moyemayhem

Is the thought that if we only have 10-11 revenue share players that individually players will get a bigger share than if we had 13 revenue share players? Could that have been part of the sell to the incoming portal class? The difference seems pretty marginal... just spit balling here.

To be clear, I’m very happy with what DeVries and Carr have done in the portal. With a limited budget the smart thing to do is spend the vast majority on your top players who will be getting big minutes, and then hope to find value with the rest of the roster. Of course I’d prefer a deeper roster with more proven players, but given the status of the program we’ve done very well this offseason. Just being honest with my assessment that I don’t think Wang is a Big Ten level player. It probably says something about what we have left in the budget. If this is where we are at, I’m still happy with the results, especially compared to the roster assembly last year.

Wang is not a Big Ten level athlete. His best skill is his shooting, and his stats show that he’s not particularly good at that. I don’t get the interest, unless we are out of money or he wants to be a walk on.

His height at 6’2 would be very short for an NFL TE. Many teams probably thought he’d be better suited as a FB.

Rancik looks like a legit ball handler. Not a high flyer, but a fluid athlete. Looks like he has great vision for someone his size. The 86% free throw shooting implies he could become a good 3 point shooter. The low shooting %s are concerning, but the talent is there and he could have serious upside. He reminds me of a less developed David Mirkovic.

It would be fun to see what it looks like if both programs are successful at the same time. I’d guess that football has an advantage as long as Cignetti is around.

This guy obviously.

Reading comprehension was never a strength of mine.

Honestly, I like the simplicity of a 64 team tournament, probably because it’s fun filling out a simple bracket and offers a nice mix of teams. More teams means a more complex bracket that might impact casual interest. Additionally, I’ve rarely seen a bubble team that I thought was compelling enough to expand the tournament for. When you add in that many of the new teams will likely be power 5 teams with losing conference records, I just don’t see how this improves the tournament product. It just seems like we are adding a bunch of uninteresting games between marginal teams. To me it’s simply a money grab that may damage the product and end up being a money loser in the long-term.

Did anyone watch any of IU’s bubble teams the last 3 years and think: 1. This team deserves to be in the tournament. 2. This team can compete for a title. 3. Including this team will make the tournament more compelling. 4. Watching this team play in the tournament will give me joy.

I received mine a couple weeks ago. It’s a nice book, good recap, pictures are great. Very happy with the purchase.

I was returning home in the car with the family after attending a memorial for my uncle. My wife was nice enough to drive so I could watch the end of the game, but she regretted that decision after a broke the review mirror celebrating the catch.

If we don’t bring in an experienced TE from the portal (and at this point the cupboard is looking pretty bare) I have to assume that is because Cig has high confidence in someone on the current roster. The top 3 TEs, Nowakowski, Staes, and Bomba are gone. Schott is a nice prospect, but I’d be surprised if Cig is already pencilling him in as a starter with virtually no college experience and no time working with our coaches. The only other TEs that we are bringing back from the current roster are Thiry (who may have some upside) and Barker (who looks like more of a block first type). Could there be someone else who they are in the process of converting to TE? I guess the only logical conclusion is that either Thiry or Barker has really impressed the coaches. In Cig we trust.