Here’s the basketball recruiting truth -- IU needs to get, has to get Cody Zeller and Hanner Perea. Absolutely has to. Both are elite big men and if you’ve followed Indiana basketball, you know how much the Hoosiers need elite big men.
Their last dominating inside player was D.J. White, who developed into a double-double machine by his senior season. IU doesn’t have to have that from a player (although it sure would be nice), but it does need someone who can consistently score inside, rebound, play defense and, well, kick some rump.
Zeller and Perea showed signs of being able to do that at the Adidas Invitational in Indianapolis this week, although Perea’s sprained ankle limits him.
He’ll heal, of course. His future remains as bright as LeBron James’ contract prospects.
Zeller has a recruiting list longer than my son used to have at Christmas. Indiana is on it. So are Purdue, Notre Dame, North Carolina, Texas, Florida Michigan, Wake Forest and, yes, Butler. The list might grow after Zeller’s opening day performance in front of a bunch of big-time coaches.
Yes, it helps that he’s 6-10 and that he has a strong basketball pedigree with brothers Luke and Tyler. Luke went to Notre Dame. Tyler is at North Carolina. He has a lot of big-time moves and a work ethic that keeps him developing even more.
But maybe more than anything else what makes Zeller special is his attitude. He’s not swayed by style as much as substance. All the bells and whistles associated with major college program facilities, including IU’s Cook Hall practice facility, are nice, but aren’t his top priorities.
Zeller wants to make sure he makes the right decision. He plans on making all five of his official visits this fall. He’s set to make his final decision in time for the November signing period, which is different than Branden Dawson, who likely will wait till the spring before making his decision.
Yes, this leaves IU coach Tom Crean and all the rest of the contenders hoping that in the end, they’ll prevail.
Signs of where Zeller will go are all over the map. Some days IU seems to have the edge. Other days Indiana seems out of the picture. The bottom line, if IU wants to return to big-time status, and it does, it needs big-time players. Zeller and Perea are two of the biggest in their classes.
You can’t get much more truthful than that.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Does IU Football or IU Basketball Rule July?
Forget, for just a moment, about basketball recruiting, the fact recruits Branden Dawson and Gary Harris are at the super-rigid LeBron James Skills Academy; that Cody Zeller, Austin Etherington and a whole bunch of other guys looking at Indiana are playing in AAU events in Indianapolis this week; and that Je’Ney Jackson has ticked off the Southern Mississippi football coach by quitting after just a couple of months on the job as a secondary coach to become, apparently, the Hoosiers’ new basketball strength coach.
Instead, focus on what really matters in July:
IU football.
Okay, we know some of you will disagree. Check that. We know MOST of you will disagree. We’ve gotten used to that at home, where everybody disagrees with us except the dog, and even SHE has been giving us the eye lately.
Still, in fairness to what looms as the strongest part of the football Hoosiers, we offer an assessment of how Cream ‘n Crimson receivers stack up compared to the rest of the Big Ten.
Start with Tandon Doss. He caught 77 passes for 962 yards and five touchdowns last season. He is the second-leading returning receiver in the Big Ten behind Purdue’s Keith Smith (91 catches, 1,100 yards, six touchdowns).
Then there’s Damarlo Belcher, who caught 61 passes for 770 yards and five touchdowns. That ranks third among returning Big Ten receivers.
In fact, no other conference team returns that kind of receiving firepower.
Don’t forget Terrance Turner, who caught 46 passes for 443 yards and a touchdown. IU also is looking for big things from redshirt freshman Duwyce Wilson and junior Dre Muhammad.
Oh, tailback Darius Willis could be a big receiving factor. He caught 10 passes for 88 yards last year coming out of the backfield. Indiana also has a solid tight end in Max Dedmond, who did catch 18 passes (one for a touchdown) last season.
Is this enough to knock Wisconsin off its position of having the Big Ten’s best group of receivers (according to Phil Steele's College Football Preview Magazine)? Maybe not. The Badgers are led by Nick Toon, who caught 54 passes for 805 yards and four touchdowns.
If you’re looking for touchdown potential, pay attention to Ohio State’s DeVier Posey. He caught eight touchdown passes last year.
