - it was still a risky one.  It was j-u-s-t far enough out (and so few could hit it) that made it what it was.  

But more isn't necessarily better.  Growing up has trade-offs, and basketball has become a little monotonous that way.  I miss seeing different guys with different skill sets.  Everybody looks the same to me.  They're all good, they all shoot 3's and defense is optional.   Now get off my lawn...there's a virus going around.

Sports has become an industry.  It's all business.  Players look to maximize their brand and their career longevity.  It's not just in basketball.  The technology and analytics have also been responsible for the direction of sports.  Every aspect of a sport is touched by greater analysis nowdays.  But change is inevitable, I guess.  Also, you have many more youngsters who see sports as a possible profession.  They begin earlier to work on the individual aspects of their sport that leads to their potential success...and making a living.  That wasn't the case so much when we were young.

Edited by jv1972iu
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure if this is the right place to put this, but one thing I've noticed watching a lot of old NBA and college games over the last month or so, is how the ball is inbounds then vs. now. I've noticed that in the 70's and 80's if there was a turnover out of bounds or a change of possession out of bounds the refs would basically hand the ball to the inbounder as soon as they were there, regardless of how everyone else was set on the court. 

Once the ball went out of bounds, inbounders would basically sprint to the ref and just grab the ball and go. You'd literally see fastbreaks off of out of bounds change of possessions. Now refs hold the ball until everyone is ready, the defense has gotten back, etc. This is a really subtle, small thing, and I'm not saying the former is the better way necessarily but I think it actually had a big impact on pace. At the risk of sounding like IUScott (all in good fun, buddy), it seems the pace of play was much faster in the 70's and 80's, though I don't have any analytics to support that, just going off eye test. 

But watching some of these older games, players just took off. They inbounded quicker, they pushed the ball up the court quicker and the pace just seemed faster. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, BGleas said:

Not sure if this is the right place to put this, but one thing I've noticed watching a lot of old NBA and college games over the last month or so, is how the ball is inbounds then vs. now. I've noticed that in the 70's and 80's if there was a turnover out of bounds or a change of possession out of bounds the refs would basically hand the ball to the inbounder as soon as they were there, regardless of how everyone else was set on the court. 

Once the ball went out of bounds, inbounders would basically sprint to the ref and just grab the ball and go. You'd literally see fastbreaks off of out of bounds change of possessions. Now refs hold the ball until everyone is ready, the defense has gotten back, etc. This is a really subtle, small thing, and I'm not saying the former is the better way necessarily but I think it actually had a big impact on pace. At the risk of sounding like IUScott (all in good fun, buddy), it seems the pace of play was much faster in the 70's and 80's, though I don't have any analytics to support that, just going off eye test. 

But watching some of these older games, players just took off. They inbounded quicker, they pushed the ball up the court quicker and the pace just seemed faster. 

Since you were in the sport, do you think that coaching as a lot to do with the pace of play being slower.  To me they seem to want to micro manage everything and have to call every a play for every possession.  Everyone always thinks that RMK was a strict coach but he gave his team freedoms on the offensive end.  To me that was the beauty of the motion offense where the players knew what to do and they just went out and ran the offense and not looking to the coach for the play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

Since you were in the sport, do you think that coaching as a lot to do with the pace of play being slower.  To me they seem to want to micro manage everything and have to call every a play for every possession.  Everyone always thinks that RMK was a strict coach but he gave his team freedoms on the offensive end.  To me that was the beauty of the motion offense where the players knew what to do and they just went out and ran the offense and not looking to the coach for the play.

Bing!!  That's what practice was for...and Knight's famous notebooks that he had his players keep...and study.  They became students of the game.  They knew what to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, jv1972iu said:

Bing!!  That's what practice was for...and Knight's famous notebooks that he had his players keep...and study.  They became students of the game.  They knew what to do.

I think some of the problem with coaches today is that with so many players leaving programs wither through the draft or transfers that they don't trust the players.  Today the college game is younger than it has ever been since so many kids leave early so coaches think they have to over analyze everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just watched the 92 elite game against UCLA and just a couple of things that caught my eye.  Today at the end of the game and the game is out of hand and a team gets the ball and the shot clock is off that team just runs the clock out.  In this game teams kept going to the basket bad shooting even when the shot clock was off.  So when did it come bad sportsmanship to shoot in the last few seconds of a game that not in doubt.  Also I noticed back then players did not have number sin single digits and most players wore numbers in 20's, 30's and 40's.  I think the first players I remember wearing single digits for IU was Jay Edwards and Lyndon Jones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, BGleas said:

Not sure if this is the right place to put this, but one thing I've noticed watching a lot of old NBA and college games over the last month or so, is how the ball is inbounds then vs. now. I've noticed that in the 70's and 80's if there was a turnover out of bounds or a change of possession out of bounds the refs would basically hand the ball to the inbounder as soon as they were there, regardless of how everyone else was set on the court. 

Once the ball went out of bounds, inbounders would basically sprint to the ref and just grab the ball and go. You'd literally see fastbreaks off of out of bounds change of possessions. Now refs hold the ball until everyone is ready, the defense has gotten back, etc. This is a really subtle, small thing, and I'm not saying the former is the better way necessarily but I think it actually had a big impact on pace. At the risk of sounding like IUScott (all in good fun, buddy), it seems the pace of play was much faster in the 70's and 80's, though I don't have any analytics to support that, just going off eye test. 

But watching some of these older games, players just took off. They inbounded quicker, they pushed the ball up the court quicker and the pace just seemed faster. 

I remember Crean defending his teams' turnover problems by saying dead-ball turnovers weren't such a big deal because at least it gave the defense a chance to get set. 

 

What always gets me is when I notice defenders who are clearly loafing, the offensive players see it too, and the official just stands there bouncing the ball five times. 

 

In addition to letting defenses get set, I feel most officials are way too lenient with letting coaches sub in players at the last possible second. I know coaches have done this to disrupt the flow of a game and it's irritating how officials let them do it. 

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...