Exile on Waveland

Oh man, I don't like that pick. Sorry dew. He's got a lot of potential, I know, but still.

OK, fine. Then Crean is averaging 1.5 departures per offseason at IU. And you think that is an egregious amount? It's above average, sure, but by no means out of the ordinary. As to the extenuating circumstances, I think they cut the opposite way just as much, if not more. Crean/IU was in a position that they had to take anyone, from anywhere, that could play a bit and not be a hooligan off the court. Simply to fill out the roster, Crean had to take kids he might not have otherwise. It's not surprising a few of those have, and will, leave. Crean also inherited recruits from the previous disastrous regime, which is always a recipe for transfers (and may still be). IU had less players to transfer, true, but there is no evidence yet of players being forced out. Malik Story left to be closer to home (a prevelant reason for transferring, I think). Nick Williams left because, well, I'm not real sure (I was sad to see him go, Crean recruited him at Marquette and I cannot imagine this was a force-out situation based on basketball ability). Bawa Muniru left because he couldn't play (in other words, playing time). Further, when these players left none of the 2012, 2013, 2014 or Zeller had committed. IU was trailing in the recruitment in each case and no scholarship crunch existed. Only Muniru would have even played with any of the 2012 recruits (when the scholarship crunch first will begin). Those players left before any scholarship issues existed. As things currently stand, Abell's commitment does not necessarily require two transfers. If, as many believe, Peter Jurkin decides to attend prep school for a year, then only one transfer is necessary prior to the 2012-13 season. Otherwise, it does require two transfers -- but not two transfers this year, two transfer over the next two years (again, normal attrition rate). Things do get murkier if more players are signed (and I suspect they will). That's not to say I'm necessarily fond of Crean's "never stop recruiting" philosophy. I'm quite dubious about Abell's commitment, and not because of the player, because of the scholarships. But the worst of what people claim has happened, simply hasn't.

Is he? Or is he a tall wing type (a la Watford, but better)? I haven't seen him play, but if he's a perimiter type power forward, I still think IU needs more big guys. Edit: Just to be clear, this is in no way meant to be negative to Lyles, who is evidently an oustanding player that any team would love to have. He's got some good post moves in this video (with a few drives and a couple outside shots sprinkled in-the sound doesn't add anything to the video). I have no idea if he'll be able to do that against college players but he could still grow a little bit as well. http://www.insidethehall.com/2011/01/08/video-2014-indianapolis-tech-forward-trey-lyles/ Good to see him inside that much. Anyone that puts up 18 points and 12 rebounds in Indianapolis as a freshman can play, no doubt. I just have completely unfounded concerns that, with his diverse skill set, there may be a bit of "have to show the skills to the NBA scouts" thing going on (which is always a euphemism for hanging out on the perimeter and hoisting jumpers and eschewing most/all post play).

I think it's quite the opposite (you must have conveniently missed my "hyperactively recruiting" and "illogical" posts, somehow). I have a huge problem with cutting players or leaving them out in the cold; I posted something similar a couple years back about not wanting the immortal Tijan Jobe to leave. However, for all the digs such as "spring Creaning lolz" which are seemingly so prevelant, IU has had all of three players transfers during Crean's three-year tenure. One transfer per year, which is right at the average nation-wide. And, considering IU's situation when Crean took over, it's surprising that number isn't much higher. Transfers happen. We'll see what happens in the future (i.e., coming weeks), but the players most fans have wanted gone are still around.

