iu eyedoc

Can an AD also coach? Asking for a friend.

Only if you have no clue what the word means. Soooooo....

I'll help unconfound you a bit. You're welcome little adjective The criticism all came from people with little minds. Synonyms narrow petty mean short-sighted opinionated inflexible worthless unworthy inferior third-rate mediocre You can pick just about any of those to describe Woodrow

LTFOL. Woodson left 200lbs in the rear view mirror decades ago.

So Woodrow decided to double technical himself out of all the fan events?

His double technical "get me the hell out of here" quit on the team is etched in my brain. Overpaying the 4th guy off the bench to call out your critics on Senior/Not Senior night doesn't change that fact.

You both also will seemingly spend about the same amount of time and energy in the off season trying to reach those goals.

Here is a number

I heard Woodrow misread GCHS and thought all the cars were parked in GCC parking lot( Greenfield Country Club). When a cart attendant never came to his car for his clubs, he walked into the gym and asked "one of the the tall lanky kids" to stop goofing around and to load his bag and direct him to the clubhouse bar.

20-11 11-9 and a 3 way tie for 5th in the B1G would be a disaster. So about right.

Expectations by talent: Slightly better season than last with a down B1G. Sweet 16 loss. Expectation by roster and STAFF: A bit better with some big losses starting in the Bahamas. More perplexed frustration. A hump that seems to continually move down the road like a highway mirage.

God forbid a player miss any games for injury! I mean that almost never happens to other teams.

Sorry for talking Mike Woodson's deficiencies in the Fire Mike Woodson thread. How rude of me.

Per 40 minute stats for Cupps, TG and Cupps? Care to venture any guesses? You say a guy had low volume like it is a bad thing when he hit 26% .Truly crazy how you think high volume 3's are a good thing regardless of percentage. 26, 27.5, 32, 35% from three is bad at any volume. With the caveat that a 4 or 5 shooting 35% is acceptable to good, not because of the actual points per shot, but the way it opens up the floor when a big has to be honored on the perimeter. Wings shooting below 37-38% is not a good thing, ever.

Agree, it would. I will believe it when I see it.

No I have been pointing out that your statement that some mythical improvement to 35% from 3 point shooting doesn't equal a significant improvement in OE. None of your pretzel logic makes it so. The "screaming" is just how you hear it in your head when your foolishness is pointed out.

What does that have to do with every other offensive statistic that IU lacked in? The simple fact is your imaginary increase in 3 pt % and volume doesn't even get IU in the top 50 without improvement everywhere else. And there in lies the rub, whatever marginal improvement in talent $6M bought they are still being coached a bad brand of basketball and that trumps everything else.

Yeah, don't think anyone is coming out to guard Ballo 15 ft from the basket

No you are assuming every single player takes huge leaps in efficiency and then your math still doesn't add up, so then you pretend math is subjective.

Great, so if IU can also make huge leaps to offensive rebound, protect the ball, provide assists and shoot ft like UConn I think you are on to something. Totally plausible.

Is it a good thing for a 27.5% 3 point shooter to find his shot off the bounce?

No, it literally doesn't and when you factor in the 50% lower rebound chance on 3 pointers it factually decreases the PPP.

So is Reneau going to stagnate on the perimeter or is he going to be Mr Automatic at the rim? Your contradictions confuse me Hell, If IU had made 8 3's on their 15.5 shot attempts per game last season, shooting an NCAA record 51% from 3, adding 9 pts per 100 possessions their ORtg would still only have been 43rd and their kenpom would have 20th. How do you not understand any volume of 35% 3pt shooting is not going to improve the offensive efficiency rating, if anything it will become even worse and the defense will suffer from easy run out buckets.

Not going to get into a longer misquoted diatribe. 1) I never said that if nothing else was different that 35% wasn't better than 32.4%. It was about replacing 53% 2's with 35%2's. Those are offensive efficiency equivalents. 2) The suggested 35% from the teams best shooters, from 3 is not a floor opening percentage. 3)read @AH1971 posts.

Likely true, but the offensive rebound % on 3's is 21% on 2's it is 41%, that is nearly double the chance of getting an extra attempt. Hoisting up 20 extra 3's a game with bad 35% shooters would result in 13 rebound attempts and 2.7 offensive rebounds. Shooting 53% from 2 as IU did last season would result in identical points made on first shots, 10 rebound attempts and 4 rebounds, so to break even you would need 2 less turnovers on those 20 outside vs inside attempts. At IU's 17.1% turnover rate that be 3.4 less turnovers per game assuming a perfect 0 turnover rate on 3 pointers, which of course is not true. So at the extremes against my point at every end of the argument it is a wash both in points and effeciency And remember the argument isn't the team being the same, it's rising from 105 by kenpom (because that seems to be the be all to end all) to top15 with 20 extra 3's from the assumption that really really bad 3 shooters improve to just really bad 35% shooters.