HoosierDom

I believe those with percentages underneath are predictions. If no number, it's a done deal.

"Winter sport student-athletes who compete during 2020-21 in Division I will receive both an additional season of competition and an additional year in which to complete it, the Division I Council decided. " https://www.ncaa.org/news/2020/10/14/di-council-extends-eligibility-for-winter-sport-student-athletes.aspx The extra year applies to those "who compete", not to those who didn't.

That's only if they played the COVID year. The whole point was that they wanted guys to play the year and not worry about a bunch of games being cancelled and still losing that year of eligibility. It doesn't apply to people who, through their choice or their school's, sat out.

No, Ledlum has one. He doesn't get a bonus year for sitting out. If he had played, it wouldn't have counted against his 4 years of eligibility, but he doesn't get 5 anyway.

I think that was specifically about a freshman.

Exactly. He was the 2nd leading scorer on a team that was 3 points away from a national championship. Were no where near turning that down.

Certainly. I would assume they just do a one year deal with the ability to renew that for future years, always one year at a time, once the guy has returned. No need to violate an NCAA rule when the rule has a blatantly obvious loop-hole. How much did this Ruiz character give to Miami before NIL? That's the part that won't dry up. Athletic donations have been big business for a long time. This is just the same thing but repurposed. It will probably grow the overall pot of contributions somewhat, but schools will just have to cut back on some of the expenses that used to be covered by donations (coach salaries is my guess) and send that money to players. If the NCAA suddenly allowed schools to pay players with no stipulations and no salary cap, I don't think there is any doubt all of the big schools would do so. The money is there and long has been. It doesn't take too much creativity to channel donations to NIL opportunities and essentially pay players now. All perfectly within the rules.

If I recall correctly, we offered Brad Stevens $7 million a year. We were able to line that money up and the people in charge thought that would be a worthwhile investment of that money - and they were probably right. If a school can put together that kind of money for a coach, why would they not (especially since we couldn't get that coach) spend half that on a coach and the other half on players? No one thinks that the donor money that leads to big coaches is going to dry up over time. Why would it dry up for players? Directing donor money to these collectives, or whatever they end up being called, is the logical, best use of money. It doesn't need to be new money beyond what was there before - the money is there already, there are just new options for programs to spend it.

I don't know what kind of mental state he's in, but Knight doing it would be the absolute best.

Does that come from a particular person, or just a site wide guess?

I also think Woodson would rather not play two non-shooting bigs at the same time (though it's pure speculation that I think that), but I also think he will adjust to what he has. If we can't find a stretch 4 who is good enough to play, we will play two bigs at the same time. I'd rather have 2 quality bigs who play at a high level than replace one of them with a better fit that just isn't as good at basketball.

There's not a never-ending river of quality players in the portal - at some point we will have to take guys because we need kids who can play at this level, even if they aren't the ideal fit. If this were a video game and I could design kids with my ideal skill set, I wouldn't end up with the Texas Tech kid paired with Reneau, but they both look like guys who could be big time players. We need as many of those as we can get.

We have a lot of contradictory statements in threads like this. People like to say that the BIG is too physical, and that leads to bad results. But, then we get people acknowledging the obvious from last night, fouls were not being called, and thus physical play was allowed. The truth, I think, is that college basketball if physical everywhere. Our officials might be more inconsistent, but that's largely true of any college game I watch. I think the issues are, 1) And this one is the most important, the conferences struggles are overstated. They only exist at all over the last 3 years, if you go back 10-20 years our overall record is great, our number of teams reaching the Sweet 16 and the Final 4 are great. Even over the last 3 years, we've only had a few under-perform their seeds. Our collection of 7-10 seeds losing in the second round is not a terrible performance - it's what is supposed to happen. We've certainly under-performed as a conference, but it isn't some disaster. 2) There aren't as many bad teams in our conference as in most others, so the tournament bound teams don't get a steady diet of fairly easy quad 2 wins that lead to good seeds. We also cannibalize each other's recruiting. Turn Ohio State into a Georgia level program, then take half of their players over the last 5 years and pass them out between us, MSU, Michigan and Maryland, and all of a sudden the 4 of us have some really stacked rosters. 3) We don't have anyone getting the Kansas, Kentucky, Duke level of recruits. Maybe with NIL that will start to change. But it's hard to be good every year without a steady stream of top 50 guys.

This thread has already devolved into just the other thread with a new name. It would be nice if this could be as intended: a place for actual information about specific players. Conversations like the above, which I enjoy and participate in, are the sort of thing that only stay relevant for few hours. If I go a day or two without getting on here, I'm not going to read through 5 pages of these conversations. It would be nice to keep that stuff to the other thread and have this one be the place where I do need to catch up on everything I missed because it's packed with actual information.

I think trading JHS for X is a pretty big upgrade. A lot fewer long 2's and a lot more assists (which comes from more penetration, better passing and better recognition), plus better defense. If JHS comes back next year, he could be really, really good, but this yea's JHS vs. X, I think the answer is clear. That's not to say we don't need some players to come in, but replacing Kopp and Race won't be that hard. Replacing TJD will be. But, hopefully replacing him means that we become a more perimeter oriented offense.

From what I have read of the rule, there's no real ruling needed. He clearly didn't go over the percent of his team's games played threshold, so he gets another year. I don't see anything in the rule that calls for subjective evaluation.

How many stupid shots do we have to take?

Need a timeout.

How does TJD give up that board. Uggh

If we would have hit a couple ft's and grabbed a couple of defensive boards, we would be up. Miami seems to have cooled off their shooting.

Yeah, really thought both those teams were over-seeded. Thought the same about Tennessee, though, so what do I know.

If we can successfully defend the 3-point line, I think we win by double digits. If we can control the defensive boards and score a lot of points in the paint, I think Miami will miss enough shots for us to squeak by in a fairly high scoring game. That's my prediction: we give up too many shots, but we take care of the glass and get a lot of points out of our big guys.

I don't root for many ex-Hoosiers, but Hunter, Maurice Creek, and sort of Phinisee. Those three are the exceptions.

You would have to think that would be the plan. Though, I've expected to see something like that all season, and haven't always.

Saddest day of the year. The tournament is officially half over. But, a good first half.