Iowa has the best of the returning big-play receivers in Marvin McNutt. He averaged 19.8 yards for his 34 catches, including eight touchdowns. The Hawkeyes also return Derrell Johnson-Koulianos, who caught 45 passes for 750 yards, a 16.7-yard average.
Penn State has a couple of solid receivers in Derek Moye (48 catches, 786 yards and six touchdowns) and Graham Zug (46 catches, 600 yards, seven TDs).
The Nittany Lions, however, have no proven quarterback, so it might not matter if they had in-his-prime Jerry Rice running routes.
That is a discussion for another day. For now consider Hoosier receivers as a group are as good as any in the conference. They have an accurate quarterback in Ben Chappell throwing to them. If the line protects him, the passing game should thrive.
Oh, one last thing about the basketball strength coach hire. Jackson was the strength coach at Wyoming while new IU basketball assistant coach Steve McClain was the Cowboys’ head coach. Jackson went to Kansas and became an assistant strength coach there for two years, then switched to cornerback coach for his last three years before briefly moving to Southern Mississippi.
Now he’s a Hoosier. McClain is a Hoosier. Tom Crean is a Hoosier. And if, say, Cody Zeller becomes a Hoosier, well, maybe IU basketball matters in July after all.
Instead, focus on what really matters in July:
IU football.
Okay, we know some of you will disagree. Check that. We know MOST of you will disagree. We’ve gotten used to that at home, where everybody disagrees with us except the dog, and even SHE has been giving us the eye lately.
Still, in fairness to what looms as the strongest part of the football Hoosiers, we offer an assessment of how Cream ‘n Crimson receivers stack up compared to the rest of the Big Ten.
Start with Tandon Doss. He caught 77 passes for 962 yards and five touchdowns last season. He is the second-leading returning receiver in the Big Ten behind Purdue’s Keith Smith (91 catches, 1,100 yards, six touchdowns).
Then there’s Damarlo Belcher, who caught 61 passes for 770 yards and five touchdowns. That ranks third among returning Big Ten receivers.
In fact, no other conference team returns that kind of receiving firepower.
Don’t forget Terrance Turner, who caught 46 passes for 443 yards and a touchdown. IU also is looking for big things from redshirt freshman Duwyce Wilson and junior Dre Muhammad.
Oh, tailback Darius Willis could be a big receiving factor. He caught 10 passes for 88 yards last year coming out of the backfield. Indiana also has a solid tight end in Max Dedmond, who did catch 18 passes (one for a touchdown) last season.
Is this enough to knock Wisconsin off its position of having the Big Ten’s best group of receivers (according to Phil Steele's College Football Preview Magazine)? Maybe not. The Badgers are led by Nick Toon, who caught 54 passes for 805 yards and four touchdowns.
If you’re looking for touchdown potential, pay attention to Ohio State’s DeVier Posey. He caught eight touchdown passes last year.
Iowa has the best of the returning big-play receivers in Marvin McNutt. He averaged 19.8 yards for his 34 catches, including eight touchdowns. The Hawkeyes also return Derrell Johnson-Koulianos, who caught 45 passes for 750 yards, a 16.7-yard average.
Penn State has a couple of solid receivers in Derek Moye (48 catches, 786 yards and six touchdowns) and Graham Zug (46 catches, 600 yards, seven TDs).
The Nittany Lions, however, have no proven quarterback, so it might not matter if they had in-his-prime Jerry Rice running routes.
That is a discussion for another day. For now consider Hoosier receivers as a group are as good as any in the conference. They have an accurate quarterback in Ben Chappell throwing to them. If the line protects him, the passing game should thrive.
Oh, one last thing about the basketball strength coach hire. Jackson was the strength coach at Wyoming while new IU basketball assistant coach Steve McClain was the Cowboys’ head coach. Jackson went to Kansas and became an assistant strength coach there for two years, then switched to cornerback coach for his last three years before briefly moving to Southern Mississippi.
Now he’s a Hoosier. McClain is a Hoosier. Tom Crean is a Hoosier. And if, say, Cody Zeller becomes a Hoosier, well, maybe IU basketball matters in July after all.
