@hoosiers94 same... but it does appear to be improving. Should it need to improve? I spent too much time harping on coaches building foundational things in to their programs, from August through November, under Woodson... to not say its a big concern. As consistently running an offense how the coach intends it to be run, should be a foundational thing that's not inconsistent, at this point.
And the lack of an anchor big signing is, for sure, a head scratcher. My educated guess on things that led to that happening... He did go after a couple, I'm sure when it all started, he just assumed he'd land one or more of them. Big men were very, very expensive in last year's portal, to the point where guys like Reed Bailey, who wasn't even viewed as an actual big, were commanding 1 million bucks. I still think he should have made sure to get one, and should have sacrificed some "wing" money, to make it happen. But its pretty obvious the style he is trying to play, he values ball skills, movement, passing willingness and abilities, etc... above all. I would guess when he got Bailey, Alexis, and Harris...he felt more comfortable, and didn't see the big situation as any sort of "emergency". I think that was a mistake, if all of this is anywhere near true. But its the only way I can logically make it make somewhat sense. You/we have to acknowledge CDD is a good, knowledgeable, college basketball coach. Obviously he understood the need, relative to what he was wanting to accomplish, relative to the B10 landscape. I think in the end, it might have been as simple as... he didn't want to "waste" close to a million bucks on post depth. And didn't think spending 2 million plus was worth the spend, to get a good one. And before the snarky Bailey comments... I really don't believe CDD recruited him to be an anchor 5 man. He wasn't listed as a center or big on 247, everyone that evaluated him mentioned he isn't an anchor big. Pretty obvious, especially with him being one of the first signees, that CDD saw him as more of a 4 man, initially. He got Alexis and Harris after him. And just never got a true anchor big. Probably planned to, but ended up "running out of money". If this next portal/HS class ends without a physical big, I'll be very active, and very vocal on this board heating up the criticisms. Which is ironic, because I spent 4 years under Woodson complaining about him focusing TOO much on bigs, and not having a program attractive to elite guards/wings. If there was some sort of choice... high level guards and wings vs. any high level bigs... I'd choose guards and wings all day long. Can't win without them.
In the end, I just think CDD is quietly building something better than you, and most others, are acknowledging. We'll find out over the next month or so! I don't think a bunch of losses automatically means he's not building something good. But obviously it'd be nice to see us pick off some good teams. And if we are gonna lose to the Michigan and Purdue's of the world... seeing real competitiveness would be nice as well. We did see that against Louisville and Kentucky, in my opinion. Not that Kentucky is some world beater. But LVille is a 2nd weekend level NCAA team. And Kentucky has that level of talent. And we showed pretty long stretches in both those games, that we can thrive at that level. The stuff in the first and 2nd paragraphs got us, in those games... and they're concerning, for sure. But other things are working, and the things from paragraph 1 are improving. And CDD does appear to be adjusting to the limitations paragraph 2's concerns present.
Nebraska isn't really the challenge we're talking about. They're really good. But they're kinda similar to us. Michigan, Purdue, Illinois, MSU... those teams have very balanced talent... good guards, good bigs... Kentucky and Washington are...average... teams built that way. But not as good as any of those teams. We'll need to play better to compete with any of those 4 teams. We'll see how it goes!
The record means nothing to me right now until we play and beat good teams. I have seen this early hype play out too many teams with the IU teams of the last ten years when you beat bad teams early and people think we are way better than we are.
I just looked Woodson was 13-3 and 4-1 in the big ten to start last year. He than went on to lose 8 of the next 10 when the schedule got harder. Beating Maryland and Penn State is just not impressive to me. Go beat Nebraska , Michigan State, and Purdue and that will prove something. But if they can only beat the bottom feeders they are not making the tourney
Yep, you definitely have to keep that record in perspective. I've done these posts on the old boards throughout the Bigfoot/Archie tenures but our record at this point of time in the season in all those years is almost always within 1-2 games. Our metrics, otherwise, are okay (they were often much worse during the Woodson era at this point).
We've mostly beat the teams we should (and destroyed many of them). We've been upset on the road to a 'bad' team thats not quite as bad as we thought at the time. We've yet to get a solid Q1 or marquee win. We really need to pull the upset on Sat. at home to start moving the needle.
