Old Friend

No question.  You just hit the nail on the head why I commented a couple of months ago that some things need to change for Bryant to be the difference maker he can be.  Vonleh wasn't utilized the way he could have been, and the team suffered because of it.   Yogi has never been asked to play in any role but "creator," which has built his game in such a way that everything's off the dribble on the move; and Crean's offense has done nothing to change that.   I'd like to see post screens and also utilize post players as great passers.

Marshall Strickland's record was 69-54 with a 38-32 conference record and he missed the post season twice.   We all love the kids who played here...and that's what you're really telling me.    We did not need to go to Sykesvile, Maryland to find a kid who averaged 9 points per game for his career, shot about 40% from the floor (and that may be generous...he was only > 40% once)  and played point guard for 4 years, averaging less than 3 assists per game (2.6), and had a flat A/TO ratio.   He is the classic example of what I mentioned the other day.  A kid with ball skills (note his numbers in high school), and good at the sport; but he was not a very good point guard from the standpoint of running the offense or getting the ball where it should be - and only so-so at the "game."  He was also relatively slow and a poor defender, which is why Indiana needed Calloway in the first place.   (Funny that you mentioned those two together trying to make a point....)     Here's a sample list of kids from the states touching Indiana who were recruited as point guards that same year :   Dee Brown (IL, Illinois), Anthony Roberson (MI, Florida), Sean Dockery (IL, Duke), Maurice Ager (MI, Michigan State), Chris Quinn (OH, Notre Dame), Dedrick Finn (IN, Xavier - and yes, I know he ended up in prison because of drug problems, which makes THIS look like a stupid argument, but he also set a freshman record at Xavier with 139 assists, roughly 5 per game; 2 more than Strickland ever finished with)    And we needed to go to Maryland?    I get it...he was a highly rated recruit, and we don't need revisionist history to make him a better college player than he was; but you can't tell me he was the only kid we could have recruited that gave us what he did when you look at that list alone...in one recruiting season.     No offense, but posts like yours always strike me as "the kids on our team are better than anyone else we could have signed, they're all the right kids at the right time, and we didn't want the others anyway."   As though the Indiana jersey makes a kid better than he really is.   You and anyone else are absolutely free to think we can avoid focusing on this area in favor of the east coast, south, or wherever else.  And you can call my disagreeing stupid.   Whatever.  I disagree with you.

For what it's worth, there are a few local kids currently succeeding in D1 I know for sure he never called and never really recruited.    I based my thoughts on that knowledge and also others I've heard about but don't know first hand.  That doesn't account at all for the kids in Ohio, Illinois, or Michigan.  He hired an assistant coach specifically because of his east coast ties, which tells me that's a priority whether the local area is or not.      There are some kids who aren't going to choose Indiana because of the brand of shoes we wear or which AAU coaches we're tied to..  As dumb as that is, I don't blame him for those one bit, and AAU coaches can pound sand as far as I'm concerned.  I do blame him for prioritizing 3-star kids from other places when there are plenty right around here.    If his east coast ties bring us Thomas Bryant all the time...wah hoo.  All for it.  It's the Stanford Robinsons and Peter Jurkin's I don't understand.   Same as I didn't understand Marshall Strickland when Davis was here, as he was a priority when Mike Conley was not.   To me, the mid-range kids are the ones who need to understand everything about where they're going before they get here if they're going to succeed.  If you can't out-talent anybody, you're going to have to out work them and out smart them.  And there are a ton of kids from the area who can do that and who understand Indiana's place in the world far more than kids from Maryland.

Your comments re: broad generalities and where our priorities should be are spot on and exactly what I've been trying to say.   How it became about finite, specific details and absolutes is beyond me.   