Monday, July 5, 2010
Top-Notch Talent -- IU Begins Quest for Basketball Best
Talk about good timing. Rivals.com has just come out with its top 150 for the Class of 2012 and there’s a bunch of really good big men at the top. This is great news for Indiana, which could use a bunch of really good big men.
Nine of Rivals’ first 10 are inside players. That leads us to some not so great news for the Hoosiers -- only one is apparently interested in them, No. 6 Ricardo Ledo of Rhode Island, and he’s a 6-5 small forward.
However, the No. 13 player, Hanner Perea, an extremely athletic 6-7 forward from North Carolina who just happens to play on the Indiana Elite AAU team, is VERY interested in the Cream ‘n Crimson ways.
As you would expect, IU has plenty of competition for Perea, including North Carolina, Tennessee, Wake Forest, Baylor, Alabama and Mississippi. That’s fine. Coach Tom Crean and his staff can handle it.
The Hoosiers also are in the running for No. 16 Gary Harris, a guard from Hamilton Southeastern; No. 21 D’Vauntes Smith-Rivera, a guard from Indianapolis North Central; No. 22 Yogi Ferrell, a guard from Indianapolis Park Tudor; No. 35 Jeremy Hollowell, a guard from Indianapolis Lawrence Central, and a whole bunch more.
Nothing is guaranteed, of course, but if IU can land one of these elite guys early, it just might set the stage for a big-time class.
Starting today Crean and his staff, as well as every coach from every college in the land, begin their annual July odyssey that takes them all over America to evaluate and be seen.
Who knows? Maybe that will be enough for the best of the 2012 class to consider the Hoosiers. The top three are No. 1 Andre Drummond, a 6-9, 251-pound center from Connecticut; No. 2 Isaiah Austin, a 6-11, 200-pound center from Texas; and No. 3 DaJuan Coleman, a 6-8, 280-pound center from New York.
Duke, North Carolina, Connecticut, Louisville and Georgetown top Drummond’s list. Austin’s favorites include Texas, Kansas and Baylor. Kentucky, Kansas, North Caroline, Ohio State and Louisville are after Coleman.
Getting those players isn’t a necessity, of course, but getting difference-making players is.
That’s what this month is all about.
Sunday, July 4, 2010
What's Up With NCAA's New 68-Team Tourney Format?
Get ready. The NCAA is set to announce how it’s going to handle its newly expanded 68-team basketball tourney field this week.
What does that mean?
First, a little background.
The NCAA tourney went from 48 to 64 teams in 1985. A 65th team was added in 2001.
This wasn’t enough for some coaches (can you say Syracuse’s Jim Boeheim?), who insisted that life as we know it would end unless the field was expanded to 96 teams. Justification came in the form of the increased number of Division I teams in recent years and the increased pressure on coaches to make the NCAA tourney regardless of regular season success.
Power matters, of course. If New Mexico State won 20 games and didn’t make the field, the powers in college basketball didn’t care. But if, say, Syracuse won 18 games and didn’t make it, then something had to be done.
Last spring NCAA officials suggested the tourney might be expanded to 80 or even 96 teams. This would likely have killed the 32-team NIT. Critics said the larger field would ruin the NCAA tourney’s charm and early drama.
Officials from CBS and Turner Broadcasting, who combined had agreed to pay out $10.8 billion over 14 years for the tourney televising rights, said they didn’t need more tourney games to make a profit. Nobody seemed to want that large a field except for on-the-bubble coaches.
And, of course, Jim Boeheim.
Finally, in April, the NCAA switched gears and said they’d add just three teams, for a 68-team field, starting next March. What they didn’t say, because they hadn’t figured it out, was how they would tweak the format to accommodate the extra teams.
They considered three options:
1) Put the eight lowest seeded teams into the first round and let them play each other. The four winners would then enter the 64-team second round.
2) Put the last eight teams to make the field into play-in games, much like they did with the one play-in game contested in recent years.
3) Combine both at-large teams and automatic qualifiers into an eight-team first round.
Officials from small conferences said they would be picked on. It’s much more likely that a small conference school, say from the Southwestern Athletic Conference, would face extra early round games rather than schools from the Big Ten or ACC.
