JF87

Fire/retire Woodson. Our vast resources have allowed us to assemble talent that should finish in the top 3 in the Big Ten and a top 10 team nationally. Purdue lost just 5 games this year. With better overall talent Woodson will have at least 10 losses next year. Adequate is not good enough.

I'm not as optimistic as some of you. In the game today, I assume all players negotiate dollars and roles. Tucker was a 5-star, one and done player going to the G-league. Unless money is his only priority, I can't see him coming to a losing team that missed the Tournament without being promised significant minutes or a starting role. I'm sure that Cupps was told his minutes would be reduced from this year, but I would have to assume he was told 4-5 minutes per half at least. If not, why would he return? Leal was a solid contributor defensively during our 5 game win streak. I have to believe that Leal was offered similar minutes to return as well.

Happy with the Rice signing. He fits a huge need. I do have a question. I went to SPEA, so someone help me with my math. There are 200 minutes in a game. Ballo (assuming) 29 mins, Reneau 29, MgBako 30, Rice 30, Tucker 25, Galloway 25, Cupps 8, Leal 8. That leaves 16 minutes (8 minutes per half). What quality shooting guard are we going to add with only being able to offer 16 minutes per game?

Do we have a portal commitment yet?

I fall for the Stevens to IU talk every time.

Thanks, I think this is a fair assessment.

I did forget. What was special about how Woodson used JHS?

Ballo was a starter at Arizona that consistently won. The most likely reason that he's leaving is to get paid. IU is desperate and has made it known that we'll write the biggest checks. I think the likelihood is high that we'll meet his number.

We are going to get 2-3 top talents with our NIL resources, and we are going to have one of the most talented rosters in the Big Ten next year. Unfortunately, we'll lose some games against teams with less talent because our coach is just adequate. Next year we'll be wondering if we could have made a Final 8 if we had brought in a Pearl or May and given one of them the resources that we have provided Woodson.

Watching Louisville and Kentucky struggle to hire a "proven winner" from another P5 school is why I wanted us to act on Dusty when the window of opportunity was open. Dusty, like all good mid-major coaches, wasn't a certainty to be successful at IU, but he did have recruiting ties to Indiana high schools and AAU programs. Passing on Dusty probably means that the IU decision makers are looking to give Woodson at least 3 more years and not the 1 year that so many of us desire.

That would be a real gut punch if Stevens went to Kentucky. I don't see it happening, but if Stevens went to Kentucky, it would make you wonder if there was a faction wanting Woodson when we pursued Stevens that somehow derailed our efforts.

You get invited to all the cool parties and get to hang after games with former Hoosier great Mike Woodson and his buddies. I doubt donor access like that happened under former IU basketball coaches.

Let's assume Cal backs out. Does UK fire Calipari for cause since he didn't properly notify them he was talking with Arkansas or does UK let Cal return because they don't see a viable alternative out there right now?

Ultimately, it is an Administration issue. The Administration hired Woodson and the Administration retained Woodson. Our problem is that Dolson's background is in fundraising, so schmoozing boosters and making them happy has always been his priority. Rumor was that Dolson realized that Woodson isn't the answer. However, it appears that Dolson's instinct to appease donors won out which means another underperforming year for IU basketball.

Hindsight is always 20/20, but this seems like a huge mistake on Painter's part. The last team to beat UCONN was Creighton, and they were somewhere around 14/28 from three to do it. I feel like Painter should have tried getting more three-point looks for shooters last night. Not sure how much was Purdue players be reluctant to take shots and how much was the gameplan. Obviously, UCONN's defense also played a role in limiting Purdue's three-point attempts.