Hardwood83

Are you gonna believe the facts or me? Ok, ok, fine I want him to be great, alright? Is that so wrong!?!

I predict that if Devonte is consistently good- not great or even really good- just good, he'll get all the love he can handle. At least from me. I want stability over highlights and buzz every day of the week. 17-18 ppg with > 2 TO's/game like clockwork please!

A lot of bad football today. Mich - Iowa was brutal. Nebraska- NW was ugly and Florida- Auburn very sloppy.

I think the basic question is "do we want to maintain amateur, school-based sports?" I have to admit to kind of conflating "paying players" with the slightly more narrow California law that simply allows them to profit from their likeness, appearances etc. I am definitely against paying amateurs (oxy-moron?), but you give an excellent real world example that shows how complicated this is. To be an apples to apples comparison to your son, wouldn't we have to say TJD gets paid for playing basketball outside of IU/NCAA? I don't think that is compatible with anything like the current system, unless you want to burn it all to the ground. Under that scenario UK would have their players put on an exhibition game that charges boosters $250,000 a head to attend and let the players split the proceeds. (Actually, they probably ALREADY do that). So, nothing against your son, but I would say "no" because revenue sports are different. They just are. There is clear incentive to influence the outcome of games that doesn't exist for field hockey or fine arts. There is already plenty of cheating and this would open a whole new arena for it. A better question (related to the Cali law) is more like should TJD be allowed get paid for signing pictures, or attending a car dealership promo, etc? That is definitely tougher, but I think it's a seriously slippery slope too. Won't this just legitimize paying players? I think a lot of posters here are ok with that, but I am not. Probably gets back to the heart of my original question "do we want to maintain amateur sports ?" If yes, then paying players because they are players is a no-go. If 'no' then just get rid of intercollegiate sports altogether and just have different levels of pro sports. Why should pro athletes have to enroll in school? So that was a lot of words to come back to, are these professionals or amateurs? Proceed accordingly.

I hope this is sarcasm. Even if you think college athletes deserve compensation (obviously I don't) you can't seriously argue they are being abused and forced to perform against their will. That isn't just laughable it's insulting. College athletes can quit & drop out of school at anytime. Happens frequently. Even better- pay your own way like all the other schmoes. Why have Title IX to subject women to the same horrors men have to endure? If college sports are so corrupt and unfair why are kids lining up to participate? If NCAA sports are tantamount to slavery, shouldn't they all be shut down? They are not professionals. If they want to be then fine- go to the NBA, China, Poland or wherever and get paid as much as you can. Don't want to do that? Then shut up your whining about how unfair the system is.

This is intriguing. Only reason I would argue is the B1G of the mid 80's had more upward mobility. After the Big 2 it was pretty open even though Mich St and Iowa were good, they were not consistent. A lot of wins to be had against Purdue, Nwestern, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota.....anyway I agree that IU seems to be building a foundation. I hope it pays off.

I'm very pro-capitalism and free market. These kids have every right to make all the money they can from their skills, likeness, etc ......they do that by going pro. However, if they want to attend college and participate in amateur competition they gotta wait. It's not that complicated and the model worked fine for a very long time. Playing college sports is not compulsory, so if you don't want the stipulation that come with it, don't play. I suppose High school kids deserve a percentage of the gate from Friday night's game too? Maybe the dance recital made enough from the bake sale that the girls deserve a cut? Sheesh. (btw I understand the NCAA is making a lot of $$ that isn't the point, to me it's principle not balance sheet)

I think there is reasonable criticism of the in game decisions. I just don't think it's risen to the level of "fire him and start over". What I am really hoping to see this season is consistent effort and that will nearly guarantee a bowl game. The Minnesota game last season was atrocious and IU clearly wasn't interested in competing in a very winnable game. That can't happen again.

Not that it'll make you feel any better, but unlikely either the Cards or Brewers win a series anyway. The NL Central teams are very flawed compared to the Dodgers & Braves.

Instead of the death penalty I suggest the loss of 13 scholarships for a couple years. They can have a team of walk-ons. That way other teams in the conference don't get punished by losing games and the offender gets a couple of 5-26 records as a reward (and we all know how that feels) Let them add 4 scholarships a year after that to draw out the pain. I think it unlikely, but seems fitting to me.

I don't even know the question and my answer is "YES!"

This is encouraging- would LOVE it if KU got a proportional penalty! I know the NCAA has no credibility, but a guy can dream.

