Upset with recruiting?

[KingPG21 6,587]

Until we lose a big game due to our 5 being a role player, or in a bad matchup, etc. Then it will be identified as a recruiting error/coaching failure. See how easy that is.
Since our roster construction is so terrible and coach clearly has shown no prior ability to build a winning team: All Crean needs to do is chart out his roster 4 years in the future so he can keep track of when to fill needs....... <--- this is the kind of thing that gets said on here. This isn't some video game.

We lost to Purdue twice because Hammons destroyed us

[87ashtonhoosier 150]

Does your daughter attend Marian?

Yes she did

[KingPG21 6,587]

We lost to Purdue twice because Hammons destroyed us

Oh and Harrell destroyed us as well

[johnsoniu 6,524]

Yes she did

 

Ha, I thought I was the only member from around here. I'll have to buy you a beer sometime.

[KingPG21 6,587]

Wait, you're complaining about Crean not getting McIntosh, because that is a bull carp argument. McIntosh was a 3 star guard, who would have probably played more off the ball. We don't really need more off the ball guards. Not to mention he wasn't highly rated, look at guys like Etherington, Davis, and Hartman. All low rated Indiana kids he go, that plenty in the fan base didn't want because of their ranking. I'm not even a fan of his recruiting, but these arguments aren't exactly fair

And I just gotta laugh about complaining about losing a 2 star recruit to Ball State. These are the same level schools you guys are complaining about us competing against for these lower tier recruits

[MikeRoberts 7,057]

And I just gotta laugh about complaining about losing a 2 star recruit to Ball State. These are the same level schools you guys are complaining about us competing against for these lower tier recruits

I didn't make the argument but I will say this. It's about talent evaluation and knowing when a 3* is really just that and we can let him go to Ball State, or if that 3* is much more and we can't afford to let him go to Butler. I won't hold any one kid against Crean, but there have been a slew of in state kids that never received an offer from IU and they are key players for teams like Notre Dame, PU, Butler etc

[seanmm1971 1,437]

We lost to Purdue twice because Hammons destroyed us

We won, but Hammonds destroyed us when Cody was here. He has our number. He'd be a lottery pick if he played the rest of the season like he does against us

[ctown2grhoosier 380]

And I just gotta laugh about complaining about losing a 2 star recruit to Ball State. These are the same level schools you guys are complaining about us competing against for these lower tier recruits

I'm just saying if we're going to take low rated recruits like April and Priller I'd rather us take these type of kids from the state. I would rather see guys like McIntosh, Sellers, and Sam Longwood on our team than guys like Priller, April and Robinson that give us nothing.

[KingPG21 6,587]

I didn't make the argument but I will say this. It's about talent evaluation and knowing when a 3* is really just that and we can let him go to Ball State, or if that 3* is much more and we can't afford to let him go to Butler. I won't hold any one kid against Crean, but there have been a slew of in state kids that never received an offer from IU and they are key players for teams like Notre Dame, PU, Butler etc

I get that, but still disagree. With a guy like McIntosh, how much do you actually think he'd play for us. We'd still have Yogi, JBJ, Rojo, Z, and Stan Rob on the roster. Based on what we've seen do you really think he'd beat any of them for playing time, Stan probably. He is getting playing time because NW sucks. Taking a guy playing for a bad team and putting up decent numbers doesn't mean he'd come here and produce that same level. Same can be said about Sellers, who night in and night out is playing against lower level competition. I'm not saying they wouldn't produce here, but just looking at what they are doing for and/or against more talent deficient teams and saying they'd do that here isn't a fair argument. And in McIntosh's case, he wasn't a position of need with JBJ and Rojo coming in

[ctown2grhoosier 380]

I didn't make the argument but I will say this. It's about talent evaluation and knowing when a 3* is really just that and we can let him go to Ball State, or if that 3* is much more and we can't afford to let him go to Butler. I won't hold any one kid against Crean, but there have been a slew of in state kids that never received an offer from IU and they are key players for teams like Notre Dame, PU, Butler etc

Thank you! This is what I'm trying to say. Instead of having these type of kids on our team we wasted scholarships on guys like Jurkin, Capo, Priller, April, Robinson, Abell, etc. And these are not high level rated guys. Why go out of state for kids like these?

[KingPG21 6,587]

Thank you! This is what I'm trying to say. Instead of having these type of kids on our team we wasted scholarships on guys like Jurkin, Capo, Priller, April, Robinson, Abell, etc. And these are not high level rated guys. Why go out of state for kids like these?

We could just not recruit bad players all together..... But then who could get to transfer when we inevitably oversign.

[MartintheMopMan 7,765]

We lost to Purdue twice because Hammons destroyed us

I'm not sure how that's relevant to ShortSpace's assertion that if we just had " a 5 who is 6'10+ that is fundamentally sound that can defend on the post and rebound." as hoosiernsavga suggested that people would complain when we lost.

