Exile on Waveland

WTHR (Indy NBC affiliate) reporting Sampson out tomorrow with Dakich to replace him on an interim basis. http://www.wthr.com/global/story.asp?s=7904939

He was. Really, which guy got player of the year again from everyone? When it was clear that Williams was by far the best player. I changed my post to "He was though." It was unclear. I agree he probably wasn't recognized as the star, but was the star.

He was though.

This team has two personalities, and I truly don't understand it. Horrible effort tonight, plain and simple. They're young, immature and don't have a coach. You didn't see inconsistency coming?

Ouch :( I was right there with you Flames, feels like getting kicked in the newts, don't it? Sure does. But right now, we're playing the best basketball in the conference with maybe the exception being Bradley. I still really like our chances in the conference tournament. I expect SIU to win the conference tournament. Have for awhile, in fact. They've been the best team in the league for years and never win the tournament, it'll be fitting they win this year.

I do like Bayless, but he's no Eric Gordon. Gordon- 21.7 points, 3.2 boards, 2.5 assists, 3.4 turnovers. 46% FG, 86% FT, 40% 3FG. 57% effective field goal. Bayless- 21.1 points, 2.8 boards, 4.4 assists, 3.0 turnovers. 49% FG, 85% FT, 45% 3FG. 58.1% effective field goal. Gordon may be better defensively but Bayless has been the better offensive player. I haven't seen enough of Bayless's defense to comment. Gordon, when he wants to be, is an absolute shut-down defender. He still doesn't move his feet all the time and thus reaches. He grabs and fouls a lot. But his defense has led directly to a couple IU wins. Offensively, those numbers are basically the same. The assists (and I imagine the turnovers) favor Bayless, but you have no idea how many times the pitiful trio of Mike White-Thomas-Stemler have blown bunnies. I honestly think if those three could make wide open layups Gordon would be averaging another assist. Overall, besides maturing, Gordon is a pretty complete player -- except ball-handling. He is, at this point, a poor dribbler. Oh, and I said before the season that Bayless was better than Mayo.

I had them pegged as an 8/9 game participant. I thought they'd drop more games to bad teams. It's pretty clear they'll be better than that; however, I agree, they're definitely an upset possibility.

Me and Cubbies75 concentrated on how our basketball team is littered with idiots. Score one for us. My favorite was SSR picking Chester Frazier 3rd Team All-Big 10. I wish I would've posted earlier in this thread. I would've looked pretty smart. Partly because IU's season -- on the court, that is -- has gone pretty much according to plan. I was thinking 25-6 or 26-5 and a share of the Big Ten. The former especially seems likely. I thought Eli Holman would contribute; he hasn't. Thought the team would be good defensively on the perimeter; the nascent defensive improvements have come from playing zone because of failings in stopping dribble-penetration. Also thought, at least, Sampson wouldn't get in trouble for phone calls again. I think I did call Oregon, USC and K-State (wrong there) overrated and Stanford and Mississippi State underrated at some point. Time now to put down my horn I was tooting.

Illinois, and to a lesser extent PSU, is a very dangerous team in the Big Ten tournament. I'd prefer IU avoid Illinois. If PSU still had Claxton, I'd agree. Of course they wouldn't be an 8 seed if they had him either. Yeah, honestly, at this point Michigan is probably a better dark horse choice than Penn State. They've won three straight, have a very good coach and some talent. If the tournament started now they'd play PSU in the first round and I'd expect them to win.

I agree IU should go 4-1, but I don't know if I see Purdue losing another Big Ten game. They had an off shooting night last night, and still hung in that game. Assuming they re-gain their shooting touch, I really can't see them losing any of their remaining regular season games. I think Ohio State, playing for a tournament berth, will nip them. With their youth, Purdue is bound to drop a game they probably shouldn't, and OSU is bound to win a game they shouldn't. Ohio State plays a zone that could give Purdue issues, and the Boilers should struggle matching up with Koufos. Kenpom gives OSU a 62% chance to win that game. I will be surprised if Purdue doesn't at least garner a share of the Big Ten crown. Winning out and finishing 16-2 is very much in play for them, though I'll stick with 15-3 and a shared title. They do have the best chance to win it outright.

