TrueHoosier62

Woodson needs to decide if he's going to run the program as a feeder line for the NBA, or a college program whose only goal is to win a championship. It's highly unlikely he can do both as evidence by the last three years. What's surprising to me is the total lack of guard play. You could take any of ISU's guards from this year's Sycamore team, (none of which have a hope in hell of making an NBA roster), and they could easily have started at IU and likely accounted for 4-6 additional wins.

It's frustrating watching college basketball these days, be it IU or any other college. The game has been distilled into an unimaginative combination of three point shooting and lob dunks, making it little more that NBA junior varsity. Ball handling skills, movement without the ball, blocking out, screens, picks and stifling defense, (especially defense), make only token appearances throughout the game on a decreasing number of teams. Regarding IU, I can't think of too many reasons why anyone would come here. We no longer recruit in order to create a great team, one that is capable of winning an NCAA championship. We recruit NBA hopefuls, whose only aim is to get to the next level as soon as possible. In this respect, Woodson is serviceable as a coach, but only in developing individual talent for the next level, he is incapable of developing a great team. As flawed as Purdue and Illinois are, (and they are flawed), they're light years ahead of us because they employ teamwork, strategy, and cohesiveness. After three years of Woodsen, can anyone honestly say what, if anything, makes his brand of basketball, or IU basketball standout from the rest?

Best post I've read in a long time.

Exactly. No doubt IU does need 3 point shooters, but just as needed are the guys who can consistently pop one from about 12-15 feet out. I've never seen an IU team so devoid of actual basketball players. We are just chock full of NBA wannabes; athletes who just happen to play basketball.

Do you suppose Cignetti knows anything about the game of basketball?

I hope the kids coming over from JMU are up to the challenge of playing in a league like the Big Ten. No disrespect meant, but this ain't the Sun Belt.

Any guesses as to who the seven transfers are that can't be named until after the bowls are over?

I think the dismissal of Bob Knight, 21 years ago, still casts long, divisive shadows over this fan base, and it's a shame. Whomever is anointed the next head coach, better know as much about fixing that schism as they do repairing the basketball program.

Seriously? I never heard anything about it.

What would anyone think if Larry B was hired to coach IU?

And Gladys Knight would give us just as much a chance for another banner.

I thought Crean was a good coach, and what he did with the program after the Sampson debacle was nothing short of heroic; but it became apparent after four years that while he could win 20 games/yr, make the tournament and even win a few games there, his teams were flawed, and his inability to make ingame adjustments was a killer. Syracuse was like cryptonite. All four men were good coaches, just poor fits for IU.

I wish I could be more optimistic about IU's chances of hitting a home run with this next hire. The Davis hire seemed logical at the time; (senior laden team returning after coach Knight's dismissal, assistant under Knight, continuity, etc), but Davis simply wasn't good enough once Knight's influence, and players graduated. Kelvin Sampson should never have been hired, no matter what his qualifications were. He was a cheat at Oklahoma, we knew it, we still hired him, and he cheated again. Tom Crean was the "Hot" name in coaching, and the media thought we'd hit a home run. He wasn't a Rick Petino caliber coach, (ethics notwithstanding), Roy Williams, Bill Self, or John Calipari, (ethics notwithstanding). He was a mid major coach with a mid major game that was best suited for a mid major school. With respect, Archie Miller was Tom Crean part II. Hot candidate from a mid major school that was perceived to have been a homerun for IU by the media. Like Crean's game, it didn’t carry over to the big leagues. Now it would seem that we've swung and missed out on a top tier coach again, and will end up hiring another coach from a mid major, hoping that four years from now their program will have been good enough for the Big 10. I don't think any of the following coaches would be a Brad Stevens caliber coach, but IU should go for a John Beilein, Thad Motta, or Tony Bennett. Those three have shown they can build a good solid winning program without cheating at a major college level.

Agree 110%. IU has plenty of athletes who can hit shots, but no shooters.

You betcha.

Precisely.

I think perhaps I wasn't as clear as I should have been. Yes, players can develop a shot, but there's a big difference, in my opinion, between someone who can learn to knock down a shot, and someone who is a shooter. Joe Hillman could hit a shot. Rob Phinisee can hit a shot. Calbert Cheney, Steve Alford, Damon Bailey, & even Yogi Ferrell were shooters.

Whomever is brought in to coach IU, it mustn't be an emotional hire. I would love to see a former disciple or player for coach Knight take the reigns, but if they aren't the surest bet for IU's future success, then don't do it. I know this, we need to recruit Indiana shooters again. Defense can be taught, and instilled, but you can either shoot or you can't.

Good get

Admittedly, the idea was something that that just crossed my mind; hadn't really worked out all the details. Still, I think conceptually, the idea of tying tuition to a contract of say, three years, merits further fleshing out.

If my primary purpose here at Indiana is to go out and win ballgames, I can probably do that as well as anybody can. I would just cheat, get some money from a lot of people around Indianapolis who want to run the operation that way, and just go out and get the best basketball players I can. Then we'd beat everybody."

I see. My brain doesn't work as well as it used to. Anyone want to guess what Bob Knight might say about the current state of affairs? :-)

Strictly out of curiosity, why are you opposed to having student athletes, who default on what might be considered a contractual agreement with the university, pay back their tuition?

From ESPN to Pro Football Talk, sports are being destroyed by a barrage of bad news; some of it being premature, some of it inaccurate, and some of it outright lies. Adding to that nasty mess is the win at all cost attitude of some universities, coaches and alumni. Is it any wonder that college sports is becoming less and less watchable? I don't know where the answers lie, but I don't think it is in paying collegiate players. More likely, it's in creating an NBA farm system, (NBA, since we're talking about college basketball) that pays those talents willing to forego an education for the chance, (no matter how small) at stardom, and a big payday. For those who want an education, and something to fall back on in the event their skills and talent don't translate to the professional league, I'd propose making athletic scholarships contingent upon the recipient agreeing to play a minimum of two years, and possibly three, with the proviso that leaving any earlier will result in their reimbursing the university in full for the complete value of goods and services provided during their stay. If they complete all four years and graduate, no payback in required. Half baked idea perhaps, but it sounds fair to me.

While possibly a misunderstanding, I'd be more surprised if it was. Can't imagine the FBI would say anything without there being sufficient evidence to back it up.