Old Friend

As long as they're not Prius's, I'm good. =)

I'd like to see one more reliable wing/shooter. I just don't trust Smith in that role, Anderson has a long way to go; and Hunter is an unknown, although I'd bet on him. Perhaps Franklin can give minutes at the 3, but I don't see any of the other guards doing so. I see a bunch of lineups where we go "very big" or "very small." We don't really have many mid sized cars, do we?

Way too much smoke surrounding this and I'd rather not be part of it. At a 30,000' level, that's why.

This is good for Indiana

And he has committed.

They just did a $45 million renovation. I would doubt they'd do another one this quickly, and I doubt many believe they need to. Assembly Hall is unique in its own way. Being on that floor feels like the fans are on top of you. It's not the same as Phog Allen, but it's no worse or better. I'm just fine with the facilities we have. Duke and Kansas get players....so will we.

Yes it is. They have codes they have to work under and every single building we'd want to build would not be to current code. This is the reason. There aren't any others. Indiana hasn't built a new building because there are laws in place telling them what they can or can't build, and anything new wouldn't and couldn't resemble anything we'd want, so they're using Assembly Hall. They remodeled instead of building a new one for a reason.

Can't build them like that anymore. Building codes require slopes of stairs be a certain angle or less. Walkways wider. Lighting different. None of the buildings you mentioned are close to new....and there's a reason. The closest thing you'll find is Banker's Life Fieldhouse in Indianapolis, and compared to all the ones you mentioned AND Assembly Hall, it's sterile. You can no longer build a classic arena like the ones you mentioned. Sounds easy....but it's not, which is why there are so many older ones still in use. IU could easily find the money for a new arena and pay for it with naming rights and sponsorships. So could Duke. So could Kansas. But they haven't. Again....there's a reason.

Except Ohio State has several hundred million more $$ in their athletic budget than we do. You'll have that at a school twice the size and NOT competing with 2-3 other similar sized schools for state money. Like I said before, being #1 in faciities would require a new arena and getting rid of Assembly Hall. That's not happening, so you can stop hoping we'll be #1 in facilities for a while.

Coaches ranked us 3rd in budget and resources....don't think it's that bad.

We would have to get rid of Assembly Hall to move up, and that's not going to happen. It's very excusable if you look at it that way. Assembly Hall gets replaced with the Kohl Center, we're probably #1, but I don't want that and I don't believe you do, either. It's not as simple in this case as saying "we're #6 in facilities." True, our home arena is outdated in some ways, but it's iconic in others and when full and loud, the best home court advantage in the country. Kansas and Duke also have bad facilities by this measure and North Carolina does not. Why? New arena. But UNC does not have the home court advantage it once did.

Recruiting base, we are behind Chicago, New York, and Washington DC. Not sure that's an accurate assessment other than "available talent." Lots of playground ballplayers there... Media exposure is something many overlook. Indiana was on national TV 9 times last season. Purdue 4. IU still moves the needle because of the program...not the current team. Anyone who believes Indiana is an irrelevant program should talk to people who really know. I LOVE this. It should be shown to every recruit and every idiot pundit who thinks Indiana is irrelevant.

Yep. I would say in this case, Archie is wrong. He still has some Dayton in him, and I have zero interest in any me first kids. Getting or losing this kid will have zero bearing on whether or not Indiana makes or doesn't make the NCAA tournament. Indiana's entity is far bigger than the recent on court results. Culture is not always current status. I have complete faith in his ability to coach, but not every kid is a fit. See Luke Recker. See Lawrence Funderburke. On and on. This kid would have been a bad fit in my opinion, and I don't equate him one bit to a failure or some "sign." I know what we DID get.

