Exile on Waveland

Unless the rule has changed, if you play football you have to be on football scholarship.

Wouldn't surprise me. Dude is an indecisive vagabond.

Six hours behind, I think.

not to mention Oladipo Yes, exactly. He is a very good example of how hard work can improve shooting: 3-point percentage Freshman: 31 percent Sophomore: 21 percent Junior: 55 percent

Zak Irvin and a couple other 4-stars next year (including a top-50 point guard, to answer your specific question). Austin Hatch the next year. I don't think Robinson will be around long -- and McGary is like already 33.

SSR- 1. Having seen Ferrell a play a ton since he was a kid, I'll go on record that he will, at some point at IU, be a 3-point threat. 2. That was a bit of hyperbole, but there were quite a few posters that believed that Hansbrough would not hit (approximately) fifty percent of jumpers in practice because he was not a good shooter (in the NBA). They didn't/don't understand how good these players are. Hansbrough would probably hit like eighty percent unguarded -- from 3-point range, much less midrange.

Oladipo is gone. He's graduating in May. At last check, he's somewhere around a late first round prospect (31st on ESPN, with Chad Ford, for what that's worth, saying "Love him. One of my favorite players in the country. He’s gonna be a first round pick in this year’s draft. If he can convince scouts that his 45% shooting from beyond the arc isn’t a fluke — lottery isn’t out of the question.”). Why exactly would he come back? The mental gymnastics this board goes to in hating IU is pretty comical. Out one side of the mouth, let's make fun of the couple IU fans that think Zeller will come back; out of the other side of the mouth, let's make up doomsday scenarios for when Oladipo comes back!

Um, yes, of course there were guards that weren't good shooters in high school (and many such end up with D-1 scholarships). For an example, I saw Rajon Rondo play on multiple occasions in high school and he was a bricklayer. Shooting is a skill just like any other; it was clear that, say, Eric Gordon and Josh Smith weren't good ballhandlers even in high school. Next, yes, of course most/all players are granted gym access in the summer; however, not all players are equally hard workers and Ferrell is an extremely hard worker. It may not be dispositive; but it can't hurt. Now, if your point is that Ferrell's solid AAU/high school shooting may never correlate to solid college shooting, I'd actually agree with that. Shooting in college is different on many levels -- tougher defense, more pressure to perform, deeper arc, etc. (Though I might also be inclined to argue it will be "easier" mentally for Ferrell to shoot next year when he's one of the first options). It's possible he will never shoot the same (relatively); however, it is not unreasonable, at all, for IU fans to expect Ferrell to shoot better in the future. He has a track record, albeit not in college, that he can. As an aside, if we're having the latter conversation, I'm glad. I am nearly certain it wasn't you, but this is the same board that honestly (absurdly, insanely) believed that since Tyler Hansbrough shot forty-seven percent in NBA games he inherently shot forty-seven percent unguarded in practice.

So . . . Cleveland is OK with Soriano, but San Francisco isn't? I'd say he doesn't understand geography, but he's been to these places mulitple times, so . . .

Me neither. I'm sure no Chelsea fan, but it's Swansea/that putz kid that are in the wrong here.

Because Ferrell has years of being a good shooter behind him and a few months of struggling as a freshman. He's a solid shooter, he just hasn't shown it (last night was a good start).

Capobianco sure creaned that guy.

A lot more than Te'o needed to see to believe he had a girlfriend.

This guy has to fight off young, hot college chicks all day long. All day long. But hey, who would want that when you can have cyber sex on the internet. You haven't been to South Bend.

they also claim that they didn't eat magellan, but they did. Philippines, Samoa; girlfriend, no girlfriend. Whatever. oh yeah, who ate captain cook, then? that was samoans, right? That sounds right? I just know my Filipino history better than my cannibalism history.

they also claim that they didn't eat magellan, but they did. Philippines, Samoa; girlfriend, no girlfriend. Whatever.

I did this very quick -- only skimming the rivals top-150 -- and only counting 4- or 5-star players: 7 -- Michigan State (three 5-stars) 6 -- Indiana (two 5-stars) Illinois Purdue 5 -- Ohio State (one 5-star) 3 -- Michigan (one 5-star) 2 -- Wisconsin (one 5-star) Iowa 1 -- Minnesota 0 -- Nebraska Northwestern Penn State

You can cross off Creek and Elston, but Oladipo is also playing well above a 3-star rating. Plus you've got Hulls playing at an NBA level. I hate Bo's style but it's damn effective in conference. Even when he just gets system talent he runs it out there with success. Well, I used stars without looking deeper because talent is amorphous/arbitrary and the stars are at least quantifiable (if not also arbitrary). There's no doubt that Oladipo is now playing at well above a 3-star level (and haha on Hulls). But that seems to me to be sort of the point -- Ryan deserves credit for developing and having 3-star kids play at a higher level, but so should Crean with Oladipo/Sheehey (just as Elston's lack of development as a 4-star could be used against Crean). I'm counting Ryan Evans as a 2-star player when he's obviously not on the court, same with Oladipo.

