HoosierDom

Someone tell me what I have wrong here. As I remember it, Woody's first year, TJD's junior year, we were struggling down the stretch, but then really turned things around in the middle of getting beaten down my Michigan when we ran X and TJD on pick and rolls. I would put TJD on the list of the all time greats of college basketball when it comes to the ability to finish a lob. X proved more than capable of getting down hill and throwing that pass. That play, at least in my memory, led us to the tournament. Since then, we have seen very little of it. I remember precious little of it last year. Ware isn't an all time great with the lob, but he's in the 98th percentile. We had a brief run where I remember Ware getting some lobs this year, some from Galloway, some from X. Now that has again disappeared. Why?

What gets me about this team, and really every team that Woodson has coached at IU, is that we roll out a big heavy line-up, but still have a defensive philosophy that seems designed to clog the paint and help out bigs that aren't big enough. Either of those things alone, I think are defensible (they can easily be argued against, but I don't think they're definitively wrong) but to do both, and then throw in the kicker that we still can't rebound. It seems like two big bigs and packing the paint with help defenders would lead to strong rebounding. But, it doesn't.

It's clear Woody values shutting down the inside at the expense of giving up 3s - I think you can argue for that if you're also owning the glass. I still don't understand how this team and last year's can be so bad at that despite personnel that should excel at it.

Just now, Hippopotamo said:

I wonder what Gard said to Woodson in the handshake line. 

Was wondering that, too. Not a usual comment, for sure.

1 minute ago, rogue3542 said:

I gotta say, I think at least two of sparks fouls were not even close to actually being fouls, not that it really matters

At least two. By the time you take those, the phantom call on X, all the times Malik got hammered, X getting hit in the lane. It's almost like these things could matter.

That was the most blatant step on the baseline that I have ever seen not called.

Can we at least whine about how X gets called for brushing that dude as he drives and Malik gets hammered in the paint and called for a travel?

It's probably a flagrant, but I don't think he was trying to hit him in the head. He was trying to elbpw him in the body.

52 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

This, cut out the long twos, and focus on rebounding and we could win some games.

Imperfect roster or not, we aren’t close to getting the most out of it. That’s what is the most frustrating part of the season IMO. 

I couldn't agree more. The number of times we pass up an open 3 with a close out coming to take an off-balanced, long 2, is just maddening. That and the fact that we play huge line-ups and get thoroughly out rebounded. I don't understand how that can happen so many times.

2 minutes ago, Reacher said:

Are you talking about the one from the free throw line? He should have taken that shot. I was surprised he missed

The one where he faded away and missed. Some guys can hit that shot. I've never seen Cupps hit an off-balanced shot.

Why do we shoot so many mid-range and longer 2's? There have been fewer this half, but what makes Cupps think he should take that shot?

4 hours ago, IU Scott said:

You do reat who makes these rules don't you? It isn't the NCAA

I have a very hard time trying to figure out how you can read my post and think I was saying the NCAA was making these rules. Refer to the first paragraph.

12 minutes ago, IUfaninIllinois said:

Do you think there would be hesitation to come back because doesn’t him and Liam play same position? 

Maybe. But, if I'm coach, I would be drooling at the possibility of playing them at the 3 and 4. With Woodson's penchant for big lineups, he might even want to have them at the 2 and 3. Which I wouldn't hate either.

17 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

Doctor, Lawyer, military ( have to spend 3 years in service 

C'mon, there's no comparison here.

Doctors and lawyers require training to be able to serve the public. There is no comparable training nor danger to the public. As most readily seen by the idea of allowing kids to go straight to the pros from high school if they so desire. But, even without that provision, the lack of a comparable training period is plain. As is the lack of public risk. The argument quickly devolves into one of anti-trust. If the Pacers decide they won't take a kid who hasn't played 3 years of college ball, they're welcome to do so, but the Bulls will not make a similarly self-destructive decision. So, the only way the Pacers can have such a policy is if some outside entity (the NBA) forces the Bulls to do so as well. That's the sort of thing that public policy is increasingly turning against.

A military enlistment is a contract, so you could argue for a term of service contract for colleges, but, again, the analogy is greatly strained and clearly fails as both an analogy and a matter or practicality. The uniqueness of a military contract is criminal enforcement for breaking it. That exists because it's a matter of national security. Any other contract in life is a civil matter and is really just an agreement for money with monetary penalties if contracts aren't fulfilled. We would quickly get into things like liquidated damages and the like, but it's much simpler to just realize that IU is never going to try to sign a kid to a 3 year contract, because if they do, Kentucky won't and Kentucky will get the player. The only way IU could enact such a policy is if some outside entity forces Kentucky to do so as well, which, just as above, is against the strong trend we are seeing.

