hmmm Intentional tactics. I'm going to quietly slip this, as well as the OPSEC, into the positive file as I silo my feelings of the current direction of our program.
Divorce BEFORE you make any money! Do it quickly, do it often!
@dbmhoosier I have no idea who this Scoop person is, but damn, after a little interwebs searching, this Hall character seems to be one major risk. Seems talented enough, but a very very risky player. He's been at a different school every year, is a liability on D, appears to be somewhat inefficient, was suspended this past season by his coach, and signed a contract with the Heat and then challenged the NCAA after he didn't make it (not sure I can any longer hold this against players though).
Have to trust the staff at this point (and I doubt we have the $$ for him), but seems the risk might now be worth the reward on this one.
@dbmhoosier I have no idea who this Scoop person is, but damn, after a little interwebs searching, this Hall character seems to be one major risk. Seems talented enough, but a very very risky player. He's been at a different school every year, is a liability on D, appears to be somewhat inefficient, was suspended this past season by his coach, and signed a contract with the Heat and then challenged the NCAA after he didn't make it (not sure I can any longer hold this against players though).
Have to trust the staff at this point (and I doubt we have the $$ for him), but seems the risk might now be worth the reward on this one.
I agree. The Auburn people say he's a massive cancer and every team he's played for got better after he left. Could just be sour grapes. If we do bring him in and the season disappoints DDs seat will be on fire.
Bummer. You guys had me all excited about the Hoosiers getting him, only to throw a large bucket of water on the flames.
OK, we''ll roll with what we've got!
@dbmhoosier Gotta be something off with him. His size, skill, all of it... if he had his head on straight, he'd have been in the NBA long ago. Basketball wise, he's a difference maker. And many of us, myself included, are regularly on here gnashing our teeth about the lack of length and athleticism up front. He's not a center, but he is a very versatile, long, skilled, athlete that is good enough that he'd instantly be one of our better players, and would improve an area of need, basketball wise. But I sure hope that CDD isn't the type of coach that would jeopardize the locker room... if he's even close to as bad a teammate as past programs say he is. And obviously its pretty unlikely he gets another year, unless I'm behind on something.
But damn... he's really good. Ha ha.
@openwheel I don't know that I'd say "we'll roll with what we have'" The coach himself said they were intentional about keeping the last spot open and I don't think he'd have said that if they weren't at least looking at bringing someone else on. Might not be this guy, but I'd say they have or are considering it.
@openwheel I don't know that I'd say "we'll roll with what we have'" The coach himself said they were intentional about keeping the last spot open and I don't think he'd have said that if they weren't at least looking at bringing someone else on. Might not be this guy, but I'd say they have or are considering it.
Yes....but the way he said does is not encouraging, unless he is being coy.
He doesn't say regarding "if we need an additional piece"; rather, he says "if we do decide to add another piece".
I think he's saying we may add another piece if it falls into our lap and it makes us marginally better....like an old lady who goes shopping in a used furniture store for a lamp. Alternatively, they might have left a spot open to guard against the effects of an early injury to one of the Bigs or a reinjury to Burton.
I think had they decided that they "needed" another piece to reach whatever goals they are aiming for, they would have been more active in the later days of the portal or internationally. Looking at the borderline top 30 roster tells us a lot about their expectations/goals for next year.
Putting the best light on it, the goal may be to finish 5th to 7th in the BT this year, but to be better set up for next year.
If I'm wrong and there really is some grand scheme for this year to which we are not privy, I'd be pleased. But I doubt it; I think Durwood is pretty much an open book.
I think they think they put together a roster that can compete at the top. Top 20, top 4-5 of the Big Ten.
They may be wrong, they may be way wrong... Or you may be wrong. But doubt donors were sold 'top 30' and '5th to 7th' and 'let's start there and do better in the future'.
I think they think they put together a roster that can compete at the top. Top 20, top 4-5 of the Big Ten.
They may be wrong, they may be way wrong... Or you may be wrong. But doubt donors were sold 'top 30' and '5th to 7th' and 'let's start there and do better in the future'.
I disagree with your analysis.
I don't think they think they have a roster that can finish 4th in the BT. I think it unlikely that this roster will crack the top three, ahead of Illinois, Michigan or Michigan State. And USC has 3 decent starters back and a transfer + recruiting class that is thought to be better than ours. And there are programs like OSU, Maryland, Purdue, Nebraska, UCLA, and Wisconsin that will also be hoping for a 4-6 finish.
I agree that's not likely what the $ guys were told. I suspect there was substantial puffery involved. Salesmanship. I don't see any evidence that CDD and the gang are CIG-like in their evaluation skills. Quite the contrary when you consider what we paid Bailey & Conerway and recruiting Dorn & Miles and the injured players who never saw action and didn't seem upset about it. I do think it likely that they were told "we're building" for the future, and that this year is the necessary first step. I would doubt that they were told that this team will likely finish 4th or 5th in the BT. Because I have never heard CDD guarantee anything of significance. Have you?
