UCLA and IU
- Thread starter BlackGoldTexas
- Start date
Williams would have finished the season starting if he had the same diet and training he got at Purdue. I don’t think he would have started at the beginning of the season.
If Anderson filled a need, then why didn’t he play? Who spelled Langford? It wasn't Anderson. Phinessee certainly filled a need. No argument there. I like him as a player and I think he will be great at IU.
Here is my point. Anderson was a highly regarded 4 star, IIRC, but he didn’t or couldn’t learn how to defend or shoot well enough to get on the court. Not the right recruit for IU.
Last edited:
First of all, is Brink going to IU? IU fans believe that; perhaps they are correct. Personally, I would have seen him at OSU based upon coaching history.
DA was supposed to be a shooter. I know that Painter liked him as a recruit. I predicted months ago that he would be gone before the end of his second year at IU. It now looks like he may be gone this year. I think that Painter could have done something with him but for whatever reasons, DA liked IU better. Seems like a poor choice on his part so far. I remember IU fans crowing about how he chose the superior program. Didn't turn out that way.
DA was supposed to be a shooter. I know that Painter liked him as a recruit. I predicted months ago that he would be gone before the end of his second year at IU. It now looks like he may be gone this year. I think that Painter could have done something with him but for whatever reasons, DA liked IU better. Seems like a poor choice on his part so far. I remember IU fans crowing about how he chose the superior program. Didn't turn out that way.
I dont think you can say for a fact Williams would have started for IU.
I'm not sure how many times I have to say it, but Andersen was not recruited to play immediately. He wasn't a highly regarded 4* as he wasn't even top 100. He could be fine down the road. Btw, Purdue recruited every IU recruit except for Forrester last year, so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.
Green/Durham/McRoberts(bleh) spelled Romeo.
Again, are you replying to me? Brunk has not committed to IU... yet. Everything points to this happening very soon, however.
Damezi was supposed to be a shooter, you are correct there. His defense is what kept him off the court. He isnt going anywhere this off season, so I'm not sure why you say "it looks like he may be gone this year".
Anderson is a replaceable piece. I like Franklin's game much more than Anderson's because he's actually athletic and can defend. If IU can land Quineros (incoming freshman) or a grad transfer shooting guard, he's impact will be minimal. I think IU will be a much better shooting team next year. Green ended the year shooting 40+% from three, Durham improved from a 28% shooter as a freshman to 36% as a sophomore so there's no reason to think his shot can't get incrementally better. Phinisee needs to improve his 3pt%, but he hit a bunch of timely three's last year and has a good stroke.
We obviously are reading different things. If you go read the IU rivals site, the general tone is that he will transfer. I claim no inside knowledge. I am just reading what is posted there.
Are you reading what random posters on a message board are posting, or what the actual IU insiders are posting? The actual IU insiders are saying not to expect any more transfers.
If I post "Nojel Eastern is transferring to Butler", does that make it true? Would you trust that as a source? That's exactly the type of source you are trusting by reading random posts on the IU free board.
First, it can go without saying that there is no "fact" around Williams playing at IU. It is ridiculous to even make that statement. I was using Williams as an example of what kind of kid would have helped IU last year.
I think you misunderstand what I am saying. I am not disrespecting IU's recruits.
Yes, we recruited most of IU's recruits too, with varying degrees of effort I suspect. What I am saying is that IU targeted kids that were not the right skill set to help the team.
Anderson was raked somewhere around 100-120? I think. He had offers from UConn, Purdue, and MSU. Not bad for a kid "not highly regarded". Purdue would have taken him in a flash, but probably red-shirted him. I don't know but I suspect that is why he changed from a Purdue lean to an IU commit. I agree that maybe he wasn't ready to play his freshman year.
My point: Anderson helped that class get it's high ranking but did nothing to help the team win. Hunter never played and may never. Again, he helped that recruiting ranking but did nothing to help the team win. Romeo is probably the primary reason for the top 10 ranking and he is gone.
Having a top 10 recruiting class is only marginally related to putting a winning product on the court. When Painter talks about winning the press conference, this is what he is referring to.
Using your logic, you would have given up on Purdue's 2014 class after their first year as well. IU's 2018 class is not a bad class or a bad fit just because we didnt do well this year This class (Archie's first) is the foundation for what our team will be in the future (kinda like your 2014 class). Will we be good next year? Will this class be as impactful in college as Purdue's 2014 class? We will have to wait and see.
Thanks for making my point. That 2014 class is exactly what I am talking about.
I'm pretty sure most of those guys either started or came off the bench as freshmen. Haas, Mathias, V. Edwards, and PJ Thompson all played on a good team as freshmen. Only J. Taylor didn't contribute and that was a nagging injury situation much like Hunter.
IIRC, PJ, Dakota and Vince all started and Haas came off the bench to back up AJ Hammonds. Those recruits filled very specific needs that really helped the team. That is exactly my point about recruiting the right guys, not the most highly ranked guys.
That was a third place BIG team that went to the NCAA's. They won both times against IU too.
Out of 34 games, Mathboy - here are their respective starts:
VE - 30
DM - 17
IH - 11
PJT - 1
Ray Davis and Jon Octeus were the only Boilers to start every game.
