Exile on Waveland

Oh that feeling definitely pervades some of the fan base. I believe IU acted correctly, eventually, in ridding itself of all ties to Sampson. However, that doesn't mean it's not difficult to see other schools endure less hardship for seemingly worse wrongs. But to me, that's actually a sign of righteousness. IU took medicine that even you seem to think they might not have had to take. If that's not a showing of good faith, I'm not sure what is.

Following the 1994 season, IU has more losing seasons (4) than Sweet Sixteens (1 - though that was a runner-up team). This has been by far the worst stretch, but the cause was cheating. I find it hard to believe IU thinks the elixir is the same as the poison. Maybe I'm wrong; maybe I'm naive; I didn't think Sampson would be dumb enough to commit the same offense again. But that article was a lot of nothing.

This is why you're a demagogue when it comes to IU. IU has had one instance of rules violations in the modern era. ONE. Even then, it was a minor violation (the NCAA agreed with this) involving phone calls. You spin this as if IU has some long history of rules violations when, in fact, the opposite is actually true. I wish every day that IU could go back and not hire Sampson (I wished it the day of the hire too). But we're not talking about some SEC school that has a long history of rules violation. We're talking about a school that generally prided itself on doing things the right way, made one gigantic mistake, and paid its penance. IU reverted to form when it drained the swamp, not when it filled it. You also were very good for a long time. As soon as that went away you hired a cheater and looked the other way. You still aren't very good, so you can probably see why many of us think you wouldn't be above cheating again to become very good. Unfortunately, being good went away after 1994. Sampson was not hired until 2006.

This is why you're a demagogue when it comes to IU. IU has had one instance of rules violations in the modern era. ONE. Even then, it was a minor violation (the NCAA agreed with this) involving phone calls. You spin this as if IU has some long history of rules violations when, in fact, the opposite is actually true. I wish every day that IU could go back and not hire Sampson (I wished it the day of the hire too). But we're not talking about some SEC school that has a long history of rules violation. We're talking about a school that generally prided itself on doing things the right way, made one gigantic mistake, and paid its penance. IU reverted to form when it drained the swamp, not when it filled it.

Most of that is fair. IU certainly had fans that accepted the phone calls (the ones made at IU, I knew of no fan that accepted Sampson's record/hire, but the fans did rally around him once hired). I'm not sure it was "most fans" but that's unprovable. The phone calls themselves were never the main issue anyway; it was Sampson's recidivism and blatant disregard for rules. Further, I think a big issue at the games is that 48% of the fans in attendance are students (I was a student, again, at the time), who are often drunk and many simply did not want their senior season ruined (which firing Sampson was likely to do, and did). Edit: I also probably tend to remember the internet discussion and discussions with friends more than with the morons -- mainly because I try not to discuss things with morons -- so that failing may be mine.

1. The chants were despicable, but I can assure you many, many fans in attendance were trying to shut those chants up. 2. I would have fired Sampson immediately, but a lot of the "foot dragging" was IU trying to avoid paying Sampson a huge contract settlement. 3. I've never once claimed IU acted perfectly, in fact, you'll find an old rant from me on this board about how IU's administration was reacting exceedling poorly. 4. The Sampson thing is done and dusted and IU has won 28 games over three years because of it. IU has a new administration across the board. I'm not sure how this is relevant to the ESPN article.

You're right, I didn't think Sampson would make too many phone calls again. However, the rest of your post is patently false. Most IU fans, including I think all on this board, derided the Sampson hire at the time. Next, IU acted based on allegations, not penalties -- they waited longer than I wanted them to, but they imploded a promising season before any penalties. Finally, that is the only time in the modern era that IU has been penalized at all in basketball -- there is no trend here. A lot of IU fans were ok with Sampson even after the phone calls came out. Too say otherwise is either being foolish or lying. IU has a huge fan base, a lot of which are morons. Some were OK with the phone calls (a few still are, unbelievably); some wanted to keep him through the end the season; some wanted him gone immediately. But the vast, vast majority of fans supported Sampson's removal during the season, which imploded a promising season. I find that reaction far more telling than anything else.

I don't think most IU fans said the second statement you said. They argued that phone calls even though it was a second violation didn't deserve postseason bans or huge scholarship reductions. It wasn't deserving of the major punishments and the NCAA agreed with that. What devastated IU had nothing to do with the phone calls or NCAA violations. Most IU fans said none of the statements illinguy ever attributes to them. He's a demagogue.

I'm pretty sure you'll be wrong about that. And I hope so, because I hate this clearing space out for better players (which it's obvious happened with Capobianco). But, if you're right, two of 20 certainly is no conspiracy.

You're right, I didn't think Sampson would make too many phone calls again. However, the rest of your post is patently false. Most IU fans, including I think all on this board, derided the Sampson hire at the time. Next, IU acted based on allegations, not penalties -- they waited longer than I wanted them to, but they imploded a promising season before any penalties. Finally, that is the only time in the modern era that IU has been penalized at all in basketball -- there is no trend here.