Yes. Dekker was a 5-star (No. 13 overall) and Berggren was a 4-star (No. 74 overall). Dekker had the highest class ranking of anyone on the floor last night -- yes, higher than any IU player. IU has two 5-stars, five 4-stars, and six 3-stars. Who has fewer average 'stars' in the B1G? Off the top of my head I know Purdue, Michigan, MSU, OSU, IU, and Illinois have more 'stars'. Nebraska, Penn St. and NU obviously fewer. Iowa is about even probably, and Minny probably has fewer. Wisconsin is in the bottom half of the B1G in terms of 'star' talent. That doesn't mean they don't have talented players compared to most other schools in the country. Certainly, this is one of the least, if not the least, talented Wisconsin team Bo Ryan has had. That three-year recruiting dip that garnered no 4- or 5- star players made sure of that. I take no issue with that; I take issue with the statement that Wisconsin never has much talent and/or that this team has no talent. As for IU, the overall star numbers look better than what's actually on the court. One 4-star is legless Maurice Creek, another is Derek Elston who has been hurt and played only 35 minutes. Two more 4-stars are freshman fringe rotation players. I'm not saying anyone should feel sorry for IU's talent level, but the rotation is now basically two 5-stars, a 4-star, and four 3-stars.

More fun with talent. Last night, Wisconsin played eight players (one 5-star, one 4-star, five 3-stars, and one 2-star). Indiana played nine players (two 5-stars, three 4-stars, and four 3-stars). However, the minute distribution probably is more telling, as two of the 4-star players IU played combined for eleven total minutes. Wisconsin got 23 minutes from 5-star players, 28 minutes from 4-star players, 116 minutes from 3-star players, and 33 minutes from a 2-star player. Indiana got 69 minutes from 5-star players, 40 minutes from 4-star players, and 91 minutes from 3-star players. Indiana has more talent, sure, but this wasn't exactly 2012 Kentucky against 2009 Indiana.

Their current roster has one 5 star and one 4 star player right? Yes. Dekker was a 5-star (No. 13 overall) and Berggren was a 4-star (No. 74 overall). Dekker had the highest class ranking of anyone on the floor last night -- yes, higher than any IU player.

Starting in 2003, Wisconsin recruiting classes by Rivals star rankings (because it's easier for me to compile): 2003 -- 5-star, two 3-stars 2004 -- 4-star, two 3-stars, (2-star intra-Big Ten transfer) 2005 -- 5-star, 3-star 2006 -- two 4-stars, 3-star 2007 -- two 4-stars, 3-star 2008 -- 4-star, three 3-stars, 2-star 2009 -- two 3-stars 2010 -- four 3-stars 2011 -- four 3-stars 2012 -- 5-star 2013 -- 4-star, three 3-stars Nope, no talent there at all (agreed that the 2009-2011 dip with no 4- or 5-stars does make this team less talented than typical). But those 5-star kids would be walk-ons at most schools, I guess.

Oh, nice . . . the fun "Wisconsin never has talent" meme. Never mind the 5-star player, the career back-up that's in the NBA, etc. And nine times out of ten, huh . . . I guess that means teams with great coaches and mediocre talent win the national title a lot, right? Or, you know, basically never.

I think it's time to start evaluating if I'm an "IU hater" or if this team is actually all that good. Besides pounding crap teams, there's the win over Minnesota -- which sure felt like a loss to me. Slow the game down, make it a grinder, and viola, you beat Indiana. How the hell did Minnesota feel like a loss? And slowing the game down only works if u are good. The only good team that is methodical is Wisconsin. Georgia slowing the game down just made IU take longer to win. IU gets so much off turnovers and from opportunistic 3s and Wisconsin took that away by sticking on Hulls and not giving the ball away. No other team currently on the schedule will be able to do that. I suppose if you want to be pleased with a second half collapse that saw a 23-point halftime lead turning into a 3-point game with under a minute left at Assembly Hall, that's your perogative. But that's IU's only win to brag about (only against top-35 Pomeroy teams) and they spent the end of the game praying for the buzzer to sound before they could complete the collapse. So far, IU has played three competent teams that play methodical, disciplined, halfcourt ball. They won in overtime against Georgetown, lost to Butler, and lost to Wisconsin. That's a trend. At some point, you're going to have to stop rationalizing away IU's poor performances. Oh, Georgia was their first game away from Assembly Hall; oh, Butler was close to their campus; oh, Wisconsin plays a unique style. That said, I do agree that Wisconsin is somewhat an island and I'm not entirely sure last night forebodes all that much -- it's not like other Big Ten teams can learn that style overnight.

I think it's time to start evaluating if I'm an "IU hater" or if this team is actually all that good. Besides pounding crap teams, there's the win over Minnesota -- which sure felt like a loss to me. Slow the game down, make it a grinder, and viola, you beat Indiana.