GnarlyNormEllenberger

Here's some statistics regarding Michigan's defense using Bill Conolly's S+P rankings... Florida - 17 points allowed (vs. #75 offense) Cincinnati - 14 (#100) Air Force - 13 (#46) Purdue - 10 (#56) Michigan State - 14 (#84) Of course, statistics don't tell the whole story. However, I think the above statistics prove that Michigan's defense is really good. While they have yet to play a great offense, they have limited or shut down every offense they have encountered. They have the #3 ranked defense according to S+P. And even though their offense is struggling, they are still ranked a respectable #69. For comparison, IU's defense is ranked #22 while the offense is #76. Judging from the above stats, it's going to be a challenge for our offense to hang 20 points on them. Michigan hasn't allowed that in any game all season. That's not to say we can't do it, but it will be a challenge and we're going to have to find a way to exploit a weakness that has yet to be found thus far. Fortunately, our defense is more than capable of holding an average offense at bay. Tom Allen orchestrated a great game plan that held them in check last year in Ann Arbor. But can we hold them below 20? I don't know. That's why we need the ball to bounce our way, so to speak. We'll need to win the turnover battle. It would help if we could be +2 in that regard. It's possible, because Michigan has had some turnover issues this season, too. Field position will also be vital. We can't start many drives inside our own 20 and expect to drive down the field against them. And we need top-notch play on special teams. If we can win these categories, the odds may turn in our favor enough to overcome a sizable talent differential. But if Michigan wins these categories, they probably win by at least a couple of touchdowns. I certainly agree with ThompsonHoosier that this could be our big "breakthrough" game. But man, that Michigan defense is high-level. It honestly wouldn't surprise me to see us hang with them the whole game, but fall short 23-14 or 26-17 or something like that. However, I think we're playing them at a good time. If we can have a few things go our way in this game, I'd say we can pull out the first victory against them in 30 years.

A few thoughts... and this one's even longer than my normal posts because I have a lot to say, so beware because I am about to write a book... - Turnovers... Indiana 4, Penn State 1. You can talk all you want to about Lagow or Ramsey or Barkley or McSorely or whoever the poo you wanna talk about. You can't go on the road at the #4 team and compete with a -3 TO differential. That was the story of THIS game. We needed those numbers to flip in our favor to have a chance. They didn't so we lose by 31. That's how football works. The good news? Those TOs can be remedied. - Special teams were poop today. Gave up two scores. They were an absolute detriment to the team this game. Punting wasn't good. Absolutely nothing in the return game. The roughing the kicker penalty just killed us. A definite step back from the past two games in this regard. This unit is MUCH better than what they showed today. Kudos to Crawford on the FG block, though. That deserves mentioning. - Lagow was off today. And when he's off... he's just off. I don't recall ever watching him course-correct within a game (maybe Michigan State last year?) But he was missing his receivers straight-up. And you can't blame the O-Line today because they were giving him enough time. He is who he is at this point. He can look pretty good, but he can look equally poor. Today he was poor and he was rightfully yanked. - Folks, I like Ramsey. But he's limited right now. Can he throw downfield? I still don't know because he didn't do it much. The INT was plain bad. It's obvious the coaches still have reservations with his downfield throws. He threw 17 passes for only 78 yards. That's just not effective. If we're going to continue to look Ramsey's way, we're gonna need to expand his playbook. Defenses have mostly figured out his RPOs and we're stuck dinking and dunking down the field, with mixed results at-best. Yes, he can make some plays with his feet. But those plays are 5-10 yarders. Not your "big play" variety. We're gonna have to find a way to spread the field better with him. Wouldn't be surprised to see some new wrinkles against Michigan in a couple of weeks. - Ellison is our best RB if we're trying to actually run the ball and gain yards. But we need him to hold on to the ball. He's fumbled twice in 53 carries this year. He also needs to stay healthy. I'm guessing that's why his PT dwindled later in this game? The dude has been knocked out a bunch in the last two weeks. Still, he's very much in the mold of Jordan Howard. If we can keep him healthy, he's gonna be a good one. - Outside of Ellison? Hard to say because he looks SO much better than the other RBs. I will say that I have always loved Gest's burst. I'm guessing there are concerns with his pass protection? I honestly don't know. But he runs hard. I'd give him a shot after Ellison. But Williams, Brookins, Rodriguez, Majette, etc.? They're not producing at near the rate we need them to produce. And they've had opportunities. - What happened to our WRs? Where's Timian? Did Hale even play? That dude looked great against OSU. They have to keep getting open, particularly for Ramsey. Not near the strength as I had hoped they would be in this game. - Kudos to our defense. They kept it from being embarrassing. I'm very proud of this unit, especially considering we were without a couple of key players. Still leaps and bounds better than than most of our defenses from 1997-2015. Tegray had 11 tackles and 3 sacks. Covington had 8 and 2. The D-Line got a solid push. 11 total tackles for loss. Great effort. - I'm not going to mistake Tom Allen for Tom Osborne, but give the man some credit for his defensive game plan. Held Barkley in check for the second year in a row. Got some pressure on McSorely. Motivated the guys to make it a game going into halftime when it just as easily could have been 42-0. He was fighting for his team today. And I have a feeling he's gonna be chewin' a few guys out in practice this week. There's only so much the man can do in-game when a player fumbles the ball other than bench him. - There were a couple of baloney no-calls by the officiating team today. Would it have made a difference? Probably not, but I don't know how many times I have seen the officials mail it in once we get behind against a blue-blood. Good for Tom Allen to keep fighting for his team. - James Franklin had his starters in and was throwing deep passes and running trick plays up 24 points with 5:00 left in the game. I understand football and style points and the playoff. The drive-by national media will just gush about Barkley and the final score and no one will pay attention from a national perspective. But I also know that what goes around usually comes around. I'll tell you this... Tom Allen won't forget it. Next year's game at Memorial Stadium will be interesting. - Look at your team stats. Total Yards: Penn State 370, Indiana 352. Held them to 39 yards rushing. 39. Only 2 penalties a piece for each team. You hold on to the stinking football and we're right there in the ball game. - All that said, we played at #4 Penn State. Not really a good indicator of where we are at as a team. Still only game #4 of the season. However, I do expect an inspired effort against Michigan in two weeks. We're certainly good enough to give them a game at home.