1. What do you want me to say? Everyone knows about the Perea gifts (evidently prior to the article, regardless, they certainly do now). If there's a violation, he'll have to pay it back and/or be suspended and/or whatnot (see http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/31404/prized-iu-recruit-may-have-received-benefits). If they were a violation, such punishment will be completely deserved. If not, well, then maybe the rules need to be changed. But A-Hope has sent, I believe, 20 basketball players to college and three have/may end up at IU (one was completely worthless, another might be too). I fail to see how that's some conspiracy. 2. IU certainly hired Drew Adams, at least in large part, because of his connections. Everyone knew this; what's the story? It's the oldest trick in the recruiting book. It's no longer kosher, but it was at the time. "There's no wrongdoing there. Drew Adams was hired before the NCAA closed that particular recruiting loophole, and working connections with AAU organizations to land recruits is the oldest recruiting angle in the book." (see linked article).

come on man Come on man, what? A-Hope provides these gifts to all their students/athletes. Is that OK? I don't know (and notice the article doesn't even outright say it's a violation). But, evidently, IU's compliance department and the NCAA were/are aware of it and found no violation. The NCAA, however, has evidently not defined appropriate roles for non-profits at this time. Should non-profits give prospective athletes trips/gifts? Maybe not, but, then again, we're talking about dirt poor kids from Africa* (I'd think you, of all people, would be OK with that). Adams is also Perea's legal guardian, meaning he can give him gifts. Should a person involved in an athletic program like A-Hope become a legal guardian (which obviously raises these questions)? Maybe not, but, again, Adams has done this before and the kids didn't invariably go to IU. As to how A-Hope has connected and benefited IU, it's basically at this point all Perea, who was very close to committing to Baylor until Baylor threatened to deport him if he chose IU. *South America in this instance.

Uh . . . wow. That article was basically a whole lot of nothing but thinly supported innuendo you might find in a conspiracy theory blog. Five months of investigation and the story is that a lot of in-state kids from an in-state AAU program are going to the big in-state school? Shocking. A-Hope may or may not be fishy, and I've wondered about them (neither here nor there, but I'm also extremely uncomfortable with Capobianco's transfer). But, as it stands, that article is worthless and a piece of sham journalism (from a sham journalist: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/01/20/espn-fish-decline-interview-on-steelers-and-hgh-story/). Few things: -IU's verbals for 2013 and 2014 do not play for Indiana Elite and have no ties to A-Hope (they are all Indiana kids). -All of one A-Hope kid has played at IU so far (Tijan Jobe, probably the worst scholarship player ever at IU), and two more have verballed (one is unranked Peter Jurkin, the other being Hanner Perea, who is obviously really well thought of). A-Hope has sent plenty of kids to other schools over this time, including a few IU wanted. -The rest of IU's commitments from 2011-14 are from Indiana (with the exception being Remy Abell, an unranked player from Louisville) and with no ties to A-Hope. Two of them, Patterson and Hollowell, did not play for Indiana Elite prior to their verbals. -Indiana Elite has sent kids, over the past couple years, to Duke, North Carolina, Kentucky, Purdue, Butler, Louisville, etc. I wish IU got all the Indiana Elite kids it wanted. Indiana Elite is definitely IU friendly, but I'm not sure how that's a story. It's both common knowledge and not exactly a rarity in the AAU world (meaning AAU programs are often friendly with one or two coaches/schools). Edit: ESPN was aware of this fact and praised it just a few months ago: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/recruiting/basketball/mens/news/story?id=5750525 -I suppose the article was mainly about Perea and his "gifts" -- which were given to him by his legal guardian. That's probably suspicious -- a basketball guy becoming legal guardian for a basketball prospect -- and worth addressing, but legal guardians can give gifts.

I actually thought about the sign-Pujols-to-play-third thing, but dared not speak of it for fear that it was actually insane. Maybe it is. But it is at least a bit intriguing.

Sounds about right.

Yeah . . . but who plays third next year?

And the pinstripes from the Yankees (for the jerseys, not logo, of course).

Recent improvements count in so much as they leave his overall numbers in "really bad 1B territory". That is where we stand at present. Pena's current OPS is good for ninth in the National League and sixteenth in the majors (one spot behind Pujols in each). I disagree that such production is "really bad 1B territory," it's more "really mediocre 1B territory."

Awesome. That was the most fun I've had watching a Cub inning in a long time . . . probably since Castro's debut.

Ow.

I'm all for an warm weather exodus back to Canada. I do wonder if the NHL would really move Detroit and leave the Blackhawks as the only Original Six member in the West.

I had tickets to this game, too, though with the weather I wasn't crushed about the postponement (also, the pounding headache from my hangover Sunday). Anyway, hopefully I will be able to, but not sure I'll be able to make it up to Chicago for a weekday game.

I don't think there's a conspiracy, but also find the idea that an accounting firm's presence somehow proves the lack of a conspiracy laughable. There was an accounting firm at Enron.

Dwight Howard is close, depending on how you view defense, what metric you pick I don't think Howard is remotely close to James. I think he's second, but if there was an NBA-wide draft, I'm certain James would be on the top of all 30 draft boards. Metrics are nice and all, and I'm no Luddite, but this isn't baseball. Not remotely close? It's very, very close. Based on what? Howard is a physical speciman, but James is a once-in-a-generation, transcendent talent. For his career, James is averaging 27.7 points per game, 7.0 rebounds, 7.1 assists, 1.7 steals, and 0.8 blocks; Howard 18.2 points, 12.9 rebounds, 1.5 assists, 2.2 blocks, and 1.1 steals. Points aren't everything, but his was the first year that Howard, in his career, averaged more points than James did his rookie year as a 19-year-old fresh out of high school. For his career James is at 26.91 PER (second all-time behind Michael Jordan), while Howard is at 22.31 (26th all time, behind Amare Stoudemire, and just ahead of Pau Gasol). Since his rookie year, James worst PER is 24.5; Howard has topped that mark only twice. Howard had a career best 14.4 win shares this year, a mark James has eclipsed four straight years and five of the eight of his career (and one year was at 14.3). Not. Remotely. Close.

Dwight Howard is close, depending on how you view defense, what metric you pick I don't think Howard is remotely close to James. I think he's second, but if there was an NBA-wide draft, I'm certain James would be on the top of all 30 draft boards. Metrics are nice and all, and I'm no Luddite, but this isn't baseball.