Old Friend

This ^^^ I have said this many times : Indiana University went a different direction when they fired Bob Knight. Before then when people like Ralph Floyd and John Ryan stepped down. To the academes of the world, Indiana University shall be defined by their schools and not by their sports teams. Myles Brand was an academe. Michael McRobbie is an academe. Mitch Daniels is a business man first. A lawyer second. An academic proponent yes, but he also understands and subscribes to the absolute truth that sports and sports programs are the world's best window into their universities. Michael McRobbie does not. Myles Brand did not. I know as a 100% fact that Rick Pitino pro-actively called Indiana twice regarding the basketball job, requesting to be interviewed both times. Once in 2000 when Knight was fired and once in 2006 when Mike Davis stepped down. Both times, he was told no thank you, and the reason given was Indiana didn't want to hire someone else bigger than the program and didn't want basketball to be the face of Indiana University. That's fact and as solid a source on my end as there is. But...here's the good news. Cindy Simon-Skjodt is on the committee. Her name is on the basketball arena. Anyone think she doesn't want a top shelf AD? Anthony Thompson is as invested as any former player in football and his legacy at Indiana only improves with program success. Anyone think he doesn't want a top shelf AD? Teri Moren has it rolling with her program. Men's basketball may not be represented (and I won't speculate; but agree with everyone upset that it's not), but basketball is. Anyone think she doesn't want a top shelf AD? Todd Yeagley is on the committee. Anyone think he doesn't want a top shelf AD? Kurt Zorn and Mattie White scare me, and the committee is chaired by Carrie Docherty, who's the associate dean of the school for public health - an academe - scares me to death. But good athletic voices will be heard. It does seem ridiculous that the top 2 revenue sports aren't represented, but I do have a little faith they'll get it right. My man is Chris Reynolds. https://bradleybraves.com/staff-directory/chris-reynolds/203

And to your point, Indiana already has one of the wealthiest and most marketable brands in the country, so why does it matter one bit if they play in an all-Indiana classic in December that TV loves, and gives Indiana a decent non-conference opponent every season? Playing a home and home with ________ doesn't benefit them financially. Kentucky won't do a home and home. Louisville is a likely add in the future; they'll play 2 other ACC teams (including ND) every other year and one every year. They'll play in the Gavitt Games every year. They'll play in Maui next season, so they'll get at least 2 more decent games then (North Carolina, Texas, Stanford, Alabama, and UNLV also there). The problem with you and the other 3 knuckleheads who you run with is you'd b*tch if Indiana played a tougher schedule and lost more games and you're b*tching with an easier schedule and an 11-1 record. The only way any of you will ever be satisfied is if Indiana goes 32-3 with a top 5 schedule and the football team goes to the Rose Bowl every year. It's why nobody really argues with you. It's why your arguments are tired and get no credibility. There's no pleasing you. There's nothing right in the world. Everything IU does sucks and everyone down there is dumber than you are. You should be our new AD. Then you could just complain about yourself every time an Indiana team didn't play perfectly every play, left a few yards on the field, or didn't take the right charter service to an away game. It's actually entertaining to me to see what you come up with to complain about. I really do wonder sometimes if you have any idea how difficult and complicated it is to put together a college basketball schedule that fits all the criteria you directly or indirectly label as important. I think....no.

Nope....I don't have a problem with close games because I don't think Indiana is enough "more talented" than other teams to blown many out. As happened at Wisconsin, there will be an outlier here and there, but this is a heart attack team that will play far more close games than not against good competition. There are so many talented players now, it's hard for any team to far outclass the lion's share of their schedule, which is why #1 has already lost 6 times this season and why I don't think we'll ever see another undefeated team.