I wasn't going to comment on this one until I saw the IDS article recapping the game, particularly the "What did we learn? Not much of anything" mindset. I'd argue that while we played an inferior opponent, we still learned a bit more about our team... - The O-Line played as a much more cohesive unit. 282 yards rushing against them is solid (as a comparison, Auburn went for 350+ yards). They were much more effective opening up holes this game. The pass-blocking was much improved. Simply put, they looked improved from previous weeks and did what you hoped they would do against a team like Ga. Southern. Next week will be a tremendous challenge, but I'm fairly confident you'll see them be more effective than they were against Ohio State. The O-Line is improving. - As a result, that places less pressure on the QB's. We don't particularly want a lot of pressure on Lagow or Ramsey to win the game for us. That's way too risky. In this game, the QB's didn't have to force anything, so mistakes were minimal. That's ideal for our offense at this point. - Ellison got his chance and shined. Really like his power style of running. He's got good size and reads holes relatively well for his age. I think he certainly separated himself as our lead back, which is key. We needed someone to step up at that position. The fact that he's just a freshman is all the more impressive. - Our defense looked a little tired in that 3rd quarter. Admittedly, it was a LONG game and they seemed to play better in the 4th quarter. But it's a bit concerning because you saw similarities between that and the Ohio State game. I don't know if it's because of how many plays are being ran or what. Something to keep an eye on as the year progresses. - How about J-Shun Harris? We have a true weapon there. If we "breakthrough" against a top team this year, I have a feeling he'll play a huge role in that game. He proved in this game that he's a threat anytime he touches the ball. In the end, we won 52-17. We improved our line play and established a running game and got some takeaways. Not sure how much more you could ask from them this game. ALSO, we play Ga. Southern (an FBS team) because it's a high chance of a win. We need 6 wins for a bowl. It does not behoove us to schedule top mid-majors or more than one Power 5 team in the non-conference. A high strength of schedule is not important for IU football. We need wins. Not necessarily against the absolute worst teams, but still. We get Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State every year. That's why we need the Ga. Southern games to balance the schedule. Playing a strong non-conference schedule and missing a bowl does not help this football program.

He was also a 4-time conference coach of the year as a head coach in the same conference that produced Final Four participants George Mason and VCU. He also won the conference in 2012. The 17-44 record his last two years is also skewed because they played a challenging non-conference schedule for a mid-major and his best player, Damion Lee, left as a grad transfer and led Louisville in scoring his senior year. The guy may not be Bob Knight or Red Auerbach, but to say he "never did a thing" as a head coach is not fair at all. As Goonaha said, he was also an integral part in the recruitment process of Phinisee and Anderson. As an assistant, I think he's earned his pay thus far. As far as Forrester goes, I will defer to Archie at this point because he seems to really like him. It's always nice to have tall, bouncy guys that run the floor well. I like hearing about his defensive qualities as well. We needed another guy that can be a post player and he fills that void. He also has legitimate offers from several other NCAA tournament caliber schools, so he's not a reach. We'll see how Archie brings him along.

Does it seem like the 2018 class is setting up a lot like the 2007 class from a TALENT perspective? Both were the first "real" class for a new coach... 2007: Eric Gordon, Jordan Crawford, Brandon McGee, Eli Holman, JaMarcus Ellis and DeAndre Thomas 2018: (Romeo Langford) Robert Phinisee, Damezi Anderson, Jerome Hunter, Jake Forrester Of course, this all hinges on whether or not we get Romeo. But if (a huge if) we got him, those classes are similar. They would both have an elite, one and done scorer to go along with a bunch of talented, Top 100 level players. It all hinges on Romeo. If he comes, I believe we're back in the national picture (i.e. Top 15/20) next year. If he goes elsewhere, we' may have to wait for some 2019 studs to come along.

