BGleas

I can see Cal hiring the first ever staff Financial Planner for a college basketball team.

I'm sure he will. While Vitale does a lot of good in terms of charity, he's one of the biggest hypocrites in sports.

It's 13. But Crean could sign 13 players this fall if he wanted too, as long as he could demonstrate a plan to the Big Ten as to why he'll need that many.

I guess it is his first time trying to land a 5* at IU, right? It's gotta be a pretty big deal for him.

I wasn't the biggest Remy fan, but nobody is calling him a blue chipper. The question is if last year and this years teams are better with a junior/senior Remy compared to say a freshmen/sophomore Colin Hartman. It's about keeping players around if you're going to invest in developing them, as opposed to constantly having turnover.

I'm not the biggest Crean fan at this point, though he can win me back, but I also don't want a change made for change sake. I don't want a situation where we fire Crean and then form a committee that gets their 4th choice who is a guy with a lesser resume. If it happens I want the replacement to be targeted and a guy the admin knows they want and can get. I'm not a boxing fan, but to me the Stevens thing reminds of Pacquioa-Mayweather. We all want to see it and we're all wondering if it will live up to the hype and if it will actually happen. Again, Crean can still win me back, but if I'm being honest I'd ditch him today if Stevens said he wanted to come here

The same Drake the Raptors got fined 25k and the league encouraged them to fire because he illegally recruited Kevin Durant? I'm sure he's not helping UK recruit at all?!?! http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/11338909/toronto-raptors-fined-25000-drake-concert-comments

I'm with you on the coaching side, Crean is certainly no Bob Knight. But, to question Crean on the academics side is pretty ridiculous. Is there another coach in this era at a school like IU in basketball that is having kids graduate in 3 years. Having kids leave with undergrad and masters degrees when their eligibility is up? Just because there isn't a senior this year doesn't mean Crean doesn't value academics. The list of players leaving with degrees under Crean is a long one.

The problem with the NCAA is that unless you self-report, there's really nothing they can do. Indiana's problem is that they had the integrity to self-report. It ended being good for IU though, because it uncovered the real crime of the Sampson era. It wasn't phone calls, what screwed IU was horrendous grades, failed drug tests and overall lack of character in the program.    The phone calls would have been easily overcome if the team had kids with good grades and high character. The next coach would have come in and hit the ground running. 

If that's how it's going to play out, then recruiting these "outside the top 100" guys so they can develop is a bad strategy, not a good one. It only works if they're going to stay 4 years and realize their potential here.    I think Zeisloft is the perfect example. It seems like he's a marginal talent, but will bring great leadership and intangibles, all great things and many people are excited for what he'll bring this season. But, let's be real, if Zeisloft came here as a freshmen he'd most likely be a guy we're claiming is a candidate to transfer, right? He'd most likely be an oversign victim.   

Putting Hollowell at point guard was a horrible decision (and yes, I said it at the time so I'm not being revisionist). The kid had yet to even establish himself at his natural position at this level. The best move for Hollowell last season, still being young and getting comfortable at this level, would have been to put him in a position to be successful, not introduce him to a totally new position. It was a coaching mistake. Hollowell certainly had other issues, but putting at point guard before he had established himself and gotten comfortable certainly contributed to his poor season IMO.

Maybe I'm being too technical in this discussion, but what you're describing is great, and I agree Troy could be great attacking the rim. But, what you're describing is not playing point guard. Just dribbling off a screen doesn't make you a point guard. Yogi said Troy was the backup point guard, and just like it was with Hollowell, it's a a terrible idea.

What are we talking about here though? Playing point guard and dribbling the basketball aren't the same thing. There's a difference between being the floor general, getting the team into it's sets, etc., and just making moves with the dribble. That clip was largely Troy just making moves, good moves for sure, but it wasn't him playing point guard.   

While he definitely had to make improvements with his handle during his career, Vic was still always a guard. Troy is a wing/stretch 4,not the same thing.    IMO, Troy is more comparable to Hollowell. Regardless, we don't want Troy initiating offense, we want him finishing it. 

It's always going to work out, it's not like we're going to try and trot out 18 scholarship guys. That doesn't mean it's what's best for the team or the program.   

I love Troy and think/hope he's due for a big year, but having him be the backup point guard is a horrible decision, just like it was with Hollowell. A coaches job is to put people in a position to be successful and this would not be doing that for anybody. 

I'll trust the staff on adding him to the '15 class. Obviously the talent is off the charts. One thing I think would be a disaster and I'd honestly have to severely question Crean's judgement on, would be somehow adding him to the team in the second semester. If they want to add him as a walk-on in the second semester and have him practice sort of like a redshirt, that's fine. But the idea of considering adding him to the roster to play is insane to me.

He played because Hanner and Davis weren't ready to play yet. If Hanner had been performing like everyone had hoped when he was recruited, Howard would not have been playing.

For most teams in the Big Ten.

It will all get worked out, but that doesn't mean it will get worked out in a way that is best for the program. While it will be worked out, it would not be a good thing to have 4-5 more freshmen next season. It just means even more roster turnover, and once again not having talented veterans.    No matter who replaces them, losing any of Yogi, JBJ or Troy would not be a good thing. IMO 2015-16 could be another year where we challenge for a conference title and deep tourney run, if the veterans come back. But if we lose those guys, it will "work out", but will be another year of no veterans and hoping we "surprise" and can finish in the top half of the conference. 

Not too totally change the course of the discussion, but it's tough, for me at least, to answer that question without knowing who our oversign guys will be replacing. If our top 7-8 (Yogi, JBJ, Troy, Stan, Hanner, Davis, RoJo, Holt) are all staying next year, then my preference is to adding just Morgan and another big.    If we're losing any of our top 8, then that would change the discussion. We'd need some type of instant impact wing or guard. The problem is, while nice players, I'm not sure I see Shake or OG as instant impact guys. For example, OG might replace Troy in terms of style/position, but OG most likely isn't going to do that as a freshmen. 

I'm with you Wayne. I'd take either/both, I think both have the chance to be good, but I won't be too upset either if we lose one or both either. While they're both good, I don't think either is a program changer or so done that isn't replaceable.

He can by 13.

Remember when Terrance Jones held a press conference and committed to Washington, and then Cal literally called him while Jones was still at the press conference and flipped him to UK?

I have no clue whether we'll get him or not, but not sure of where the pessimism on this one comes from? He took his visit, said he liked it and said it would be a week or two and then he'd announce. It's pretty much followed his timeline to a T. In terms of what I've seen, nothing else has come out of his camp.