Maedhros

2 hours ago, BGleas said:

Who cares where they play? Just play. Home/home? Fine. Neutral site in Indy? Fine. Destination neutral site? Fine. 

Just play them and beat them! It's a great rivalry, play them anywhere and beat them regularly. 

I agree. Kentucky could duck us because we needed to play them a lot more then they needed to play us. Recognizing that reality, I don't much care where this gets played, just put it back on our schedule. It's what the fans want and elevates our program just by happening, no matter the result.

I have a dream where I'm back living in a dorm, which for me was a double all to myself in Read, in the hub with a personal full bathroom attached. Sweet setup. Only in my dream I know I've graduated. I'm not going to class, even though I've enrolled in classes. And I'm adding debt by way tuition & room and board. Wonder what that dream means...

13 hours ago, Indykev said:

How is this a problem for you? Do you want the best players going to the boosters with the most money to throw around? Because it won't be IU. NIL was meant to help kids have some money in school not team building.

The stipend was meant to help kids have some money in school. NIL wasn't in the NCAA's plans at all.

NIL is the result of state governments telling the NCAA they can no longer prevent athletes from participating in the market. But enforcing that restriction is a large reason why the NCAA exists at all. They needed to respond to affirm their relevance. They did so by relying on the old language of the past. "Booster" isn't a term that has any legal definition outside of what the NCAA conjured up when building its model of amateurism. Why would any legislature consider such a label sufficient to prevent someone contracting with an athlete? 

These players have value, and it exists well before they step on campus. Think of the crowds following the Ball family around at AAU events, or even Gabe Cupps' massive social media following because he's tight with Lebron. Cupps has nearly 400K followers on Instagram, there's a real market benefit to his representation. That doesn't go away just because someone at the other end of the deal bought a couple bumper stickers back before Gabe was even born.

The NCAA needs to wholly reimagine what the college athletics model should be. But it's made them so much money for so long that they'd rather do everything they can to maintain the status quo. NIL has been coming since at least September 2019, when California passed the first state law. Almost three years later, the NCAA is still trying to hold on to all they know.

On 4/3/2022 at 1:07 AM, ButlerHoosier said:

Whenever you read further down in the article it seems like he may blow up and we got in on him before he blows up. 

New article from 247 today, with Travis Branham calling him "arguably the hottest name to start the spring sessions".

His AAU team TSF will be at the EYBL even in Westfield this weekend, for those who want to see him in action.

Arrinten Page in the midst of a breakout spring

On 1/4/2022 at 1:31 PM, tdhoosier said:

I remember the days of peeing in my pants if seeing Three Floyds in a liquor store. Zombie Dust must be the most copied recipe since then. There are now so many Citra Hopped APAs that taste exactly like it. (I.e. Maplewood Charlatan)

Thinking out loud about beers….I’ve always hated Daisy Cutter. I try to come back to it every 2-3 years and still it tastes too earthy and bitter for my liking. This week I grabbed a Galaxy Hopped Double Daisy Cutter and it was absolutely amazing.

On the flip side: I love Two Hearted and can’t stand Double Two Hearted. 

Funny how beer recipes can be like that. 

Daisy Cutter is one of my favorites, though I like a good west coast style hoppy bite. Haven't tried the double yet, mainly because it's described as having a grapefruit flavor and that's just personally not a profile I enjoy.

I'm with you on Double Two Hearted. The original is so well crafted, but the balance is all off in the double.

Here in town there's Daredevil brewing and their flagship Liftoff IPA. It's good, but I like the Rip Cord DIPA even better.

I'm very tired of hearing about the Syracuse game, and there's no reason to use a loss from ten years ago as a guide for building our team going forward. The problem with the Syracuse game is that we've only once had a team that promising since, not that we lost to a top ten KenPom team in the Sweet Sixteen. We should shrug our shoulders and move on. The reason we as a fan base haven't is because there haven't been any other teams on which to pin our hopes for a Final Four.

Nijel Pack would be a tremendous addition. He's exactly the scoring punch we could have used last season, and a freshman JHS isn't going to solve that need on his own.

4 hours ago, dgambill said:

Agreed. Me thinks that was a desperate move by Miller to quell the alum base with how things were going by getting a top Indiana HS recruit to commit early....also because he had poorly constructed his roster and had Rob as the only point guard on it (who also clearly plays better off the ball then on it). Should have definitely had at least brought in one in the portal. Lander had no business coming in early nor playing last year but to me it was done to try to save face and build will towards Archie getting another year. 