It is curious. On the optimistic side, he does seemingly check a few boxes. He has good size for a guard, is athletic, good defensively, and able to handle the ball some (going off reports, never seen him). All those things are needed. On the negative side, he seems awfully redundant unless he really can handle the ball well enough to be a back-up point. In 2012-13, IU has these wings lined up: Creek, Oladipo, Sheehey, Etherington, Abell, Patterson, Hollowell. Plus, they're still recruiting Gary Harris hard and no doubt would take him if he'll come. That's potentially eight guys for two spots. Crean's hyperactivity is going a bit crazy -- the team needs BIG MEN. I think this means at least one of the following: (1) multiple transfers this year, and/or (2) Crean really believes Abell is the back-up ballhandler. You also forgot Watford as another wing. I do think Crean likes to run an offense without too many traditional big men though. I think Zeller and Perea will both get a lot of playing time but I can definitely see Crean shifting Watford or Hollowell to the 4 for large stretches as well. I would like 1 more good big man to really feel good about the position but I don't think IU will be that short in the 2012 season. And any big you would pick up this late in the 2011 class probably doesn't help you much. What puzzles me is who would transfer to make room. The wings don't have anybody that really makes sense. Sheehey after one year? Would Creek really sit out another entire year? That's because I refuse to believe Watford is a wing. He's a small, weak, perimeter four. I've seen nothing to change my mind on that. The big man depth for 2012-13 looks relatively decent: Zeller/Watford(ish)/Perea/Elston(?)/Jurkin(?). However, after that it gets dicey. You've got Zeller and Perea that I'm confident in, and Jurkin who seems like a project that may be in prep school. After that? Nothing. The team desperately needs intererior depth for the future. The 2011 class has one big man, the 2012 has two, 2013 zero, and 2014 one (? or is it a tall wing?). That's added to a team with really no competent big men. Even if Jurkin is good, that's still only three big men on the roster. Insufficient. I'm not saying they can get anyone good this late . . . but they did just take a 3-star guard this late . . . Agreed. The most likely transfers seem to be big men and the other roster deus ex machina seems to be Jurkin to prep school. So, still a glut of wings. Abell better be a ball handler. I'm much more confident in finding a guard late that can contribute than a big man. Most big men with any talent whatsoever have already been picked up at this point. I think the future big men could come in that 2013 class. That's when three players who can play in the 4/5 positions are graduating so I'm guessing that Crean will have to add at least 1 and maybe 2 big men to that class. Agreed. A late 3-star signing guard is far more likely to be able to play than a late signing 3-star interior player. I'm not beating the drum that IU needs another big man at all cost for next year, just that they need more lined up in the future (I agree, 2013 seems to be the place Crean is really looking at).

Is he? Or is he a tall wing type (a la Watford, but better)? I haven't seen him play, but if he's a perimiter type power forward, I still think IU needs more big guys. Edit: Just to be clear, this is in no way meant to be negative to Lyles, who is evidently an oustanding player that any team would love to have.

It is curious. On the optimistic side, he does seemingly check a few boxes. He has good size for a guard, is athletic, good defensively, and able to handle the ball some (going off reports, never seen him). All those things are needed. On the negative side, he seems awfully redundant unless he really can handle the ball well enough to be a back-up point. In 2012-13, IU has these wings lined up: Creek, Oladipo, Sheehey, Etherington, Abell, Patterson, Hollowell. Plus, they're still recruiting Gary Harris hard and no doubt would take him if he'll come. That's potentially eight guys for two spots. Crean's hyperactivity is going a bit crazy -- the team needs BIG MEN. I think this means at least one of the following: (1) multiple transfers this year, and/or (2) Crean really believes Abell is the back-up ballhandler. You also forgot Watford as another wing. I do think Crean likes to run an offense without too many traditional big men though. I think Zeller and Perea will both get a lot of playing time but I can definitely see Crean shifting Watford or Hollowell to the 4 for large stretches as well. I would like 1 more good big man to really feel good about the position but I don't think IU will be that short in the 2012 season. And any big you would pick up this late in the 2011 class probably doesn't help you much. What puzzles me is who would transfer to make room. The wings don't have anybody that really makes sense. Sheehey after one year? Would Creek really sit out another entire year? That's because I refuse to believe Watford is a wing. He's a small, weak, perimeter four. I've seen nothing to change my mind on that. The big man depth for 2012-13 looks relatively decent: Zeller/Watford(ish)/Perea/Elston(?)/Jurkin(?). However, after that it gets dicey. You've got Zeller and Perea that I'm confident in, and Jurkin who seems like a project that may be in prep school. After that? Nothing. The team desperately needs intererior depth for the future. The 2011 class has one big man, the 2012 has two, 2013 zero, and 2014 one (? or is it a tall wing?). That's added to a team with really no competent big men. Even if Jurkin is good, that's still only three big men on the roster. Insufficient. I'm not saying they can get anyone good this late . . . but they did just take a 3-star guard this late . . . Agreed. The most likely transfers seem to be big men and the other roster deus ex machina seems to be Jurkin to prep school. So, still a glut of wings. Abell better be a ball handler.

We picked up a 5th year senior transfer from Bradley, so we only have one opening for this year(which will probably go unfilled, leaving 2 for '12) With the monster '13 class, I'd be surprised/disappointed if we didn't roll one of the two to 2013. I'm worrying a bit that PU and IU are done with their 2013 classes. Hopefully we haven't slipped in recruitting again. I know it's still early but a verbal would be nice. Haha, if we've learned anything, it's that Tom Crean is never done recruiting. Even if it's completely illogical.

This leaves them 2 over in 2012. Delaney's not gonna like that. There's a rule against over-verballing? News to me.

