|
Post by 00hmh on Jan 13, 2019 15:49:06 GMT -6
I remember an Indy star blogger saying that Teagues transcript was a mess. I was surprised he qualified, really. Big reason he wasn’t recruited more. I remember that as well. My point to hmh was that he wasn't really much of a risk, because mid majors absolutely have to jump on kids like that when the opportunity comes along. He's our highest rated recruit since Bonzi. I agree he was a good risk to take. I was arguing with the post that says we don't take risks and pointing out that taking risks is not enough.
You get credit for your risk taking when the long shot comes home.
We have taken some risky decisions and not all have worked out, particularly by putting a lot of time and effort into some recruits who never signed. Not as many as we want have panned out, some with those we signed, some with missing out on a recruit we did a good job recruiting. But a long shot to sign.
You have to take risks, and your success depends on some of those long shots. Take a chance and win and you are not always a genius, take one and fail and it isn't you are an idiot or incompetent, either. You can pretend that the "good" decisions are all genius, but that just isn't so.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jan 13, 2019 15:59:39 GMT -6
Teague was risky. Anytime we sign a kid 6-8 or better he is risky in some respect. Otherwise he'd be at a better school.
Yes ladies and gentleman we have verified proof of stupidity. Yes, in your self referential post, to disagree with an obvious truth, that is true.
Show me all the big kids in the last 20 years we have competed in any way with the big schools and signed, 6-8, without risk? ,
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Jan 13, 2019 16:07:45 GMT -6
Yes ladies and gentleman we have verified proof of stupidity. Yes, in your self referential post, to disagree with an obvious truth, that is true.
Show me all the big kids in the last 20 years we have competed in any way with the big schools and signed, 6-8, without risk? ,
That's Ball States ineptitude, not an imperative rule for all mid majors. Besides no one mentioned the condition of "competing with big schools" except for YOU AT THIS VERY MOMENT.
|
|
|
Post by david75bsu on Jan 13, 2019 16:08:42 GMT -6
We just built a freestanding basketball only practice facility, which is something most mid-majors don't have (hell Butler doesn't have one). I really think the investment is there, my is belief it comes down to ineptitude more than anything else. If Sandy had handled Whits contract correctly this year could be his last. I doubt, barring a tourney appearance Whitford will be seeing another extension. If he does I am with you guys 100%. I have been in the new facility a couple times now and it is really pretty cool and Nice. Worthern while dated is still probably the best arena in the MAC. I would love to see them do something in the concourse area to make it feel homier or just not so cold feeling. I have went to to several away games this year and it seems like most venues are adding a restaurant/bar type area/Gift shop/ Museum of sorts. The concourse is plenty big enough to do all these things. With that being said we can not blame facilities at all First, I think our facility is the best overall facility in the MAC. however, the concourse area could be given more life. I like the idea of restaurant Area, could be in the large gathering area near the collector tunnel, or be more creative and expand the concourse out over the unused seating area and provide a viewing area for the game as well. Why they have stopped opening a gift shop for the game I cannot understand - I had numerous stuff there when it was open. A museum or tunnel highlighting some of the glory days of basketball and volleyball would also be nice. But, it is still a great facility.
|
|
|
Pathetic
Jan 13, 2019 16:49:55 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by 00hmh on Jan 13, 2019 16:49:55 GMT -6
Yes, in your self referential post, to disagree with an obvious truth, that is true.
Show me all the big kids in the last 20 years we have competed in any way with the big schools and signed, 6-8, without risk? ,
That's Ball States ineptitude, not an imperative rule for all mid majors. Besides no one mentioned the condition of "competing with big schools" except for YOU AT THIS VERY MOMENT. The kids without risk and very good go to big schools. How many can't miss no risk big guys are on that list you didn't provide? Mid majors anywhere rarely get kids like that. What exactly were you thinking was wrong with what I said?
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Jan 13, 2019 17:50:12 GMT -6
That's Ball States ineptitude, not an imperative rule for all mid majors. Besides no one mentioned the condition of "competing with big schools" except for YOU AT THIS VERY MOMENT. The kids without risk and very good go to big schools. Is that why we have two SEC transfers, there are dozens of both over and under recruited players every year. It comes down to talent evaluation, which is something Whitford stinks at. You are honestly going to argue Gunn, Acree, and Bumbalough should have been the priority target in their classes. I don't mind having those guys, but they shouldn't be our top targets. I'll lay it right on the line, James Whitford is a lazy recruiter. Think about it, he would have been way better off once Acree accepted, pocketing Coleman's scholarship and using it this year, but he liked being fully signed.
|
|
|
Pathetic
Jan 13, 2019 18:20:57 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by 00hmh on Jan 13, 2019 18:20:57 GMT -6
We recruit them now it helps us later, though. Two ways to win.
See no lazy in the class. You just don't like Coleman.
I don't buy your suggestion on the Acree situation anyway. It was not anywhere as clear as that with doubt up to the start of school, so even more reason to value Coleman.
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Jan 13, 2019 18:36:27 GMT -6
We recruit them now it helps us later, though. Two ways to win.- Can't make heads or tails of what that is supposed to mean. See no lazy in the class. You just don't like Coleman. - I don't even know Coleman. It's about roster management, not Coleman. I don't buy your suggestion on the Acree situation anyway. It was not anywhere as clear as that with doubt up to the start of school, so even more reason to value Coleman.- Okay if you want to look at it that way, Acree shouldn't have been a priority target, and redshirting Coleman makes no sense at all. Now you have three wings in the same class.
|
|
|
Post by CallingBS on Jan 13, 2019 18:46:29 GMT -6
That's Ball States ineptitude, not an imperative rule for all mid majors. Besides no one mentioned the condition of "competing with big schools" except for YOU AT THIS VERY MOMENT. The kids without risk and very good go to big schools. How many can't miss no risk big guys are on that list you didn't provide? Mid majors anywhere rarely get kids like that. What exactly were you thinking was wrong with what I said? Here's what's wrong with your post - insinuating it was an option to not take Teague is absurd. Thus, I'd argue it wasn't really a risk in the sense that Whitford would have been a complete fool to walk away from him because his transcript was a bit of a challenge.
|
|
|
Pathetic
Jan 13, 2019 20:31:14 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by 00hmh on Jan 13, 2019 20:31:14 GMT -6
The fact is you have to take risks. That you have no choice does not make it not be risky...
The post said we weren't willing to do so...but we now seem to agree we do take risks.
|
|
|
Pathetic
Jan 13, 2019 20:42:28 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by 00hmh on Jan 13, 2019 20:42:28 GMT -6
halftime, the staff really liked Acree, no way they weren't going to take him. Silly to ignore the risk. They are happy with 3 good players.
Not sure they see Thomas as like either Coleman or Acree. Both G/F more. Best available players at time decisions made, all will play.
I see no way to be all that disappointed here except we missed on a top big guy. And maybe we won't regret that long term. Thomas, Acree they are very happy to have. Coleman, you doubt but he may be a critical piece in future teams.
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Jan 13, 2019 21:17:02 GMT -6
Not sure they see Thomas as like either Coleman or Acree. Both G/F more. Best available players at time decisions made, all will play. Oh hey thanks, it's actually more like four wings in that class, I was thinking of Kroft, not Thomas. Although Thomas isn't really in the same class.
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Jan 13, 2019 21:20:27 GMT -6
I see no way to be all that disappointed here except we missed on a top big guy. And an athletic point, and a power forward, and someone who can play an effective two.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2019 21:27:22 GMT -6
.....I’m DVRing the rest of this to read tomorrow.....
|
|