A list?  I don't know what Crean has, but he'd better have a list of kids he wants and he'd better make sure he prioritizes the kids who can succeed in the Big Ten and in his system (then again, I'm not convinced Crean can sustain success in the Big Ten no matter who he recruits).    Whatever he's been doing hasn't worked, and even as we'll be very good this season, I'm interested in long term and consistent success.   Is there something you can point to that suggests a shotgun approach to recruiting works well?     Yogi is what he is.  We need more kids like him who play with as much heart and passion as he does.  He makes other people better and he's a special talent in the open court.  He's also 5'10."  He's also a career 42% shooter.   He's also a poor defender.  He has limitations, but yeah....I'd take a team of kids who play as hard as he does.   He was a sophomore on that team.  Hard to say a 19 year old kid is a leader on a team with Sheehey and Gordon, but if you want to lump him in there, he's "led" Indiana to 8th and 7th place finishes.   You need more than effort and heart, and you need help.   I did not "blame" anyone.   It amazes me how you keep creating things on your own.  I simply said a couple of times that Sheehey was a very good role player on a great team, and not a special talent we needed to go get in Florida.   There's no blame.  He was what he was.  When it was his turn to lead the team as a senior without Zeller, Watford, Hulls, and Oladipo, Indiana went 17-15 and missed the post season.   He couldn't put up great numbers, couldn't score consistently, especially in the half court, and his team struggled.  I'm not blaming him....or Yogi.  But that's what happened, even with a lottery pick, McD's all American big man.   I liked Sheehey and I'm glad he was at Indiana.  But we didn't need to go to Florida to find a player who gave us what he did.   Oladipo.   Do you want the honest answer to that question?  Oladipo came to Indiana a raw athlete.  The summer after his freshman season, he played with that U19 Team USA or whatever it was, met a coach with that team, and worked with him independently for two seasons to become the player he did.   Oladipo probably worked harder on his own than any kid we've had at Indiana in the last decade and a half.   Yes.  His personality was unique that way, and he was clearly the right kid at the right time.   Davis was guilty of poor timing and not much more.  His episode on Halloween was his jumping in front of a car to scare his friends....but Holt wasn't looking and messing with a couple of girls while pulling away.   Then, he was caught with basically half a joint in his room.  Any other time, he runs stairs, sits for a game or two, and it's all good.  But he got in trouble after many others had, and he was made an example of.  Again....that's what happened.  I think he took what he had for granted, but I also think he almost died and probably changed priorities.   You can use whatever examples you want, but you can't ignore the truth and you can't create your own reality so it fits whatever you're trying to say.

I will show you and anyone else as much respect as you show me and treat everyone exactly as I'm treated.   It's hardly as if I'm the only guilty party in the "snarkiness" or condescension areas.    I am having plenty of fun. It is interesting to me though that a few guys just can't seem to get pre-conceived opinions out of their head and treat me like I'm poison or something.    This thread has more views today than any other in the last 2 months.   Assets come in many forms.  Not all of them popular all the time.

It's "capiche'," and yeah.  I get it.  You don't want your little world interrupted with opinions you don't agree with.   You don't want to read any more than a soundbite.   And your opinions of me are set in stone.   Got it.

Okay....let's try this again.      1)  We have to get the right kind of player, no matter where they're from.   I have never said anything different than that.   2)  I have said nothing about fairy dust or any special quality other than a particular style of basketball taught and played in the midwest.  You don't have to tell me what I think unless you're trying to create an argument for me so you can disagree with it.   Something about short sighted?   3)  Your ignoring evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist or I haven't given it to you.  Call Tom Izzo and ask him why his primary focus is on Indiana and Michigan.  I've heard him talk about it several times, a few in person.  I know what his answer will be.   4)  If you truly believe after reading (oh yeah...you didn't.  Lazy) what I've written that my point is solely about where a kid "is from," I have nothing else for you.  I've clearly defined what I mean, and it has nothing to do with geography except the understanding of the Big Ten and growing up playing a style that will succeed in the conference.   The teams that win the Big Ten every year recruit their local areas and generally get kids who are smart, physical, and can shoot.   Maybe Bryant is that way.  Hoo rah.  Crean has not generally recruited that kind of player, and I don't think he needs to go to Maryland to get kids if they're not top talent.  The reason Knight's teams were successful was he was a great coach but also recruited the kind of players he knew could succeed in his system and knew what they were getting into both with him and with the traditions and expectations of the school.   And....those kids by and large came from a 3-4 hour drive from Bloomington.   There was a reason.  Max Hoetzel had no idea of the traditions and expectations when he got here.   Vonleh couldn't have cared less.  Priller can be found in almost every conference between Madison, IN and Peoria, IL.  Sheehey has a twin playing at Fishers right now (or maybe he just graduated...don't know).      Look at the last 6 final fours and the teams in them (posted previously).   Show me a school outside Duke and UK which has avoided a local focus en lieu of a shotgun approach who has won consistently in the last 30 years.   You can't.   It doesn't exist.    Tom Crean or any coach at Indiana needs to prioritize kids from the general area if they want to succeed in the long term and consistently.  That's what I believe and I think both recent and past history paint a pretty clear picture that I'm right.   Disagree, but what is your basis other than your own opinion?

