HoosierDom

40 minutes ago, IUCrazy2 said:

https://youtu.be/NOH9Ityo51c

I've never heard of this one, but those look like the highlights of a guy who scores 20 a game. Looks like he pretty much did the second half of the season.

4 minutes ago, tdhoosier said:

I agree with that. I guess if you’re getting the ‘Purdue JHS’ then you’d obviously take JHS. BUT if you’re comparing the two, XJ has a higher floor, is more consistent and is a better defender. 

No reason to not think that as the leader on next year’s team XJ will begin the running for first or second team all B1G. 

But I still can’t help but think ‘what would’ve been’ with those 2 playing together. Forget about offensive output, XJ’s defense alone would’ve changed a lot. 

Sure, if he had his best game every single night, that's hard to pass up. But, looking at X's games vs Xavier and UNC - I might still take that X over JHS. Those were some efficient games. With very good D.

34 minutes ago, tdhoosier said:

Seriously. Ware, Malik, XJ, Gallo and (fill in the blank) is not a horrible situation. 

If XJ doesn’t get his waiver then I might start getting nervous. 

I get that it’s easy to get caught up in shiny mid-major transfers. For example, Knecht played 2 decent teams last year: Houston and Baylor. He scored 8 and 12 points in those games. Nowhere close to his average and he’s not known as a defender. Would he even start over Gallo?  Possibly, but let’s not act like he’d be a sure fire starter. 

I’ll also predict that Cupps is going to play more than we think. Did you see that he played 5 games in Italy a few weeks ago with his Ohio team? He had 24 assists in those games and zero turnovers….and with a 24 second shot clock.

We’ll get 2 more guys. Possibly 3. Based on this staff’s history of pulling rabbits out of their hat late in the game, I predict one of those will be a guy that we will get over-excited about and this last week will seem like a bad dream. 

Per 48 minutes, Ware had over 12 boards and just under 4 blocks. Both of those numbers are higher than TJD's junior year per 48's. I think people are underestimating how high this kid's floor is.

I'm sure not all will agree, but I'd take X over last year's JHS. For me it's not that close.

I'd take a sophomore Malik over Race.

I'd take this years Galloway over last year's.

As long as someone, maybe even Banks, can outperform Kopp, we should be better at 4 of the 5 starting spots. And still very good at that 5th spot. I'll take it.

37 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

https://www.espn.com/espn/feature/story/_/page/bracketology/ncaa-bracketology-2024-march-madness-men-field-predictions 

Has us in the last 4 in

UConn is certainly overrated. Alabama and FAU seem criminally overrated, but at least they aren't all in on overrating Kentucky like they have been over the past decade.

(can we maybe fix the "to" to "too" in these two titles)

If you haven't seen the video already, google his game highlights vs MSU and vs UConn. Those videos show every shot he took, every rebound, block and turnover. He certainly has some things to work on, but man, the good parts are highly impressive. I'd say more impressive than the pure highlight video I saw before.

23 minutes ago, Hoosierfan1901 said:

 

Do we know beyond this story that he canceled Alabama? Was his original plan to go straight there from Bloomington?

46 minutes ago, Threedom said:

This is from the portal update website.  Are these just predictions or actual updates?

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

13 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

So you’re saying that no one in the country redshirted that year?

"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.

15 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

Not sure you’re correct. Would that not count as his redshirt year, giving him two more years to play?

Normally you have five years to play four seasons, Covid gave guys six years to play five seasons though. 

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.

22 minutes ago, IUfaninIllinois said:

The problem is the remaining spots need to be grad transfers…. Sparks, Knecht, Ware all have eligibility left correct? With that being said I would assume that Ware intends to be a one and done here?

edit: I just looked it up. Knecht has 1 year left and Ledlum actually has 2 years because Harvard didn’t play during 2020 Covid season. 

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.

6 minutes ago, 94hoosier said:

Was this the guy that the tweet was about wanting an IU offer that didn’t get it coming out of high school?

I think that was specifically about a freshman.

15 minutes ago, Inequality said:

Yep, I hear ya there. My position is I don’t think our roster is anywhere near good enough to turn down such talent. Bring him on. This could turn out to be the gritty roster that we need.

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.

24 minutes ago, btownqb said:

Right. I just... I think it's WELL within the moral ability of those companies/individuals to have stipulations like that. jmo

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.

9 minutes ago, BGleas said:

Yeah, I don't really listen to him or follow him either, but the nature of Twitter and its algorithm have his stuff still pop-up in my feed and I see some of his nonsense because people I follow engage, etc. 

I just think it would be great if the older former players defended the current guys. I think that would go a long way for the segment of fans that incredibly believe and listen to Dakich. 

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

2 hours ago, Hoosierfan1901 said:

Rivals’ Crystal Ball

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

1 hour ago, IUProfessor said:

Just to be clear, I would take either of them if they were willing to come. I just don't think they are likely to come here if they aren't going to be playing starter-type minutes. And I don't think the plan is to play two bigs at the same time regularly, so I don't see it as a fit from the players' perspective, not the program's.

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.

23 minutes ago, IUProfessor said:

Moving the discussion of which bigs we should target here, from the other thread, I agree that the Wyoming or Texas Tech kids are probably going to be looking to start, and thus aren't a great fit here. At the same time, however, if we only target a backup rim protector without much offensive ability, that risks putting us in a big hole should Reneau have any health issues next year. That's why I think keeping Duncomb is actually more important than most think, as he has offensive upside, but isn't necessarily the sort of talent that might prevent us from getting a big fish in the 2024 class.

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.

1 hour ago, 5fouls said:

I'm the opposite.  I think you have to win the portal in a big way to even duplicate this year's success.  Assuming JHS leaves, we are losing two NBA first round talents and 2 critical complimentary pieces.  We would be returning one player that scored yesterday and get a critical piece back from injury.  Even with XJ, that's a lot of production to make up.  

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.

3 minutes ago, 5fouls said:

I think you need a couple more of those transfers to be higher up in the rotation.  

As far as the returning players, since we don't know for certain that X will be ruled eligible, the only one that I feel 100% convinced will be back is Galloway. I would put X at 100% if his request for the extra year is granted.  I expect Reneau to be back, and I think Woodson will do everything he can to encourage Banks to stay, but beyond that, I'm not sure.  

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