I think they think they put together a roster that can compete at the top. Top 20, top 4-5 of the Big Ten.
They may be wrong, they may be way wrong... Or you may be wrong. But doubt donors were sold 'top 30' and '5th to 7th' and 'let's start there and do better in the future'.
I disagree with your analysis.
I don't think they think they have a roster that can finish 4th in the BT. I think it unlikely that this roster will crack the top three, ahead of Illinois, Michigan or Michigan State. And USC has 3 decent starters back and a transfer + recruiting class that is thought to be better than ours. And there are programs like OSU, Maryland, Purdue, Nebraska, UCLA, and Wisconsin that will also be hoping for a 4-6 finish.
I agree that's not likely what the $ guys were told. I suspect there was substantial puffery involved. Salesmanship. I don't see any evidence that CDD and the gang are CIG-like in their evaluation skills. Quite the contrary when you consider what we paid Bailey & Conerway and recruiting Dorn & Miles and the injured players who never saw action and didn't seem upset about it. I do think it likely that they were told "we're building" for the future, and that this year is the necessary first step. I would doubt that they were told that this team will likely finish 4th or 5th in the BT. Because I have never heard CDD guarantee anything of significance. Have you?
Why shouldn't we finish top 3-4? We have arguably the easiest schedule in the league.
I think they think they put together a roster that can compete at the top. Top 20, top 4-5 of the Big Ten.
They may be wrong, they may be way wrong... Or you may be wrong. But doubt donors were sold 'top 30' and '5th to 7th' and 'let's start there and do better in the future'.
I disagree with your analysis.
I don't think they think they have a roster that can finish 4th in the BT. I think it unlikely that this roster will crack the top three, ahead of Illinois, Michigan or Michigan State. And USC has 3 decent starters back and a transfer + recruiting class that is thought to be better than ours. And there are programs like OSU, Maryland, Purdue, Nebraska, UCLA, and Wisconsin that will also be hoping for a 4-6 finish.
I agree that's not likely what the $ guys were told. I suspect there was substantial puffery involved. Salesmanship. I don't see any evidence that CDD and the gang are CIG-like in their evaluation skills. Quite the contrary when you consider what we paid Bailey & Conerway and recruiting Dorn & Miles and the injured players who never saw action and didn't seem upset about it. I do think it likely that they were told "we're building" for the future, and that this year is the necessary first step. I would doubt that they were told that this team will likely finish 4th or 5th in the BT. Because I have never heard CDD guarantee anything of significance. Have you?
Why shouldn't we finish top 3-4? We have arguably the easiest schedule in the league.
That's a good point.....haven't really studied that angle.
But it wouldn't have figured into planning as the schedule came later.
@dbmhoosier Even Cignetti rarely, if ever, guarantees any specific levels of success. I honestly have no idea how competitive this roster is, or will be, with the top teams in the conference. I'm not sure many on this board do either. The only thing that seems clear, to me, is the roster is better and deeper, at all positions, than it was last year. But how much of that gap did they close versus last year? That's difficult to know.
A couple things going for IU, before the season even starts... the schedule is likely one of the easiest of any of the teams... and I don't think the top of the league is nearly as strong this year, as it was last year. Michigan obviously won't be as good as last year. Purdue likely won't be as good. Michigan State and Illinois both return a lot, but I'm not certain either will be any better than they were last year. Teams like Wisconsin, Nebraska, and Iowa all lost a lot of really good veteran leaders. On paper, IU had one of the top portal classes in the country. Burton, Sherrell, Yiggy, Lindsey, Mustaf... all solid to very good players on high major teams. And I think we'll probably get some decent contributions from Sisley, Harris, and one or two of the frosh.
I would say today, Illinois and Michigan State are the only two teams that definitely have better rosters and teams. Michigan lost their entire front court, its certainly not a given their incoming guys will be anywhere near the same level as last year's guys were. Purdue... they're going to be solid because Painter is always solid, but their roster is definitely not as good as it has been recently. Wisconsin will also be solid, but they lost quite a lot, and Gard hasn't exactly set the world on fire with recruiting and the portal. USC will be really talented, but I'm not sure its a given that they'll be a consistently very good basketball team. Washington, UCLA, Iowa, Nebraska, Minny, PSU, Rutgers, Maryland, NW, Oregon... I'd say all have just as many questions as IU does, with most of them having lesser talent.
Long winded way of saying... don't know if IU is top 4-5 level... but its for sure not a given that they aren't. They're more likely to finish top 5 than they are bottom 5.
I think they think they put together a roster that can compete at the top. Top 20, top 4-5 of the Big Ten.
They may be wrong, they may be way wrong... Or you may be wrong. But doubt donors were sold 'top 30' and '5th to 7th' and 'let's start there and do better in the future'.
I disagree with your analysis.
I don't think they think they have a roster that can finish 4th in the BT. I think it unlikely that this roster will crack the top three, ahead of Illinois, Michigan or Michigan State. And USC has 3 decent starters back and a transfer + recruiting class that is thought to be better than ours. And there are programs like OSU, Maryland, Purdue, Nebraska, UCLA, and Wisconsin that will also be hoping for a 4-6 finish.