7 minutes ago, Hoosier82 said:

If it’s allowed in baseball, there’s no valid argument to disallow it in basketball. Especially now where foreign pro leagues are more accessible than ever and the creation of the G-League or whatever they call it. 

The obvious response is that it is far more likely that the baseball rule will change than other sports will change to match baseball.

13 minutes ago, Drroogh said:

Or non-compete agreements!

Non-competes are highly disfavored and when they are allowed, are tightly tailored to minimize their impact and to protect trade secrets. I don't see any argument how that would apply here.

15 minutes ago, ledies22 said:

its not limiting the ability to work, but where you work. There are plenty of examples of jobs you can and cannot have based on age restrictions.

Edit: I say this because college you have the ability to make money now. 

This isn't an age restriction. The original post called for kids to be able to go pro right after high school.

1 hour ago, Hoosier82 said:

The NBA/NCAA adopting the baseball model for professional eligibility would be a huge start while they sort out the transfer rules mess. Wanna go pro outta high school? Fine. Wanna come to college? Ok, but you’re here for 3 years. Im all for progress and taking care of the student athletes but at some point, the product on the court has to matter. 

I think it's very unlikely we see any rule changes that restrict a person's ability to work. There's no other occupation, outside of athlete, where anything remotely like these rules are allowed by law. The trend is very much against placing further limitations on work.

I also like attaching numbers to my guesses. I'm going with,

Walker: 99% (I be believe there are still enough games for him to get a 6th year if he gets hurt soon and we win a couple post season games).

Ware: 96%. He has to have improved his draft stock, and another year seems unlikely to move the needle. The 4% he stays comes from the idea that he's probably making more now than a kid 2nd rounder makes, so maybe he gets bad feedback and doesn't want to take the risk.

MM: 52%. He's not explosive, so I don't see the NBA drooling over him. Seems like the kind of kid that has to actually play really good basketball to get drafted. He's coming along, but clearly hasn't had a lot of great coaching in his past, so it's either college or G- league next year.

I get that Ware thought Cupps should get out there and guard the 3, but at least guard someone or boxout or somehow contribute while you're trying to sort that out.

Cupps passed up a 3 (there was probably going to be a good close-out) for an off-balanced long 2?

WTF has happened to Mbako's FT stroke? It was so smooth and pure, that did not look the same.

17 minutes ago, Maedhros said:

I think Galen's said this on CrimsonCast before, and it's always rung hollow. Having established players in the frontcourt didn't stop Sparks and Walker from coming here. The backcourt was even less proven, and with less of a pedigree. Any depth piece in the portal would have had a chance to get in the rotation, and any difference maker - like Dalton Knecht- would count on beating out Trey for minutes.

I'm not sure the frontcourt analogy applies, as I don't think Walker or Sparks thought they were going to be starters any where they wanted to transfer. But, other than that, I agree. I can't imagine a guy like Knecht was afraid of competing with Galloway. I don't know Tennessee's roster, but they must have some players in the same league as Galloway that are behind Knecht.

I think we just struck out. We went after a small number of high caliber guard/wings and we missed. Might we have been better served taking a back-up option there? Probably. But, I have to assume the staff thought any available options after those 3 or 4 misses were not better than what we already have.

19 minutes ago, btownqb said:

I have brought those points up quite a bit. You also didn't mention Cupps. 

And we did land 2 pretty big fish "in the portal/late HS recruiting season" in Ware, MM. I do think we were already out on Knecht by the time MM was heating up. 

So to answer your question, I think those two coming back was a pretty big hindrance. There are still 22-28mpg for TG on a good team, and if he goes to the bench, that's fine, but to broad stroke and say "only way we are successful is if TG is our 6th/7th man", no I am not buying that. You just need other people that can score the basketball and stretch the defense...Insert McNeeley/1 or 2 transfer guards/MM grows from FR to SO like Malik and Ware. 

Exactly. I think Galloway can absolutely be a starter on very good team, he just needs to be surrounded by multiple scorers. X has been erratic and MM inconsistent, at best. Put Galloway on a team with Yogi and Knecht (I thought long and hard for a wing scorer from our recent past and came up with nothing) and I think he is outstanding as a starter.

How does X have the game he had against OSU and then play like he did tonight? For a 6th year senior to have that kind of swing - I just don't get it.

4 minutes ago, 68Hoosier said:

Score update?

 

I wouldn't worry about asking again the rest of the game. It's safe to assume we're up 20-19.