Illinois, and to a lesser extent PSU, is a very dangerous team in the Big Ten tournament. I'd prefer IU avoid Illinois.

while i feel that firing sampson is the right move from a university stand point, what negative impact might it have on the team? It's hard to say exactly, but I can't imagine it's a positive. Losing a coach mid-season isn't a good thing. The team has seemingly played better after the allegations, but who knows if one has anything to do with the other. If Sampson is dismissed and the team plays well, everyone will say "They rallied around Dan Dakich and the memory of Sampson." If not, the refrain will be "They collapsed without Sampson." Like always, the answer probably lies in the middle. Dakich, the likely interim, is actually a very good coach. His failings were recruiting, which matters not for this season. Dakich is extremely knowledgeable and a good X&O guy, maybe/probably better than Sampson. There is also precedent for in-season replacements doing well. The issue is that the staff is getting thinned out; I am unsure if someone replaces Dakich as assistant coach. My guess is IU goes 4-1 to close the regular season regardless of coach. Beyond that, it's a crapshoot anyway.

With IU's win over Purdue I think a shared championship, in some form, is likely. Now what combination of IU, Purdue and/or Wisconsin ties is the question. Purdue is the most likely team to at least get a share; I'd be surprised if they didn't. Indiana should go 4-1, which probably will be good enough. I'm tempted to say a three-way tie is probable. It honestly won't be fair as IU doesn't make the trip to West Lafayette. I guess I can't complain. IU has played much better recently, including the Wisconsin loss. The Hoosiers went 4-1 against a tough stretch (at Illinois, at OSU, UW, MSU, PU). The defense has improved dramatically -- the 2-3 zone that I'd been calling for all year has made a big difference. The offense has made strides too, though last night's turnover-fest was ugly. The record is gaudy (22-4, 11-2) and they now have some good wins, but they've still had the best two players on the court every game and have failed to beat anyone they shouldn't. Now lets hope IU does the right thing and moves on from Sampson.

I want to change my arrogant/delusional fan base vote. he's right. iu is a reputable school with a long and rich history of excellence in men's basketball. there's nothing wrong with saying it. I don't want to harp on this too much because I don't think whoever posted it(slipping my mind at the moment) is delusional/arrogant, but the way it is phrased it is saying to me "our top coaching job is different than other top coaching jobs because we care about class and ethics here while the others don't. You have to not be a scumbag here unlike all those other places." fair enough. i didn't really interpret it that way, but i can see how you could. indiana has a pretty clean record as far as recruiting goes, under knight they graduated players and still managed to have a top 5 program, which is amazing. combining a top program with a clean one is quite a feat. as much as i hate indiana right now, i can't player-hate and deny the prestige of that job. plus, i can see the frustration of hoosier fans--they could have almost anyone they want and yet still choose to hire scumbags like sampson. Well, not sure how many coaches IU could actually get (bet it's lower than most would like to think), but there's no doubt that coaches better than Sampson would come.

get the digits? I'm sure. Oh yeah. I think I definitely stood a chance... Erin Andrews would probably only fall in the 85-90 percentile range of hot girls in Bloomington. Like most female sports reporters, she's over-hyped based on her job. She's attractive in person, no doubt, but I'd agree with your percentile. Bloomington is good in that regard, especially relative to its size and the Midwest. I only reported it because people seem to care.

get the digits? I'm sure. Oh yeah. I think I definitely stood a chance...

I don't know whether to be angry or glad for you. What's the emoticon for I wish I could backhand you and regret it later like Ike Turner ? Bob Kravitz was also there. Something tells me you won't be jealous about that.

Just got back from Nick's. Sat right next to Erin Andrews.

Ronaldo kept himself in shape? Other than that, I'd agree. The competition in midfield for an all-time team makes it an easy pick for Ronaldo. He was a more dominate player at his position for longer. He wasn't exactly elegant up top, but he was deadly. Ronaldinho was a better club player than national team player, not that it matters. Of course, Ronaldo was a veritable deer-in-the-headlights in the 1998 WC Final in France.

