IU Prof

I think what some people are missing is that while 3 point shooting volume is an issue, it's just one of many with Woodson's system. If it were just a trade off between 3s or close 2s by TJD or Reneau, that would be one thing. But that isn't what we're seeing. Instead, IU consistently shoots substantially more long to mid-range 2s than is mathematically efficient. Here is IU's full season shot chart compared to UConn's. As you can see, IU shoots many more long 2s than does an efficient modern offense. This is a schematic issue, not a talent issue. While one can at least semi plausibly argue that Woodson's hand was forced on 3 point shooting by a lack of backcourt talent last year (although it doesn't really hold up over 3 years for the reasons a number of people have noted), that's hard to reconcile with IU's over reliance on long 2s that same season. If the team is bad at shooting, then there is no reason to be taking so many mid ranged jumpers. But that is a shot that Woodson's system prioritizes, even though the analytics on the inefficiency of such an approach are clear. Thus, while a lack of explanation point shooting volume is certainly an issue, it's just one symptom of the larger problem: Woodson's insistence on running an outdated offensive scheme.

This whole argument has gotten tiresome. First it's that Woodson’s system works, the players just didn't take the shots. Then it's that Woodson didn't want guys to shoot (even though both Kopp and Galloway were very effective year 2), because IU's guards sucked last year. Either way, the blame falls on Woodson. It was utterly apparent that the backcourt talent and depth was insufficient heading into last season. If Woodson didn't trust XJ/Gallo/Gunn/etc., then that just makes the failure to upgrade even more problematic. It's been three years, and every year IU has been in the 300s in 3 point shooting volume under Woodson. Players or scheme, that's a coaching issue. End of story.

You two months ago: "If I wanted to watch a team with a poor, antiquated offense who doesn't defend the 3 point line I'd simply revert to watching Mike Woodson." https://btownbanners.com/topic/12809-general-coach-candidate-news/?page=802&tab=comments#comment-866651 You last night: "There’s nothing wrong with Woodson’s system" https://btownbanners.com/topic/14310-fire-coach-woodson-assessment-of-former-posters/?page=1047&tab=comments#comment-903105 You this morning: "We didn't bring back Mgbako and pay a boatload to get Carlyle and Rice to run the same offense." https://btownbanners.com/topic/14310-fire-coach-woodson-assessment-of-former-posters/?page=1048&tab=comments#comment-903176 Not confusing at all...

Did Woodson want guys shooting more 3s the last three years or not? First you say he did, then you say he didn't.

I can't fathom why you keep conflating an argument based on three years data down to just the most recent season. I'm also perplexed at why you argued two months ago that Woodson's offense was antiquated, but then said last night it wasn't a problem. But then earlier today you argued Woodson clearly intends to change the offense given the roster additions. I'm seriously confused at this point...

I just don't get this argument. IU had been in the 300s in 3 point attempts consistently under Woodson. At this point, even if your theory is correct that this is all just in-game player decision making, then at this point that still falls on Woodson's shoulders for not correcting the issue after three seasons...

IU defensive efficiency rankings under Woodson: 2021-22 - #24 (KenPom) / #16 (BartTorvik) 2022-23 - #45 (KenPom) / #47 (BartTorvik) 2023-24 - #84 (KenPom) / #77 (BartTorvik)

Last year, per Bart Torvik, the offensive ratings for IU's three primary guards were: Galloway - 102.2 XJ - 93.6 Cupps - 85.5 Meanwhile, the new additions were: Rice - 104.8 Carlyle - 91.7 So yes, IU does have some upgrades coming in. And yes, those latter numbers are likely to improve a bit as both players enter year 2. But I also think that some are overrating the extent of the talent upgrade. Not to mention the fact that they will both be playing in a new system that it is reasonable to fear may not suit their respective skill sets as well.

Why did we shoot the same number of threes per game the year before too, then, with Kopp, JHS, and Galloway at 46%?

Time will tell, but what's laughable to me is the suggestion that this is a top 15 offense. This whole line of argument also conspicuously sidesteps the fact that if guards who can create off the dribble are so essential to Woodson's offense, why it is that he willingly went into last season with a lack of such an essential ingredient to his offensive scheme. And, of course, it also sidesteps the severe defensive regression IU has experienced each season under Woodson...

I said over the last 3 years. JHS, Galloway, Kopp, and even X at times were all playmakers or shooters (Galloway was both in 22-23). Agreed we won't force feed Ballo. We'll force feed Reneau instead. Meanwhile, the Ballo-Reneau pairing will clog driving lanes, reducing the effectiveness of Rice and Carlyle. And while I think both will shoot better from distance this year, neither will hit at a high enough rate to be a difference maker from deep. The system is the problem. And that's before we even get into defense, which has dropped every year since Fife was pushed out.

I agree that Harbaugh served as a potential parallel, although he was much more accomplished at the same juncture than Woodson. The bigger difference with Harbaugh, though, is that he was willing to look in the mirror and try to improve his own shortcomings. Some of that was personality, bonding more with players, etc. But he was also willing to revamp his defensive scheme. And he let go of some established assistants on the offensive side too to get new blood into the program. Woodson has publicly shown no willingness to self reflect and address the ways in which his style and scheme are contributing to his underwhelming performance. He just thinks he needs to upgrade talent, and that his outdated system will still work. So while I think the results next year are likely to be better than last, I still don't see this program breaking through in a big way as long as it runs the same offensive and defensive systems.

Not sure how anyone could have watched this coaching staff operate the last three years and think that because IU suddenly has Rice and Carlyle in the backcourt that that will lead to a significantly increased 3 point shooting volume. IU has had playmakers, shooters, etc., over the last three years and still played post dominant. They just spent $1+ million on Ballo, and lord knows how much to retain Reneau. The offense is still going to be post dominant.

https://twitter.com/TiptonEdits/status/1781792601307295917

My thoughts too...definitely a different tenor than last time.

https://hardwoodhoudini.com/posts/brad-stevens-addresses-rumor-leave-boston-celtics-indiana-hoosiers

Man, some of you really ought to be charging NGW rent given the degree to which he's living in your heads...

I think Conwell's NIT run pretty conclusively settles whether his talent can play up a level.

I'm not a fan of the apparent portal strategy, but Rice is the exception. Great story, great talent, great get.

Would love to hear @JerryYeagley23 weigh in on this Stevens scuttlebutt...

That's totally fair. But on the other hand, it's hard not to point out the coaching deficiencies when people start talking about most talented team in the B1G, etc.

I'm not sure the hypothetical roster you laid out is best in the B1G. That's what I was saying. Yes, though, I agree it is better than last year. But last year isn't the only year I'm talking about. From my vantage point, IU has under performed from a results perspective versus its talent level (even if lacking in places) all three years under Woodson. So I see no reason next year will change that. Put differently, this group might get Woodson into a 5-8 seed range for the NCAA, but he isn't taking it to an Elite 8 or Final 4.

Agree with the first part. But I think that for Carlyle at least, his recruiting ranking is most of the appeal. Otherwise, you're looking at a SG who shot 38.7% from the field and 32% from 3. Yes he was a freshman, but he'd be going from a defensively suspect PAC-12 to the B1G.

Agree in general, but there's also more to roster construction than just "good guards" or "bad guards". With Reneau and Ballo clogging the paint, Carlyle won't have the driving lanes needed to thrive. And from the video I've seen, he needs to do a lot of work on his form (shooting base in particluar) to become the consistent 3 point threat the rest of this hypothetical roster needs at the 2.