hoosierbgh

I'd take Bardo over Walton any day. Bardo may suck but at least he actually talks about basketball, granted it's frequently Illinois basketball instead of whoever is actually playing.

I'd like to know why ESPN hates his partner so much. He put in a Herculean effort trying to keep Walton's train(s) of thought on track all to no avail. I really feel for the guy since there was never any real hope of him succeeding. Sadly, the 10/8 second discussion was one of the more coherent comments from Walton all day. He was merely awful 20 years ago now, he is an embarrassment and someone should have enough sense to not put him out their in his current condition. .

No one's legacy is going to survive that association unless their name is Sanger.

The part in bold is exactly the point I was largely trying to make, I just didn't do it as succinctly as you. Words should matter I agree but so does context and experience with the source. Unless you are speaking of a subset of people approaching one, "all" is rarely going to be the accurate way to describe them yet often people do so, ether for emphasis or because they tend to hyperbole. No, I don't think it's trivial at all, that is exactly the danger when someone communicates in hyperbole mo'st (I had to catch myself here as I was tempted to use "all" instead of most) of the time. In any case you're also correct in that the conversation has ran it's course.

Let's not be too pedantic, you're fixating on his hyperbolic use of "all" to discredit his entire point, which is a valid one. We'll never know exactly what the percentage of sincere people to those with ulterior motives is but it's not even relevant. It is no fairer to judge the motives of those that choose not to speak publicly than it is to judge the motives of those that do. It is important that Archie, and by extension anyone else, has the right but not the requirement to comment publicly or not as they see fit. It is even more important that those like Tom Allen continue to live it regardless of commenting publicly. IMO, too many people are focused on who is or isn't saying what, that the real message is getting lost.

Fair enough. I would point out though that those like Tom Allen, who is certainly not the only one, live it every day. It is great that they choose to speak out when they feel the need to but ultimately it is their actions when the spotlight is not on them that speak the loudest. I would also point out that no one has argued that anyone shouldn't speak out if they felt the need to, only that they don't have to.

No, actually it's far more perceptive and thought out than the reactionary takes he so frequently posts and he's absolutely correct. Archie has every right to express himself or not about any issue he chooses. He doesn't need to join the virtue signaling mob just because some get off on telling others how they should feel or demonstrate those feelings. Personally, I'd much rather see Archie concentrate on supporting his players than do a PR stunt like Calipari, one that seems less sincere and more of a calculated move designed to help him find more kids to exploit. Better to be silent and sincere than to corrupt a tragedy into a chance for personal gain.

That crappie looks every bit as nice as it sounded! I just finalized my vacation plans, if the tropical storms/hurricanes and covid 19 all cooperate I will be fishing In St. Pete come September. If it is not asking too much, it would be nice if the snook and smacks cooperate too!

Good luck! I heard someone caught a 20" 4 lb. crappie at Patoka a few weeks ago.

Wow, is that chart inaccurate! The depictions of the fish are decent enough but it includes at least 5 species that won't be found within several hundred miles of Patoka and at least another 5 that are possible in theory but highly unlikely to be found there.

Thanks! I'm sure Painter's response would be almost exactly along those lines and the frustration would be understandable to a point. The problem is a coach can't have it both ways publicly, either he is disappointed and leaves it at that or it is a frustration removed in which case he doesn't say anything. Painter's comments would be much more understandable and even laudable if Eastern were the first player to leave this year instead of the most recent of several. Also, it would help if Painter hadn't used a similar deflection a few years ago when he talked about getting back to recruiting "Purdue type players" to excuse a poor season.

I have to give Painter credit for his successful deflection, I just can't believe how many seem to be falling for it though. Calling the player out after he decides to leave is nothing more than sour grapes. If Eastern was such a huge detriment to the team(and I don't doubt that he was a detriment at times) then it is the coach's responsibility to solve that problem one way or another. If a detriment to the team decides to leave voluntarily, then you celebrate quietly, be thankful you didn't have to make a tough decision and most importantly, you don't say a word to the media!

He seems to have a nose for the ball, especially on rebounds. With the aggression on display in that vid he could be a dangerous player if he tightens up his handles considerably.

Even weathermen envy Lunardi's ability to be wrong so often and still be promoted as an expert.

Have we really gotten to the point where no one can have a frank and open conversation for fear of someone getting the vapors at the mere mention of something that is the slightest bit political?

It's even worse when you consider the talent that OSU had/has.

The physicality is not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself. The real problem is the inconsistency in the way each team is called and the way it can vary from game to game. Over the course of a season it has the tendency to prop up the more brutal teams which then frequently are bounced quickly from the tournament when the games are officiated much differently. Even that wouldn't be so bad if it didn't also have the tendency to produce lower seeding for the better, more talented and usually less brutal teams.

I would think Mack is Wooden given Louisville's(and possibly Mack's) recent history and that Wooden/UCLA bought players.

No, he can't and yes, it would be great if he could. The difference this year is that we have Smith, TJD, and Durham who can all step up and share some of the scoring burden when needed. We also have a stable of talented players behind them who fill much needed roles every game and are capable of stepping up when needed. We'll have bad games at some point this year but here's to hoping that we get the "Unlimited Ammo" Green when we need him most.

Since you make a habit of posting wrong things attacking IU on a regular basis, I'm having trouble determining if your main complaint is the likely wrong information in the meme or the target of the meme. And, since you seem to have difficulty with such things, I'm joking... mostly.

What amazing progress! It only took a little over a decade for Crean to get a little credit for developing Wade.

I have never subscribed to the idea that we need an IU guy as I believe the correct fit and skill set is far more important. I didn't even know Mike Roberts was coaching so I can hardly say if he will be a good fit or not. I highly suspect though that he will be a far better choice than Cheaney, who many were clamoring for, would have been. I'd much rather have a guy that has committed to making a career of being a coach and is pursuing it to his fullest than someone that is not as dedicated and doesn't want it as bad. How good a player was has little to do with how good of a coach they will be.

Evans did have a shot that seemed like it was always going in but If Galloway plays half as tough and determined as Evans did then IU will be in good shape during his 4 years. The thing I will always remember about Evans is when he dislocated his shoulder and then forced it back in during a game. I think he did that a couple of times that season.

The problem is that certain people ALWAYS see giant red flags everywhere, whether or not they actually exist. Kind of like how to a guy with a hammer everything looks like a nail. Or perhaps the allegory of the boy who cried wolf is more apropos. Either way, the change you were clamoring for occurred and now, less than two years in, you are already clamoring for change again. Why should anyone expect it to be any different this time if/when the change you are clamoring for again occurs? There is nothing wrong with having expectations but there is something wrong with constantly throwing tantrums when the expectations are not met especially when you never seem to evaluate whether or not the expectations are valid as thoroughly as you evaluate those that failed to meet them. There's a difference between having expectations and being entitled.

Patience can lead to success. Frequently throwing tantrums and demanding changes, on the other hand, is more likely to impede success than lead to it.