I think there are plenty of players every year in Indiana, Ohio, Illinois, and Michigan.  His style isn't that different and it's not unique.  In fact, it's pretty pedestrian.  I believe there are 30 players in those 4 states every year who could succeed just fine at Indiana and who would understand the Big Ten and why it's important to win it.  Who would think of Indiana as something other than "just another school."

  Happy to talk basketball with you any time.   What false stereotypes?   You've been on the offensive plenty.  Dish it out, you have to be able to take it.   You sure have yourself on a pedestal believing you understand and others don't because they see things differently.  I'm not worried one bit about credibility with you.   I'm not here to convince you of what I know.  I've told you what I think and what I believe.  And I've given you plenty of evidence to support it.  

Five years ago, I posted frequently that Crean was not a very good coach and not the right fit at Indiana.   You probably remember the results.  Now?  Everyone seems to agree with me.   Similar episodes happened with Davis when he was here.  With Bawa Muniru.  With Peter Jurkin (I said he was too raw and too inexperienced to succeed at Indiana, and got raked over the coals by the crimson guard who seem to think every kid who says yes and wears our uniform will magically be great).   Same with Guy-Marc-Michele.   Same with Mike White (people named him "Kong" and said he was going to be a beast in the post.  I said "not at 6'5", and there were plenty of vitriolic comments)  I said Hollowell was a bad fit because he was a lazy high school player, and I watched him a couple dozen times.  I got raked for that, too.   So I'll stick to my guns, which are something different than simply where a kid is from.   I am steadfastly against the lack of focus on the area.  I am not saying every kid needs to be from here or that we shouldn't get great players from elsewhere.  I AM saying I don't see a priority or focus on the area right now, and instead see a focus on the northeast and on kids who have ball skills and little else.  That style and that kind of player has not and will not succeed consistently in the Big Ten unless we get top tier kids across the board, which we're not doing at the moment. Crean does not need to leave the 5-hour circle to get kids who have high basketball IQ, who can play within his system, and who can win consistently.   Yet he does.   And we have a miserable conference record, minus the Zeller years.  We suck against Purdue.  We suck against Northwestern.   And we don't win consistently.  Yes, coaching is a problem.   I absolutely agree with that and may have been the first to point it out.  I wonder what took everyone so long.   But.....as the 2002 team showed, if you have kids with high basketball IQ leading your team, you can win despite your coach, and you can make a coach look great.  So what Crean's doing is assinine.  He's focusing outside the midwest, AND he's recruiting many of the wrong kids.  It's going to fail, and it has failed.  I'm not sure why there's a debate.

Okay, boys.   I'm not here to fight, make personal attacks, or anything of the sort.  But be fair.  At the very least, be fair.   I said consistently that we need the right kids no matter where they're from.  Hollowell is far from "Indiana through and through."    You know what Indiana players look like, and he was anything but.   This is the lazy thing.   He is "from" Indiana, but doesn't display and never displayed the characteristics of a successful college player because he was a lazy, selfish high school player and I said so (verbatim) when we recruited him.   I never used Hanner as an example because he never had any baskeball IQ and I said he'd be a bust when we recruited him because he doesn't have the instinct, footwork, or experience needed to succeed in the Big Ten.   And I got crushed for it because many chirped about his athletic ability.      If I can't use Holt as an example, neither can you.  It's a two way street, or it's off limits.  You can't cherry pick.  You use Holt as an example of why Indiana should continue to focus nationally, and I'll tell you Holt's best finish is 7th place.  He's either on the table or he's not.       April was not a good fit....no matter where he was from and I have no idea why we recruited him.  Same with Priller.   You've mentioned basketball IQ a few times.   Where do you think Indiana has the best chance of finding kids with high basketball IQ?   And Kepner, nobody has ever said we should only recruit the local area.   Again, don't put words in my mouth.   There is a huge difference between a recruiting focus/priority and a limiting factor like "only."   Like I said, be fair and avoid the personal crap.  That's all I'm asking.

