Old Friend

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.

I suppose that makes me "old," too. I've been accused of that and more over the years, and I generally just sit back..... Experience counts for a lot. Being a minority doesn't make you wrong. It just means you need a thick skin.

We have only seen the part on top. I think this is going to be a long, painful process for a lot of people. I think college basketball as we know it will be over within 2 years. I think there will be a true minor league system for the NBA. I think Jay Bilas is naive if he thinks paying players would solve anything. I don't know if this helps or hurts Indiana; but I do think the number of quality AAU players who attend college will dwindle in the coming years.

That's about as well as this can be stated. Well done. Sadly, it confirms a lot of things, too. Again, well stated.

Lots of questions....few answers at this point. I read the first 3 pages of this, and may have missed any entry after that, but does the fact that Arizona is involved bug anyone else a little bit? Even if Archie knew nothing (and I'm not suggesting he did), ya' gotta' think he's nervous for his brother, right? Naive to think some IU targets aren't in the know on some of this, even if not involved. Wow.

And again....context. How much of the yardage against UVA was YAC? How much against OSU was not? How much better is OSU than Virginia? You guys aren't objective, but know more than former college QB's who talked about the way Lagow can throw the ball. Got it.

Unless of course you watched the game and saw some of the throws. Hello, stalker. How was your Sunday?

Not sure what you're watching, but if you're saying you're willing to throw away the season this year to the benefit of next season and beyond, that's your prerogative, but this team won't win this season with just Ramsey. Lagow threw for > 400 yards against Ohio State. He may not be consistent, but to say he can't throw the ball well is simply incorrect. Lagow throws it down the field FAR better than Ramsey does; and we need that as part of our offense. I don't think anyone else is willing to give this season away.

I guess what I'd say is I don't think either one of them is good enough to be "all the time." I hate the two QB thing too; but in this case, it gives them the best chance to succeed depending on what defenses do because they're completely different players.

I said two weeks ago we're going to need them both to maximize our offense and I stand by that comment at this point. Lagow throws it down the field FAR better than Ramsey does.

Maybe it wouldn't. He was thrown in two weeks ago against a team unprepared for him. He was thrown in this week against a team that knows how to defend the read option because they run something similar. Think a few guys made him a hero based on an incomplete picture.

So is cheering loudly. Chants are...eh to me. I know a few players who thought they were stupid. Maybe personal opinion, but I don't think they do any more than just cheering for a kid. I think Romeo is well aware the fan base knows who he is and want him at IU. A chant won't change that. I guess I feel like chants vs normal cheering are the same as piped in music vs the pep band. One seems genuine; the other fabricated and canned. I also think some of the chants over the years have been really stupid. "Mi Ike Davis," etc. My opinion.

Why? You've now seen (if you're objective) how his option can be easily taken away if a team is prepared for it (GA SO is BAD, by the way), and he can't throw the ball consistently. He's 1-4 for 7 yards and averaging less than 4 yards a carry. Leaving him in for good would be a mistake.

Same kids saw GameDay on Campus. They're playing Georgia Southern in 90* heat, and Allen's been able to recruit just fine. As if this is the first time fans have left early during a blowout. It was a blowout WIN, btw. Kids aren't stupid.