A few thoughts on the game... - I'm not sure Virginia wins too many games this year. I'm certainly not trying to downplay this W, but let's just keep things in perspective. They're very basic and have few weapons on either side of the ball. That being said... - We beat a Power 5 team on the road. Again. And we did it convincingly. We're starting to build consistency as a program. We're not a bottom-feeder anymore. Many folks are getting caught-up in the IU-fueled "breakthrough" mantra, but we've definitely improved as a program the last three years or so with wins like this one. We can't take these W's for granted. - Our defense played pretty well today. Not great, but solid. Didn't give up big plays. Kept things in front of them. I'd like to see them make a few more "big" plays, but I'll take today's effort. They kept things in-check while our offense was trying to figure things out. Still think the defense can play better, though. Like to see a few more takeaways that actually count... - Special teams! Alright! Really outplayed them in this segment of the game. Harris can be a threat in the punt return game. Williams had a couple solid returns as well. Punting game was solid. And Oakes made a couple of though kicks at important times. That's how you win ball games. - The QB issue. A lot of hot takes on this thus far. As always, the truth probably lies somewhere in between. There's no doubt that we caught them off guard with Ramsey's mobility. Defenses will start to focus on Ramsey now, too. And that will make a difference. That being said, I've seen a lot of hubbub in this thread on the one throw that he made to Hale... kind of like that's an aberration and that he can't make that throw on a regular basis. My question is: How do we know that? We didn't need him to do that today. We needed him to manage the game, move the ball and not turn the ball over. Check, check and check. Does he have Lagow's arm? No. Can he make the throws that Lagow can make? It remains to be seen. But about half the time Lagow can't make the throws Lagow makes (speaking of his consistent inconsistencies.) It was also said that Ramsey wasn't going to beat Wisconsin, Michigan, etc. No, but he could beat Rutgers, Illinois, Purdue, etc. Ramsey isn't a great QB right now, but he's more than a novelty and any assertion to the contrary completely disregards his effort today. - That being said... I still think we need Lagow and he deserves to play some. Ramsey played well today, but he didn't light the world on fire. He played well. Lagow has played well in the past, too. Someone said if we have two QBs we really don't have any... not sure about that. Again, we've played two games. We can't answer that question. It's good to have some options so we don't have to solely rely on either one this season.

I'll echo that sentiment. Seymour usually hosts Sectionals, Regionals and Semi-State, if I am not mistaken. It's always a good regional, particularly last year. I'll never forget watching Center Grove come out of the tip with something like a triangle and two defense... using the "two" to double-team Romeo and deny him the ball. Not sure if I remember ever seeing something quite like that. Didn't last long though... Romeo had a slam within the first several minutes of the game, if I remember correctly. I think they switched off the double-team by that point. But I admire the Center Grove coaching staff for trying something different. Romeo is just an ELITE level talent. I also remember leaving impressed by Trayce Jackson-Davis. Didn't know much about him before, but you could tell he was a high-level player, especially for a sophomore. New Albany couldn't do much to stop him. Never was overly impressed with Nunge from what I saw, but you can tell he has talent. Hemingway looked good, too. Still think it's a little too early to project how good he's going to be.

A few thoughts on this one: -Game looked familiar to several others in recent history. Competed for 2.5 quarters, then the wheels fell off. Maybe somewhat similar to @Michigan State in 2015? It's frustrating because I was equally proud and disappointed within the same game. -Disappointed in our second half defense. They looked tired. Those crossing patterns killed us. We didn't shake off our blocks and away they went. Some poor angles here and there. Dobbins started bouncing off our D-Line and turned 1-2 yard gains into much more. We just couldn't stop them. At all. Of course, there were A LOT of plays ran last night. And it was against the #2 team and an good offense. That being said, I still think our defense is better than what it showed in that second half. It needs to be for us to have success this year. -Our O-Line... bless their hearts. They tried. But they couldn't generate any semblance of a running game and that made our offense extremely one-dimensional. They're inexperienced and it showed. Fortunately, this was probably their most difficult test of the season, so improvement should be forthcoming. They're not as bad as it looked last night. We've still got some talent up front with Cronk and if we could get Knight healthy... -I thought Lagow played about as well as you could ask him to play. He made a lot of good throws last night and had to make them quickly because he had VERY little time in the pocket. His timing and precision on several passes were very impressive. He showed good chemistry with several players, which is very promising. Still needs to cut down on his turnovers because they are absolute killers. But folks, he had to drop back more than 70 times last night and the defense knew we had to pass. It could have been worse than two interceptions and a fumble. We didn't lose because of Lagow. - Enjoy Cobbs this year. He's a pro. -Impressed with our other receivers, too. Hale looked big and strong out there and showed why he had a good fall camp. Timian was great in the slot. And Ian Thomas showed he's headed for a breakout year as a pass-catching TE. Hope Westbrook is okay, but receiver is one spot where we look pretty good. -MISCELLANEOUS: Our RBs were put into a tough spot and they struggled as expected. Not sure how fast Ellison is coming along in pass-protection and what-not, but I like his talent and size... Good to see Ramsey out there at QB for a bit. I thought he performed admirably considering the circumstances. I like that it looks like he'll get some run this year because he's the front-runner for QB next year... Not sure what to think of OSU as a national contender. Their secondary is inexperienced, for sure. The D-Line is as good as advertised. Wilson is definitely good for their offense... Gameday atmosphere looked special. It was nice for Bloomington to be at the center of the college football world for one night, despite the score. FINAL THOUGHTS: As proud as I was of this team through 2.5 quarters, the end of the game left me disappointed. As previously stated, the wheels came off. I'm not sure if that ever happened last season, so I kinda view that as a bit of regression. I thought we had better depth than that, particularly on the defensive side of the ball. But Ohio State is as talented of a team we'll play this year. I still think we're more than capable of being a bowl team and a good season is more than possible.

