Old Friend

He always did talk better than he coached if you like platitudes and coach-speak. Will he do a Marquette game first, or an Indiana game? What's the over/under on Dwayne Wade mentions his first broadcast? Is there a time on air before someone mentions the name "Harbaugh?" I say 47 seconds. True or false, he WILL mention deflections during his first broadcast? True or false, he will mention Cody Zeller and Victor Oladipo, but NOT Noah Vonleh during his first broadcast? Oh, the coach-speak of Tom Crean. I'm happy for him because he's a good man, but I don't know how long I can listen to him talk, Kinda like Chuck Pagano

At some point they will. Yesterday was a good opportunity to be sure; but the reasons we didn't finish it had nothing to do with coaching or "same old IU." We used to be competitive in 1 game like this every couple of years. Now, we're generally competitive in all of them. The score of the PSU game was not indicative of how competitive we were; nor was the OSU score. IU is in a FAR better place than we have been historically.

For all of you people who think we are EVER going to be Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, or whoever....or be able to beat those teams on a consistent basis; I wonder what's putting that thought in your head. Those schools are college football blue bloods. They get 100,000 people in their stadiums every weekend. They always recruit top 10 classes in the country. Why on Earth would you blame losing to them on coaching or "same old IU?" Indiana is Indiana. Only for a few years during the Mallory era when the stars aligned properly were we able to compete with the likes of these schools. You really believe coaching hires is the reason? You really believe this is some kind of traditional weakness? I've been going to Indiana football games for 40 years. My dad took me when I was very small; and I can tell you with unequivocal confidence this brand of football is MILES better than some of what this program has put on the field. If some Rutgers basketball fan posted on their board how coaching hires and bad luck/poor decisions was the reason they rarely beat Indiana in basketball, you'd laugh at them. I hate that Indiana's place in Big Ten football is middle of the pack; but it is. Indiana got screwed being out in the best (without ANY question) division in all of college football. There's nothing even close. Indiana will win 6-7 games this season. We will go to a bowl game. We have a defense that's at times struggled against the top teams in the country; but generally dominated the other teams. We shut a team out last week for the first time since 1993, I think. We are ranked #43 in Sagarin's poll BEFORE yesterday's game. Our strength of schedule BEFORE yesterday was 22. You think those are "normal" Indiana numbers, and our usual? You're wrong. Simple as that. If you believe that, you're wrong. Before yesterday's game, our 3 losses are to teams rated #2, #4, and #17 in Sagarin's October 7 poll. Where on Earth do you think Indiana belongs? Sagarin's polls are as objective as polls can be. Numbers are what numbers are. Indiana is rated ahead of Nebraska. Ahead of Iowa State who won at Oklahoma last week. Ahead of Tennessee. Purdue. Colorado, Arizona State, Northwestern. Boise State. West Virginia. Arkansas, Syracuse (you may have seen they won v Clemson Friday). This is somehow not good enough? I'd ask you why? Why would Indiana Football, now in the company of the schools listed above, be expected to beat Michigan? Especially given the players we had injured. Very recently, Indiana used to be in the company of MAC schools and weather vane teams. Teams like Arkansas State; Bowling Green, Southern Miss, Eastern Michigan, Louisiana Monroe, Wyoming, UT San Antonio, etc. That's our football history; or at least the lion's share of it. What is driving the expectation that we all of a sudden deserve somehow to be among the elite programs in the country? We struggle at the quarterback position. We don't have a lot of depth, especially up front where it matters most; and we have a coach who has exactly 7 games under his belt and the only players who are "his" are true freshmen. We're also coming off something of a controversial period when players complained of mistreatment; and we're STILL having success by the standards of this program. Indiana is building depth. It does not yet have that. But we're competing (generally) with 3* kids against programs with 5* kids in the most physical game there is and you expect to beat them. Why? Based on what? Indiana is the 4th/5th best team in the toughest division in college football; and has lost to the top 3; all of whom expect to play on New Year's Day; and two probably have a shot to play in the BCS games. We are not in that company. We're just not. The schedule gets a lot easier now. Let's see where we are in 6 weeks.

Not close. In historical fashion, Indiana loses to Michigan 45-6. Indiana is far better than you think they are.

With what quarterback? So many here are low on Lagow; and seems to want Ramsey. He is not capable of running a pro style offense. Michigan's defense is exceptional. I know everyone's tired of being close, as am I; but so much needs to be taken into account. Indiana's right there with some good teams. Why does anyone get upset if Allen gets emotional?? We've been through Gerry DiNardo for the love of God. Guy wants to be here and wants Indiana to do well. Be thankful we have a good coach who wants to be HERE.