@surjay I think it would feel like an upset if we beat Nebraska on Saturday. But metrics wise, and I suspect when the line comes out, it won't be viewed as much of an upset, if at all.
I spent most of Archie's first two years advocating for him, based off his solid metrics, so here pretty soon... I'll try to make myself abandon that, if actual good wins are absent. But up until now... we've played who we've played... we handled some decent teams. All 3 of the teams we lost to are solid. There are no IPFW type losses. There are no Louisville or Auburn type debacles. The record might be similar to what we've seen from the last 2 coaches, but the way we're getting to the record isn't similar, at all.
The record means nothing to me right now until we play and beat good teams. I have seen this early hype play out too many teams with the IU teams of the last ten years when you beat bad teams early and people think we are way better than we are.
I just looked Woodson was 13-3 and 4-1 in the big ten to start last year. He than went on to lose 8 of the next 10 when the schedule got harder. Beating Maryland and Penn State is just not impressive to me. Go beat Nebraska , Michigan State, and Purdue and that will prove something. But if they can only beat the bottom feeders they are not making the tourney
Yep, you definitely have to keep that record in perspective. I've done these posts on the old boards throughout the Bigfoot/Archie tenures but our record at this point of time in the season in all those years is almost always within 1-2 games. Our metrics, otherwise, are okay (they were often much worse during the Woodson era at this point).
We've mostly beat the teams we should (and destroyed many of them). We've been upset on the road to a 'bad' team thats not quite as bad as we thought at the time. We've yet to get a solid Q1 or marquee win. We really need to pull the upset on Sat. at home to start moving the needle.
so far what you're saying is we haven't done anything that Woody didn't accomplish
so far what you're saying is we haven't done anything that Woody didn't accomplish
Not really. Even with the same/similar records the last 2 Woodson years, our KP was 56 and 94 at that point compared to 24 today. We actually blow bad teams out more often than not and play a modern style of ball. Woodson did that with top 5 resources as well and after having said resources for 4 years to get something going.
We have much to prove this year, but we're definitely above where Bigfoot had us at this point those last couple years.
so far what you're saying is we haven't done anything that Woody didn't accomplish
Not really. Even with the same/similar records the last 2 Woodson years, our KP was 56 and 94 at that point compared to 24 today. We actually blow bad teams out more often than not and play a modern style of ball. Woodson did that with top 5 resources as well and after having said resources for 4 years to get something going.
We have much to prove this year, but we're definitely above where Bigfoot had us at this point those last couple years.
what do your eyes tell you? Forget all the AI statistics.
The record means nothing to me right now until we play and beat good teams. I have seen this early hype play out too many teams with the IU teams of the last ten years when you beat bad teams early and people think we are way better than we are.
I just looked Woodson was 13-3 and 4-1 in the big ten to start last year. He than went on to lose 8 of the next 10 when the schedule got harder. Beating Maryland and Penn State is just not impressive to me. Go beat Nebraska , Michigan State, and Purdue and that will prove something. But if they can only beat the bottom feeders they are not making the tourney
Yep, you definitely have to keep that record in perspective. I've done these posts on the old boards throughout the Bigfoot/Archie tenures but our record at this point of time in the season in all those years is almost always within 1-2 games. Our metrics, otherwise, are okay (they were often much worse during the Woodson era at this point).
We've mostly beat the teams we should (and destroyed many of them). We've been upset on the road to a 'bad' team thats not quite as bad as we thought at the time. We've yet to get a solid Q1 or marquee win. We really need to pull the upset on Sat. at home to start moving the needle.
so far what you're saying is we haven't done anything that Woody didn't accomplish
To me not really but I have been more invested in football now. Marquette has turned out to be flat out awful so that is not even really a good win anymore. I guess Kansas State is ok but everyone else are teams we should 100% have beaten.
so far what you're saying is we haven't done anything that Woody didn't accomplish
Not really. Even with the same/similar records the last 2 Woodson years, our KP was 56 and 94 at that point compared to 24 today. We actually blow bad teams out more often than not and play a modern style of ball. Woodson did that with top 5 resources as well and after having said resources for 4 years to get something going.