RE: the Grant Gelon article Are he and his parents that naive? Really? Listen, I don't blame a kid wanting to chase his dreams and attempt to play high-level basketball at a storied program like Indiana. But let's be real, he had other scholarships from places like Western Michigan, Iona, IUPUI and Illinois-Chicago. The Indiana offer was a BLATANT outlier. It was an uphill climb for him to ever be successful as a basketball player at IU. He played in only 12 games last year, mostly mop-up minutes. He wasn't anywhere close to being an on-court contributor. So the Gelon camp is surprised because a new coach has come in and doesn't see Gelon making an impact as a competitive player on the team? Again, let's not be naive. Crean reached on Gelon. And it wasn't a reach like Oladipo or OG. Those guys had other Power 5 offers. This was a reach like with Priller (and how much of an on-court effect has he had?) As many have said before, Crean often tried to out-think the room and the offer to Gelon was proof of this. It was a major risk and it was highly unlikely to pay off. In some ways, I feel bad for Gelon in that Crean led him to believe he was something that he wasn't. But then again, the moment Crean was fired, Gelon as well as another player on the team HAD to REALISTICALLY understand the next coach may not believe they were worthy of an athletic scholarship on the team. All this being said, he still was allowed to keep his academic scholarship to IU. And that's what was important. He could still get his IU degree. So, to be honest, I really don't care much what Archie said or whether or not he showed up for the meeting. Gelon could have kept his scholarship to IU as a student. He was covered, and rightfully so due to scholarship agreements. However, he left because he wanted to play (which is understandable.) But that was his choice. He signed scholarship papers when he commited, not playing time papers. You're not guaranteed playing time anywhere in college athletics. This isn't Little League. The fact is, you could have seen this coming the moment he committed. And truth be told, I'm a little surprised it didn't happen to another one of our guys as well.

A few thoughts here... - I'm afraid some of the prospects mentioned in this thread are being underestimated or devalued because of the ranking number that follows their name. I've followed the rankings/recruiting scene for 10+ years and admit that it often gives you an idea of where a player stands/projects at the present time of ranking. But it also seems to (in my opinion) put a little too much emphasis on size/athleticism and how that player performs over a handful of weekends in the spring/summer. Does that give an accurate evaluation of how a player will perform at the collegiate level? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It's an inexact science. - I look at Race Thompson. Some people compare him to Brandon Johns (Michigan) and Darius Bazley (Syracuse) and say he's not as athletic or versatile and this means he's not near as good. The fact is, Thompson is more of a post than either of those two. Sure, he's not as quick or an "above the rim" type of player like the other two, but he's a natural in the post. He can establish position, seal off his defender and absorb contact. He has a variety of post moves already and has the capability to step outside as well. His defensive awareness is impressive, particularly in defending passing lanes. He can be a bulldog and is a perfect fit for the Big Ten. He'll be (at least) a rotation player from the start for a "good" team. I'll almost guarantee you. While he doesn't possess the athleticism or versatility of Johns or Bazley, he's going to have a college-ready game. And I'll be flabbergasted if he doesn't become a really good player in college. - Phinisee didn't have an outstanding spring, so that affected his ranking. I understand it, I get it. Supposedly he was battling some nagging injuries. However, I've heard enough from people I would trust that have watched Phinisee for several years (much longer than just a handful of events) that he is a great point guard prospect. Not the fastest, not the strongest, not the biggest, but he understands the game. Plain and simple. He's a leader. I've heard phrases such as "makes his team better" and "tough as nails". I view him the same way I viewed Jordy Hulls. May not be ready to take the keys from Day 1, but as a Sophomore and beyond, he'll be a huge asset to the team. Is he Darius Garland? No, but he's still a great prospect. - Aaron Henry. I'll just say this, I like him better than I liked Jallow (and that pains me as a North grad.) Led his team to a 4A title last year and played well against some top competition. He's coming on strong and if he's the 5th man in a 5-man class, I think we'll have a "steal." - Some new names will pop up in the next few weeks. And I bet you'll be positively surprised with how well we stand with them. - Personally, I feel this class needs to be and will be like the '09 class with Watford, Creek, Hulls, Elston, Capobianco and Muniru, That was good foundation class and was the backbone to our successes in 2012 and 2013. The '18 class can do the same with guys like Thompson, Phinisee and Henry (plus another couple of guys.) As of July 12th, I am not worried. - The '19 class should be the superstar class. If we don't land at least one from that class (Trendon Watford, Keion Brooks, Matthew Hurt, etc.) then it's more than fair to criticize.