Right.  We recruited him while he was playing in Arizona.  Same question.  Why?

No.  Don't put words in my mouth.   Like I said, you don't understand and have made no effort.  You're too busy convincing yourself that some old character is rearing his manufactured head and is somehow poisoning your precious chat board.   I'm saying we don't have to look all over the country if we want middle tier recruits and there's no reason to leave the area.  And, we have to get the right kids no matter where we recruit from (i.e. Hollowell was a bad fit)  End.   OG may be great.  He may not.   Why do we need to leave the area to find middle-tier recruits who may not understand the culture here?  You don't think we can find kids like him from within 3 hours of Bloomington?    It's about where the focus is.  It's about winning consistently, not trying to out-think the room and taking consistent shots at kids you think everyone else missed on, which Crean has done consistently since he's been here, and he's finished above 5th place exactly once.   I'm not saying anyone is a bad decision and I'm not criticizing kids.   You don't have to create my point for me and then argue against it.   What evidence or history do you have that shows Indiana and Tom Crean will win consistently by recruiting kids from all over the place?   I know the answer, and you do too.  Now....look at the kids from JUST Indiana over the last 5 years, and let me know how you think we'd have done if we kept even 1/3rd of them home.   And yes, I know there are unknowns every season, OG and Morgan this season.

You should re-name yourself "kiddie pool."    I'm not thrilled about OG either.  We'll see how he does. I didn't use him and I didn't use Morgan because it's not fair to do that yet, same as it's not fair to use Bryant yet.   Maybe all will be great.  Maybe they won't.   Time will tell; but no matter which way it goes, there's no denying the last 15 years since IU took recruiting focus away from the local area..   This season's success will prove very little, no matter how successful Indiana is.  I still disagree with taking focus away from the area.   I'm interested in long term success of the team rather than any one individual player.  You don't understand what I'm saying, or at least haven't applied it; and that's fine.   But you have zero backing to your argument because what Indiana has done is not winning consistently and hasn't for 15 years - and I'm sure you've heard what great recruiters Crean and Davis are/were.   Getting kids to say yes and building consistently good teams are very different things.   Crean can't do that, and I think part of the reason is a shotgun approach to recruiting.   Disagree if you want, Oladipo aside.   Like I said before, Sheehey was not good at all when he had the chance to lead the team.  He was fine as a role player.  Let's not over glorify what he accomplished, because he didn't do much when it was his team.   Holt's best finish is 7th in the Big Ten.   He is also a role player who will benefit from a great group of talent around him this season, but what's he done to prove your point?   He played 11 minutes a game last season, averages 3 points and 2 rebounds, and he's an example of why I'm wrong?   Yeah, he'll do better, but we couldn't find an Emmitt Holt somewhere around here?  3 points and 2 rebounds over 11 minutes is irreplaceable?    Really?

I'm not missing the point.  I disagree with you and I'm not sure you or Josh understand my point, and I'm sure he's made no effort to do so.  He seems more interested in personal stuff.    Izzo, Ryan, Knight, and Stevens all recruited their own area and specifically the midwest.   Those kids understand the culture and the way the game is played to success in this area the same as the kids who go play at Syracuse, Georgetown, etc.  Teams who stay home and keep kids close - other than Duke or UK - generally have consistent success.    Whether they're midwest schools or not.   There is a way basketball is played in different regions of the country and different ways teams succeed.   For example, in New York and on the east coast, the game tends to be very ball-centric. (and other than Syracuse for a year or two, that part of the country has lacked in major team success for a long time)  Kids tend to do things off the dribble and there are plenty of individual super stars.   In the midwest, it's more of a team game focused on ball movement and fundamentals.  Out west, they run a lot.   Kids around here simply understand the fundamental game (making other players better, passing angles, post passing, they're generally better cutters and tend to understand spacing better).   Regardless of whether or not Robinson  was a high level recruit, he didn't fit and didn't succeed.   I think it matters, you don't.  That's fine.  Not sure why some feel it has to lead to a personal thing.   