I think this had a lot more to do with system (see : reliance on 3 pointers) and the lack of defensive intensity than it did anything else. Whatever Coach Miller does or doesn't do, I would bet his offensive system will be more consistent; and our desire on the defensive end will improve over years past. Someone (I think Stuhoo) mentioned above that Crean's offenses were successful; and they were as long as teams didn't take away transition. When they did? Crean's offense could look downright awful. I expect better consistency on both ends under Miller; so I don't think we'll be as prone to streaks as we were.

Most IU fans and "reasonable expectation" don't always go well together. =)

I'm a lot more concerned with our depth and ability to score than I am the defense. Miller has always been a defensive-focused coach, and I think we'll be better there than we have been. (I haven't heard him mention deflections once) Our guards (Newkirk and Johnson) should be able to score their share because senior guards generally do and both are capable, but after them, we have a world of unknown and inconsistency. How will Hartman fit? Can Morgan increase his production? What about Davis and all of his work and lost weight? Who comes off the bench to produce? I still think 17-19 wins would be a good season for this group. More, and i will feel like they over-achieved. Nothing against anyone; just where we are.

Happened in 1985

With the throws Ramsey is being asked to make today, you could do it. And this team is awful. Worse than an intra-squad scrimmage. The real test comes next week and beyond. Good game to start him if you're going to make the move.

You know his personality. It wasn't a retraction because he wasn't serious the first time. Take everything into account, and look up the story. Not saying he did or didn't receive benefits, but does anyone really think Shaquille O'Neal (you have to know how smart he is) would publicly just say "I was paid well at LSU?" Seriously....think about that.

Need to read this. http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketball/news/shaquille-oneal-lsu-paid--shareef-recruiting/6t881rtfhwdu1lad33wcidme6

Serious speed and quickness. Needs to add 40+ pounds to be a true DE in the Big Ten; but wow is he quick.

This will happen with either of them because they're both limited. We have two different play packages, and neither can execute both of them. What's the saying? If you have 2 QB's, you really don't have 1?

Don't like any kid that bad mouths a program on the way out the door. Says a lot more about her than the team, in my opinion.

I think that takes away half our playbook and limits a few of the weapons we have. We play him full time, defenses can easily game plan with press coverage because Ramsey can't throw the ball down the field yet (surely you can agree he isn't asked to make the same throws Lagow is, right?), stack the box to take away the read option; and really limit what Indiana can do offensively. Lagow at least gives them other options. We don't have a QB who will benefit the team by taking all the snaps. This team has a chance to win 6-8 games; and I am not in the "see what happens" crowd. I want to make the best of this season with what we have; and that means doing so with two limited quarterbacks. Ramsey is a freshman. He will develop and I do like his potential. I don't happen to think he's ready or able to be the full time guy. He led an offense that scored 7 points today, and completed less than 50% of his passes; averaging 4.6 yards per attempt. That doesn't scream "give him the job" to me. I'm not advocating Lagow as a full timer either; and my original point (since you brought it up earlier) was only defending his performance against OSU. I thought it was far better than you did.

It depends on who we're playing, and what package we use. Lagow is not a true 5th year senior, and you know that. He was in JUCO for a reason

First of all, we're talking about Indiana football. We root for a team that has been a bottom feeder for a century. That comes with some baggage, including some sketchy players sometimes. Secondly, Wilson had to go get a QB last season because there was nobody on the roster who was good enough to lead the offense, including Diamont, and I still say Ramsey is today's version. Some said Ramsey was a far better thrower than Diamont, and Diamont couldn't throw the ball down field. I posted a video showing he could, the argument changed. That QB was Lagow, and for all of his negatives, he was 2nd in the Big Ten in passing yards and 2nd in yards per attempt. Those are facts. I fail to understand the lack of acknowledgement of his positives in favor of b*tching about his negatives. Indiana got to a bowl in back to back seasons with a QB who had been on campus 5 months. Is he a great QB? No. Is Ramsey? No. Lagow has a skill set Ramsey doesn't have and vice versa. Neither of them are "the guy." We don't have "the guy." Lagow is far from perfect and far from efficient some games. I think you're painting a picture that doesn't account for all factors; and I still say we will need them both.

You assumed that, why? Because I defended the kid after one game when I thought some of the criticism of him was unfair?

I am not defending anyone. I am defending my position after the OSU game. I haven't been tooting his horn since then, and to say I have is disingenuous. All I said then was he was asked to make some really tough throws, and he made a lot of them. He made his mistakes too; but he was nowhere near as bad as some of you made him out to be that night, and the guys on ESPN substantiated that...one of them a former college QB who is as respected as anyone in the business. I also said he was awful against Virginia. Where were you then?? How exactly are we "better off" with Ramsey? He's led as many scoring drives today as Lagow has, he has an INT, his completion % is lower than Lagow's, as are his yards per attempt. Honestly? I don't think we have a very good QB on the roster. I think we have a couple who are adequate in given situations.

