Pat Chambers

[rico]

[mrflynn03]

15 minutes ago, 3Ballin said:

Was that Coach Rice?  Wish he would've been there way before that!  Maybe we wouldnt have been drawing plays in the dirt in the middle of games that i had to then draw in the huddle.  🤦‍♂️

Sure was. He really knew what he was doing. Just needed the time. 

[Billingsley99]

22 minutes ago, mrflynn03 said:

Sure was. He really knew what he was doing. Just needed the time. 

Not Willard Rice was it?

[mrflynn03]

11 minutes ago, Billingsley99 said:

Not Willard Rice was it?

No, his name was John Rice. Originally from California but came to us from Trinity HS out of Louisville.  

[hoosierhoosier]

49 minutes ago, Billingsley99 said:

I guess. If you didn't mind getting beaten up for it. I would not go to your boss and asked for you to be fired I would handle it myself with us boys being boys and it wouldn't happen again and you would have a job. I do feel there is a big difference in sexual harassment and telling a joke that might not sit well. Everything is about context and many things we say and do can be taken completely out of context and used to destroy a person and their career. Some things deserve to be punished harshly and I admit I have not looked into the Chambers situation to be able to make a decision. As a whole I feel we are too PC and soft in general

I am the boss, and that is the problem.  You wouldn't do anything in reality, and you and i know that.  It is ok to for our leaders to get better, and ask them to be decent people.  

If my kid got seriously hurt from a coach throwing a ball at his legs when he was in the air i would be irate.  He wouldn't of done that to you if you were the star player...think about it, would Phil Jackson do that to Jordan....no. b/c Jackson wasn't a jag.

[addictedtoIU]

2 hours ago, hoosierhoosier said:

I am guessing it was more than just this one issue.  The "old school" way of motivating players should be in the past if it is demeaning.  IDK, just like sexualizing women in the workplace should be in the past.  Would you be upset if i grabbed your wife's ass, or is it "boys will be boys"?  If his behavior was regularly insipid, then he should be let go. 

Chambers sure looked like a hard-nosed coach, and I wouldn't have been surprised if he used cuss words to motivate players or to get their attentions. I do believe there has to be a line between what's appropriate and what's not. Inappropriate physical contact shouldn't be tolerated especially between men and women, which I don't even think it's old school vs. new school. It's just wrong. 

I'm not trying to defend Chambers here, but if he really did more harm to that player than the word 'noose', wouldn't this former player have mentioned publicly in the first place to solidify his case? Of course, he was a tough coach; he might've used a lot of cuss words to all of his players. But if he was a downright racist, more African-American players would come out and presented their cases too. 

I know I could be wrong, and more current and former players could come out and add to this. Or maybe the school already interviewed many current and former players and concluded that parting ways would be the best course of action. 

[IU Scott]

I remember a game a couple of years ago where he shoved a player in the huddle.

[milehiiu]

34 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

I remember a game a couple of years ago where he shoved a player in the huddle.

Patrick Chambers Ejected from the Game vs. Michigan State 

Stephen Bardo Reacts to Patrick Chambers' Resignation 

[3Ballin]

10 hours ago, mrflynn03 said:

Sure was. He really knew what he was doing. Just needed the time. 

Ya, still not sure how he went from winning state titles in kentucky to Washington.  We have all things that should lead to a competative football program but outside of a couple random years cant seem to put it together long term.  I really like the new coach though.  He looks to be building a solid program if the kids buy in and show up.

[Milosh68]

Looks like they reached the end of their rope, and no, we are knot going to hell for that!

[ElectricBoogaloo]

Pat Chambers completes his metamorphosis to Chambers Pot.

[dgambill]

On 10/22/2020 at 11:10 AM, Billingsley99 said:

Can you imagine the Knight Cheaney whip incident today????