If you don't understand why this is important, I can't help you.  You're blind and deaf if you don't think there's a reason many top coaches recruit Indiana and the surrounding states heavily.   Your little emoticon is cute.  You're still lazy.

He's also from Arizona.  Why are we recruiting kids from Arizona who aren't top level, 5 star talents?

I'll make one more point and then I'll leave the debate for others.   If you look at the last 6 Final Fours, they tell a story which makes my point.   Indiana is not Duke or Kentucky.   We're not able right now to recruit on a national level the way they are.   That's obvious, and I don't think it's disputed.   Those two schools have made 6 Final Four appearances in 6 years...25% (6 of 24 teams).  Understood.  That's not who Indiana is.   Look at the other teams.   In 2015, Michigan State and Wisconsin both recruit heavily in their own areas, and both are in the top 3 of the Big Ten every year.  Michigan State recruits 90% of its kids from Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio; and has since Izzo's been there.  His top priorities - and he's said as much - are Michigan and Indiana.   In 2014, UConn had 9 kids from the northeast on their roster and most of their key players.   Florida had 11 from the southeast.  UK was there..and so was Wisconsin.  Same story.   2013 :  Louisville had 9 kids from the southeast, and a couple of international kids. Pitino's system is different than most, but he still stays close, and he recruits the area heavily.  Syracuse was very heavy (12 kids) northeast and always is.  Then you have Michigan and Wichita State.  Both very heavy midwestern recruiting bases, and Michigan in particular had only Hardaway and Stauskas from anywhere outside Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio.   2012 :  UK was there, Kansas was there with kids from all over, and at the time, they recruited the way Duke can now.  Understood.  Then, Ohio State and Louisville.  18 in-area kids between the two schools.   2011 :  UConn - most of the roster from the northeast.  UK again.  Butler - no need to tell you where those kids were from, right?  VCU - 12 kids from the southeast - even at a system school.  Kind of shows my point.  You don't need to leave an area to get the kids you need.   2010 :  Duke again.  West Virginia - 11 in-area kids.  Butler and Michigan State.  No explanation necessary.   In the last 6 seasons, apart from Duke and UK, there were 18 teams in the final four.   Of those 18, 16 of them focused on recruiting in the general geographic area of the school, and one which didn't - Louisville - recruits internationally to a specific system and way of playing.  Pitino's his own guy...I get it.  Indiana has more tradition than ALL of them.   I think it's important for kids to come here understanding of those traditions and the rivalries, expectations, etc.  I think it matters.  Some may disagree which is fine; but I guess I don't see where I'm so far off in believing Crean needs to focus locally and go outside the area only to get top talent.   Why do we need Stanford Robinson, Tim Priller, and Jeremiah April?   I still don't understand that.

Knight's recruiting methods and what happened in the mid-1990's are facts.   Revisionist history doesn't change things.  The defense is factual.  You don't have to like it.   Bryant hasn't played one minute of college basketball.   I am not and did not criticize him, but using him as a proof source is hardly reasonable.   Same reason I'm not using Morgan or Obunoby.   Johnson said he didn't understand the traditions of Indiana Basketball when he got here.  Another fact, and yes...I am criticizing that.   Sorry it bugs you.  All I meant about him was I don't ever want to hear that from another Indiana recruit.  Not when the coach said he took the job "because it's Indiana."    We're special or we're not.  And if kids don't understand the traditions, we're not, and that's not acceptable.   Sheehey was a great role player.  When it was time for him to shine as a #1 option, his team finished 8th in the Big Ten and missed the post season.  Another fact.  With a lottery pick big man and a McDonald's All American point guard.   Sheehey, without Zeller, Hulls, Watford, and Oladipo is a very ordinary basketball player.  You remember him fondly because of a few highlights and the teams he was on.   He had a chance to be a senior leader, and didn't fare very well.  Love the kid, but if you're looking at him as some beacon of proof, you need to look at the whole story rather than selective memory.   You can either accept that or you can't.  Again, I don't care; but don't pretend I'm wrong simply because you look at it through a different and more forgiving lens.    

