Maedhros

By just about any measure, Khristian has been better than Rob. His turnover percentage is higher, yes, but then his assist percentage and every shooting percentage is also higher. Lander is a better rebounder, has a better steal percentage. Lander's defensive rating, defensive plus/minus, even his defensive win shares, are all higher as well. There's really just nothing to recommend Rob over Lander as the better player right now; Except that Woodson continues to play Rob as the first backup, of course. Perhaps seniority matters some, and physical maturity. But count me among those who want to see Lander's minutes rise as the season goes on. I'm much more interested in seeing what Lander can become than what we already know Rob to be.

Spot on. I'm 40. I don't remember the '87 team, and because I didn't grow up an Indiana fan I only barely remember the Cheaney teams. I know Bob Knight the bully, not the iconic basketball coach. Mike Davis was the coach when I arrived on campus. All my favorite memories of Indiana basketball, the reasons I'm a fan, are from after the Knight era. I understand why having Knight in the building is a big deal for the Hysterics guys, and for other fans of a certain age. I doubt his presence moves the needle much at all for fans another generation even younger than myself. Whatever excitement I feel for the Mike Woodson era is based on what he is doing right now, and what he might accomplish in the coming seasons. It has nothing to do with Woodson's time as a player. Indiana Basketball needs to be about more than just Bob Knight.

"Deep" doesn't get you very far in college basketball. If you have a bunch of players on your bench you can use without much dropoff in production, it means you don't have many studs in the starting lineup. I'd much rather have four or five guys we knew for sure would be starting. Instead, it's Trayce and four question marks. My hope is that some of these guys are question marks only because they're new to the program. That they'll prove to be studs in their new setting. If it doesn't happen this year, then it needs to happen in the coming years with more guys like Bates, Hood-Schifino and Newton. We need to upgrade the talent in this program. As we transition from the Archie era to the Woodson era, I want to read discussions about our potential multiple All-Americans, not whether we might be ten or twelve deep.

Maybe in the past. I like what Woodson's done so far but Oats was my top choice to replace Archie. I love his style, and with those football resources all they're lacking is the will to win at basketball. Can't blame Clowney at all for his decision. Now I just need to see how Woodson responds, to fill that need on the roster.

Joc Pederson comes up clutch against the Astros. Eddie Rosario is NLCS MVP. Jorge Soler is World Series MVP. And gave up almost nothing for those guys. What a trade deadline achievement.

6 IP, 0 R, 0 BB, all after getting his ankle stepped on in the first. What a performance. He's an ace.

Max Fried was incredible. Tyler Matzek was incredible, as he had been all postseason. And my Braves are World Series Champions for the first time since 1995, when I was just 13. I'm now nearly 40. What a ride.

Speaking of piling on, it's amazing we're still blaming players for Archie's failures. Al Durham was never coached by Tom Crean. Archie Miller was his coach for four years. Maybe the claim is that low IQ is endemic, and Archie did the best he could with a player he would never have recruited? If so, it's remarkably poor timing to be making that claim after Al had a great performance in his first appearance under a different coach. Even granting your premise, Al played the second most minutes on the team last season, behind only Trayce. As a junior, he saw more minutes than any other guard, and was behind behind only Trayce and Justin Smith. So either Archie couldn't see that Al Durham was low IQ, or he was never able to add a better guard to the roster to replace this leftover Crean recruit. Either way, yeah, it was Archie's fault.

I think the problem comes from speaking in absolutes. Recruiting is fluid, things can change, etc., but the burden of that disclaimer shouldn't fall on the reader. We're all screen names on here, with no reason to trust each other except by what gets said on these boards. If someone states a recruit is definitely coming here, and that doesn't happen, I have less trust in that person. I've read a lot that this is an unfair response; to me it's the only natural and expected reaction. I read these boards to hear what people have to say, I like reading the hot gossip. But if you don't want pushback, couch your language. Make it clear this is what you're hearing at the time, and not definitively what will happen. Maybe it seems obvious to those sharing info, and therefore such framing should be unnecessary, but consider the reader who trusts you, and the disappointment anyone would feel when your assertion proves false.

One more.

Fears did not look comfortable in that video. I hate that they were any part of his first impression of Bloomington and IU.

This is good news. How good will be determined by the caliber of opponent we schedule to replace the event.

Nonsense. The thread title has been updated to avoid any confusion. Let discussion contained within those threads continue as it will. The "plunging" attempts made when a recruit chooses elsewhere are far more annoying than skipping past just one thread you no longer wish to see.

Speaking personally, I've never much cared where a kid is from once they put on the jersey. It didn't matter to me when AJ Moye blocked Carlos Boozer, when DJ White was B10 POY, when Vic was dunking all over the Big Ten, or when OG blocks led to Thomas Bryant dunks against Kentucky in the NCAA Tournament. Talent is talent, you don't get bonus points for where you played high school ball. Locking down the state is something you only hear when Indiana isn't winning, and fans can see players from the state having success elsewhere. It isn't a guarantor of team success, nor is being from the state sufficient assurance that any particular player will be able to contribute at the Big Ten level. Each year, only a handful of the thousands of Indiana kids will even get an offer from IU. The question isn't where Gunn is from, it's whether he can contribute to a winning team.

Thank you for providing examples of guys who outplayed their ranking to prove there's no such thing as outplaying your ranking. I don't use "sub 100 wing" as a cap. Scout rankings and ratings are not determinant, they are just a projection. Players fall short of and exceed projections at all levels of the game. But it's still a useful shorthand, a means to reference at least some opinion as to what caliber of player we have on the roster. Scouting services miss, just as coaches paid millions to get this right sometimes miss, when they bring in guys that don't pan out. All things being equal, I'd rather go into a season with a roster of top 75 guys, over one with guys all ranked 150+, no?

The Composite has felt broken for a while. I don't know the inputs or how they're weighted, but there's either garbage in or garbage coming out. That's a general statement across the board, not specific to any one recruit. As for Gunn, he's ranked 125 by 247's own service. At Rivals he ranks 148. Both have him rated as a three star. I'm glad one of the best prospects in the state is still interested in playing for Indiana, and Armaan has been outplaying a similar ranking for much of the year, but I confess I'm not sure how I feel about yet another sub-100 wing. We've taken one or two in every class.