College Bball Thread

[go iu bb 6,232]

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/10125383-79-olivier-rioux-sets-world-record-as-tallest-teenager-committed-to-florida-cbb

How did Painter miss this guy?

[Class of '66 Old Fart 84,986]

Todd's son

[Stuhoo 81,316]

On 6/10/2024 at 1:41 PM, Stuhoo said:

 

 

On 6/10/2024 at 2:31 PM, Stuhoo said:

 

'Scuse me while I self-bump:

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/40393973/sources-lakers-hiring-jj-redick-4-year-deal-coach

[HoosierHoopster 7,102]

3 hours ago, Stuhoo said:

 

 

'Scuse me while I self-bump:

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/40393973/sources-lakers-hiring-jj-redick-4-year-deal-coach

Redick = untested second choice step down for the Lakers. He’s a “we’ll see” option among the what is it now 5 or 6 recent failed Lakers coaches with LeBron….

Windhorst said it best: “high risk, high reward.” Zero coaching experience 

[DChoosier 8,587]

1 hour ago, HoosierHoopster said:

Redick = untested second choice step down for the Lakers. He’s a “we’ll see” option among the what is it now 5 or 6 recent failed Lakers coaches with LeBron….

Windhorst said it best: “high risk, high reward.” Zero coaching experience 

Four really bad words for Redick:

”LeBron is my boss”

Four really good words for Redick:

”Four year guaranteed contract”

He is getting paid no matter what.

[Demo 20,316]

https://x.com/kenpomeroy/status/1803887790750601691
 

Pomeroy’s a smart guy, but this is a REALLY bad take. The increased D-1 teams doesn’t consist of schools that are getting at large bids.Rewarding more marginal power conference teams, which is all you’d be doing, doesn’t make the Tournament any better at all.

[Scotty R 2,208]

36 minutes ago, Demo said:

https://x.com/kenpomeroy/status/1803887790750601691
 

Pomeroy’s a smart guy, but this is a REALLY bad take. The increased D-1 teams doesn’t consist of schools that are getting at large bids.Rewarding more marginal power conference teams, which is all you’d be doing, doesn’t make the Tournament any better at all.

. If they expand the tournament all you will be doing is adding more mediocre power conference teams.

[Hardwood83 4,774]

14 minutes ago, Scotty R said:

. If they expand the tournament all you will be doing is adding more mediocre power conference teams.

It's stupid, like most of the direction of college sports in the last several years. This is just adding more 'content' to pad the run time. Like those annoying youtube videos where they spend 10mins telling you what they are gonna say, take 30 secs to say it, then spend another 10mins telling you what they just said. Empty filler that damages the product. The point is no longer to crown the best team, or any semblance of that, the point is to provide as much TV time as possible in mid-March. 

[AZ Hoosier 7,371]

It's stupid, like most of the direction of college sports in the last several years. This is just adding more 'content' to pad the run time. Like those annoying youtube videos where they spend 10mins telling you what they are gonna say, take 30 secs to say it, then spend another 10mins telling you what they just said. Empty filler that damages the product. The point is no longer to crown the best team, or any semblance of that, the point is to provide as much TV time as possible in mid-March. 

More teams = more games = more $$$

Always follow the money.

I would argue that we should limit the dance to conference tournament winners. That would effectively make the conference tourneys ”play-in” tournaments, and make them more important to the schools and conferences. And just maybe it would stop or slow the insane movement towards the super conference model.

[Maedhros 627]

1 hour ago, Demo said:

https://x.com/kenpomeroy/status/1803887790750601691
 

Pomeroy’s a smart guy, but this is a REALLY bad take. The increased D-1 teams doesn’t consist of schools that are getting at large bids.Rewarding more marginal power conference teams, which is all you’d be doing, doesn’t make the Tournament any better at all.

For this rebuttal, you'd have to assume the only change to D1 over the past 40 years has been backfilling teams at the bottom. It's more likely that the same dynamics growing the number of schools capable of taking on a D1 schedule are also working on the schools competing for tournament bids. It's hard to measure, because sports is a zero-sum game, but I'd contend there are more schools of Tournament-quality than ever before. It's why we can have the debate about including power conference schools vs mid majors. There's talent everywhere now. A Final Four team can come from the Horizon, or from a power conference AQ that wouldn't have been in the field otherwise.

How we pick teams is a different conversation. Frankly, there are ways to do it which don't involve a committee at all, as John Gasaway has long argued. But you're not going to harm the NCAA Tournament by adding Indiana St, even if it means adding Oklahoma, Seton Hall, and St Johns from power conferences.

[Scotty R 2,208]

56 minutes ago, AZ Hoosier said:

More teams = more games = more $$$

Always follow the money.