There are now about 60 replies and every single one is an IU fan. I know that means nothing in the scheme of things, but it is awesome. And the creepy crean gif with the Purdue kid never gets old:

Pretty clear to me that Archie has a type of PG he's looking for. Rob, Diara, Curbelo, etc. Scrappy, floor general, pass-first, leader. I suspect he wants guys basically in his mold. I have no problem with any of that.

Ok, fair enough I can't speak for everyone. I must be cynical because I thought it was generally understood how corrupt NCAA BB recruiting is and has been for a long time. I'm not claiming to be an insider or expert, just an observer that sees the same schools consistently brining in the top recruits regardless of any other factors. They will often stack talent that is detrimental to the individual players NBA asperations. Yet still players line up for the same usual suspects. I don't need wire-tap transcripts or bank records to see what is happening.

No idea if he gets tired of it, but what else can be said about top 50ish level recruiting? It's a market, plain and simple. The FBI case confirmed what everyone already knew: Consistently signing top players is proof your program cheats. Full stop. You think Love, or anyone else, is going to UNC for the lovely campus, alumni network or academics? Maybe he's charmed by 'ol Roy's down home wit? Pfffft, these kids are getting paid and the pay scale = the team recruiting rankings. It may be tedious to us since we're not getting paid and our team is way down the list, but you can't discuss recruiting without acknowledging it as THE biggest factor.

I get what you are saying and I think you are absolutely correct, if looking at it from a Smith "I want to play in the NBA" perspective. Unfortunately we both know there is a vanishingly small chance of Justin ever playing a minute in the NBA. He is a passive tweener with terrible hands and below average skills. Besides, I'm only interested in IU winning, not NBA wish lists. Those two don't have to be mutually exclusive....but they seem to be in reality. If the NBA is telling kids not to worry about hitting jump shots in favor of all 3's, all the time, then the NBA is broken and should be ignored.

Good news! My hopes and expectations for this season just ticked up a notch or two. Only reasonable that Hunter will have some adjustment, but the ceiling should be way higher with him than without.

Exactly- you don't want an offense built around 16ft jumpers, but having a couple guys on the floor capable of hitting them at a decent clip matters.

Analytics are a look back at what has happened, not a projection of what should. Perhaps the "30% from mid-range" is the result of players not practicing, therefore not having the skill to hit them, instead of it being a "difficult" shot? Lots of open looks to be had from 10-15 ft. I believe they are missed because of lack of skill, not an inherent issue with the shot. Knocking down mid-range shots puts an enormous amount of pressure on the defense. Used to be an accepted part of basketball where well-rounded players excelled and won games. But since that's not featured on Sportscenter or youtube, we get 6'11" guys hoisting 3's instead. Yay. I think style has taken over substance to a large degree in basketball. It's catered to what the players want to do instead of what is effective. Lots of examples, but exhibit A? the hook shot. It's freaking unstoppable but completely ignored because it's not cool. I think that is retarded.

You are probably right about the losing streak killing the Brooks recruitment, but the point still stands that going "all in" and missing isn't just the guy you lost, it's that you don't have anyone else in line to replace him. Then you scramble and start throwing out offers...at least that is my perception of what happened last spring. IU got a lot of tire-kicking but no takers. Other than Garcia is IU pursuing any other big men? IU seems to be the bridesmaid for a lot of these high- profile guys.

Sure appears the Pirates have packed it in for the year.

I don't think that is fair. Crean had plenty of short-comings, including reaching on many players and inconsistent results. But when his guys improved it seems unreasonable to say "they developed themselves". If he gets blamed for the failures he should get the credit for the successes, imo.

Absolutely true- as it has been for pretty much my entire lifetime. IU didn't just start sucking so the better question is WHY has it always been bad? Short answer is because the fans and admin have accepted it. Changing an entire culture isn't easy. I'm not positive that Allen is the guy that will take IU to unprecedented heights, but I am confident he is a high character guy that loves IU and wants to do it the right way. He is upgrading the talent and slowly seems to be improving the on-field performance. Also I am not too sure there is anyone better for the job. Even if there is bringing him in would require another rebuild of a 3-4yrs to make it into his image. History shows that still isn't likely to improve the results much. I guess my point is an entrenched problem like IU football isn't likely to see a quick fix, so why not be patient?

As we saw with Brooks- that seemed to really stall IU's recruiting momentum. When you go "all in" you stand to lose it all. Does IU even have a realistic shot at another '20 big?