Yes blue-blood. Think a lot of people get confused with Blue-Blood and elite. They aren't mutually exclusive. You earn blue-blood status over multiple generations of success and you certainly don't lose it in a 10-15 year period. There's only 4 or 5 programs in the country who can match IU's historical success. Is Indiana an elite program today? No and I don't think anyone would argue so, but in terms of historical success they are most definitely blue-blood.
It did not make your point. PJ was really bad as a freshman. Mathias wasn't great. None of them shot very well from 3. They were your 4th, 6th, 7th and 10th scorers. They turned into a really good class by the end of their careers, though. That's my point.
The term "blue-blood" is ridiculous. It's origin refers to European noble families who were very in-bred. As a result, most blue-bloods were dumb, had a number of genetic diseases and often were ugly and deformed. They were often unable to work hard and lived off the efforts of others. However, they did have the mistaken belief that they were much better than others.
How is this ridiculous? Your description fits the IU fanbase perfectly.
Bob Knight was the blue blood. IU is just a basketball school.
IU won two national titles before Bob Knight ever set foot in Bloomington. Try again.
Somebody clearly does not understand the definition of "blue-blood program."
Yeah... that was pretty much the point, as I read it.
2.
Knight won 3 in 12 years, haven't won one in over a generation. In fact, the kids that were in school for Knight's last are now grandparents.
Even after burning through multiple coaches, IU appears to be nowhere close.
That still doesn’t take away from blue-blood status which is my point. IU is one of 3 college basketball programs who have won a national title in 4 or more different decades. That’s it. Absolutely nobody is arguing or advocating that IU is an elite program because they aren’t, but when talking historical success (blue-blood) IU is on that list.
Yes... yes, it does.
You're trying to make an argument that just doesn't wash.
The only way you stretch to try to claim blue-blood status, is IU basketball success under Knight for 12 years.
Period.
IU had two national titles prior to Knight. Only 7 schools have more than two titles in their history so even without Knight, Indiana is better off than 99% of D1 programs. Including Knight, they have 5 total only three other programs can claim to have more. It doesn’t matter how old or dusty the banners are, Indiana historically is one of the best college programs there is. What you’re trying to argue is whether or not Indiana is currently elite. There’s no sense in arguing because I agree with you.
To be considered blue blood you need generations (plural) of success. Indiana can claim. That’s why they’re a blue-blood. ND hasn’t won a football title in 30 years, but you can bet your ass they’re still a blue-blood football school, because you can’t erase history. It takes 40-50 years to obtain that kind of status, and you don’t lose it in 20 years.
And Indiana was the prominent program from the early 70s to the early 90s taking over UCLA’s dynasty. 3 national titles (more than anybody else in that period). Last undefeated team and would have been back to back undefeated champions had May not broke his arm in 75. And made it to F4’s in 73 and 92. No other program had a better stretch in college basketball from 73-93 than IU. And that’s on top of 2 titles prior. Yeah from 94 until the present (exactly one generation) IU has been pretty average. But you don’t lose your spot in history that took nearly 50 years to build after one above average generation.
UCLA was good for about 15 years. Duke’s really only been blue-blood since the early 2000s. Kansas went almost 40 years in between titles.
"Sorry guys, but green blood is still the shit"...……..
Now there’s a reference. Love that
You're obsessing over Purdue fans validating your program.
20 years my @ss. Try 32.
That's a 12 year period with 3 NC's, and nothing for 2 generations.
Iron,
You can definitely lose a blue blood status over a 25 year span. IU has the state name / branding still going for it but is no longer a blue blood.
You’re describing the state of being elite or a dynasty. You don’t gain blue blood status in a generation. IU has titles in 40, 53, 76, 81, and 87. Please list the other programs who have had sustained success for almost a 50 year period? I can name two, Carolina and UK. All of Duke’s titles have come within the last 30 years. If you don’t consider Indiana a blue-blood, then by your definition there’s no chance in hell Duke is a blue-blood because they don’t have anywhere near the sustained history as Indiana. Same with Kansas, and same with UCLA.
Again, you’re confusing elite and blue-blood, they aren’t one in the same. Villanova is an elite basketball program right now, but they’re nowhere near a blue-blood because 3 years isn’t a sustained period of success. Same with UConn. Same with Michigan State. Until you can differentiate the difference between blue-blood and elite, it’s pointless to continue this argument.
No you can’t because it takes more than 25 years to obtain blue-blood status. You can lose your elite status in 25 years but not blue-blood.
Dude, you can rephrase as many different ways as you like. You're desperately seeking validation on a Purdue forum.
3 NC's in 12 years, none in 2 generations. You're not what you think you are.
Then there’s 2 blue-bloods in the history of the NCAA. Duke has all their titles in one generation, nothing before 1990. 1990-1939=51 years which is two generations. Kansas went 2 generations in between titles. UCLA has all their titles except 1 in the same generation.
I don’t need Purdue fans to validate my opinion. Purdue fans, once again, posted another topic about IU, on a Purdue board. Tells me everything I need to know.
He’s a back up. Davis and Davis will start at the 4 and 5. They need Brunk or someone like that to come in and be a serviceable backup. Oh by the way congrats in finishing eighth! You should hang a banner!
You notice we didn't cut down the nets after getting to the sweet 16, right?
Our starting 5 next year is better than yours and so are the first few of the bench. Phin, Green, Hunter, Davis, and Davis starting. Smith, Al, Thompson, and Anderson coming in off the bench and I’m sure he’ll add a guy or two. That’s not a final 4 team but it’s decent as long as they’re healthy.