You should pick this up. It might help you. https://www.k5learning.com/reading-comprehension-worksheets/first-grade-1

Not sure where to start with this.... "A program needs talent to win?" Really?? You don't say. Do you honestly think I meant we don't need talent? Is that what you interpreted? I'll start with Franklin. You've never seen him play if you think it'll take a couple of years for him to be a good player. That's just truth. We just landed Phinisee, Jackson-Davis, Hunter, and Franklin. I'm not seeing this "struggle" you're selling. And no program will ever land "most" of anything, which is one reason I said we need the "right kids." The ones who can succeed in the Big Ten and in Archie's system as it evolves. You aren't the only one who knows IU's history, but here are some things that kinda' validate what I said. 1981, IU also had a whole lot of experience. Tolbert, Wittman, Kitchell, Turner, Risley, Grunwald, and Isenbarger were all upper classmen. 1987? Alford, Thomas, Jadlow, Sloan, Hillman, Smith, Eyl? Upper classmen..plus the two JUCO's...one of whom was 22 years old at the time. But....the real funny thing here is the title itself. Yeah, Daryl Thomas and Rick Calloway were both, in title, "McDonald's All Americans," but....Steve Alford wasn't. That kinda' throws a wrench into the theory, if you ask me. Alford had a legendary senior season that ended with a 57 point game in a semi state game with no 3-point line - at a time when Indiana High School Basketball was pretty solid - and became one of the best college guards of his era, and a 2 time consensus All American in college. There are hundreds of stories of players like this who didn't hold that moniker. Meaningless technicality of a title. At that time, with no internet, it was up to writers who had never seen a lot of the players, and as much a popularity contest as anything. Greg Dreiling, Greg Kite, and Tim McCormick were McDonald's All Americans. Charles Barkley was not. Numbers seem to mean a lot to you. How many top 50 (McD's All America caliber) kids participated in this season's final four? I'll wait while you look that up, since I'm living in some "pure fantasy." Oh hell...I'll help you. On 4 teams (each of which won their conference or their conference tournament), six total top 50 kids participated/played in this season's final four. Know how many of those Texas Tech had? In fact, know how many top 100 kids Texas Tech had? Zero. None. But they had a damned good coach who recruited to a system. You think Michigan State has built what they have solely with McD's All Americans, or maybe "getting old and staying old" with kids that fit what Izzo does has something to do with it? So much for your theory that Indiana needs "almost all highly ranked players." (That was a ridiculous statement by you) I don't think I said we don't need talent to win. Did I? I don't think I did. Indiana has and will continue to get its share of talent. But we don't need a lineup of "mostly highly ranked players." Is your point that we needed Quinones, or something else?

Consider this a major victory, my man. We lost nothing except a PIA kid whose ego is too big to ever be on a good team. We have 3 top 100 kids (I think Franklin got there, right) in Hunter (37 last year), Jackson, and Davis. We need the RIGHT players. Not "top 100" players. We need seniors. Program kids. We need to get old and stay old. We do not need "immediate impact" kids in every recruiting class or all we'll do is turn over recruiting classes. That is not Indiana's culture and I don't want it to be.

Don't look now, Boot. We agree again. This is exactly how I feel. Kids have to fit, and this kid never seemed like he did or would.

Okay, ray. Calm down. Let's apply meaning and context to what I said. I don't hate the kid or anyone else. I think this one in particular is an attention seeking, "me first" kid for many reasons. And what I meant (and basically what I said) was if the amount of Facetime he gets with a coach is a large or THE deciding factor in what school he chooses, this is one more example of why I believe what I do. Go to Memphis. I have no interest in kids who choose Indiana because of how much attention (see : "love") he feels from Archie Miller. You either want to play basketball at Indiana University or you do not. And I know you understand that. Right? Take a breath.

It just says "old!" It doesn't say "Old enough not to know the difference between Facebook and Facetime!" I have 3 teen aged boys....believe me....I know the difference!!! Plus, Middle Aged Friend sounded stupid....and out of context for purposes of this site. =)

I know. It's still in that genre to me. All of my kids use it. I'm not THAT old.

Sounds to me like after a week or so, this is an offer Galloway really values. We get Leal and Galloway? Go get some size and a couple of point guards; and we've got ourselves a foundation.

I hope Archie never uses Facetime, if that's something a recruit uses to make a decision. "A recruit" will never be important enough to convince me to believe anything on social media is the difference maker. To me? A recruit that needs this (and I already believe this about Quinones) is an attention seeker who's more interested in himself than anything. Indication of being pampered and entitled. I know social media is used and has its place. But if Facetime communication is THE deciding factor and a player needs to be "shown love" that much? Go to Memphis.

When you are choosing a career....do not choose "Lawyer."