go_iu_bb

A "Help is on the way" thread?

I know I'm rooting for them! Rooting for them to finish under 0.500, that is.

So what did you mean when you said "he's a solid recruiter" in the quote above? That implies that the recruiting has been just fine so I must've not seen your other post. Apologies if I misunderstood that statement. I personally wouldn't say that someone is a solid recruiter if I doubted how well they've recruited. The backcourt and the thinness up front are reasons for doubt in my opinion.

Apparently, you're one of these people. You come right out and say it's not coaching and not recruiting/talent yet the players still can't execute. Good coaches can get players to execute within a 3.5 years timespan. Unless, of course, those players just aren't talented enough.

Yes, there are plenty of those threads. Notice that I didn't say "everyone." In these threads are the same people defending both coaching and recruiting (i.e. talent level), saying they're both fine. Then when specific incidents are brought up, these same posters then say it was just that the players didn't execute. It's like a broken record.

It says that those freshmen aren't the immediate impact needed to win consistently their first (only) year in college. They lack experience and make freshman mistakes. There could also be chemistry and selfishness issues. This is a one off season for those teams. It's SOP for IU. That's the point. If it was one game or maybe even just one season then it could be shrugged off as "the players just didn't execute." But it's been consistent under Miller. At some point it has to be either the players aren't talented enough to execute or they aren't coached well enough to prepare them to execute. Possibly both. Yet people say that it's not a talent issue nor a coaching issue so I'd like to know what they think is causing the players to fail to execute so often is.

Right. So the only blame is on the players and the coaching staff bears none of it? It's the coach's job to recruit players that can execute at the this level and then to prepare them to do so. Miller is failing at least one of these aspects. Maybe Coach K and Cal failed at the recruiting part for this year as the players obviously aren't the immediate impact players they need to be for those teams to be successful this season. But do you really believe that if those players stay for another season or two that both of those teams would continue to be bad? No. Coaching and experience would make them tough to beat.

Those can be explained by lack of experience. Freshmen having trouble acclimating to the college game as well as just making freshman mistakes. It's a risk that they make with their recruiting strategy. IU isn't lacking in that experience. Besides, this isn't a new issue under Miller.

Yet somehow there is no issue with either coaching or the talent level. How does that work?

Yes, I understand that. You said he would go pro after his freshman year if he didn't go out of HS. Hence the question about 3 years if he chooses to go to school. Re-read my question.

I thought with baseball if the player chose to go to school they had to be there for 3 years before entering the draft. Is that no longer the case?

Miller doesn't even use them all for full time basketball players. Why do you think he would use one for a baseball player?

Also, I don't see Miller using a scholarship on him and I don't see him going without any scholarship. As stated earlier in this thread, those are the choices if he plays basketball - basketball scholarship or no scholarship.

Part of their reaction seems to be due to the fact that it's the new strain which is much more easily transmitted. The ESPN article I just read that was linked in another thread here said "positive tests" which indicates more than one person has it. That article does sound like they're erring on the side of caution but I still think it's likely not just athletes and/or coaches from a single sport that has it but probably someone in the athletic department who could have spread it between sports.

Maybe. Or a tutor. Or some other personnel that is in frequent contact. I have a friend that has worked in Athlete Departments at multiple schools. She was neither of those positions but still interacted with the athletes quite a lot. I'm sure the coaches meet with people in the department on a regular basis so there's probably at least one person there that sees all of them often, as well. The point is that there is nothing "fishy," "odd," or "strange" about this. I'll give you that it's "not normal," but what is normal this season? It makes perfect sense if it's someone in the AD that interacts with many or all the teams in some fashion on a regular basis. If it was a single athlete or coach in a single sport then it might be an overreaction.

Not if it's someone that has regular contact with the athletes and/or coaching staffs of many or all of the sports.

I look at it as an advantage. This is time that can be used to make up for the interrupted off season and abbreviated preseason. They have also have the advantage of having plenty of film for things to work on. They had no games for a week before Iowa and they obviously worked on more than just preparing for them. They looked better in many aspects of the game. Games getting postponed and/or cancelled sucks, but they can use that time to their advantage.

The vote on the change to the transfer rule was delayed again. They'll have to vote on that and the NIL rules sometime but the NCAA will delay for as long as possible. Probably in hope that people forget about them. They've already delayed voting on the transfer rule for a year.

At what point in the game (approximately)? All college games are added to my DVR (YouTube TV is great for that) and that sounds funny enough to check out but I don't really want to watch the whole game.

Butler, too. IU was up 68-57 with 22 seconds left and Butler called a timeout so they could run a play to get the difference under 10. I just watched that again to check. Maryland was playing a full court press at the end which caused the turnover but didn't call a timeout to draw up a play.

Fair point.

Jeez. I thought he just didn't have much personality/charisma. He seems to be an introvert. This and your other post make it seem like it goes deeper than that. There's nothing wrong with being an introvert, I'm one myself, but if you take a job that requires you to interact with people you need to do that. I intentionally went into a field that would allow me to not have to interact with large groups and the public. He chose to be a basketball coach and accepted a job at a major university with a large fan base. That requires interacting with more than just the players and coaching staff. He knew he'd have to do speeches and mingle with donors. He knew he'd have to interact with fans and that autographs and pictures would be expected. It sounds like he's doing about as good of job at those things as he is at putting a winning product on the floor. Let us know if you find out which recruit that was. That can't have made a very good impression. Especially if it was only 4-5 kids he'd have to sign autographs for and not 100.

We had a coach do just that against IU earlier this season. I think it was against Butler.

I agree with all of that. Several recruits have pointed to the offense as their reasoning. Also, he doesn't seem to have much personality so he doesn't come off as a great salesman. And that hurts when it sounds like he lets his assistants do most of the recruiting then he tries to come in at the end as a closer.

To be fair, it isn't as though Miller hasn't recruited many top 50 or to 75 players. He just hasn't been very successful landing them. Which is on him but it shows that he does understand the level of talent he needs.