See people with an agenda remember the whip incident (which by the way the players bought it for Knight as a joke) before the UCLA game. I remember all the UCLA kids making comments how inappropriate it was and how shocked they were. 
This is what I remember...UCLA getting a butt whoopin!

those that don’t want to relive REAL Indiana basketball can just fast forward to the 14:00 mark...and see how much these kids loved their coach and how a non deal it was.

[IU Scott]

7 minutes ago, dgambill said:

See people with an agenda remember the whip incident (which by the way the players bought it for Knight as a joke) before the UCLA game. I remember all the UCLA kids making comments how inappropriate it was and how shocked they were. 
This is what I remember...UCLA getting a butt whoopin!

those that don’t want to relive REAL Indiana basketball can just fast forward to the 14:00 mark...and see how much these kids loved their coach and how a non deal it was.

Cheaney took a towel and whipped RMK butt with about a minute left in the game

[dgambill]

28 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

Cheaney took a towel and whipped RMK butt with about a minute left in the game

Well the video is just IU highlights...so 14:00 is like the last 30 seconds of the video...well worth the watch for people wanting to see how beautiful our basketball used to look...but yeah and the team clearly loved being coached hard and had fun winning!

[IU Scott]

14 minutes ago, dgambill said:

Well the video is just IU highlights...so 14:00 is like the last 30 seconds of the video...well worth the watch for people wanting to see how beautiful our basketball used to look...but yeah and the team clearly loved being coached hard and had fun winning!

I have watched that game and that tournament run a lot and their offense just clicked

[dgambill]

27 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

I have watched that game and that tournament run a lot and their offense just clicked

Yep...hate to say it but I’m not sure that we have anyone 1-5 as good (or fundamentally sound) as anyone in our starting 5 from then. I know Trayce and Lander are supposed to 4-5* caliber and very good ball players but man I’d swap any of our guys now for any of then. One thing to say we don’t have a Calbert or Damon or Greg Graham or Alan Henderson or Matt Nover or Eric Anderson but we don’t have anyone as good as one of them let alone all on the same team. That to me tells me about how far from being back as we really are.

[Steubenhoosier]

17 minutes ago, dgambill said:

Yep...hate to say it but I’m not sure that we have anyone 1-5 as good (or fundamentally sound) as anyone in our starting 5 from then. I know Trayce and Lander are supposed to 4-5* caliber and very good ball players but man I’d swap any of our guys now for any of then. One thing to say we don’t have a Calbert or Damon or Greg Graham or Alan Henderson or Matt Nover or Eric Anderson but we don’t have anyone as good as one of them let alone all on the same team. That to me tells me about how far from being back as we really are.

Due respect to IUScott...

 I don’t think that this is a reflection of the players then vs the players now, but more the game then vs the game now.

Basketball, and the players now, is/are a much more based on being an athlete instead of being fundamentally sound. I happen to agree with you, but fact of the matter is, kids today would run circles around the kids from 25-30 years ago. 

Stronger, faster, jump higher. All of the above. What kids today lack in fundamental skills, they more than make up for with their athleticism. 

Not what you or I want, but seems to be what today’s  players’ generation values as good and exciting basketball. 

I guess we either have to go with the flow or live in the memories of what we grew up with 

[IU Scott]

48 minutes ago, dgambill said:

Yep...hate to say it but I’m not sure that we have anyone 1-5 as good (or fundamentally sound) as anyone in our starting 5 from then. I know Trayce and Lander are supposed to 4-5* caliber and very good ball players but man I’d swap any of our guys now for any of then. One thing to say we don’t have a Calbert or Damon or Greg Graham or Alan Henderson or Matt Nover or Eric Anderson but we don’t have anyone as good as one of them let alone all on the same team. That to me tells me about how far from being back as we really are.

The difference is that team started junior and seniors and the two you mentioned are a sophomore and a freshman.  Today players might be better athletes but I don't totally buy that but they are no way near as good fundamentally.  Just because you are good athletes don't make you better basketball player.  The problem today is the game is so young and they don't stay long enough to be a great team like the 92 IU team.