It is curious. On the optimistic side, he does seemingly check a few boxes. He has good size for a guard, is athletic, good defensively, and able to handle the ball some (going off reports, never seen him). All those things are needed. On the negative side, he seems awfully redundant unless he really can handle the ball well enough to be a back-up point. In 2012-13, IU has these wings lined up: Creek, Oladipo, Sheehey, Etherington, Abell, Patterson, Hollowell. Plus, they're still recruiting Gary Harris hard and no doubt would take him if he'll come. That's potentially eight guys for two spots. Crean's hyperactivity is going a bit crazy -- the team needs BIG MEN. I think this means at least one of the following: (1) multiple transfers this year, and/or (2) Crean really believes Abell is the back-up ballhandler.

I've heard the "trade Kane" garbage too and think it's batcrap crazy. I'm not saying he's not without his issues (defensive), but his skill level and puck-handling are outstanding. He's a difference maker -- see Game 5 against Nashville, the Stanley Cup OT winner, etc -- and you simply don't willy nilly trade those guys. He does things others can't. Also, he's really the face of the franchise, in my opinion. I know some will say Toews -- who is obviously the better player -- but Toews is a bit wooden and Kane has personality. Thus making him even less likely to be traded. I think, pretty clearly, you only bring back one of Frolik/Stalberg and, from what was shown this season, it surely has to be Frolik. Stalberg isn't really good enough to be paired with Toews/Kane or Sharp/Hossa and seemingly has little use on the bottom two lines. Someone has to leave to make room for some grit down there. I forget who said it, but I agree completely on Hjalmarsson. He is a bit unique as far as Hawks defensemen go, and would be a shame to lose him for that reason. The Hawks have a lot of offensive blue liners, less stay-at-home guys. Oh well.

I love relegation for soccer, but don't think it's feasible at all for US pro sports. I personally don't love the league/cup system -- excepting, of course, the Champions League which is outstanding -- other than the added relevance of the regular season winner (i.e., almost certainly the best team). I wouldn't be in favor of importing the league/cup system, but I do think people would watch (there would be some teeth-gnashing initially, but I really see little evidence that the US sporting public wouldn't embrace watching their teams play in such a format -- heck, exhibition/preseason/spring training games are often well attended).

Thanks CPP. Good pick. Oh, and you guys missed it. The concert was glorious. :wink:

Honestly . . . I'm about to leave work and am going to the Arcade Fire/National concert tonight, so you might as well go ahead and make the pick. Sorry.

Congrats to the Bulls. They were obviously the better team and played a great game last night. I'm just glad the Pacers got one and were competive in 80 percent of the games (I was always worried the scenario for Game 5 might lead to a blowout). As for Foster, he's never been a dirty player. I'm sure he was trying to play physical (it's the playoffs) and I also think he's gotten older and doesn't react as quick, likely leading to things looking worse than they were intended to be.

I'll be rooting for not Vancouver (yes, even Detroit, I think). As for the rest of the playoffs, I remain very interested and would love to watch. Unfortunately, I don't have Versus. Ugh.

With the salary cap evidently increasing, I'm hopeful they can sign a couple Eager/Reasoner/whoever types. I'm fairly confident they have enough in-house for three solid lines next year -- Toews, Kane, Sharp, Hossa, Bolland, Bickell, Smith, Morin, Frolik (if re-signed), Brouwer (if re-signed) -- but they really lacked the depth of last year. Contrary to some in the other thread, I don't believe Sharp has to be moved. They probably need to look into moving Hjalmarsson, who I do like (and I don't think this is the proverbial "no one will take your garbage" situation, he surely has some value). It's another big offseason, but I'm more confident for next year than I was for this year.

Third awful turnover by Campoli in two games, two leading to goals. Vancouver wanted to lose that game too. Crap crap crap.

Nashville redux!!!!!!

I would strongly dispute the term "featured". I would hazard a guess that ESPN/2 airs about the same number of Euro soccer games as WNBA and Arena Football games, and probably in very similar timeslots (i.e., undesirable ones). Feel free to correct me if that's a misconception. A red herring would be to focus on the performance of a once-every-four-years event such as the World Cup. Americans love gymnastics and bobsledding for a few weeks every four years too. As to your first post, I agree. Saying "x works in soccer, it will work here" is logically specious. You were guilty of saying the exact opposite though (i.e., "soccer isn't popular here, therefore x won't work here"). As to your second post, the EPL games are in the morning because they're aired live. It's not like ESPN banishes the games to an undesirable time slot. Due to the time difference, they're never going to be both (1) in a desirable time slot and (2) live. That just never going to change, no matter how popular the EPL may become here. Americans love the Olympics, there is no doubt about that. That, however, is quite different than saying they love gymnastics and bobsledding. The World Cup is only soccer, and Americans love it. You first said "whatever that sport is doing, the American sporting public ain't buying." The American sporting public is, in fact, buying -- to the tune of $425 million TV deals, more tickets sold to the World Cup than any other nation, and equal attendance for a middling league (MLS) as to two of the four major US sports (NBA, NHL).

