AH1971

For the umpteenth time, Woodson failed constructing the roster.

Medium efficiency, low volume unless you can rebound the hell out of the basketball. Ideally you’re high efficiency/medium volume or medium efficiency/high volume. If you’re neither, stick to what you’re good at. Shooting “3’s because they’re worth more than 2’s” for the hell of it isn’t an offensive strategy no matter how many times you read Analytics 101 for Dummies.

Low efficiency on low volume, could only imagine how bad the numbers would have looked on more volume.

Ya think? 1145 pages and counting of the same regurgitated drivel.

Promise? You said the same thing yesterday.

We will play through the post plenty next year and the 3 point volume will increase by simply having legit 3 level scorers in the back court. Nearly every team in college basketball “plays through the post” to one degree or another. It doesn’t mean what you think it means.

That is the reality of last season. He went for the home run in the portal (Love, Knecht, etc) and when those guys went elsewhere he put too much blind faith in TG and XJ without exploring secondary options. Clearly he knows he f**** up, he went out and revamped his entire back court and added some shooting.

Except I never excused Woodson, have literally now said that 5 different times now. We all agree that last year was a disaster, the only difference is that I (and a few others on here) believes deserved a chance to fix it.

It’s Woodson’s fault he didn’t surround his bigs with better guards last season. 4th time saying it. Do I need to type it in French next time?

Myles Rice had a better freshman season than JHS if you can believe it and we potentially get him for 3 more seasons.

Good Lord you're dense. I've literally blamed the staff for poor roster construction at least three different times in the last 24 hours alone. I haven't absolved blame from anybody. But keep trying though...

Makes perfectly good sense. Won 19 games while hamstrung with one of the worst backcourts in major college basketball. Not only is that not the case this year, the backcourt and wing play is actually the strength of this team.

That's exactly what "having that talk" means.

Regular season. Would likely net a 6 or 7 seed. Not good enough.

Going 20-11 would be highly disappointing given we lost 3-4 non-conference games. I think the floor is 22 wins this year. But this is a 25+ win team that I believe will challenge for a B10 title all year and be a top 4 seed in the dance. If IU goes 20-11 and flames early in the tournament, it's perfectly fine to have that talk with Woodson. But it has to happen first.

Injury as you alluded too is one. Imbalanced schedules are another, not all schedules are created equally in a 20 team league. And a middling season wouldn't see the Hoosiers in contention for a B10 title. That'd be something like 11-9, 10-10 which I stated in my previous post would be highly disappointing and unacceptable. Look, I'm not irrational like most people in this thread. If IU goes 16-4 in the B10 and God forbid a team like UCLA goes 17-3 and wins it by a game my initial reaction isn't going to be, "FiRE MIkE WOoDSoN". I'm going to tip my hat to UCLA and look forward to the tournament as a 2 or 3 seed. If that's your initial reaction (which I have no doubt it will be), I'll take great satisfaction knowing how miserable you'll be for another offseason.

I'm not going to say win a B10 championship or else because there's so many different variables that go into winning one, but yes, I will be extremely disappointed if we aren't in contention throughout.

I think IU has the best and most versatile roster in the B10 top to bottom this year. We shall see.

JFC, you do realize Kopp took a reduced role to come here right? And his efficiency soared.

Kopp? Goode?

So you still haven't answered as to who should have been shooting more 3's last year? Again, typical but expected. The offense was tailored to the personnel. You can't, or better yet, you refuse to answer the question because we both know the answer: bad shooting teams shouldn't shoot more. It's like saying a triple option team should pass 40 times a game. As far as the rest of your nonsense goes, I've said repeatedly that Woodson and the staff's misevaluation of Xavier Johnson and Trey Galloway as a lead guard was unacceptable. Not landing someone like Love or Knecht from the portal doomed last season. And yeah if Rice has a season long slump like he did the last 6-7 games of last year that tanked his average, probably in trouble. I don't see it happening though. Best part about freshman is that they become sophomores. Reneau and Ware took fantastic freshman to sophomore leaps under Woodson and I expect the same for Rice, Carlyle, and Mgbako. Woodson has addressed everything this offseason that this board has been bitching about: guard play and shooting. It does not matter what you run offensively if you don't have solid guard play. Myles Rice instantly becomes one of the best PG's in the B10 and if you dig deep enough into advanced stats, Carlyle shot the ball exceptionally well playing off ball, a role he'll most likely take next year.

Still haven't answered the question. Who else did you want attempting more 3's? Galloway? Gunn? Galloway shooting 200 3's vs 100 3's is a better formula for winning? I'd love to hear the analysis behind that.

Right, which is why I said Cupps played out of necessity. I’m guessing the future outlook on Cupps is different had he only played 9-10 mpg which I’m sure was the goal at the start of the season. To your last paragraph, I agree with you. But how many people have actually said this? A handful? Woodson very clearly tried to get guys like Love, Dingle, Knecht, etc just didn’t happen.

Cupps was a true freshman who played way too much out of necessity. Way too early to make that call for Gabe. Similarly to Gunn who just didn’t progress fast enough from freshman to sophomore year. Staff messed up not getting a lead/ball dominant guard in the portal last offseason. That issue has been addressed and then some this offseason.

Dodge and attack. Typical but expected.