Golfman25

So to the guys who follow the recruiting closer than me, who are 100% Woodson guys. Guys that his administration contacted and landed with no contact/commitment with that other guy. X, Kopp from portal (Durr who’s gone). Bates I think. Malik. JHS? Gunn? Banks? What about the new guys coming in?

Well saved me some money on ticks for tomorrow

If we could have just done it when we tied it.

Sacrifice 2 for 3. Don’t give them threes.

Even Hummel dissing on Race.

If he wasn't told to sit down and stay there, then he shouldn't make it back to BTown. That's the kind of crap distraction BS we don't freaking need.

For transfers, I want guys from teams who will at least be playing next week. We need to build on a winning culture.

You mean hit Dickinson in the back isn't a well drawn up play? :)

I can't believe I just read that. We can't be "afraid" of Northwestern. Man the world is changing. :)

Sure next years team will be next years team. Different but hopefully still dominant. :)

Kinda what I'm saying. You're looking to replace 1 guy (TJD), with 2.

Honestly how many “truly good” transfers are out there. Most of the A+ players are good with their situation. Guys transferring are having a tough time at their situation and looking for something better. Don’t get me wrong there may be some good pieces available but is a TJD type transferring? With guys like him it’s usually between school and the NBA, not another school.

That particular bit came from Knight himself. I think the article you posted sums it up pretty good. It took time for the 3 pt shot to become a thing. Then this line is what I’m talking about — “In fact, after a period of stagnation from 1995 to 2015, Division I teams have shot more and more 3-pointers each year, while — strangely enough — field goal percentage has increased in each of the past four years.” My point being if you have a defensive scheme based on the 1995-2015 time period which sacrifices the 3 to defend the paint you may need to adjust. Archie’s pack line did that — focused on the paint and we didn’t guard the three very well. Jury is still out, but Woodson’s defense might suffer a similar fate. That’s all I’m saying.

That’s not my assertion. You’re looking at single players. Look at depth. Are there not more players shooting higher percentages today than back when? Currently there are 42 players shooting 40% or better. 245 teams shooting 33% or better. In 1998, there were 204 teams shooting 33% or better. That’s a 20% increase.

Knight would be considered old school. Think you're missing the point. You're citing single players who put up single-digit 3s per game. Iowa as a team made more than we shot.

So back when they put the 3 point line in I was at Bobby Knight’s annual talk to the students. He was specifically asked about the new 3 point shot. He’s response: I’m not really concerned. I have the only player who can shoot the darn thing. Alford was the exception that proved the rule. :)

More fouls, lol. Have you watched the Big10 lately. :) Oh, and then you have to make your free thows which seems to be a lost art these days. :) 33% doesn't produce a higher point per possession, it's equal. But 38% does. That's not necessarily the point I was making though. The question is how much attention should a defense pay to the 3 pt. shot -- In other words sacrifice some interior defense to defend the 3. In the old days, it didn't matter because nobody could shoot the darn thing. Today they can. And once they start to hit 33% or so, it becomes a problem if you don't defend it. For the past 6 years, we haven't been very good at defending it. Last night, Iowa was 56.5% from three and only 55.6% from 2. Ouch.

Sure, with a guy like TJD you play inside out. Without him, you'll need to adjust to something else. My only point was in response to why we (and the Archie Miller teams) don't seem to guard the 3 very well -- it's old school thinking, that's all. But I will point out, ever since he said he was "ungardable," well he's kinda been "guardable."

Sure, but define "good" at 3 pt shots. Then you need to compare to 2 point shots. 33% from three equals 50% from 2. Looking at the stats, most teams run just over 50% from 2. So anything above 33% from three has a positive expectancy over 2s. Iowa's number are 34.7% and 52.3% = which is about equal (and no idea what they are the past few games coming off that MSU beatdown). So you better guard both, which we didn't. IU's numbers are 37.8 and 53.2, which actually gives us a 1 pt advantage via the 3. Yet we want to focus on inside with TJD, which is fine if he passes out for the 3. Bottom line, the only way you can leave three points open is if their percentage is below the 2 pt shot equivalent, about 33% vs 50%. In that case you want them to take 3s, not 2s. But teams are shooting above that these days, and that is my point.

My own simple minded answer is it's a belief by the older crowd that the 3 pt. shot is ineffective. Sure it's flashy, but it's the old win by the 3, die by the 3 -- in other words luck had a lot to do with it. (I saw that mentality in my Kid's high school a few years ago with the old coaches, and boy did we take some beatings) What coaches need to understand is that the game is changing and today's kids can hit the three very effectively. So no longer can you rely on luck. You have to figure out a way to guard the 3, maybe at the expense of giving up a 2. Just MHO.

Love that quote. Now if you listened to TJD’s presser, he mentioned that their defense completely fell apart. The nail slot whatever was all messed up. Guys covering the wrong guys, bad switches, etc. How the hell does that happen at the end of the season. Kids plying in la la land.

Kid can still develop into a role player. Some of these four year guys kinda got jobbed with the covid year and guys staying around until they're eligible for social security.

Jesus. Board full of Debbie Downers. Sometimes you're the Pigeon. Tonight we were the Statue. It happens and yes probably happens too much with this team. Better now, than during tourney time. Hopefully they figure it out. As for next year, lets leave it to next year. Who the hell knows what's going to happen.

Frankly should tank it. Looks like they could use the rest.

Put X in for mop up minutes. Let him get his feet wet.