[dgambill]

2 hours ago, Steubenhoosier said:

Due respect to IUScott...

 I don’t think that this is a reflection of the players then vs the players now, but more the game then vs the game now.

Basketball, and the players now, is/are a much more based on being an athlete instead of being fundamentally sound. I happen to agree with you, but fact of the matter is, kids today would run circles around the kids from 25-30 years ago. 

Stronger, faster, jump higher. All of the above. What kids today lack in fundamental skills, they more than make up for with their athleticism. 

Not what you or I want, but seems to be what today’s  players’ generation values as good and exciting basketball. 

I guess we either have to go with the flow or live in the memories of what we grew up with 

Ehh. Give those same kids the same training, nutritionists, and combine that with Knights fundamentals and toughness and I think they would run circles around our guys. Heck how many of Knights teams went more than 7 deep? Those kids were in extremely good shape. You really think kids now are any better athletes than say Michael Jordan, Dominque Wilkins, Dr J, and so on? Bah. There were plenty of great athletes especially just going back to the 90s. 
You may have something with going back 50-60 years ago especially as basketball was just integrating blacks but I don’t buy players now are any better or more capable of being more athletic then back then. We saw guys grabbing dimes off the top of the back boards even back then...I don’t buy it one bit. The game has changed for sure and I think Scott is right it’s much younger but you put those guys in 2020 and give them the same advantages these kids have...and give me their fundamentals and Knights coaching and toughness. You will never convince me they wouldn’t whip our boys now. They’d win the B1G going away too. Shoot I’ll take fundamentals, skills, their focus, and coaching any day. The most athletic team doesn’t always win...in fact we see quit a bit the most talented teams now days struggle when they go up against a well coached, veteran fundamentally sound team. Those kids on 92-93 would out execute and out work any of these teams we’ve had in the past 4-5 years. If athleticism etc always was better Duke and UK would never lose. They have the most athletically gifted teams in the country every year and yes they have won quite a bit but you see teams like Virginia and Villanova do just as good if not better.

Just my opinion and I respect yours but I don’t think today’s athlete is that much more advanced...especially if you give the former athlete the same access to what we know and have now. There are some teams and some players that just so good that they hold up the test of time. We have some great kids and i think we are getting close to returning to the top of the B1G but man...we have some awful shooters...we go 5-6 mins regularly without hitting a shot...we see huge effort lapses. Mentally we just aren’t tough some times. Talent at IU just ain’t what it used to be and maybe it is what Scott says..we are so young and our good players don’t stay...but the ones that do...not many get as good as those kids in 92-93 got by the time they were juniors and seniors imo.

[IU Scott]

11 hours ago, dgambill said:

Ehh. Give those same kids the same training, nutritionists, and combine that with Knights fundamentals and toughness and I think they would run circles around our guys. Heck how many of Knights teams went more than 7 deep? Those kids were in extremely good shape. You really think kids now are any better athletes than say Michael Jordan, Dominque Wilkins, Dr J, and so on? Bah. There were plenty of great athletes especially just going back to the 90s. 
You may have something with going back 50-60 years ago especially as basketball was just integrating blacks but I don’t buy players now are any better or more capable of being more athletic then back then. We saw guys grabbing dimes off the top of the back boards even back then...I don’t buy it one bit. The game has changed for sure and I think Scott is right it’s much younger but you put those guys in 2020 and give them the same advantages these kids have...and give me their fundamentals and Knights coaching and toughness. You will never convince me they wouldn’t whip our boys now. They’d win the B1G going away too. Shoot I’ll take fundamentals, skills, their focus, and coaching any day. The most athletic team doesn’t always win...in fact we see quit a bit the most talented teams now days struggle when they go up against a well coached, veteran fundamentally sound team. Those kids on 92-93 would out execute and out work any of these teams we’ve had in the past 4-5 years. If athleticism etc always was better Duke and UK would never lose. They have the most athletically gifted teams in the country every year and yes they have won quite a bit but you see teams like Virginia and Villanova do just as good if not better.

