andy_puiu

3 hours ago, IUCrazy2 said:

Yeah, but contracts aren't as hard.  Think of the Big 2 breaking away from the NCAA.  They can agree between themselves that players get 1 chance to leave and from there no poaching. A kid is free to attend the University if he transfers after that but they become ineligible players in the new Big 2.  They can go play in whatever is left of the NCAA but their access to the big money is cut off.

Eventually the schools will make moves to protect themselves.

Can they though?  I think such restrictions would be viewed by the courts the same as the NCAA restrictions, and not valid/enforceable?  The NCAA is voluntary organization of universitities... what's the difference other than the number of schools?  Or is that a big enough difference?  I don't know.  IANAL

8 minutes ago, btownqb said:

Troy Williams was not on that team.  

You are correct - I have edited my post.  Thank you.

Still amazing in my opinion.

On 11/20/2022 at 8:24 PM, mrflynn03 said:

Not only that. But 6 of the top 15 played between 89-95. All of them on the 92 team at some stage of their career. 

I noticed this: We had eight (7!) 1000 point career scorers on the same team at one time. 

2012-13 team had Yogi, Watford, Verdell Jones, Jordan Hulls, Cody, Sheehey, and Oladipo

3 minutes ago, mrflynn03 said:

I think it says a lot he has been able to do what he's done on teams that haven't been great. He has had a lot of load to carry and been the primary focus of defenses.

Not only has he been the focus of opposing defenses throughout his time, but he also has had less post-season games/opportunities to accumulate points, rebounds, and blocks.

Based on previous performance, by the time he finishes this year, TJD will probably be:

1st all time for career blocks

3rd all time for career rebounds

4th all time for career points

For a big picture comparison, there are only 2 players that are in the top ten in more than 2 categories, Henderson and Bailey:

On 11/4/2022 at 7:43 AM, IUFLA said:

There's IU's line

Why isn't the 'plus/minus' rating adjusted by minutes played?  That seems like an obvious and necessary consideration.

I think plus/minus is a valuable but dangerous statistic in the sense that it is very easy to misinterpret it.  Nevertheless, it doesn't make any sense to me to ever look at it without dividing by minutes played.

Since I did the math, I'll share it.  The top three and bottom three (well, 2 out of 3) are pretty interesting.

1 hour ago, IUFLA said:

ESPN's Big 10 take 

 

Some thoughts on the four prognosticator's Big 10 predictions:

Medcalf's picks matched the average of the group, most consistent take.

Gasaway was the farthest off from the rest.  He picked Iowa #2, whereas everyone else had them in 7th place, which is wildly different, but he also had 6 picks that deviated by 2 or more places from the average.  (Out of only 9 total such deviations from the 4 people.)

Everyone agreed on these 'tiers' though:

#1 = Indiana (Everyone had Indiana at the top)

#2-7 = Illinois, Michigan, Purdue, OSU, MSU, Iowa in roughly that order following,

#8-11 = Wisconsin, Rutgers, Maryland, and Penn State

#12 = Northwestern

#13/14 = Minnesota/Nebraska

20 hours ago, dgambill said:

Teams would like play a box in 1 on Steph or double team him immediately.

I'd say it is safer/more assured we'd win with a perimeter/outside threat like Steph.  No college team would be effective at stopping him with a single player guarding him.  Even if they were, it would tie up their best defender and distract the rest of the team as they'd have to hedge against him all night, making it pretty easy for the rest of our team to score.  If they tried to double-team him, he'd draw two people to the perimeter and we'd torch them 4v3.

Who would give us the biggest advantage defensively though, and would a more balanced player be a bigger impact than a big-time scorer?  (I don't watch NBA, don't know how Steph would do but have the impression that Lebron doesn't put forth much effort on that side.  Lebron would certainly be capable of completely locking down the paint area, but would he actually do it?)

This is all driven by TV Market size (which equals revenue).  It ONLY makes sense to add schools that bring in market value worth about the same or more than the average we already have.  Because our average market/revenue is already very high, that doesn't leave a lot of options.

Here are some big, uncaptured TV markets (in decreasing size) that have big, AAU schools associated with them (i.e. top schools that would benefit the big ten):

Los Angeles (UCLA)

Dallas & Houston (Texas A&M*)

San Francisco (Stanford, but it's private.  Would UCLA and USC already get you this?)

Atlanta (Georgia Tech?)