I actually think we can land him if we really put forth the effort. Purdue has thrown the kitchen sink at him, but still didn't receive a commitment. I would think that if long-term relationships were THAT big of a factor for him, he would already be a Boilermaker. But he's not because he wanted to see what else was out there. So he ended up getting an IU offer (plus UConn, DePaul, etc.) And he seemed pretty pleased about getting an offer from us. That at least tells me we're in the thick of things. I like what I have seen from him. Definitely a shooter-type. Kinda reminds me a bit of Trevon Blueitt or Robert Vaden... from the little that I have seen.

There have already been a few scouting reports on Bazley in this thread, but I thought I would throw in my two cents... Strengths: Very impressive handles for a 6'9 prep player. Unlike many other prospects in the 6'7-6'9 range who say they are a wing, this guy actually has the handles and athleticism to back it up. Athletic, long and rangy. These qualities can certainly overwhelm his opponents at the prep level. He can (and often does) take his man off the dribble and poses a potential match-up problem if guarded by a smaller wing or bigger post. As one might assume, he seems to excel in transition and can lead the break himself. He also has the ability to score in the post a bit. One of my favorite qualities about his game is that he will utilize the shot-fake from time to time (Coach Knight would be proud.) Concerns: Very skinny at this point. A strength and conditioning regimen can change that, but the Big Ten is a rough league. Some have said that he has a smooth shot, but I don't see that with consistency. I would describe it as "developing." Not bad, but I wouldn't call it a strength, yet. I do wonder how his game translates to a half-court, slow-it-down style that he would see in the Big Ten from time to time. I also have yet to see much defensive footage. Obviously, he can use his length and athleticism to block shots at the prep level, but I'm more interested in his defensive positioning and fundamentals. If he doesn't possess the latter, he'll be prone to foul trouble on a regular basis in the Big Ten. He has a lot of potential there, though. Conclusion? I like this guy, too. He oozes with potential. His height, handles and athleticism is rare for someone his size. Kinda looks like a Troy Williams/Clifton Moore hybrid if you need a comparison, but he's his own player. I think you'd see him at the "3" and maybe "4" if he came here. Depending on how fast he develops, I could definitely see him as a starter early in his career. I'd say he's accurately ranked.

I really like Thompson. I'm not a scout, but I can definitely see why IU has prioritized him. I've never watched him play a full game, but you can learn quite a bit from watching his numerous highlight videos on the internet. Strengths: He seems to have a good "nose" for the ball... something relatively uncommon for a post player. Seems to understand how the game is played. He anticipates passing lanes well on defense which creates fast break opportunities, of which he seems comfortable leading. He also seems to have the ability to become a good help defender, particularly in the post. Offensively, he looks comfortable feeding a cutter to the post from the top of the key while also capable of kicking out of the post when appropriate. Perhaps my favorite aspect of his game is how comfortable he looks in the post. He does a good job establishing position and sealing off his defender. He has multiple moves within the post, including a running hook shot. He's also not afraid to absorb some contact. While not necessarily an imposing athlete, he can throw down some thunderous dunks. A bit of a bulldog mentality, in my opinion. He's also a capable spot-up shooter from out to 3-point range. Concerns: He doesn't seem to be overly quick, nor an elite-level athlete, which probably contributes to why he isn't ranked higher. Not exactly an "above the rim" player, but can get "up" on occasion. I could see some scouts saying these traits limit his ceiling, but I'm not so sure. Conclusion? I'd take him in a heartbeat, especially since it looks like this class will be around five guys deep. He can fill a post need. I think he can give you minutes at the "4" or "5" with the capability to stretch the defense on offense or bang down low. I love his awareness, particularly as a defender (think Cody Zeller.) His AAU stats show he is a solid rebounder, although I cannot visually attest to that. I think he'd also be able to come in and provide us immediate minutes off the bench and become a featured player on our team as an upperclassman. If you haven't watched his highlight videos, take a look. I'm interested if anyone else sees the same things I do about him.

A question for anyone: Do I understand correctly that any IU basketball player can leave early and forgo their eligibility to pursue professional opportunities and still have their tuition paid for to complete their degree at a later date? If so, then what is the incentive for any IU player with legitimate interest in playing professionally to stay in school past one season (like Bryant, Blackmon, etc?) If your education will still be paid for and there for you to pursue in the future, then wouldn't you want to take the earliest opportunity to spend all day, every day working on your basketball skills to try and make money off of it as early as you can? Especially if it isn't about "being ready" for the next level. Otherwise, wouldn't you risk an injury or the your flaws in your game being exposed all the more? I'm just trying to figure out the players' incentive to stay in school past one year... but perhaps I do not understand the tuition-guarantee side of it?