I would guess wanting to play with Trayce was also part of his decision, as well as a desire to be in the same class as his friends Leal and Galloway. But yes, I agree, getting someone as physically unready as Lander to reclass was the short-term act of a coach who felt he needed wins now.

The irony is, we probably have the same season without Lander in '21 ... but the promise of a shiny new five-star PG in the incoming class might have been just enough for Archie to keep his job for another year.

5 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

I am more concerned with which players helps us win games and not a bunch of stats

If he scores more points, shoots better from 2, 3 and on FTs, grabs more rebounds, creates more assists, records more steals, and has better defensive metrics across the board, then he's probably doing more to help us win.

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.

1 hour ago, IowaHoosierFan said:

Bob Knight isn't a draw for most of the last couple generations of fan.  You want to know why Kentucky and Duke have sold out events.  They spend money and get what matters to the current students and recent graduates and fans.  And honestly, that isn't 80 something year old Bob Knight.  Its Drake, Travis Scott, or any of the other popular artist.

We need to up our game and get current.  The big boosters are going to give their money on the back end, to fill seats, you need to do what current generations want and need to be engaged.

Just my thoughts.  I am in the generation who watched the 87 championship so i am a Bob Knight fan.

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.

4 hours ago, iuswingman said:

Clowney will get some experience at alabama and then transfer to iu as a junior.... they are a feeder program to us lol

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.

14 minutes ago, Proud2BAHoosier said:

From an AL guy.... Congrats to the Braves for winning the WS and defeating the ASSTROS!!!

Just goes to show what can happen when a team gets hot at the right time and make the right trades at the dead-line...

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.

18 minutes ago, Maedhros said:

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.

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.

On 10/31/2021 at 10:02 AM, kyhoosier29 said:

Not directed at you at all, but Al Durham’s inability to use his brain on the court was the reason he didn’t have more games like this at IU. We keep piling on CAM like everything was his fault. We had A LOT of low IQ guys left over from the Crean era that he should have “Creaned” from the get-go. 

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.

59 minutes ago, ledies22 said:

They aren’t giving their opinion. They are relaying information that they are hearing from whatever source that they have that may be within or near the program. And they do this month(s) in advance not two days before. If people can’t handle the speculations, they shouldn’t be on the recruiting forum reading anything that doesn’t say committed to their names. If we can’t handle the misses maybe we should wait for the crystal ball predictions to come out. People also complain that the crystal ball predictions don’t come until a day of or hours before. Which is it? 
 

I don’t want others ruining ruining what I enjoy, which is coming on here and looking at the talk and rumors of recruits. People have been chased away before. 

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.

1 hour ago, RoadToZion said:

I know one recruit who was very turned off by them, fwiw. Their gimmicks won’t last long. 

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.

1 hour ago, FKIM01 said:

PSA:  PLEASE DO NOT CONTINUE COMMENTING ON PLAYER THREADS AFTER THEY HAVE COMMITTED TO OTHER SCHOOLS.  WE OFFICIALLY DO NOT CARE ANYMORE AND SEEING THESE THREADS MIXED IN WITH PLAYERS WHO MAY STILL CHOOSE IU IS JUST ANNOYING.

THAT IS ALL.

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.

4 hours ago, Southern IN Hoosier said:

"We need Indiana kids."

"We have to recruit Indiana"

"Close the borders"

We are most likely getting an Indiana kid and now it seems people are saying he isn't good enough. Labeled me confused.

I personally am excited to get this kid at IU and having him commit early is even more of a plus in my eyes

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.

11 minutes ago, btownqb said:

You don't out play a ranking. That is not a thing. I'm sorry, but absolutely absurd to still believe that ranking next to a name on a recruiting site holds any sort of bearing when they get on a college campus. Armaan isn't out playing a damn thing, he is just that good and works THAT hard. 

https://247sports.com/player/matt-howard-63605/ 

https://247sports.com/Player/Gordon-Hayward-60420/high-school-105252/

https://247sports.com/Player/Shelvin-Mack-60424/high-school-105263/

https://247sports.com/player/luka-garza-84266/

https://247sports.com/Player/Ja-Morant-46035335/high-school-183728/

https://247sports.com/Player/Marcus-Carr-86079/high-school-151360/

 

I could go on and on and on with these. I could also find PLENTY of examples of top 50 busts. Putting a cap on someone's talent/ability/upside because they are a "sub 100 wing" is very concerning. 

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?

30 minutes ago, cybergates said:

He's "only" 101 in 247 composite, so while a 4* good get for IU, not sure there should be expectations of dominance as a HS junior on a team with other talented players. 

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.