I disagree with you and you're clearly condescending; but I'll try the same tactic.  You really believe there was no method or rationale of Knight's focusing on Indiana and the surrounding states for 29 years?    Do you think he was afraid to fly or something?   Or maybe he knew he didn't have to leave the area?   And I'm the one not paying attention??  How many times did Knight talk about kids understanding Indiana Basketball and all of the traditions and expectations around it when they came to play there?   How many times did he talk about recruiting kids who understood how to play basketball?  (That's a quote)   He meant exactly what I said earlier.  The game vs. the sport.  The phrase "high basketball IQ" was invented for Knight.  It just didn't exist then; but that's what he recruited, and he didn't have to leave the area to build great teams with players who had it, and Crean doesn't either.  He could easily have gone to New York or DC's playgrounds and recruited better athletes, but he chose to stay here.  And you don't think there was a reason?  Good Lord....you're questioning MY understanding, Josh?   It's not about refusing anything....   I understand perfectly that coaching matters, and very few have been as critical of Crean as I have.   I also understand the list of kids from Indiana alone Crean has missed on.  Take a look and then tell me what you think we'd have been had we kept 1/3rd of them.  Why do we need Stanford Robinson, for example?   You really don't think part of the problem in the last 15 years has been kids not understanding expectations or what it means to play at Indiana?   You don't think Bracey Wright, some all star from Texas, or Marshall Strickland from Maryland, or the parade of kids Davis and Crean have brought in here don't have something to do with the downfall and lack of success in the program?  Really?      You think it's coincidence that the two most successful teams we've had at Indiana in the last 15 years (2002 and 2013) were led by kids like Jeffries, Coverdale, Fife, Odle, Zeller, and Hulls?    Yes...I know there were good or even great players from other places..Oladipo and Moye in particular....but look at what followed the departure of those kids.   (Again, it's about focus on the area.  Not a complete blanket statement of all kids should be from here)  And yes, I also understand Yogi.  It has to be more than one kid and it has to be a focus on how you play and how much you help other kids get better.  Wright and Strickland replace Coverdale, Fife, Jeffries, etc...and Indiana finishes below .500, tanking for 4 years.   And we know what's happened the last 2 years.  I know we got Blackmon, but look at the kids we've missed on the last 3 years making us settle for kids who have no clue where they are and don't care....like Vonleh or Hoetzel.   Look, I like Johnson.  I just don't ever want to hear a kid say he doesn't understand where he is.   Got it?   Same tactic.  Understand?   Or will you refuse, as you asked me?   I think you're wrong if you believe we don't need a local focus, and I think your statement of "never going to read all of that nonsense" is lazy.   It's nonsense because you don't agree with it, right?   Is your comfort zone really that difficult to break?  If you're happy with the way things are going, God bless you.   Not sure why you and a couple of others keep bringing up old business.   Is there a reason?   Explain what you mean by "same old 'Friend."   I'd really like to know what that means.  You said it...explain it.  Do I have to agree with you or somehow categorize myself as the unwashed?  (Heck, you said "I bet you refuse to....same old 'friend," so you didn't even give me a chance before you made that comment.   Interesting, indeed)  Is my opinion somehow not welcome because you disagree with it or don't see things the same way?   Did I ruin your neighborhood because I have strong opinions that aren't popular sometimes?   Are you trying to make me leave or convince people of something?   Do you only want to read stuff you agree with?   What's the fun in that?   Seriously.  What did that mean?