I want to change my arrogant/delusional fan base vote. he's right. iu is a reputable school with a long and rich history of excellence in men's basketball. there's nothing wrong with saying it. I don't want to harp on this too much because I don't think whoever posted it(slipping my mind at the moment) is delusional/arrogant, but the way it is phrased it is saying to me "our top coaching job is different than other top coaching jobs because we care about class and ethics here while the others don't. You have to not be a scumbag here unlike all those other places." Well, that's not what I meant to imply, though I do see how it could easily be interpreted as such. I wasn't focusing on class/ethics -- though a couple top programs clearly don't care too much about ethics -- more the "Indiana way" and in-state recruiting. The latter two may be arrogant/delusional of our fan base, but those elements are certainly important. The in-state recruiting is extremely important to me -- xenophobic, perhaps, but true.

oh, you didn't like the "get it and chuck it from anywhere on the court-offense" that davis installed? Worked for Kirk Haston and Jared Jeffries, right? Just see how well it translated to the NBA. :hello: To depart from the recent strain of conversation for a moment, any guesses as to what we'll see on Friday (or earlier) from Greenspan? Explicitly: Sampson suspended for remainder of season; Dakich to coach through tournament, and search for new coach begins. Implicitly: Greenspan reaches out to his network and starts polishing his resume; McRobbie polishes his "firing boomerang." (what? too big for cheap Australian jokes?) That's pretty much what I expect to happen. However, I think Greenspan survives.

IU is going to need all the firepower it has to beat Purdue. Tonight will be the toughest environment Purdue's played in all season, but they're poised, talented and great defensively. If I knew DJ was healthy, I'd be pretty optimistic at home. As of now, I'm merely hopeful. If IU wins tonight I think there's a good chance you'll see at least co-champions, if not a three-way tie for first in the Big Ten. If Purdue wins, it's all but over. If IU wins and ends up sharing the Big Ten crown with Purdue, the unbalanced schedule will have done the Hoosiers a great favor in not sending them to West Lafayette. IU should always play Purdue twice.

While Indiana is still a top program traditionally, that's only because of what happened over 15 years ago. IU hasn't yet frittered away all that standing, but the program has been siphoning off its legacy for quite a while. With the right coach, I don't believe it would be too hard to return to prominence, but IU certainly hasn't performed like an elite program recently. The Hoosiers made four straight Sweet Sixteen's from 91-94, and have advanced that far ONCE since (2002 runners-up). I also see no reason it has to be "Knight guy" or an "Indiana guy." Get the best man for the job. I'll never understand limiting the search in some vain attempt to hearken back to the glory days. The glory days are but a memory; and Coach Knight wasn't an IU guy to begin with. Oh, and an offense would be nice. Sully's description of Davis's wait 30-seconds then chuck a 3-pointer is fitting. Sampson's offense is better, but not by much.

Agreed. You don't have to sugar coat it, IU is definitely a better job. It's also a much better fit for him. Like I said I just would rather see him there than others because I at least know his weaknesses. It would also be especially sweet to beat him after some of the parting shots he had. Well, I tried to refrain from turning this into a "my job is better than your job" pissing match. I'm dubious IU will actually do better than Alford this time. In my opinion, they didn't with their last two hires. I have no faith or trust in IU's administration. I'm sure it would be sweet for Iowa fans to topple Alford, especially at IU. I like Lickliter a lot and look forward to seeing Iowa progress when he gets his players in place. The Big Ten is loaded with coaching talent, I just hope IU lives up to that.

You have every right to dislike Alford; if I were you, I would too. However, I think Iowa fans would come to dislike him even more if he got the IU job. Methinks Alford would be very successful at Indiana. He very well could be. I didn't hate Alford. I've said that I think Alford improved a lot as a coach over his time at Iowa. He learned from a lot of the mistakes he made in various aspects. There was just no way he was going to win the fans over again and it was time to move on for both parties. With that said, I think I would rather see him there than others. Even in the last couple of years and now at New Mexico his teams lose games they shouldn't and it's often the result of a total meltdown in the last 8 minutes. For whatever reason, this has been a constant. He still will blame everyone but himself when something goes wrong. He still has an abrasive personality and will spin everything possible (try telling IU fans how successful you've been because you've had multiple winning seasons in a row). He never figured out how to develop a solid offense. I'm not endorsing Alford for IU; he's by no means my top choice. If he's hired (he won't be), I'll neither thank the heavens nor jump off a cliff. It seems most IU fans are in either category. I do think he'd do well, though. I know how Alford rubbed Iowa fans -- he rubbed me the same way. Your complaints are duly noted, and agreed with. He's not perfect and Iowa upgraded their coaching situation. However, as I said above not every job is the same. Every coach wouldn't do the same in any situation. Regardless of whether Indiana is a better job than Iowa; it is, inarguably, a job more conducive to Alford.