I think this is true to an extent, but you don't want to oversell the "relationship" angle, either. If Swider is truly blowing up, what do you think would happen if UK, Duke, Kansas or UNC suddenly offered? I have a hard time believing those schools wouldn't become an immediate contender even though there was no prior relationship between the two parties. Why? Because they're the elite and even though previous relationships may not have existed, I'm not sure it matters with those schools. If your program is big like that, you can get "in" with a recruit without much of a relationship. I think the IU brand still resonates in a similar way for many (although I know that point is debatable.) Now, it's true we're not at the level of those schools. But we're in the next tier below when it comes to tradition, exposure and potential for success. Many of the recruits we're after for 2018 (sans Langford and Garland) do not have the "elite" offers, so we're considered among their best, if not their best, offer. I guarantee you that means something to a lot of recruits. A lot of kids want to play at the highest level they can. We offer that for a lot of the guys we're after. We're not Illinois. We're not Purdue. So we should be able to nab some of those guys. In the case of Swider, we'll see. Archie has done enough to make his Top 8 in a short time. I imagine that a few more months of relationship building will only help our case at this rate. Sure, we're going up against some other "name" schools in Syracuse, Michigan and Villanova. And he spoke very highly of Xavier. But considering the impact we have already made on him and barring a quick decision from him, I think we have a shot. We might get beat because of the relationship factor, but as we've seen as Hoosier fans for years (Kris Wilkes, Gary Harris, Zak Irvin, Jaquan Lyle, Trevon Blueitt, etc.) that doesn't always play as big of a role as we think it does. But I suppose each recruit is a unique case all its own.

Good post and I very much agree. The good thing is that I believe Archie understands this. If he is prioritizing Jallow, he can't lose him to Bennett at Virginia. He just can't. Hometown kid who has visited IU bunches of times and has already shown interest in Archie and the new staff. You have to sign him if you want him/offer him. Something to note with Jallow and guys like Phinisee, Hunter, Damezi Anderson, etc. is that these guys aren't elite-level recruits at the moment. You don't have UK or Duke after them. IU is the most prestigious school after these guys and we also have a bit of home-court advantage with them, too. If Archie wants them, but can't get at least two of these guys to sign the dotted line for next year, then he doesn't have the allure that some makes him out to have. And that would be a bit deflating. Langford is the one exception. He's a Top 5-level, elite talent that can pick any school he wants. Plus, from a geographic standpoint, he lives closer to UK or Louisville than IU. Here's a case where having a longer relationship would have been nice to have. Personally, I'm not concerned. I think we'll nab at least a couple of these guys when it's all said and done. I've been very impressed with how Archie has conducted himself on the recruiting trail thus far. I think we'll be a serious contender with Langford all the way through. I also think we have a chance with Garland and a few other out of state prospects, so I think we'll have a Top 10-15 class in the end.

I understand, respect and agree with you about embracing the past and bringing on an IU guy as an assistant. However, I don't think it's fair to simply dismiss Bruiser Flint as a .500 coach from the east coast. He was a four-time conference coach of the year who only had losing records in conference play three times out of twenty years. That deserves at least a little recognition. Does he have ties to Indiana? It doesn't look like it on the surface. But it does sound like he can bring plenty of positives to the table.

Bruiser Flint won 331 games as a head coach and was the CAA Coach of the Year four times ('02, '04, '09 and '12.) Was a former assistant to who might be the greatest recruiter in college basketball history. If that's not an impressive enough resume for an assistant's position, then I'm not sure what is. Now, need a guy with ties to the state...

A few things I hope to see from Archie early on... 1) Hit the ground running. Player retention and completing the roster for next year will be key. Through no fault of his own, some are disappointed that he's not as big of a name as Stevens or Donovan. Getting us back in the tournament next year will be evidence we're pointed in the right direction and better off than we were with Crean. If teams like Minnesota and Northwestern made it this year, we should have enough pieces to make it next year. It will keep momentum going. 2) Establish plenty of Indiana contacts. Obviously, he needs to make the program his "own" to an extent, but make sure to include people from IU and the state. That doesn't mean he needs a bench of former Hoosiers. It just means that he can't lose the state. When that happened to Crean, his tenure was doomed. So even if these connections are never made public, make sure they exist. He'll need them. Make them exist and make those relationships strong. 3) Have a clear focus on recruiting. Don't take the shotgun approach. Find your niche and excel in it. He's right in the middle of a fertile recruiting ground, so I would he makes Indiana/Ohio/Illinois his primary base, recruiting nationally when appropriate. Piggybacking off of Point #1, a few commits from high level players in future classes will certainly build excitement as he's getting this thing off the ground. 3A) Manage the roster. The "we're young" excuse doesn't hold much weight these days. Many teams are young. Make sure to recruit some guys who will stick around for four years and maintain a consistent level of winning. (This is where the #5-#8 ranked players in Indiana come into play every year... i.e. your Nic Moore's, Bryant McIntosh's, Eron Harris', etc.) 4) Talk is cheap. Just do it. Don't try to sell the fans on stuff. They know baloney when they hear it. Don't speak in platitudes and make excuses. The proof is on the court and his coaching will be judged as such. All in all, I'm cautiously optimistic. He's clearly a "potential" hire, as the hope is that he can really utilize the inherent advantages IU possesses and run with them. But we really need him to be ready for the big-time now. I've read he runs some motion-type of offense that uses off-the-ball screens. Good. Defense seems to be relatively stout. There isn't any reason why he can't make us what his brother has made Arizona. And 90% of IU fans would take that right now. Hopefully his recruiting can take off like that immediately. Another note: I heard he was an assistant coach on the Team USA U-19 team? If that's true, that's key. I'd imagine there are heavy recruiting advantages that exist there.

