moyemayhem

Repeatedly running out of shot gun when you need a yard or less just makes it too easy for the defense to stuff the run. When the back gets the ball their momentum will effectively limit them to half the field, and the defense knows that. The back also can’t build up as much push when they hit the line. On a couple high leverage short yardage plays at the end of the game we played under center, opening up the field and leading to more success.

All this Daley talk just brings back memories of how heartbreaking that injury was after the OSU game. He was absolutely one of our best defensive players the second half of the Big Ten season. A one man wrecking ball who led all of college football in TFLs entering the playoffs. Daley had a decent chance of getting drafted if he had stayed healthy. In the greatest IU football season of all time, his injury was certainly a low point.

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.