I agree that's not likely what the $ guys were told. I suspect there was substantial puffery involved. Salesmanship. I don't see any evidence that CDD and the gang are CIG-like in their evaluation skills. Quite the contrary when you consider what we paid Bailey & Conerway and recruiting Dorn & Miles and the injured players who never saw action and didn't seem upset about it. I do think it likely that they were told "we're building" for the future, and that this year is the necessary first step. I would doubt that they were told that this team will likely finish 4th or 5th in the BT. Because I have never heard CDD guarantee anything of significance. Have you?
Why shouldn't we finish top 3-4? We have arguably the easiest schedule in the league.
because this coach hasn't proven he can deliver those types of results yet. Can he? I think it's a stretch.
@hoosiers94 He's proven he can contend and compete for conference titles, consistently, at a lower level D1 school. He has not proven he can do it in the B10. But he hasn't proven he can't, either. His Drake accomplishments are relevant. They're an indicator he can outperform his peer schools. Now... can he do that in the high major/B10 environment... remains to be seen. Just like Cignetti, he doesn't need to prove that he can coach the game. He's shown he can coach the game of basketball, very consistently well. Unlike Cignetti, he didn't immediately show he can make the jump and carry that ability over to high major competition. There are examples to prove really anyones argument on whether a coach should be able to win immediately, or not... and if their early results are a sign for how they'll always be.
So I guess we'll see...
His second roster is better than his first. We'll see if he did a better job assembling the right pieces, and then if he does a better job coaching them.
@dbmhoosier Even Cignetti rarely, if ever, guarantees any specific levels of success. I honestly have no idea how competitive this roster is, or will be, with the top teams in the conference. I'm not sure many on this board do either. The only thing that seems clear, to me, is the roster is better and deeper, at all positions, than it was last year. But how much of that gap did they close versus last year? That's difficult to know.
A couple things going for IU, before the season even starts... the schedule is likely one of the easiest of any of the teams... and I don't think the top of the league is nearly as strong this year, as it was last year. Michigan obviously won't be as good as last year. Purdue likely won't be as good. Michigan State and Illinois both return a lot, but I'm not certain either will be any better than they were last year. Teams like Wisconsin, Nebraska, and Iowa all lost a lot of really good veteran leaders. On paper, IU had one of the top portal classes in the country. Burton, Sherrell, Yiggy, Lindsey, Mustaf... all solid to very good players on high major teams. And I think we'll probably get some decent contributions from Sisley, Harris, and one or two of the frosh.
I would say today, Illinois and Michigan State are the only two teams that definitely have better rosters and teams. Michigan lost their entire front court, its certainly not a given their incoming guys will be anywhere near the same level as last year's guys were. Purdue... they're going to be solid because Painter is always solid, but their roster is definitely not as good as it has been recently. Wisconsin will also be solid, but they lost quite a lot, and Gard hasn't exactly set the world on fire with recruiting and the portal. USC will be really talented, but I'm not sure its a given that they'll be a consistently very good basketball team. Washington, UCLA, Iowa, Nebraska, Minny, PSU, Rutgers, Maryland, NW, Oregon... I'd say all have just as many questions as IU does, with most of them having lesser talent.
Long winded way of saying... don't know if IU is top 4-5 level... but its for sure not a given that they aren't. They're more likely to finish top 5 than they are bottom 5.
Re:
Cig---I bet he did pretty much guarantee success to Whitten and Dolson....remember when Pond's dad asked him about the prospect of going to a bowl game and Cig told him something like 'Bowl game hell, we're going to win it all..."? And how confident he said he was after he reviewed our '24 schedule? I can't remember exactly what he said, but it was something to the effect of he knew he'd win at least 8 or 9 games right off the bat, and that was a big reason he took the job. I think he would have said as much to Whitten & Dolson.
Can't argue much with what you say otherwise except I think you're slighting Michigan. Best guard duo in the country and a 6-5 guard McDonald's AA type (McCoy) off the bench or starting at the 3. Upfront Thiam and Estrella project to be as good a combo as the Turk & Sherrell, and they have 6-8 & 6-10 40ish ranked depth, as well as 6-10 Jalen Reed from LSU. They could use another high-regarded 6-6 or 6-7 wing for a FF run but do have a couple of bodies. They won't be as good as last year but should be easily top 10 unless the coach is a dud. Wisconsin won't fall off much. They have 7-0 Winter & 6-10 Rapp back and 2 vet foreign guards (Foxwell & Ball) who are ranked the #3 & 5 international players coming into the BT. Ard is very comfortable with them being the starting guards. They also have a copy of portal guys who are smart shooter types for the wing.
Barring injury, Purdue, Maryland, OSU, Wisconsin, UCLA & Nebraska are all more likely to finish #5 than in the last 5. 3 of those spots are taken---PSU, Rutgers, and NW, and Washington, Minnesota & Oregon are not likely to be very good.