IU has to at least CONSIDER an "IU guy" so that it doesn't disrespect the former players. Not necessarily pick an "IU guy", but at least consider them. The administration knows this. They don't want former players calling out the athletic department. That's already happened before and it wasn't a good thing for the program. If I were a betting man, I'd almost guarantee that Fife's inclusion is what this is all about. It's more of a respect thing. An acknowledgment of basketball alumni. Furthermore, I'd almost guarantee you that Fife will not be the head coach at IU next year. I don't want to say this is just lip service, but... Personally, I think Fife could have success here as head coach.He's not one of my top choices, but I still think he'd be an upgrade from where we are at this point. People want to diminish the importance of him being an "IU guy" but I think it matters because he already understands what it means to be the IU coach. The expectations. The standards. He would know how to utilize the advantages of being the head coach at IU... something that hasn't really been done in 17 years. Is he ready now? I don't know. Don't know enough about his X's and O's philosophy. He's certainly not Stevens or Donovan. He's not at the level of Marshall or Bennett, either. But for those clamoring that Archie Miller is leaps and bounds a better fit for head coach at IU than Fife... well, I am not as confident as you might be. The lines become a bit blurred at that point...

Ding ding ding! There's the winning statement. The athletic department wants to be tight-lipped about this matter. That's always been their standard with coaching matters like these. Anyone who works in the athletic department would vouch for that. From higher ups to custodians. They DO NOT want info to be leaked and take extreme measures to assure that it doesn't happen. Don't think for a moment there hasn't been some truth to some of these rumors. And the athletic department does NOT want such info to be public. I can assure you that they are double downing on security to make sure (to the best of their ability) that no more info is out there on the internet. Lines of communication are undoubtedly being cut off at a rapid pace.

A few thoughts: - We ARE a blue-blood program. We have history, tradition, pull 14,000+ fans in for a practice every year and pay our head coach an elite-level salary while providing him a recruiting budget that far surpasses most of our conference foes while living in the middle of a recruiting hotbed. We have a mini-museum dedicated to Indiana Basketball. Our brand alone garners us a bunch of national TV appearances regardless of how good we're projected to be. No, we have not had consistent success over the past 20 years. But there's a reason why we're still invited (and decline?) to play in major showcases with other programs like UK, UNC and UCLA. Because we're STILL a big name in college basketball. That's what separates us from Purdue and Illinois (who are two solid programs in their own right.) - If we're paying Crean around 3.2 million and determine he's not good enough, how much do you think we'll pay the new guy? It's a guess, but I'd be surprised if the new guy isn't making at least $4 million a year (or more!) So my question is: Is Coach (insert candidate here) worth $4 million a year? My point is that we're not going to cut ties with Crean only to acquire a coach with similar results/consistency. I know it's fun to throw out names and what-not, but seriously. If we can attract a coach like Tom Crean when our program was in the state of a dumpster fire, what kind of coach can we get with the current state of the program? Something to ponder... - This program would absolutely take off like a rocket ship with the right leadership. And all of us know it. You'd see a Renaissance of IU basketball that has not been seen in well over 20 years. Maybe not Duke-level of success, but certainly like Michigan State or better. We could (should?) easily become the premier program of the Big Ten. But who is the guy to do it? I'm not sure, but don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Indiana Basketball has a LOT more potential that what it's currently showing. And I think many people in college basketball know it. Just my opinion.

Just for fun... Stevens: Yes. Maybe the most ideal coach-school fit in all of college basketball. Probably similar to Harbaugh going to Michigan. Unlikely to happen, but Glass has to do everything he can just to see... it would be THAT good of a hire. Donovan: Yes. Not quite like Stevens. But he'd win, here. On a national scale. But again, unlikely to happen. Bennett: Yes. Fundamentally sound coach. Minimizes turnovers and plays superb defense. He won the ACC twice in the last few years over Coach K, Williams, Boeheim, Pitino, etc. He's high-level. He'd win consistently here. But we already tried to get him once and I think the history with his sister makes this unlikely, too. Jay Wright: BTC. A few years ago, I read about an anonymous survey of college coaches that asked whose team was easiest to prepare for and the highest vote-getter was Jay Wright's. Evidently, his peers didn't think he was a good coach. Yet he later won a national championship. I like his consistency at Nova, but his X's and O's look a lot like Crean's. He would make me a little nervous... Steve Alford: BTC. It's not a popular opinion, but I believe Alford would max out his coaching potential here. But this ship sailed long ago and I don't see it coming back around. Archie Miller: Maybe BTC? Not sure. He'd be a bit risky. We need a Top 15-20 coach in the nation. Is he? Sean Miller: BTC. I think he's Roy Williams. Not a great X's and O's guy, but he gets talent and they play together and win consistently. It could work here. Chris Holtman: BTC. I like him, but still a risky hire. See Archie Miller. Ronald Nored: No. As an assistant, yes. Andy Enfield: No. A hard no. We don't need Dunk City. We need Indiana Basketball. Dane Fife: BTC. I think he'd have success here and is prepared. But I also think he should be down the list. Gregg Marshall: Yes. Probably. I'd love his X's and O's. And that's what we need. Fundamentals. Not worried about the mid-major to IU move. He's good enough. However, some rumors exist that he is not likable and is hard to get along with. That could spell doom with in-state (and out-of-state) recruiting. Plus, since Glass fired Wilson, I'd be surprised to see him hire someone like Marshall. Bill Self: Yes, but seriously? Chris Mack: No. Reminds me of two coaches. Tom Crean and John Groce. Again guys, we need to get a Top 15-20 coach. Mark Few. Yes. And I'd give him a courtesy call, too. But highly unlikely he'd leave Gonzaga. But I could see him win here with consistency. Made the NCAA Tournament 17/17 years. Consistency, folks. Even in the WCC.

