Frustrating to watch. Michigan State just played harder than Purdue did.
I don't know what to say about the turnovers. Some are just unbelievable. They make passes that have zero chance of being completed.
Michigan State had 15 more FG attempts and 21 more free throw attempts than Purdue. Can't beat anyone when they get that many more shots than you.
I think Sophie Swanson has totally lost interest.
Next two games are at Mackey. If things don't improve drastically I would be ok the youth movement mentioned above. Except for Lombard's minutes being reduced. I think she needs to be on the court as much as possible.
Dont take this wrong but what youth movement? McCarthy and puryear are already getting real minutes. They just cant stay on the floor due to foul trouble or turnovers - McCarthy had a real head scratcher in the first half.
Poole is a bit of an unknown because of her injury. Seems very talented but I dont think shes turning an 20 point loss into a win if she plays 25 minutes.
The other young players have either not played well or not shown growth. The second years and Reynolds have not been up to scratch when they have gotten minutes. This is a poorly constructed roster playing a poorly constructed schedule.
Are you talking about quads like basketball has the NET? Could be done but it would be hard with so few games. That's the good thing about basketball, there are twice as many games so you get a good sample size. But even with BCS rankings, I believe Indiana was still in. SMU might have been as well. Alabama probably hurt more by it than it was by the committee. But it'd be interesting to see how a NET style rating would work. It would have still greatly favored Indiana. Which the FPS or whatever it's called did as well. I think you'd be surprised that the rankings wouldn't change a whole lot. Humans and computers don't ever seem to be too far off.
Yea that is what I mean. There are also fewer teams so smaller sample size might be OK as long as quads are adjusted accordingly. I do agree indiana likely would still have made it. But it would effectively address the schedule or at least optics of it.
Bottom line is indiana really did fans and college football a disservice when it cancelled its game against Louisville. This debate about indiana wouldn’t be happening if they had not done this. There is precedent for “punishing” teams for bad schedules (TCU, Ball State, Florida State, etc) but we should be rewarding schools for playing good teams. Indiana getting in sends a horrible message that the pathway to the playoffs is easiest if you schedule cupcakes. I would rather incentivize teams into scheduling exciting non-conf games.
Are you talking about quads like basketball has the NET? Could be done but it would be hard with so few games. That's the good thing about basketball, there are twice as many games so you get a good sample size. But even with BCS rankings, I believe Indiana was still in. SMU might have been as well. Alabama probably hurt more by it than it was by the committee. But it'd be interesting to see how a NET style rating would work. It would have still greatly favored Indiana. Which the FPS or whatever it's called did as well. I think you'd be surprised that the rankings wouldn't change a whole lot. Humans and computers don't ever seem to be too far off.
Hate to that for anyone.....and terrible reminder of how fragile the body can be in those moments of competition. Prayers for Jaden Ivey on healing up and a full recovery - hopefully not as serious for his long-term health.
Yes and if you are referring to the Purdue guys left in the portal the majority of them just entered a week ago or less so it’s hard telling where they’ll end up but most likely they won’t be coming back to Purdue after entering this late. Lewis and Crimmins have been in it for weeks now so they could be a maybe on a return. Brown just entered a couple days ago. Green and Smith probably had to wait on their checks to clear for the year before bolting to the portal. M’ba and Wingfield recently entered due to the new JUCO rule allowing JUCO guys to play more years in college.
Remaining portal guys
DL - Damarjhe Lewis
P - Keelan Crimmins
DB - Nyland Green
WR - CJ Smith
DL - Jefferey M’Ba
OL - DJ Wingfield
DB - Anthony Brown
Frustrating to watch. Michigan State just played harder than Purdue did.
I don't know what to say about the turnovers. Some are just unbelievable. They make passes that have zero chance of being completed.
Michigan State had 15 more FG attempts and 21 more free throw attempts than Purdue. Can't beat anyone when they get that many more shots than you.
I think Sophie Swanson has totally lost interest.
Next two games are at Mackey. If things don't improve drastically I would be ok the youth movement mentioned above. Except for Lombard's minutes being reduced. I think she needs to be on the court as much as possible.
I think it's more the zeros across the board they've put up a few times. If they don't score in a game, no biggie, it happens.
If they don't score, and they don't get a rebound or really any stat other than minutes then it's more of a problem which is what Painter more or less said. Shots fall sooner or later, you don't worry about those as much as you do the effort stuff.
Yes Jacobsen back will be huge - TKR back at the 4 - but we are gonna need some depth at the 4 and 5. Berg and Burgess? Maybe but we will know more in 3 months based on how they develop.
And we need a 2nd, 3rd and 4th guy who can handle the ball and take pressure off Braden. These guys ideally would be able to go get their own shot/create/open it up for others. Hope paint goes out and gets those type of guys.
That numbers always changing but that’s what I found on a recruiting site today. The portal is a wild place with a lot of hopes and dreams mixed with failure and money.
2/3 of those that entered have signed. What kind of deductions can be made about those remaining unsigned? I don’t think you can make an across the board claim that those left unsigned are the bottom third of talent but the percentage of highly sought after players is definitely much lower.
Yes and if you are referring to the Purdue guys left in the portal the majority of them just entered a week ago or less so it’s hard telling where they’ll end up but most likely they won’t be coming back to Purdue after entering this late. Lewis and Crimmins have been in it for weeks now so they could be a maybe on a return. Brown just entered a couple days ago. Green and Smith probably had to wait on their checks to clear for the year before bolting to the portal. M’ba and Wingfield recently entered due to the new JUCO rule allowing JUCO guys to play more years in college.
Remaining portal guys
DL - Damarjhe Lewis
P - Keelan Crimmins
DB - Nyland Green
WR - CJ Smith
DL - Jefferey M’Ba
OL - DJ Wingfield
DB - Anthony Brown
While I agree. Step back and think what that means. Offense would need to either be run for the 4th option OR they hit shots. So, if Colvin or Heide or cox can hit a few shots, then it’s all good. If one of them had hit a few shots these past few games, then we wouldn’t be as worried.
I think law of averages comes into play here and shots start to go down.
I think it's more the zeros across the board they've put up a few times. If they don't score in a game, no biggie, it happens.
If they don't score, and they don't get a rebound or really any stat other than minutes then it's more of a problem which is what Painter more or less said. Shots fall sooner or later, you don't worry about those as much as you do the effort stuff.
Bad injury tonight to the left knee. I did not see the replay but he was stretchered off the court and it took a little while to stabilize the leg. Cole Anthony from the Magic who made the contact on a hustle play was noticeably shook up afterwards.
2/3 of those that entered have signed. What kind of deductions can be made about those remaining unsigned? I don’t think you can make an across the board claim that those left unsigned are the bottom third of talent but the percentage of highly sought after players is definitely much lower.
Last year overall percent unsigned I think was around 50%. Some are late entries and in our case green, wingfield, m’ba, and smith. All will find homes. But most remaining likely will not.
Quad games could work and help to potentially put a value on wins. Due to IU’s weak schedule, the quad system probably would have told a similar story for IU…lots of wins, but didn’t beat any elite teams. The quad system probably would have hurt IU compared to other CFP contenders because margin of victory doesn’t matter.
Yes Jacobsen back will be huge - TKR back at the 4 - but we are gonna need some depth at the 4 and 5. Berg and Burgess? Maybe but we will know more in 3 months based on how they develop.
2/3 of those that entered have signed. What kind of deductions can be made about those remaining unsigned? I don’t think you can make an across the board claim that those left unsigned are the bottom third of talent but the percentage of highly sought after players is definitely much lower.