Indiana is winning close games. You can argue they shouldn't be close, but Indiana is winning close games. They also smoked a really good team. Florida State is 10-2 and #14 in Sagarin (a subjective, computer based ranking system I think paints a decent picture of reality. Indiana is 33rd right now). UConn and ND are both in the 70;s. Indiana's not a national contender right now, but they are learning how to win with different players leading the way seemingly every night. It's Green, it's Phinisee, it's Franklin, it's Jackson-Davis, it has been Brunk in short stretches, it's been Smith a time or two, it was Durham early. I said a long time ago this team is all about next season. Especially as kids develop as leaders, assuming everyone's back (and until Jackson-Davis gets a jump shot from 15-18 feet, he's not yet an NBA player), Indiana's team next year will be among the deepest and most experienced in the country. This season? It's not pretty, but they're learning how to win. Kentucky has lost 3 times. Once to 212th ranked Evansville. Duke lost to 109th ranked Stephen F. Austin. Purdue already has 5 losses. So does North Carolina. Indiana played horribly at Wisconsin. Absolutely. But....they haven't laid an egg in any other game, despite how ugly it's looked at times. I wish their schedule had been a little tougher, but at the end of the day, Indiana is sitting in a decent position, and I still laugh at the people who predict the sky is falling because of how Archie looks or how bad he is as a coach. For the record, his winning % at Indiana is higher than Crean's was and about equal to Mike Davis. That's not to point out anything other than perspective. He's also grown as a coach in the last 2 seasons. I don't think Indiana will set the world on fire this season, but I don't see "dire" either.

Bottom line, for almost every post I've seen so far? Until we can consistently make shots, our offense isn't going to look very strong if defenses collapse the middle and double the post. Especially since we don't get have "that one guy." And we don't. If we're able to get the ball in the middle of the floor, which we did much of the time, we'll get the looks we want either with a dump down, drive, or kick out, but until we can shoot the ball from the perimeter on a consistent basis, the offense is going to go through really tough stretches. That's just a fact we'll have to deal with. Shooters are coming; but for now, this is a team without individual greatness and without consistent perimeter threats. People can whine all they want about Archie being a bad coach or almost losing the game, but the fact is we have to make shots to look remotely "pretty." We didn't even make FT's today. We out rebounded them by 10 and took better care of the ball. Held them to 37% from the floor, and weathered a horrible game by our back court minus Franklin and some nice moments from Green. This team is imperfect and can look ugly; but it's also 11-1, which I'll take given what we have to work with.

At this point, the only real negative is the division we play in. We've always had - or seemingly anyway - strong skill guys.

That's great to hear. Not at all surprising, but great to hear. Will be interesting because I think Indiana is in a position to attract someone who may come unexpected.

Having Tom Allen under a long term contract will help. Being strong recruiting in Florida will help, and I wouldn't be surprised to see someone from that state highly considered Having at least one proven QB in the fold and a young, talented group of backs and receivers will help. Having a solid budget for hiring assistants will help. I'd be very surprised if Indiana doesn't have several very qualified candidates available to them.

Always? You mean except the last 2 seasons when we've won this game?

IU 74 ND 67

Not at all what I meant, either.

This simply isn't accurate. Not even close. It's another in the cesspool of negative narratives. In the last 10 seasons (not even including this one), Indiana has won 2 Big Ten titles, made 3 sweet 16's, and its only losing records were years 2 and 3 of Crean's tenure. Indiana produced several NBA lottery and 1st round draft picks and won 20+ games 4 times. Worst decade ever? Not close. Take a look sometime between 1958 and 1972. And again between 2003-2012. That decade ended well, but the beginning through year 9 were disappointing for very different reasons than the beginning of this past one. And...with a 10-1 start, the current decade's not getting any worse. And yes, we all know what hasn't yet happened this season; but that's another in a long line of straw man arguments. It hasn't been great every year, but worst ever? It hasn't been close to that, either.

