Which makes that list thing I posted even funnier. Buyout was finally manageable
I'd have to bet they don't get their top choice and will have to get a second tier guy on their list. Will make a strong push for Alford. Dakich may get a call as well which would be hilarious
I don't know how that guy has been on the radio for so long and what it is that New Yorkers like about him. The guy says something ridiculous like that once a week
I'm one of the few disappointed that Tom Crean was fired today. He came to IU 9 years ago to an absolute mess. Kelvin Sampson's a snake and ran the program into the ground bringing in thugs and running a roughshod program. Sampson was canned and Dan Dakich was brought in to finish out the season and move out the crap. The next 3-4 years was dark days in Bloomington as Crean had not been able to recruit and we played with basically a MAC level team in the big ten. When Cody Zeller came to IU, it marked the beginning of the resurgence of IU basketball. Oladipo, Watford, Yogi, Troy Williams, we started getting good but not great recruits, then Crean was able to improve these kids over 3-4 years. I think that's IU's sweet spot, not bringing in one and dones.
He isnt a good coach though and not good enough for IU standards. However I think IU isnt a true blue blood and was a one coach trick pony.
Ok, I'll bite. Other than Bob Knight and few dead coaches from the 50's / 60's...exactly what standards for a basketball coach is there at IU??
Since Knight, it was Mike Davis- and IU assistant who was the transition coach, and Kelvin Sampson, a crook who ran the program into the ground?
Tom Crean is a man of integrity, ran a clean program and only ran off guys who got into off court problems - I'm certainly ok with that.
Now if your standard is Bobby Knight, that so be it, but that's an awfully high standard, and frankly IMO, not attainable in today's college basketball.
I just don't think they are a true blue blood or an elite program. Doesn't mean they don't have a strong history.
I am not an IU fan but the team I root for expects to make deep runs every year, doesn't happen every year but the possibility and expectation is there. Or else you will be ran out of town.
Even Fred Glass stated he expects every year to compete for Big 10 titles, every year to make deep runs, win a national title, and more
I just don't think they are a true blue blood or an elite program. Doesn't mean they don't have a strong history.
I am not an IU fan but the team I root for expects to make deep runs every year, doesn't happen every year but the possibility and expectation is there. Or else you will be ran out of town.
Even Fred Glass stated he expects every year to compete for Big 10 titles, every year to make deep runs, win a national title, and more
And I wouldn't expect the AD to say anything else. The AD job is more political than ever before. I don't think Crean had lower expectations than what's expected? I never felt he went into a season, at least the last 5-6 where winning the big ten and making a long tournament run wasn't the bar? This team was highly ranked at some moments this season, they did beat two #1 seeds in this year's tournament. So this team was fully capable. I think one thing that is not getting any attention is the balance and how good the big ten really was this year. Take out Rutgers, and there wasn't any easy W's on the schedule, especially on the road.
I'm an IU fan, but I also realize the days of being an elite program year after year is gone. We don't get recruits like Duke/ Kentucky and Kansas. Outside of that, I don't know that there are any other programs that are in that category. Very small target alot of IU fans are shooting at.
Tom Crean won't be out of work long. Nice job by Indiana making the announcement right at tipoff of the first tournament games to attempt to keep it low key.
The folks in Indiana apparently think it's 1974 and kids will go to a school for their tradition. Quinn Buckner, Kent Benson and Scott May aren't coming back to Bloomington anytime soon and today's athlete isn't putting UI at the top of any dream list.
And I wouldn't expect the AD to say anything else. The AD job is more political than ever before. I don't think Crean had lower expectations than what's expected? I never felt he went into a season, at least the last 5-6 where winning the big ten and making a long tournament run wasn't the bar? This team was highly ranked at some moments this season, they did beat two #1 seeds in this year's tournament. So this team was fully capable. I think one thing that is not getting any attention is the balance and how good the big ten really was this year. Take out Rutgers, and there wasn't any easy W's on the schedule, especially on the road.
I'm an IU fan, but I also realize the days of being an elite program year after year is gone. We don't get recruits like Duke/ Kentucky and Kansas. Outside of that, I don't know that there are any other programs that are in that category. Very small target alot of IU fans are shooting at.
Balance sure, but good? The B1G was very average this year as can be seen with their two champs Purdue (Reg. Season Champ) and Michigan (Tournament Champ) getting #4 and #7 seeds respectively. Also Wisconsin, who finished 2nd in both getting a #8.
The NCAA has to do something about the officiating. Consistently way too many foul calls. The officials just iced the SMU player with a completely unnecessary review. They miscalled a flagrant on a Seton Hall guy that effectively ended the game earlier.
