5fouls

I think Hummel is very good. Consistently one of the best across all networks. That said, I prefer Bardo on IU games. He has grown on me significantly over the years. He's not as good as Hummel, but I enjoy listening to him more, if that makes sense.

This is taking the Cupps love a bit too far. Johnson is a top 2 scorer, defender, and ball handler on this team. Nobody else on the roster can make that claim.

Blab's hands were twice as bad as anyone else that has been mentioned. You had to see them in action to appreciate how bad they were.

I think it's safe to say that, both players, playing behind All-Americans, have more to show us than they were able to do so this past season.

Kaufman-Renn's advanced metrics are actually better than Reneau's TKR PER - 17.0 W/S Per 40 - .151 Box +/- = 3.2 ORating - 111.2 DRating - 99.6 Malik PER - 16.7 W/S Per 40 - .122 Box +/- = 1.0 ORating - 103.7 DRating - 99.3

The kid loves his hair though. Couldn't stop playing with it.

The Big Ten is NOT going to leave USC and UCLA out there all by themselves.

It can't ALL be about football. Overall health of the conference has to be considered. Let's say the Big Ten makes it all about Football and to get to 20 they add Notre Dame, Oregon, Clemson, and Oklahoma State. Those are probably the 4 best realistic football options out there. Who does the group of teams hurt? It hurts schools like Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan State, etc. that have to do everything right to compete with OSU, Michigan and PSU today. Add 4 more top shelf programs into the mix and whatever opportunities the Iowa's of the world had before, they are much less now. Having 2 of the 4 additions be football-centric makes sense (Notre Dame and Oregon). Have the other two additions be about something else. Stanford raises the academic profile and has a strong overall athletic program. Washington (or Cal, if you prefer) would add a 5th team on the West Coast to help balance out the schedule and reduce travel. Quite frankly, the thought of adding a team like Clemson to the Big Ten is crazy to me. The school brings nothing outside of football (maybe a little baseball) to the table. You simply can't have 16 of the 20 football teams in the conference be national title threats It simply does not work that way.

I honestly do not understand why Stanford does not top every one of these polls. It is literally the most prestigious, non-Ivy university in the country. And, it has a decorated athletic history across all sports.

Other than the Pac 12, there honestly is not 4 teams from any of those conferences I would take. In the ACC I would be okay with UNC, Virginia, or Georgia Tech. In the Pac 12, Stanford (#1 choice), Cal (if it helps get Stanford, Oregon, and Washington are all okay. Honestly, nobody from the Big 12 interests me at all. Nebraska level athletics at best with less than optimum academics.

I voted Stanford. Every conference team cant be a football standout. The fact is that Stanford has more National Championships across all sports than any other school. And, it grabs the Bay Area tv market. To me, it's pretty simple. Add ND and 3 west coast schools to get to 20. Break conference into four separate 5 team pods. UNC loses a LOT of value if not packaged with Duke.

Just read the article. Not sure his comments about getting left out include IU. Current Power 5 teams like Washington State, Oregon State, Wake Forest, Duke, Kansas, etc could be in serious trouble. I think already being in the Big Ten insulates IU, PU, and NW. If IU was currently in the Pac12 or Big12 instead? Yeah, that would be time to worry. A lot depends on the size of the breakaway. If it's 32 teams, IU has no chance. If it's 48, we are on the bubble. If it's 55+, we have very little to worry about.

The Big Ten's reported wish list of ND, Oregon, UNC, and Stanford disagrees with that sentiment.

Stanford has the most NCAA Championships than of any school. More than twice as many as any current Big Ten school.

My version says Maryland. Why does your version say Notre Dame?

Travel partners are very hard to do without a round-robin schedule. Take Scott's example for instance. Assume IU's twice a year pods year one are Purdue, as well as Rutgers/Maryland and OSU/PSU. Now, assume our 1 game road pods are UM\MSU and UI/NW. Then say our 1 game home pods are UW/Minn and Iowa/Nebraska. At that point we have played 9 home games and 9 road games. But, there is only 1 pod left. The USC/UCLA pod is split at that point.

Looking down the road to the inevitable Super-Conference concept. Where does IU fit in such a hierarchy? It's a football driven concept after all. I'm indifferent to UCLA and USC. If you're going to take the plunge, those are two good schools to start with. But, the overall concept of Super-Conferences is bad for teams with subpar football programs, and that group includes IU.

Unless there is a monetary prize for best prediction, I'll roll with this 1) IU (20-0) 2) Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers, Wisconsin all at (10-10) 14) Purdue (0-20)

I hope Purdue is especially bad.

It hurts the team if TJD shoots 48% from the field instead of 60% from the field. Those other guys can still drive the lane with a properly executed high ball screen.

First and foremost, it's improved outside shooting for almost everyone on the team. That said, I'm reluctant to see TJD attempt to expand his game by taking more jumpers. While it may be a benefit to his pro career, for IU's season, it has the makings of an experiment gone bad. I think players accepting roles will be another key. Potential for a numbers crunch and it will be critical that guys that get squeezed look long term. Improvement from Coach Woodson on his substitution patterns. No hockey line changes. Have 2 starters on floor at all times. Limit turnovers. We will hold an edge in most games if we are equal to our opponent in taking care of the ball. Give them 5 extra possessions a game and anything can happen.

What I said is 'For IU to be as successful as it can be', Bates needs to be its most reliable 3-point shooter. I say that, not to be ridiculous, but I'll help by pointing out some obvious reasons why. Schifino is a freshman and not known to be a shooter XJ is our point guard. While he showed last year he can shoot the 3, your point guard needs to running the offense instead of trying to spot up for 3. Bates can create his own shot better than Kopp Galloway, for all his skills, will never be a good shooter. He will get open looks for a reason. I want Geronimo crashing the offensive boards more than I want him spotting up from outside If Bates does not improve, Race may actually end up being our most reliable 3-point shooter. That's not necessarily a good thing. Leal likely won't get sufficient minutes to make a difference game in and game out. Is 29% going to cut it? No. But, if he Bates shoots that, we are a fringe Top 20 team instead of a potential Top 10 team. That's my point. It's not like we have a team full of Alfords, Hulls, Roths and Zeislofts to fall back on. Let's revisit this discussion at the end of the year. If Bates can shoot something like 38%, we'll be talking about how critical that was to the team's success. If he shoots 30%, we'll be talking about how much better the team would have been if he shot better. Kopp is the only other option that seems capable of filling that outside shooting void. And, in my estimation, if Bates beats Kopp out for starts/minutes, IU will be better for it.

I think Tamar Bates is who we need to see starting at the 3 slot. He may or may not earn it. But, for IU to be as good as it can be, that's what needs to happen. He needs to be our most reliable 3 point shooter.

I don't think we're Top 10 unless someone (most likely Bates) takes a big step forward and becomes a consistent perimeter scorer. We may get into the Top 10 early in the season as younger teams are still figuring things out. But, by the end of the year, if we have not become a better shooting team from the arc, I have to think there will be at least 10 teams better. If I had to make a prediction, I would guess a 4 seed in the NCAA tournament.

You ever have those situations where you expect something to happen, but your brain convinces you the exact opposite will happen? That's where I am at with TJD. I fully expect him to return to IU. Every indicator points that way and I can't come up with one single thing to cause me to believe otherwise. I expect him to come back. Yet, my brain is hard selling the opposite.