Just my opinion and I respect yours but I don’t think today’s athlete is that much more advanced...especially if you give the former athlete the same access to what we know and have now. There are some teams and some players that just so good that they hold up the test of time. We have some great kids and i think we are getting close to returning to the top of the B1G but man...we have some awful shooters...we go 5-6 mins regularly without hitting a shot...we see huge effort lapses. Mentally we just aren’t tough some times. Talent at IU just ain’t what it used to be and maybe it is what Scott says..we are so young and our good players don’t stay...but the ones that do...not many get as good as those kids in 92-93 got by the time they were juniors and seniors imo.

When you look at top teams today compared to top teams back in the 80's and 90's it is not even close.  There is no way that teams today could compete with Duke teams of the early 90's or the 90 UNLV team.  If you want to look at athletic players just look at the semi final game in 83 with Houston and UL.  I would also take a senior like Calbert over a freshman like Zion any day.

[BGleas]

I could not disagree more with this idea that players in the 80's and 90's were more skilled or fundamentally sound than players today and that players today are just more athletic. 

The skill level of today's players is infinitely better than in the 80's and 90's. In basketball in 2020, the training is better, almost everyone on the court can shoot and handle the ball, players can use both hands better and more efficiently, have deeper range, etc. The skill level has increased incredibly and you can see in the development of mid-major programs as well. There is a much wider pool of talented, skilled players than there was 30 years ago.

The simple problem with college basketball, beyond the lack of coaching creativity (pretty much everyone runs the exact same stuff) is that the best players either don't play college basketball or they only play for one season. Yeah, college basketball was better when you had Michael Jordan, Charles Barkley, Hakeem Olajuwon, Patrick Ewing, Chris Mullins, Shaq, Tim Duncan, Danny Manning, Calbert Cheaney, Sean Elliott, Mark Jackson, James Worthy, etc., etc. (just naming great players I remember from college basketball in the 80's and early 90's) all playing 3-4 years. 

Current college basketball would look a lot different if Anthony Davis, Cody Zeller, Zion Williamson, Jayson Tatum, Donovan Mitchell, Ben Simmons, Devin Booker, Tray Young, Brandon Ingram, etc., etc., all played 4 years of college basketball. 

Those players are all just as skilled as players from the 80's and 90's, if not more skilled, they just only played 1-2 years of college basketball. 

[BobSaccamanno]

I think experience is the biggest difference in quality of play.  I think those early 1990s IU teams would absolutely kill today.   Maybe where we can agree is that it would be largely a function of experience.  But, they were only 8-10 their freshman year after the ill-advised departure of Jay Edwards.  As they became experts on what Coach wanted, learned from their growing pains, developed chemistry, etc, they became great.  That team would put on a clinic.  

These days, the sport is somewhat dysfunctional by comparison.  Certainly winning teams like Villanova in the recent past won big with the attributes I mentioned above, but you don’t see it enough.  Kids go pro early and often consider it an embarrassment to be in college by their junior year.  

Maybe where we can agree is that, regardless of the player skill level, today it’s much more difficult to find teams that could hum on all cylinders like those 1992 and 1993 teams.  

You look at a kid like Tyler Herro and he is a remarkably skilled kid for a 20 year old.  There are a ton of kids like that now   But I think there have been guys in every generation who were athletes and skilled.  

I guess I don’t find it super interesting to compare players from period to period.  People like to point to a Westbrook with his speed or Giannis moving like a 6’5 guard as a seven footer.  But Hakeem was a freak in the 1980s and 1990.  His quickness as a seven footer was blinding.  Iverson was insanely quick and fast.   On the opposite side of the coin, I can also point you to a Steph Curry.  If he played in the 1980s, people would use him as an example of a guy who couldn’t cut it today.   