I don't know what the solution is, but a lot of these games have been tough to watch.
The NCAA has to do something about the officiating. Consistently way too many foul calls. The officials just iced the SMU player with a completely unnecessary review. They miscalled a flagrant on a Seton Hall guy that effectively ended the game earlier.
I don't know what the solution is, but a lot of these games have been tough to watch.
The reviews are terrible. They have an official sitting at the scorer's table he should be able to tell if a shot was a 2 or 3. No need to stop play to do something like that. There should not be reviews done when a player is stepping to the line. If there's a question as to flagrant or not, make the call quickly and go review. The only other time the entire crew should review a play is a close one out of bounds.
The flagrant in the Seton Hall game was correctly called. You can't two-hand shove a guy to the ground without making a play on the ball. It was compounded by the fact that their feet got tangled and the Arkansas player fell to the ground awkwardly, making it look worse.
By the letter of the law, you may both be right and it was the correct call. However, how often does a player actually go for the ball in an intentional foul scenario? By that same measure, the dumb foul by the Vandy player yesterday was a flagrant.
By the letter of the law, you may both be right and it was the correct call. However, how often does a player actually go for the ball in an intentional foul scenario? By that same measure, the dumb foul by the Vandy player yesterday was a flagrant.
Usually it's just a simple reach in when you're trying to foul, not a shove
At least rake the guy with your arm in front of him. Fouling from behind like that will always be at least called intentional. Is the issue everyone has is they called it flagrant? I guess that kinda implies he was trying to hurt the other guy.
Usually it's just a simple reach in when you're trying to foul, not a shove
I'm only going by what the officiating director said after the game that a flagrant 1 is "contact that is not an attempt to play the ball or player, specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from running."
If there's specifics beyond that, perhaps there is a difference.
My feeling on flagrants were always that they were designed to keep one player from intentionally trying to hurt another(or prevent breakaway points in the case of a clear path foul.) I don't think that's what happened here so I'd prefer to have not seen it called.
Regardless, I could be wrong about this call. But my overall point is the officiating has never been great in CBB but it seems especially bad this year/tournament so far. Specifically regarding the #of fouls called, and the time spent under review.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eastside_purple
At least rake the guy with your arm in front of him. Fouling from behind like that will always be at least called intentional. Is the issue everyone has is they called it flagrant? I guess that kinda implies he was trying to hurt the other guy.
No such thing as an intentional foul in NCAA basketball. Flagrant 1 and flagrant 2.
I'm only going by what the officiating director said after the game that a flagrant 1 is "contact that is not an attempt to play the ball or player, specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from running."
[youtube]na4loutube]
If there's specifics beyond that, perhaps there is a difference.
My feeling on flagrants were always that they were designed to keep one player from intentionally trying to hurt another(or prevent breakaway points in the case of a clear path foul.) I don't think that's what happened here so I'd prefer to have not seen it called.
Regardless, I could be wrong about this call. But my overall point is the officiating has never been great in CBB but it seems especially bad this year/tournament so far. Specifically regarding the #of fouls called, and the time spent under review.
No such thing as an intentional foul in NCAA basketball. Flagrant 1 and flagrant 2.
Perhaps the NCAA should add the intentional foul then?
But I'd agree the officiating has been poor. The first half of UC/SMU on Sunday was the ugliest thing I have ever seen.
The reviews are terrible. They have an official sitting at the scorer's table he should be able to tell if a shot was a 2 or 3. No need to stop play to do something like that. There should not be reviews done when a player is stepping to the line. If there's a question as to flagrant or not, make the call quickly and go review. The only other time the entire crew should review a play is a close one out of bounds.
The flagrant in the Seton Hall game was correctly called. You can't two-hand shove a guy to the ground without making a play on the ball. It was compounded by the fact that their feet got tangled and the Arkansas player fell to the ground awkwardly, making it look worse.
I kind of like the way the NHL does it on some calls... they just keep playing while the play is reviewed and if it's overturned they sound the horn and reset based on the review, time, score, and all. If it's not overturned, they just keep playing.
I kind of like the way the NHL does it on some calls... they just keep playing while the play is reviewed and if it's overturned they sound the horn and reset based on the review, time, score, and all. If it's not overturned, they just keep playing.
NHL reviews are also done at a central location and referees at the game usually have no say in the call. If the war room wants to review a call then they'll buzz officials at the game to pause so they can take a look at it. Would be a good idea to have a system set up like that for the tournament imo.
Linear Mode