Haven't posted in awhile, but first and foremost, I agree with your perspective. Pretty much the way I see it, too. However, I'd argue that OG's injury NOW will better help IU in the long run (or at least next year.) OG was/is likely to leave after the season regardless of his injury (as you probably agree.) Unfortunately, we haven't played that well with him in the lineup this year (which is a "team" problem... just like the beginning of last year.) But now, with him being out for the season, it shortens the bench. It limits our options. We have to play simpler.And coach doesn't get to overthink his personnel decisions (as much) because his options are limited. The manic substitutions are less-frequent. Dakich hit on this a bit during the broadcast. Last year, it took Blackmon getting hurt for roles to really be defined. Then, it became Yogi's team (and it wasn't before then.) It also allowed more run for OG and Morgan, who both were used only sparingly in the preseason. Then, by the time Johnson went out with an injury, both OG and Morgan were legit contributors. And thus... they rode the momentum into this season and have become two of our top players. But would have OG and Morgan got as much run in the season had Blackmon never been hurt? Somehow, I doubt it. This year, we can already see some similar themes. OG is out. Blackmon is becoming Batman (at least on offense.) Johnson is Robin. Bryant is... well... I'm not gonna get into that. Those three will have to lead us. But OG's injury allows more time (albeit in various lineups at different positions) for other guys to build confidence by making good plays. You're seeing that with McRoberts, Green and Davis. And those three will need some success and experience to build on this year because they'll be vital pieces for us next year and beyond. And I doubt they would have those opportunities to flourish had OG stayed healthy. So in a weird type of way... the added PT for guys like Green and Davis may allow them to blossom at the end of the year when they wouldn't have had the opportunity otherwise. And that will help for next year when we lose Blackmon, Bryant and OG. Does that lower our ceiling for this season? Yes, but it's not like we were "rolling" anyway. But I'm digressing. I completely agree with your sentiments. While this situation may prepare us a bit more for next season, it still doesn't give us sustained success long-term. Crean seems to build his rosters one season at a time. And unless you can pull off UK-like recruiting classes, that's problematic for sustained success. You have to bank on hitting the diamonds in the rough like OG and Oladipo. Those aren't good odds. It also furthers the thought that 2012-13 was the one opportunity Crean had when all the stars lined up in his favor with talent, experience and depth.

If (and that's a BIG if) you had to part ways with Wilson, I believe Tom Allen is more than a logical/capable successor. My reasoning... - Despite his lack of head coaching experience and college coaching experience in general, he has made a sizable impact everywhere he has been. Look at what he did as a part of the Ole Miss defensive staff. Before Allen, they were ranked last in the SEC. With Allen, they finished near the top in TFLs and sacks. In his one season as a D-coordinator at South Florida, his unit led the conference in scoring defense. Each of those teams finished with a winning record. - You cannot overstate how much he improved IU's defense this year. This is a unit that has been one of the statistically worse defenses over the last 20 years, even setting new records of failure during this time. Yet, in ONE year, he was able to move us from "bad" to "mediocre/respectable/legitimate". It was HIS defense that pushed us into a bowl game and kept us competitive in EVERY game, despite the inconsistencies of our offense. And this was coaching a unit that had many of the same players from the year before while even losing its whole D-Line the year prior. If there was an award for Assistant of the Year in the Big Ten, you would have been hard-pressed to find a more deserving coach than Tom Allen. - He's an Indiana guy familiar with the program. Yes, that means something. He understands the landscape. He knows what he's getting into and the type of position he holds. Those were several traits that Wilson didn't possess when he arrived and it resulted in a rocky start to his tenure. The transition to Allen should be MUCH smoother. He should be able to retain many of our assistants and recruits and keep continuity. And that's a continuity of relative success for IU Football. - Recruiting. He's highly respected among Indiana high school coaches. While Indiana is not a hotbed of recruiting, there are usually a dozen or so players who have legitimate Power 5 talent in the state each year. Nabbing his fair share of those guys could go a long way in continuing to build our program. His ties to the South with his stints at Ole Miss and South Florida will definitely help, too. He assisted in assembling some very talented recruiting classes while at Ole Miss. He's also known to have a very infectious personality (a Crean phrase, I know) that kids love to play for. That's huge these days, especially for a program that doesn't have a historical track record of winning. - Who else should we have gotten? The fact of the matter is that going another direction would mean starting over. At no point during the history of the program has this resulted in immediate success. While Wilson elevated the program, we're still considered a lower-level Power 5 team. Look at the candidates at Purdue and you'll get more of an idea who we'd be in the running for. None of those guys would inspire any more confidence in the long term future of the program at IU anymore than what Tom Allen gives us, in my opinion.