Cute little animals aside....I am still shaking my head at the guy who thought this was about where kids were born...   I don't have any interest in stirring the pot or anything like that.  You don't need to make comments about people knocking things down or not challenging me.  That's the fun part of this...the debate of it.  I do find the squirrel an interesting touch.     I don't need anyone to agree with me, but I will simply ask you and anyone else to look hard at what we have and at the situation.   Look at more than face value of things.   You can cherry pick a couple of years when Butler was rebuilding, but look at their record since Crean came to IU.  Look at the direction of Purdue.  Look at Izzo's heavy and almost exclusive recruiting of the local area (by the way, you seem to pigeon hole what I'm saying into "Indiana."  That's not at all what I've done.  I believe 100% that kids who understand the local conference and local rivalries have a leg up on kids who don't....and Johnson and Hoetzel didn't.   They both said they didn't.   And we finished 7th in the Big Ten.       At the end of the day, I think kids from this area are far better at the "game" of basketball than kids from the east coast..by and large.  The "game" is different than the "sport."  There are plenty of ball-skill and athletic guys from all over.  The best fundamental players in high school (and this is something college coaches talk about all the time) come from right around here - again, by and large.   There are good fundamental players and superstars everywhere, but we're not getting those players.   We're getting Robinson, Priller, April, Muniru, Michele, etc.  Vonleh was a physical beast....but not sound fundamentally, and he was interested only in showcasing himself for the NBA.   No matter where a kid's from, you have to get the right kids.  Hollowell was a lazy, selfish player in high school.  I personally think Patterson would have been pretty solid, but he was a grade issue, not a problem recruit.   Davis had what amounted to half a joint in his room....and was injured playing a joke on friends on Halloween.  I don't necessarily think he was necessarily a "problem recruit."  He screwed up, and had he done so withOUT several other episodes on this team, he'd have had to do some community service, run some stairs, and we'd all love him.  He'd be the story of the year.  His problem was screwing up at the worst possible time....not being a problem recruit.   Answer me this.  Regardless of coaches and coaching ability.  I clearly don't think Crean's very good, but I didn't think Davis was very good either, yet he took a team to the Final Four....which happened to be led by some of the top players from this area over the prior couple of years and two Indiana Mr. Basketball's (Coverdale and Jeffries).   You really don't think kids from this area (or the area of any great program) understand the traditions and expectations of those programs?       The list of players you named is impressive, but look a little deeper.   Bryant has not had his first practice at Indiana.   He counts for nothing. Johnson said he didn't understand the traditions were when he got here and so far his best finish is 7th place in the Big Ten and he's 0-2 against Purdue Vonleh quit on the team and his team finished 8th in the conference and missed the post season.  He was all about Noah Vonleh Sheehey's one chance to lead a team and be anything more than a role player with great players around him ended with a 7-11 Big Ten record and missed post season Rivers was bad.  Horrible decisions, couldn't shoot, and couldn't guard. Holt is a solid role player whose best finish is 7th place in the Big Ten Williams is terrific.  Love the kid.  Never said all players should be from here. I said we needed to prioritize the local kids, and we're not right now. Oladipo - same as above.  Love him, too. Robinson?  Seriously?  He is an awful basketball player at the D1 level.  What other kid can you name who tried to change shooting hands after his freshman season?  He's good enough to play big minutes on an 8th place Big Ten team.   Mandeville and Eggers were Dakich recruits.  The whole story there has been well documented, but Knight handed the recruiting keys to Dakich in 1994 or so because Dakich wanted to groom himself for a head job, and Knight went hunting.  He never visited those kids or saw them play.  He accepted Dakich's wishes, and we got what we got.  When Knight re-engaged recruiting-wise, he almost immediately got Fife, Odle, Jeffries, Coverdale, Recker, Haston, and Moye.  Just one of those kids lived further than a 4 hour drive from Bloomington.  Lindeman gets a bad rap...he was no all star, but he was better than many give him credit for,  We'd have sure used him a year ago.   Mujezinovic was a JUCO kid who filled an immediate need for a season or two.   Not a good example of Knight's missing.      What I'm saying is all about the game vs. the sport and what has historically succeeded at Indiana.   AAU has made basketball worse, not better.  Ask any high school or college coach.  But....kids from around here generally understand the game better than kids from other places where basketball isn't taught the same way and isn't in the fiber of the area.  Baseball and football rule the south.  Lacrosse and hockey have taken over the north and east, and then you have soccer which is the devil everywhere in my opinion.   Basketball is still the top game around here, and kids from around here are widely pursued for a reason.  You don't have to agree, and you can post a zoo full of pictures if you'd like.   But ask yourself why it is that New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, New York, etc. aren't  hot recruiting areas for the teams that win the Big Ten every year, and those same schools DO recruit the midwest heavily?.   Would it be that Crean's  trying to out think the room, like he does all the time?   Can't see the forest through the trees?  Missing what's right in front of his face trying to find that kid everyone else misses on?  All to prove....what?   