North Carolina (multiple metros) (UNC)

Florida (multiple metros) (U of Florida)

Phoenix (U of Arizona)

Seattle (U of Washington)

Denver (U of Colorado)

St. Louis (U of Missouri)

Several people have commented about how secret/tight-lipped this has been... in contrast to the SEC expansion/raiding of the B12.  I think most assume Texas A&M was behind that leak, because they didn't want University of Texas to join the SEC.  Maybe the B10 will go after Texas A&M?  Texas television market would be a huge gain and there appears to be bad blood between them and SEC.

INDIANA:   Plays the 5 best teams twice; and 5 of the 6 worst teams only once.

ILLINOIS:  Plays 6 of the 7 best teams only once; plays the 6 worst teams twice

IOWA:       Plays 4 of the top 6 teams once; plays 5 of the 7 worst teams twice

Illinois got a HUGE favor in scheduling.  We are definitely disadvantaged compared to Illinois and Iowa

For those not very familiar with the role of a recruiting coordinator (like me), I found this article interesting:

https://www.mlive.com/sports/2018/12/why-tom-izzo-hired-michigan-states-first-recruiting-coordinator-this-season.html

It's several years old, and talks about Michigan State's decision to add this new position to their staff, and what the job entails.

Here's some more analysis/comparison of the schedule differences.  I broke this into pseudo quadrants (not the same as NCAA).

Of the top 7 teams,

* OSU has the easiest path  ( fewest Quad 1+2 games, the most Q4 games, tied for most Q3 games)

* Purdue has the second easiest path (tied for fewest Q1, second fewest Q1+Q2, second most Q3+Q4)

* Maryland has the hardest path (most Q1, tied for least Q3+Q4)

Predictions?  I think schedule matters a lot. It is not a level playing field. I think Purdue is better than OSU, and will overcome the schedule advantage OSU has to win the title (with Illinois right on their heels). As usual, a very small number of head-to-head contests between the top teams can be the difference maker regardless of schedule. 

I don't think people are paying enough attention to the schedule differences, which will have an impact on how teams end up.  Here are the matchups, with teams sorted according to Barttorvik (and 'tiers' by me, from that ranking).

If Texas -> SEC and the Big 12 breaks up, I'm not sure any current members make sense (geographically, culturally, etc...) for us to grab.  Unless we could grab Texas ourselves, then we could add some others from the Big 12 to go with them.

Other possibilities are to poach Missouri and grab Kansas along with them, or add Syracuse on the other side of the country. 

2 hours ago, dgambill said:

Didn't take that into consideration. Perhaps redshirts were told just sit a year, work on your game, get stronger and then you will be ready to take on a bigger role. Then guess what happens...redshirt still isn't playing much at first so they leave...or still can't break into the starting lineup by junior or senior so they leave. I would say this. If a kid is asked to redshirt there is usually something very much missing in his game...or they get hurt and aren't the same. Redshirting may not truly fix the issue and it could just be we see a reach that never gets up to speed. Perhaps for redshirts it is they are more patient but as time goes along they realize they never really catch up. Or it seems redshirts are no longer being used as much on incoming freshman like in the past but for injuries on upper classman and then they transfer when they can't get their spot back. So many variables!

I didn't even think about medical redshirts.  Your supposition makes a lot of sense.  Get injured, sit out a year, find out sooner or later that you can't get back into the starting lineup, so transfer.

On 6/3/2021 at 10:31 AM, dgambill said:

Makes sense...as guys go along they figure out that they are losing minutes to younger guys or it isn't working out at the school and move along. 

Actually, the former redshirts account for almost all the variation from grade to grade.  I'm shocked how balanced it is if you don't consider them:  267, 289, 287, and 274 (freshman -> seniors). 

I would have expected less freshman and way less seniors to transfer.

Amongst the redshirts, it goes 77, 108, 174, and 169.  I would have expected a trend of increasing stability. Instead redshirted juniors and seniors were more than twice as likely to tranfer than a redshirted freshman. 

2 hours ago, cybergates said:

I think this point is lost on most people. Fans will say this guy sucks, and he very may well suck at NBA level standards, but compared to the "regular humans" 99.99% of them would dominate, even the White Mamba...

I recently watched and enjoyed this video about the difference between an 'average Joe' and an 'average' NBA player.

Welcome Mike Stump, but... he couldn't comb his hair or shave for an official IU promotional picture?