I would argue that we should limit the dance to conference tournament winners. That would effectively make the conference tourneys ”play-in” tournaments, and make them more important to the schools and conferences. And just maybe it would stop or slow the insane movement towards the super conference model.

I was watching CBS college basketball podcast and Norlander said the tournament won't make more money until the TV contracts are to be renewed in 2032. He was totally against the tournament expanding which most college basketball people are according to him. He even said there are plenty in the NCAA that is against expansion 

[Scotty R 2,208]

49 minutes ago, Maedhros said:

For this rebuttal, you'd have to assume the only change to D1 over the past 40 years has been backfilling teams at the bottom. It's more likely that the same dynamics growing the number of schools capable of taking on a D1 schedule are also working on the schools competing for tournament bids. It's hard to measure, because sports is a zero-sum game, but I'd contend there are more schools of Tournament-quality than ever before. It's why we can have the debate about including power conference schools vs mid majors. There's talent everywhere now. A Final Four team can come from the Horizon, or from a power conference AQ that wouldn't have been in the field otherwise.

How we pick teams is a different conversation. Frankly, there are ways to do it which don't involve a committee at all, as John Gasaway has long argued. But you're not going to harm the NCAA Tournament by adding Indiana St, even if it means adding Oklahoma, Seton Hall, and St Johns from power conferences.

Adding those teams wouldn't have made the tournament better either. Just look at UVA where they didn't belong in the tournament but made it. You should have put in ISU in instead if them and everything would have been fine. Norlander on CBS podcast last night also said that with the elimination of the Pac 12 there are going to be more at large bids available now. It eliminates another automatic bid plus the at large bids the Pacers 12 use to get

[HoosierHoopster 7,102]

On 6/21/2024 at 9:46 AM, Scotty R said:

Adding those teams wouldn't have made the tournament better either. Just look at UVA where they didn't belong in the tournament but made it. You should have put in ISU in instead if them and everything would have been fine. Norlander on CBS podcast last night also said that with the elimination of the Pac 12 there are going to be more at large bids available now. It eliminates another automatic bid plus the at large bids the Pacers 12 use to get

I’m not really sure where I fall in this conversation, but some of the counter points are that what makes March “Madness” are the schools you wouldn’t pick running through the schools you would to the SW16, EE and FF repeatedly, and as said above that with the Portal (still relatively new) strong players are all over the field now. Basketball of course is a sport in which a few players can make a team. I hate the idea of limiting the tournament to conference winners. The magic of March Madness is the Cinderellas. End of the day it’s mostly about money, and the tournament is already large, but I can see the reasons to consider it

[str8baller 5,338]

I would prefer going back to 32 than expanding any further.  Ideally they should at least go back to 64.

[Scotty R 2,208]

1 hour ago, HoosierHoopster said:

I’m not really sure where I fall in this conversation, but some of the counter points are that what makes March “Madness” are the schools you wouldn’t pick running through the schools you would to the SW16, EE and FF repeatedly, and as said above that with the Portal (still relatively new) strong players are all over the field now. Basketball of course is a sport in which a few players can make a team. I hate the idea of limiting the tournament to conference winners. The magic of March Madness is the Cinderellas. End of the day it’s mostly about money, and the tournament is already large, but I can see the reasons to consider it

It is perfect at 64

[TheWatShot 14,092]

53 minutes ago, str8baller said:

I would prefer going back to 32 than expanding any further.  Ideally they should at least go back to 64.

LOL, we'd probably never make it again if it was only 32. We hardly ever make it now at 68. 

[Stuhoo 81,316]

17 minutes ago, TheWatShot said:

LOL, we'd probably never make it again if it was only 32. We hardly ever make it now at 68. 

Only if you consider two out of three “hardly ever.” And one of those we would have easily made a 32 team field (unless it was conference champs only).

I strongly suspect that with the team we’ve bought, this year will be three out of four.

[IUFAN1976 3,295]

3 hours ago, str8baller said:

I would prefer going back to 32 than expanding any further.  Ideally they should at least go back to 64.

We would bet at best NIT bound every year with our current coach!  Leave it the way it is and we have a chance to make at least 50% of the time, lol

[Demo 20,316]

2 hours ago, Stuhoo said:

I strongly suspect that with the team we’ve bought, this year will be three out of four.

Sounds like a quote from a Lou Henson alumni event, circa 1989. 

[TheWatShot 14,092]

2 hours ago, Stuhoo said:

Only if you consider two out of three “hardly ever.” And one of those we would have easily made a 32 team field (unless it was conference champs only).

I strongly suspect that with the team we’ve bought, this year will be three out of four.

And only 6 times in the last 15. We haven't made 3 in a row since the mid-2000's. We'd be on the outside looking in a lot more than not if only 32 teams got in.