Glass didn't hire Sampson but had to clean up the mess. At the time he hired Crean, it was a good hire. Crean did much of his own undoing. The jury is still out on Archie; but I'm more in his camp than out. Glass deserves better by far than a D. Making the tournament and succeeding in the tournament have exactly zero to do with the Athletic Director. Does Duke's current AD get credit for their success, for example? I'd give him a C+ for Crean and an incomplete on Archie, even as I still like the hire. My main issue is it still seems Archie is learning on the job, but the best news is he IS learning on the job.

Fellas, the Big Ten is a brutal league. It has been for as long as I've been alive. We're not going undefeated in the Big Ten. Nobody is. There will be nights we look great and nights we look awful. When we look awful, it doesn't mean we should fire a coach or athletic director and when we look great it doesn't mean we're contenders. Upsets happen every week. At the end of the day, the Big Ten is either the best or second best basketball conference in the country year in and year out. I think we'll make the NCAA tournament and be a tough out when we get there. People panicking over close, ugly wins really should put today's game in perspective. That was Indiana a year or two ago. The emotional over reactions to every play, every half, and every outcome are exhausting. Nobody who matters looks at any part of a program through that microscope.

He doesn't have a jump shot yet and he's not very strong yet. His birth dad will give him the best advice he can get, and I don't think this is a kid who wants to go play in the G league. Not every kid who plays well declares for the draft.

I think it's official. Tonight was the worst win in program history.

Is he that athletic? I haven't yet seen that in him, but I have only watched him live twice.

Galloway will remind people of Dane Fife. Leal can flat shoot it.

Why jump off a cliff like a lemming? The Big Ten has been weird all week and I don't know why you'd be humiliated by a win when you've seen some of the upsets which have happened this season. Hell, Maryland lost to Penn State who barely beat Yale. You don't see the positive in out rebounding a team by 23? I do. I also see positive in shooting 38 FT's. Nebraska deserves some credit...they made a whole lot of tough shots and kept pinching when they got down. We missed a whole lot of open looks which had we made....30% more? Completely different game. We didn't defend well. No doubt. That has to improve, but the reality is we have 2 guards in Durham and Green who are awful defending the ball. We're 10-1 and I still say the trend is upward, even if I'm alone on that island. Indiana has won 2 games this week it loses a year or two ago. That, to me is positive. Not pretty and a hell of a lot to work on, but at the end of the day? We're 10-1 with every realistic possibility to end December 13-3. Ugly? Absolutely. Needs improvement? Absolutely. Some veteran players need a foot in the backside? Absolutely.

The good news? Out rebounded them by 23. Shot 20 more FT's than they did. Phinisee had 4 assists and 1 turnover in 30+ minutes. TJD is a ballplayer. I guess shooters are on the way in a year and I'd rather win ugly than lose pretty. And it was not pretty. I'm not jumping off the cliff like some; and I have a whole lot more to say; but that was not their best performance.

I think it's part relief, part expectations (nobody talks much when they're met), and part "that was hard to watch and there's not much to talk about..glad we won."

Indiana 74 Nebraska 61

Agree 100% and your reason is spot on. There are WAY too many people who expect every player to be great as a freshman and as soon as they walk on campus, and it just doesn't work that way. Indiana is by and large recruiting kids Archie expects to stay 3-4 years and develop. Damezi is one of those kids, and as a sophomore, it's already paying small dividends.

The discussion's been had on here frequently that we need a point guard before we can judge what this team really is. Last night, there were only glimpses. I'd guess it'll start to look better and better the healthier Phinisee gets. There were things I really liked last night, and things which are still painfully obvious. We need shooters and we need scorers. The nights Indiana makes shots, we'll be damned near unbeatable the way we guard and frankly the way we rebound most of the time. The Big Ten is good at the top. Indiana will lose some games. But in the end, I think they'll win 21-23 games and get an NCAA berth and grow from there.

Every post you make seems to be a dictatorial, so your mind is obviously made up. You asked above if you're delusional, but you already seem to have all the answers. You don't want a rebuttal or even a discussion. In fact, you seem to already know what the rebuttal would be. Just drop the mic and go to bed.