Because of where they were born?????   Seriously?   That's what you think the point is?    Might want to try a new path.....that's the wrong one.

If you're okay with the results Crean has achieved with the recruiting priorities he's put in place, I don't know what to tell you.  I didn't cite Swanigan.  You did.     Stanford Robinson Tim Priller Bawa Muniru Peter Jurkin Max Hoetzel Jeremiah April Luke Fischer (good player, bad fit) On and on   There's a lot of wasted space on the roster.  Straw man argument?  We're 0-3 against Purdue the last 2 seasons, and we recruited two kids (Hoetzel and Johnson) who said they didn't know or understand the traditions at Indiana before they came here.   Think Purdue has that problem?   They play harder than we do and their kids all understand the Big Ten.  We've finished 8th and 7th in Crean's 6th and 7th seasons.   You don't think the kids we have might be a reason?   Again, you're kidding yourself.  You can call it strawman or anything you want.  I disagree with you and I believe absolutely that in-state and in-area kids should be prioritzed over out of area kids.  For 29 seasons, Bob Knight focused almost exclusively on 3 states.  Indiana, Illinois, and Ohio.   All he did was win 11 Big Ten titles and 3 national championships.  I've seen the point made that it's a new time now and that won't work anymore....talk about an argument with no basis.  History's on my side..as is the list of Indiana kids which have gone elsewhere and succeeded.   That argument is the same to me as the one that says "we didn't want him, anyway" to every kid who picks another school or the one that says because a kid says yes to Indiana, he's the next great thing (Mike White, Muniru, Bracey Wright, Marshall Strickland, etc) whether he can play or not.    Been around too long to just spew this stuff without thinking about it....My opinion is in-area recruiting has suffered because it's not a high enough priority and we're missing great local kids in search of Lord knows what in Maryland or Virginia.  Why??     If not Purdue, what about Butler?  Their team had 9 kids from Indiana or surrounding states plus one from Missouri.  They have 2 more coming next season and Brunk the year after that.  Look at the direction of both programs.   Butler just beat Texas and almost Notre Dame (top 10 team) in the NCAA tournament.   They've been a consistent winner for several years.   Michigan State had 16 kids on their roster last season including walk ons, and 13 of them were from Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, or Illinois.   One from Wyoming is someone named Colby Wollenman, who never plays.   Tum Tum is from the Bahamas...an anomaly.   There's a reason they (MSU) recruit Indiana heavily every year and a reason they win every year.  WIsconsin recruits almost exclusively in their home area and every kid on that roster knows and buys into their program because they understand it.  Think their winning all the time is a coincidence???   What is it about those two schools (the class of the Big Ten) that makes you think Indiana can do things differently and have the same level of success?   The reality is Indiana cannot.  No way Indiana can keep missing as many local players as they have and win consistently.   As I've said, if you believe they can, you're kidding yourself, and there's a reason Purdue has a very local strategy.     Those of you who argue against the importance of prioritizing local recruiting, on what do you base your argument other than you don't agree.  That's fine, but prioritizing the east coast and taking people (mediocre players) from all over isn't working.   I don't ever want to read that a player arrives at Indiana and doesn't understand where he is.   Just makes it that much harder to win conference games when other kids care more than ours do...and I'm here to tell you unequivocally that Noah Vonleh - from the east coast - didn't care about Indiana one bit.  Lottery pick goes 17-15 and misses the post season.  The chemistry matters. 

I know this topic has been beaten to death...doesn't make the problem any less real.  If you think Crean can succeed at a high level at Indiana without significant in-state success, you're kidding yourself.  There is no evidence to support that, and as long as Purdue DOES have in-state success, you'll always have your #1 rival caring more than our kids do, and that matters.  The reason we're not having in-state success is simply that it's not a high priority for Crean, and he views in-area kids like any others.  I think that's a huge mistake.