In a game like this, I can't believe anyone is dumb enough to ask this question. We differed on how good he was against OSU, and I have said consistently we'd need both QB's. What exactly is your problem other than you feel like being critical of someone else? You think our getting down 28-0 was Lagow's fault? You think a game in which we had to throw the ball on the road against the #4 team in the country is a good barometer for any quarterback? So far, your hero is 8-17 and averaging 4.6 yards a throw. Not exactly lighting the place up.

Good Lord. Get over style and look at substance. I was not defensive about Lagow. I was - at the time - just tired of the less-than-objective BS criticism of a kid that everyone other than a couple of people on chat boards said played pretty well. I get frustrated at the "backup QB" crowd who wants to fire or replace everyone when something doesn't go perfectly. Especially with a kid who - in his first year on campus - was a leader in passing yardage in the Big Ten and was the top QB on a team that went to it's second straight bowl game for the first time since the early 1990's. You know as well as I do (I hope) that the most popular guy on NFL rosters is the backup QB because fans for some reason think the grass is greener. Not the case there and not necessarily the case here. Ignoring his positives for the sake of making points against his negatives, and to suggest we should sit him and replace him with a smaller, younger, more limited player whose strengths are short passes and the read option is and was silly. Ramsey still can't throw the ball down field consistently; and my point was...and IS that we will need both of them because neither is good enough right now. They have two different play packages, and that gives Indiana a chance to win more games than they otherwise might. Same last year w Diamont and Natee. Why in the holy hell is anything in this thread about me? For the love of goodness and all things holy....

I am hearing Nike is "on deck." Caleb Swanigan narrowed his list to 5 schools. All Nike. Where there's smoke.....

It would really only change the necessity of their going to college. That by itself brings baggage; which we're clearly seeing now. A true minor league would provide an avenue for kids who perhaps have the raw ability but are under-developed (which most 18 year old's are) to work on their career without having to fake it on a university campus. If they're good enough, a small salary will be short-lived. If they're not; they'll learn quickly. College (as a student) would still be an option if they so choose. I would disagree and say many of them (especially the borderline kids) would absolutely rather work in a minor league for $75K than go to college. The days of kids going to college and not going to class are numbered if not over, now. No longer can a kid use college ONLY as a springboard. Those days ended (at least for now) earlier this week. The whole game changed instantly. My guess is the NBA would support the league, and salaries would be tiered, same as they are in minor league baseball. There are guys in A ball making far more than guys in AAA. Depends on their status with teams. Some 18 year old kids have potential NBA teams will invest in. Any kid making $50-$75K would be a long shot to begin with. His NBA hopes would likely be just that; so at least he'd be getting paid to play ball. Maybe he's auditioning to play over seas? Maybe he's like so many minor league baseball players who are content to get paid to play a kids' game until he can't anymore. The NBA is an exclusive club. Yes, there will be some kids who play in a minor league who never make it. There may be MANY who never make it. However I still think the kids who don't want college would play there until they were told they can't. The farce of a one and done kid going to a school like Duke, for example is just that. A farce. Any kid who stays on that campus for only a year has no real reason to be there in the 1st place. I have a relative close to that campus, and she has told me on many occasions the basketball players are not regulars in the classroom. That's a supposed elite academic institution (and I would push back on anyone who tried to convince me of that); so why would any person stay there for just one year without transferring somewhere else? You don't GO to an elite school for just one year unless you're faking it. I am jumping off my soapbox, now. I obviously think this will ultimately be good for college basketball; and probably the NBA, too.

The point isn't whether or not "most" would care about it, is it? (I think some would if it were structured well) The point is to give high school players a place to go and get paid to do it if they're good enough. I think every person on this board would agree with you relative to what they watch, There are those who would prefer a true NBA minor league. Or I think there are. That league would not be for anyone here who loves college basketball. Honestly, I think it might improve both products. The NBA could have a high school draft for kids who register. Kid doesn't get drafted in, say 3 rounds, he is still eligible for college basketball as long as he qualifies academically. The fewer doors that are closed to kids, the better. Nobody will ever eliminate money from the equation; but the shoe companies' involvement in college basketball has become WAY too impactful. Same in AAU basketball. This corruption investigation surprises me exactly zero. Part of me is glad it's happening. Drain the swamp, indeed. This is as grimy a swamp as politics is.