We have much to prove this year, but we're definitely above where Bigfoot had us at this point those last couple years.
what do your eyes tell you? Forget all the AI statistics.
Compared to bigfoot? Yeah I see an upgrade with less resources
Fair or not, fans will give DD a (very) short leash because of this magic carpet ride with football (which may never end). Win right away or piss off--that's the new normal. Welcome to the "Google Me" era of college sports.
There's only one Cig, and he's ours. There are many DD types coaching college basketball right now. Meh.
I think most fans understand that the Cignetti experience here is nearly unprecidented in college sports. The only comparison in my memory is RMK's two seasons '74-75 and '75-76. You can't really compare other coaches to guys like that. Just be thankful you got to witness it in your lifetime. It's in no way "the new normal" and if that is your expectation you're going to be disappointed soon. Even RMK had down years.
ntFair or not, fans will give DD a (very) short leash because of this magic carpet ride with football (which may never end). Win right away or piss off--that's the new normal. Welcome to the "Google Me" era of college sports.
There's only one Cig, and he's ours. There are many DD types coaching college basketball right now. Meh.
I barely paid attention to football until late last year. Now is mostly all I pay attention too. I mean we have not won a national title in a main sport since 1987 in basketball so this is a very huge deal right now which was clear by the amount of fans we had last night. Soccer titles are nice but its not at all a main fan sport. I think for DD to win at a high level he is going to have to do it with guys like cig had last year and coach the heck out of them. I dont see DD getting tons of NIL this spring its all going to cig and it should he deserves it 100%. You have to go with the hot program that is just how it works in the NIL era. Throwing a ton on money at the bbal program will be a hard sell unless they win.
But even if DD has two not great years and does not make the tourney are they really going to run him out of town. With what football is doing they may not want to go through paying out another buyout and going through this all over again in two years.
@robert Olson
nt
I barely paid attention to football until late last year. Now is mostly all I pay attention too. I mean we have not won a national title in a main sport since 1987 in basketball so this is a very huge deal right now which was clear by the amount of fans we had last night. Soccer titles are nice but its not at all a main fan sport. I think for DD to win at a high level he is going to have to do it with guys like cig had last year and coach the heck out of them. I dont see DD getting tons of NIL this spring its all going to cig and it should he deserves it 100%. You have to go with the hot program that is just how it works in the NIL era. Throwing a ton on money at the bbal program will be a hard sell unless they win.
But even if DD has two not great years and does not make the tourney are they really going to run him out of town. With what football is doing they may not want to go through paying out another buyout and going through this all over again in two years.
****************************************************************************
this is really where I am at. What has occurred with the IU football team (and conversely with IU basketball over the past 25 years ) has transformed my interest away from college basketball and towards college football. Consider:
CFB is by far the biggest college sport. “March madness” is a fun couple of weeks and the public certainly enjoys filling out brackets, but CBB imho is totally dwarfed by CFB.
Add this-the mercenary nature of college athletics (NIL, the importance of boosters in an ownership role, the portal, and what seems to be expanded eligibility for athletes) has really killed my interest in CBB. ironically, even though the money is greater in CFB, for some reason this factor doesn’t seem to be harming my interest in college football. So, I went from being obsessed about one sport, and having zero interest in another, to suddenly being interested in CFB and in some ways detesting college basketball. Strange as both sports have the same mercenary aspect, the money is even bigger in football, but for me at least it’s more personal. I view college basketball very negatively…the lack of rules make it a joke. But, I don’t have that personal connection to CFB. it’s like I have been awakened to a new sport.
this is just how I feel. I realize that there are IU football fans that are long suffering college FB fans. Yes, I am just late to the bandwagon, but really my newfound interest in CFB isn’t just diverting my interest away from IU hoops, it’s given me a reason to ignore CBB in general, a sport that I used to obsess over and now that disgusts me in many regards.
I will still watch parts of IU basketball games, but the sport has taken a big hit in my interest level.
Latest Post: Anyone remember La Bamba restaurant Our newest member: Doug Beder Recent Posts Unread Posts
