BGleas

Yes, IU is talented. But being in Maryland, I can tell you that Maryland fans thought they were going to cake-walk to the Final Four this year. They may still go, but their fans and most of the media, thought Maryland was heads and shoulders above everyone else in the Big Ten.     

Yogi has been fantastic on both ends this half.

OG and Morgan should spend as little time as possible on the bench.

With defense being the issue, why would you not bring in OG for Troy?

I think it took kids for me to stop falling for it. Once the kids come you're thinking "Wait, she's offering to take the kids out so I can stay home and watch the game? Hmmmm, I'm going to pay for this royally".   

That's a trap, don't fall for it.   

Not to toot my own horn, but I predicted it. I was calling for JBJ to play a "Matt Roth" type role off the bench before he got hurt, I felt removing him would dramatically improve the defense, and wouldn't impact the offense too much. I said the offense would be less explosive, but more consistent, that our ball movement and shot selection would improve and that our turnovers would drop.   

Because I think these promises are overblown. Are they made? Probably. But like I said, they're not a lifetime pass to starting or playing. A player has to hold up his end of the bargain for the promise to hold water (ie. working on his game, being a leader, working the classroom, effort, etc.). I don't think it would impact recruiting at all if a coach promised a kid he's start and then he didn't. You'd just explain to future recruits that you told player A he'd have a chance to start, but once he got on campus he didn't put in the required work. Player A didn't hold up his end of the bargain, it's not a free ride, we're here to win, etc.     

There's nothing wrong with it at all. But at the same time, telling a recruit in the recruiting process he's going to start isn't a lifetime pass to the starting lineup, and I don't think any coach offers it that way. So my point is, I think Crean tells guys they'll start in recruiting, but for example, I don't think that's why James Blackmon was starting in year 2 or why Troy Williams plays in year 3 despite his inconsistencies.    Coaches say a lot of things in recruiting, but for the most part all bets are off once the player steps foot on campus as a student.   

I don't think we've had a 5* that didn't deserve to start from day 1? Maybe Yogi, if you argue we should have gone bigger with Sheehey instead? But that's a coin flip.    On the other guys, that doesn't mean that they got those minutes because of a recruiting promise to play them irregardless of performance, effort, etc. I'm sure they were told the opportunity is there to play big minutes as a freshmen, but I can't imagine a coach telling a recruit he'll play no matter what his effort or performance is.    Edit: My comments don't mean I agree with all those guys playing time, it just means I don't think they played necessarily because of a recruiting promise.   

I have no doubt promises are made in terms of starting/playing time, but I'd call them "soft" promises. No coach in their right mind would promise a player he'd start regardless of performance/effort or what's best for the team once the games actually start. You say things like, "you'll be our starting two-guard from day 1, but you'll have to continually earn it, work hard and dedicate yourself, things won't always be easy, etc."   

If this goes to double overtime I'm going to go nuts.

I hate ESPN and I hate Kentucky!

Agree, but it's more than just weight. Morgan is 6'7" and I think maybe even closer to 6'6". He cant defend guys like Haas, Hammons, Stone, Happ, etc., they're just too big. I love Morgan and think he's a really good defender and is going to be a really good player. But he's more in the role of defending guys that are your 3/4 tweeners.

I love Morgan, but he's undersized. That's fine against the cupcakes of if he's playing the 4, but he can't be the backup 5 against really good teams that have length/ size inside. Against teams like Maryland, Purdue, MSU, etc.

I wouldn't mind seeing Davis start alongside Bryant (hopefully still here) and have also been calling for bigger lineups, but if that is the case then we need another backup big. With that said, how fun would it be to see a big/long lineup featuring A front court of Bryant, Davis and OG? I would love that.

Reverse jinx complete!

Agree, but in. Maryland's defense they never lose these games. They might play bad, but they always pull come back in the end.

A majority of the things IU fans complain about with Crean are many of the same things Maryland people complained about Turgeon before last season. He was really on the hot seat. Trimble saved him.

I agree with many that Crean has shown marked improvement the second half of this season. We're playing a much more balanced game offensively and defensively. Our pace is better, as well as our rotations, etc. My fear with Crean is that it wasn't really an improvement, as much as he was forced into it with the JBJ injury. Unless a specific mismatch dictates it, I don't want to ever see our core lineup being a 3-guard lineup again.    It killed us defensively because we had literally no length on the wings, and it hurt us offensively because we had too many people trying to be ball handlers and it screwed with our rotations. I could go into more ways it hurt us, but you get the picture.    My fear is that we come out next year with a RoJo, JBJ, Newkirk lineup, which IMO is a bad deal. I'd hope Crean learned and we see something like RoJo, JBJ (or Newkirk, CuJo), Hartman, OG, Bryant. There other ways to slice and dice it, but I don't want 3 guards at the same time. I think it caused a ton of bad issues the last two seasons. 

Maryland hasn't really had one of those losses in the two seasons they've been in the Big Ten. Maybe losing @Illinois last year, but that was early in their first Big Ten season, and not really a horrible loss. They been close to a ton of WTF losses, but it just hasn't happened yet.   

I don't think that's really Ainge's strategy. Everyone knew when they acquired Garnett and Allen that it was going to be a 3-5 year window at most. But, Ainge had to decide if he was going to try to win with Pierce or move on and try to build around Al Jefferson, Rondo, Tony Allen and Gerald Green. He wisely decided to build around Pierce (though he did have some trades in place for Pierce but they thankfully didn't materialize). He's kind of prepared for both scenarios, long term and quick fix.

Imagine my conundrum being both an IU and Celtics fan?

While it would be ideal to land Simmons or Ingram, it's not necessary. Ainge flipped Al Jefferson, Gerald Green and a pick into Kevin Garnett, and he flipped Wally Szczerbiak and Delonte West into Ray Allen. It's about acquiring assets to trade. The Celtics have six first round picks (three high lottery) in the next three drafts and also a slew of 2nd rounders. They also have a lot of good role players on reasonable contracts. They'll either hit a grand slam in the draft, or flip these assets into a star or two. A lot needs to fall into place, but the assets are there and Ainge has done it before.

Agree. While I mentioned all the assets the Celtics own that have them so well positioned, there's still a lot of luck, hope and variables that have to come together for them. In college if you're at a Blue Blood and can recruit you can turn it around really fast. Plus, as you alluded too these guys like to buy their own groceries. While Ainge is very collaborative with his coaches and gives them a lot of input on roster decisions, it's still not picking your players yourself. Stevens might tire of not being in control.