I would say there is always an incremental improvement in players as nutrition and better knowledge and emphasis help.  Individualized teaching and regimens are on another level now.  Current players are the beneficiaries of that.

In the end, I have always appreciated talent and skill in every generation.  But to me, what’s not nearly as strong today is the lack of experienced good players in the college game.  As a team sport, I think that’s where the quality has fallen off.  There have been teams like Villanova that played beautifully, but it’s not nearly as typical now.  And it’s practically a mathematical answer in the sense that if your top kids don’t stick around college, by definition there is a hit to finding the combo of experience and talent in comparison to back then.   

[BobSaccamanno]

As for Pat Chambers, I haven’t seen the exactly what happened.  From what I’ve read he used the word “noose” about a player who was putting too much pressure on himself.  Now, a noose may symbolize something about racism and the optics of a white coach talking about a black player is a mistake.   However, the intent was to be helpful. There was also something about him being handsy in his coaching but he’s not striking guys as far as I know.  My understanding is that the handsy issue was well discussed in the past and not new.  So, the noose thing seems to be the main issue.  

If that’s what the issue is, and correct me if it’s more than that, I think a firing is an overreaction. It’s great to bring out the pitchforks if you have never made a mistake but now you’re talking about a guy whose career is wrecked and he’s a guy who tried to help young people.  I am not a fan of trying to get blood out of well intentioned people who make a mistake out of negligence and not evil.  Send him to sensitivity training, but don’t wreck his life.   

Don’t get me wrong I’m strongly against coaches physically abusing players especially with kids or minors of any kind.  That’s ridiculous.  It just illustrates that the coach is inarticulate enough to teach and get his point across with words.  I don’t even think it’s an era thing.  It’s always a sign of ineptitude.  But Vince Lombardi grabbing a pro offensive lineman by the jersey and moving him is totally different than tossing a 12 year old of 15 year old around.  There are degrees of misconduct.  

[IU Scott]

54 minutes ago, BGleas said:

I could not disagree more with this idea that players in the 80's and 90's were more skilled or fundamentally sound than players today and that players today are just more athletic. 

The skill level of today's players is infinitely better than in the 80's and 90's. In basketball in 2020, the training is better, almost everyone on the court can shoot and handle the ball, players can use both hands better and more efficiently, have deeper range, etc. The skill level has increased incredibly and you can see in the development of mid-major programs as well. There is a much wider pool of talented, skilled players than there was 30 years ago.

The simple problem with college basketball, beyond the lack of coaching creativity (pretty much everyone runs the exact same stuff) is that the best players either don't play college basketball or they only play for one season. Yeah, college basketball was better when you had Michael Jordan, Charles Barkley, Hakeem Olajuwon, Patrick Ewing, Chris Mullins, Shaq, Tim Duncan, Danny Manning, Calbert Cheaney, Sean Elliott, Mark Jackson, James Worthy, etc., etc. (just naming great players I remember from college basketball in the 80's and early 90's) all playing 3-4 years. 

Current college basketball would look a lot different if Anthony Davis, Cody Zeller, Zion Williamson, Jayson Tatum, Donovan Mitchell, Ben Simmons, Devin Booker, Tray Young, Brandon Ingram, etc., etc., all played 4 years of college basketball. 

Those players are all just as skilled as players from the 80's and 90's, if not more skilled, they just only played 1-2 years of college basketball. 

That is what I am talking to about is that college players today are not as good because they are yo young.  A senior like Cheaney is a better basketball player than a freshman like Zion.

[BGleas]

44 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

That is what I am talking to about is that college players today are not as good because they are yo young.  A senior like Cheaney is a better basketball player than a freshman like Zion.

The players are better, they’re just not as experienced. Zion is better than Cheaney was a freshmen, they just don’t get to be seniors.