It's a hypothetical scenario, it doesn't matter that we lost to Purdue while not engaged in that scenario.

It's like if ShortSpace had said that if we hypothetically had Lyles and lost people would still complain and you said "well we lost to Purdue twice". That's true, but it's not very helpful.

[MikeRoberts 7,057]

Avoiding bad players altogether is a good start:) I think the issue is that if you look at the rosters of our neighboring schools, schools that have shown more success and stability than IU have Indiana players on their rosters and players of all positions and skill sets and in many cases, IU didn't recruit/offer them. If we can fill our roster with 13 kids that can play/help immediately then I don't care where they are from but if you are only going to have 8 real players and then 5 kids that are of no help, why not make those 5 kids Indiana kids?

[pumpfake 3,940]

A concept that I've considered is in regard to getting 5 star recruits (i.e those that will be one and dones).  It seems that there are three approaches to these players: 1) Bring in lots of talent EVERY year and be able to reload with blue chippers (UK semi-pro system), 2) Get that 1 superstar player and ride him to glory with a balanced roster of good players, and 3) Get the occasional elite recruit, but to do this have capable players in the program (and recruited) to take the position when that star bolts to the NBA.  Of course the opposite approach is to stock up with a balanced roster (by position and class) of competent, lesser talented players and build a solid team (Wisconsin model).  IMO, our recruiting is pretty much just grab the best players we can without regard to skill set or position.

[CottageGrove 563]

Thank you! This is what I'm trying to say. Instead of having these type of kids on our team we wasted scholarships on guys like Jurkin, Capo, Priller, April, Robinson, Abell, etc. And these are not high level rated guys. Why go out of state for kids like these?

 

Why do you keep saying that Robinson wasn't a high level rated guy? He was # 56 on Rivals. He hasn't produced to that level, but it doesn't change his recruiting ranking.

[KingPG21 6,587]

I'm not sure how that's relevant to ShortSpace's assertion that if we just had " a 5 who is 6'10+ that is fundamentally sound that can defend on the post and rebound." as hoosiernsavga suggested that people would complain when we lost.
It's a hypothetical scenario, it doesn't matter that we lost to Purdue while not engaged in that scenario.
It's like if ShortSpace had said that if we hypothetically had Lyles and lost people would still complain and you said "well we lost to Purdue twice". That's true, but it's not very helpful.

  

Until we lose a big game due to our 5 being a role player, or in a bad matchup, etc. Then it will be identified as a recruiting error/coaching failure. See how easy that is.

This is what I was talking about, I gave an example of 3 right off the top of my head. Acting like our lack of a 5 isn't an issue is beyond crazy.

[MartintheMopMan 7,765]

The sad thing is, even though it would be great we don't even need a 5 star C. We just need a 5 who is 6'10+ that is fundamentally sound that can defend on the post and rebound. Nothing great just a true 5 that can play his role.
Less of Jobes, Munirus, and Aprils and more like a George Leach (2004 Hoosier just an example) type.

 

 

Until we lose a big game due to our 5 being a role player, or in a bad matchup, etc. Then it will be identified as a recruiting error/coaching failure. See how easy that is.

Since our roster construction is so terrible and coach clearly has shown no prior ability to build a winning team: All Crean needs to do is chart out his roster 4 years in the future so he can keep track of when to fill needs....... <--- this is the kind of thing that gets said on here. This isn't some video game.

 

  
This is what I was talking about, I gave an example of 3 right off the top of my head. Acting like our lack of a 5 isn't an issue is beyond crazy.

And that's what ShortSpace was talking about. That post has nothing to do with acting like lacking a 5 isn't a big issue. It is saying...

"The sad thing is, even though it would be great we don't even need a 5 star C. We just need a 5 who is 6'10+ that is fundamentally sound that can defend on the post and rebound. Nothing great just a true 5 that can play his role."

"A 5 who is 6'10 and can play his role would be great up until we lose a big game due to our 5 being a role player, or in a bad matchup, etc. Then it will be identified as a recruiting error/coaching failure."

See how he isn't saying that not having a 5 isn't an issue in that post? He's saying that he doesn't think the fanbase would be any more OK with us losing in that hypothetical scenario.
 

[southernindianahoosier 422]

Why do you keep saying that Robinson wasn't a high level rated guy? He was # 56 on Rivals. He hasn't produced to that level, but it doesn't change his recruiting ranking.

He was #99 on espn top 100.

[CottageGrove 563]

He was #99 on espn top 100.

 

That's still not a lowly rated recruit as was being suggested. #99 out of 100 is still 99 out of thousands of players nationally.

[ctown2grhoosier 380]

Why do you keep saying that Robinson wasn't a high level rated guy? He was # 56 on Rivals. He hasn't produced to that level, but it doesn't change his recruiting ranking.

Oh wow I guess I didn't realize he was that highly rated. That kid has been such a disappointment. Wouldn't be surprised if he's not in candy stripes next year.