Even if you were correct that soccer isn't popular in the US -- and you're not -- it seems incredibly thin, logically speaking, to blame the purported unpopularity on the league/cup system employed. I did nothing of the sort. Soccer is unpopular as a spectator sport here, because Americans find it boring to watch. It's a fringe, niche sport in the U.S. Sorry if that hurts your feelings or whatever, but the numbers are what they are, and the absence of any meaningful national TV deal proves the point. So to make the argument, as others have, that Americans would embrace a multiple-champion setup in baseball because it works in soccer is inherently flawed, because soccer itself hasn't worked in America (at least not as a spectator/fan sport). Tons of kids play soccer, and it's growing like crazy in terms of participation. I get that. But that's not pertinent to this issue. No. Again, you have a serious correlation-causation problem. Because soccer isn't popular here doesn't mean the league/cup system would be unpopular here (though I would not even remotely be in favor of importing it). There are many reasons soccer may not be popular here, and you have shown no nexus between soccer's unpopularity in the US and the league/cup system (I'd posit such nexus would be impossible to prove, as I don't believe most Americans are even aware of the simultaneous domestic cups and leagues). When you say "whatever that sport is doing, the American sporting public ain't buying" and use that for a reason the league/cup system would not work in the US, you are ostensibly saying that "soccer is played with 11 players a side, and soccer hasn't worked in America, so no sport with 11 players a side would work in America." Further, you can focus on MLS's TV deal, but that is really a red herring. The MLS is a middling league (minor league baseball has no major TV deal, does that mean baseball is unpopular?). The MLS's lack of a major TV deal simply proves that the MLS is unpopular on TV, not that soccer is unpopular on TV. The World Cup and Euros are featured on ESPN and ABC, and the EPL is now featured weekly on ESPN/2. The TV deal for the 2010 World Cup was worth $425 million in the United States. So much for the absence of a meaningful TV deal for soccer, huh?

Sure. Most people thought it would be a four or five game series -- but that's a different statement than most people thought it would be a five game series. I don't believe that's true at all; it was a 62-win team against a 37-win team. I don't really need "detailed records," just go back through the threads. Bulls fans were entirely dismissive of the Pacers, to the point most believed it wouldn't be a competitive series at all (though, certainly, the Pacers had ostensibly no chance to actually win the series). That statement/belief is more rank homerism: "well, we knew the Pacers were good and would give us all we could handle, this was expected." Yeah. Freakin'. Right. Of course, I know the only reason the Pacers have won once is that the NBA officials were incredibly biased in favor of the small market team with no stars. So the Pacers didn't really win one game. You want to get some love for your team...I get it. That's cool. The Pacers have exceeded playoff expectations. There ya go. Nobody is saying differently. Yay Pacers! Thanks. Was that really so difficult? The Pacers have played the Bulls tougher than almost anyone expected (even a lot of Pacers fans, though I did predict a game four win before the series began). The Bulls have been able to perservere through a difficult matchup, some poor shooting nights and an injury to Rose, and crappy play from a sizeable portion of the roster (Boozer especially, though I'm not his biggest fan anyway) and will still win in five. That's not bad; and a lot of teams struggle in the first round and gain momentum as the playoffs progress.

Sure. Most people thought it would be a four or five game series -- but that's a different statement than most people thought it would be a five game series. I don't believe that's true at all; it was a 62-win team against a 37-win team. I don't really need "detailed records," just go back through the threads. Bulls fans were entirely dismissive of the Pacers, to the point most believed it wouldn't be a competitive series at all (though, certainly, the Pacers had ostensibly no chance to actually win the series). That statement/belief is more rank homerism: "well, we knew the Pacers were good and would give us all we could handle, this was expected." Yeah. Freakin'. Right. Of course, I know the only reason the Pacers have won once is that the NBA officials were incredibly biased in favor of the small market team with no stars. So the Pacers didn't really win one game.

Really? Most people thought this was a five-game series and not a sweep? I'm thinking that's some revisionist history.

Even if you were correct that soccer isn't popular in the US -- and you're not -- it seems incredibly thin, logically speaking, to blame the purported unpopularity on the league/cup system employed. Especially since we all know soccer isn't popular in the US because Americans hate sports played with a white and black spotted ball.