iuswingman Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 1 minute ago, ledies22 said: Give the credit to the Donors. They are bankrolling the team. I guess we should just sit on the sideline and wave a sign that says come play at IU for free. We have the money, but we aren't going to do the same thing EVER OTHER F-IN TEAM is doing and use it. 🙄🙄🙄🙄 Never said that wasn't how it is working these days Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iuswingman Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 1 minute ago, btownqb said: If you can't see things objectively, I can understand that. Playing CJ Gunn and Cupps 600+ mins IN CONFERENCE play... and ending up 10-10 in those games and 19-14 overall... is about the tops of where that grouping of players could be. yes, because i can't see things objectively just because i don't agree with your OPINION 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btownqb Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 Just now, iuswingman said: yes, because i can't see things objectively just because i don't agree with your OPINION L-O-L So playing CJ Gunn and Cupps 600+ mins, in a power 5 conference, is a route to be successful for a team? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iuswingman Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 1 minute ago, btownqb said: L-O-L So playing CJ Gunn and Cupps 600+ mins, in a power 5 conference, is a route to be successful for a team? A good coach could have gotten more out of that than Woodson's clog the post crap that he calls an offense. Woodson also found success running zone defense but then decides well, that worked too well, back to man to man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btownqb Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 Other than PSU at home, were we even favored in ANY game we lost? Pretty sure we weren't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btownqb Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 (edited) 3 minutes ago, iuswingman said: A good coach could have gotten more out of that than Woodson's clog the post crap that he calls an offense. Woodson also found success running zone defense but then decides well, that worked too well, back to man to man. The bold-- yeah no, he couldn't when you play the two dudes I mentioned 600+ mins... MM couldn't dribble for 3/4 of the year, TG has offensive deficiencies, etc etc etc. You mean, the one game against Kenny Payne and Louisville!?! Edited May 2 by btownqb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdhoosier Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 If we were going to be a team with an identity of being highly efficient on 2 point field goals (like Kansas, for example), then we needed a greater emphasis in at least a few of these areas 1. rebounding 2. reducing turnovers 3. solid defense (top 50ish) 4. making our free throws. That's the only way the math works when making up the difference against teams who are going to shoot 10+ more 3 pointers than we do. More second chance points for us. Less second chance points for them. Capitalize on FTs. This is something we didn't not do last year. Lack of talent has something to do with it. But I think the team could've used a better defensive system to match their abilities/cover their liabilities. Rebounding is about emphasis (from coaching staff) and effort (from players).....and we lacked both. AND I have no idea why this program is curse when it comes to FT shooting. I don't think we reached our ceiling, but our ceiling wasn't that high anyway. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btownqb Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 Woodson and the staff's issue last year was scouting and development. I pray those have been rectified. The winter will take care of itself, if so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btownqb Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 Just now, tdhoosier said: If we were going to be a team with an identity of being highly efficient on 2 point field goals (like Kansas, for example), then we needed a greater emphasis in at least a few of these areas 1. rebounding 2. reducing turnovers 3. solid defense (top 50ish) 4. making our free throws. That's the only way the math works when making up the difference against teams who are going to shoot 10+ more 3 pointers than we do. More second chance points for us. Less second chance points for them. Capitalize on FTs. This is something we didn't not do last year. Lack of talent has something to do with it. But I think the team could've used a better defensive system to match their abilities/cover their liabilities. Rebounding is about emphasis (from coaching staff) and effort (from players).....and we lacked both. AND I have no idea why this program is curse when it comes to FT shooting. I don't think we reached our ceiling, but our ceiling wasn't that high anyway. So what teams did we lose to that we were better than? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyhoosier29 Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 2 minutes ago, btownqb said: Woodson and the staff's issue last year was scouting and development. I pray those have been rectified. The winter will take care of itself, if so. I think you both can be right. The roster construction was terrible and that was CMW’s fault. He MAY have gotten out of that roster what you believe was the max. I kind of disagree because rebounding and defense is a lot of effort and could have improved the team (although limited still), but there didn’t seem to be an emphasis on either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ledies22 Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 1 hour ago, iuswingman said: when he isn't the one bankrolling them?  15 minutes ago, iuswingman said: Never said that wasn't how it is working these days Then why bring it up? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btownqb Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 Just now, kyhoosier29 said: I think you both can be right. The roster construction was terrible and that was CMW’s fault. He MAY have gotten out of that roster what you believe was the max. I kind of disagree because rebounding and defense is a lot of effort and could have improved the team (although limited still), but there didn’t seem to be an emphasis on either. We were damn close to our ceiling, we weren't favored (other than PSU at home) in games we lost... even the home ones.  Multiple games we won when we weren't favored. I think we even, at one point, won 4 straight games that we weren't favored in. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But see-- I don't see this as some massive defense of Woodson, the bar being THAT low to begin with, is a BIG issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyhoosier29 Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 Just now, btownqb said: We were damn close to our ceiling, we weren't favored (other than PSU at home) in games we lost... even the home ones.  Multiple games we won when we weren't favored. I think we even, at one point, won 4 straight games that we weren't favored in. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But see-- I don't see this as some massive defense of Woodson, the bar being THAT low to begin with, is a BIG issue. Right, but odds aren’t set at the beginning of the season. Maybe a much better D and rebounding team, which could have been possible maybe changes some of those underdog tags to favorite tags (especially some of the home games) as the season goes along. But I get your argument. End of the day, poor roster construction limited the teams ceiling, but I’m not sure he got everything out of them that he could have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btownqb Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 1 minute ago, kyhoosier29 said: Right, but odds aren’t set at the beginning of the season. Maybe a much better D and rebounding team, which could have been possible maybe changes some of those underdog tags to favorite tags (especially some of the home games) as the season goes along. But I get your argument. End of the day, poor roster construction limited the teams ceiling, but I’m not sure he got everything out of them that he could have. 600+ conference mins from Cupps and Gunn seals the deal for me. It also massively pissed me off that we chose that route. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maedhros Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 (edited) NIL budget might be necessary in this day and age. It's not sufficient. That is to say, any charges that Woodson only found success because he bought a team won't resonate with me at all. If there's one complaint that brings all sides together, it would be that last year's roster was flawed. There's lot of disagreement within that space, sure. For example, I think buddy ball actually worked well with Ware and Reneau, and the lineup efficiency numbers back that up. Our struggles came when we weren't getting anything from our backcourt, and especially when we had to dip into the bench. This year we're playing Reneau with another big again. But we've added serious talent in the backcourt, and depth on the wing. This portal season has been exciting not because we added talented pieces, but because of where we added them. Woodson may have been given a budget few programs could match, but how that budget got spent was on him. I think he picked some great targets, and now has a team positioned - on paper - to be much more competitive. If you're going to criticize Woodson for last year's roster - and I do - then any success he finds with this year's roster needs credited to him as well. Not passed off to the boosters or wherever else. Edited May 2 by Maedhros 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdhoosier Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 6 minutes ago, btownqb said: So what teams did we lose to that we were better than? Rutgers. Penn St. twice. But you know that it's not all about wins and losses when being evaluated for the tournament. We could've won those 3 games and still wouldn't have made it in. The greater point is that when we play at an analytical disadvantage there is small room for error. This is the way Woody seemingly likes to play. It's also a main reason why when we won, it was typically by a small margin and when we lost it was typically by a big margin. I hope I'm proven wrong next season, but I don't think the way Woody has played the last 3 years is conducive to reaching our ceiling when we have talent and why we fall through the floor when we have average talent.  Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobSaccamanno Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 It’s going to be awfully boring all summer if we go back to debating Woody. It’s well trodden at this point.  We all are counting on success this year.  My view is that the success in the portal is a huge feather in our cap and will be a huge boon to us with regard to attracting the next coach.  It’s all a win-win.  5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluegrassIU Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 1 minute ago, BobSaccamanno said: It’s going to be awfully boring all summer if we go back to debating Woody. It’s well trodden at this point.  We all are counting on success this year.  My view is that the success in the portal is a huge feather in our cap and will be a huge boon to us with regard to attracting the next coach.  It’s all a win-win.  I am.gonna have to ask you to either sling some mud or exit this thread. Sorry.  2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FKIM01 Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 Gotta quit reading this thread. It's absolutely exhausting... ...and the "buying a team" talk needs to go away. How many teams did UCLA, Duke, Kensucky, Kansas, etc. buy in the past? I guess John Wooden sucks as a coach too. Michigan bought the Fab 5. At least today it happens legally. I don't like how stupid the NIL has made the game, but it's the current rule to live by. Everyone can now "buy a team", so that criticism needs to stop. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
13th&Jackson Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 57 minutes ago, tdhoosier said: Rutgers. Penn St. twice.  I’d include losing at AH to Nebraska by 15, a team that didn’t have a road win in late February Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kdug Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 (edited) 1 hour ago, btownqb said: Other than PSU at home, were we even favored in ANY game we lost? Pretty sure we weren't. In trank and kenpom we dropped about 40-50 spots from the start of the year to the end of the year. I’d say that signals underachieving, or at bare minimum we didn’t hit our ceiling. Part of us being underdogs in some big ten games was due to massively underachieving in the non-conference. Edited May 2 by Kdug 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btownqb Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 11 minutes ago, Kdug said: In trank and kenpom we dropped about 40-50 spots from the start of the year to the end of the year. I’d say that signals underachieving, or at bare minimum we didn’t hit our ceiling. Part of us being underdogs in some big ten games was due to massively underachieving in 19-14 wasn't far at all from our ceiling, if not, at our ceiling. As soon as XJ was a NET zero or worse, we were f'ed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iuswingman Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 (edited) 51 minutes ago, FKIM01 said: Gotta quit reading this thread. It's absolutely exhausting... ...and the "buying a team" talk needs to go away. How many teams did UCLA, Duke, Kensucky, Kansas, etc. buy in the past? I guess John Wooden sucks as a coach too. Michigan bought the Fab 5. At least today it happens legally. I don't like how stupid the NIL has made the game, but it's the current rule to live by. Everyone can now "buy a team", so that criticism needs to stop. It's not the buying of a team that makes Woodson a bad coach. Commenting about buying the team is a response to the posters that are saying "look at all these transfers woodson has brought in....where are the haters at now?" Like somehow bringing in those transfers somehow proves Woodson's critics wrong. lol The only thing fixed (or better anyway) is the roster construction. Lets hope that is enough. Edited May 2 by iuswingman 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierDPU95 Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kdug Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 8 minutes ago, btownqb said: 19-14 wasn't far at all from our ceiling, if not, at our ceiling. As soon as XJ was a NET zero or worse, we were f'ed. Maybe the record wasn’t too far off what it should’ve been, but we massively underperformed in a lot of games which is why we were nowhere near the bubble. The end of season run showed that we could have solid performances, and XJ was still playing poorly in that stretch. We weren’t good enough to be elite or anything, but we were good enough to blow out army and FGCU. We were good enough to not get blown out by bad Penn State or Rutgers teams, remain somewhat competitive in games against good competition, or not need a crazy run to sneak by Morehead state.  1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.