Consider the SWAC consists of schools such as Jackson State, Arkansas-Pine Bluff, Alabama State and Prairie View. Consider further that Jackson State won its league with a 17-1 record, but was just 19-12 overall. That means it was 2-11 outside its conference.
It deserved to be in the play-in game.
Finally, when and where would those extra early games be played? The answer is likely Dayton, Ohio, which has hosted play-in games in recent years.
All this remains speculation. By the end of the week, we should know the facts.
And then, perhaps, Jim Boeheim will find peace.
What does that mean?
First, a little background.
The NCAA tourney went from 48 to 64 teams in 1985. A 65th team was added in 2001.
This wasn’t enough for some coaches (can you say Syracuse’s Jim Boeheim?), who insisted that life as we know it would end unless the field was expanded to 96 teams. Justification came in the form of the increased number of Division I teams in recent years and the increased pressure on coaches to make the NCAA tourney regardless of regular season success.
Power matters, of course. If New Mexico State won 20 games and didn’t make the field, the powers in college basketball didn’t care. But if, say, Syracuse won 18 games and didn’t make it, then something had to be done.
Last spring NCAA officials suggested the tourney might be expanded to 80 or even 96 teams. This would likely have killed the 32-team NIT. Critics said the larger field would ruin the NCAA tourney’s charm and early drama.
Officials from CBS and Turner Broadcasting, who combined had agreed to pay out $10.8 billion over 14 years for the tourney televising rights, said they didn’t need more tourney games to make a profit. Nobody seemed to want that large a field except for on-the-bubble coaches.
And, of course, Jim Boeheim.
Finally, in April, the NCAA switched gears and said they’d add just three teams, for a 68-team field, starting next March. What they didn’t say, because they hadn’t figured it out, was how they would tweak the format to accommodate the extra teams.
They considered three options:
1) Put the eight lowest seeded teams into the first round and let them play each other. The four winners would then enter the 64-team second round.
2) Put the last eight teams to make the field into play-in games, much like they did with the one play-in game contested in recent years.
3) Combine both at-large teams and automatic qualifiers into an eight-team first round.
Officials from small conferences said they would be picked on. It’s much more likely that a small conference school, say from the Southwestern Athletic Conference, would face extra early round games rather than schools from the Big Ten or ACC.
Consider the SWAC consists of schools such as Jackson State, Arkansas-Pine Bluff, Alabama State and Prairie View. Consider further that Jackson State won its league with a 17-1 record, but was just 19-12 overall. That means it was 2-11 outside its conference.
It deserved to be in the play-in game.
Finally, when and where would those extra early games be played? The answer is likely Dayton, Ohio, which has hosted play-in games in recent years.
All this remains speculation. By the end of the week, we should know the facts.
And then, perhaps, Jim Boeheim will find peace.
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Here's The Absolutely Best Way To Divide The Big Ten
Do you realize we’re less than a month away from the annual Big Ten football media gathering in Chicago, which means thoughts can turn to Big Ten expansion faster than you can ask, what’s up with Notre Dame?
Nothing, of course, is up with the Irish because expansion fever has cooled. For now, they don’t have to do anything but keep their independent status, and let Big Ten officials dream about what might never be.
Those Big Ten officials, however, are doing more than dreaming. They’re busy figuring out how to fit Nebraska into next year’s schedule, and beyond. The big ticket item is football and dividing the new 12-team league into two six-team divisions.
As far as Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany is concerned the keys are as follows:
1) Competitive fairness
2) Rivalries
3) Geography
Competitive fairness, by the way, would not be a division of Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan, Nebraska, Indiana and Purdue.
So how do you divide it? Conference athletic directors will gather to hash it out. They will get input from coaches and presidents. They will consider all the options.
Tradition indicates the four major teams are Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State and Nebraska. It would make zero sense to put all four in the same division.
Michigan and Ohio State deserve each other. Competitive logic would indicate putting Penn State and Nebraska together in the other division.
Over the last decade or so the best teams after that would be Wisconsin and Iowa. So split them up, maybe Wisconsin with Michigan and Ohio State, and Iowa with Nebraska and Penn State.
That leaves Indiana, Purdue, Northwestern, Minnesota, Michigan State and Illinois.
A 10-year snapshot of Big Ten action puts Purdue and Northwestern with the next best records, the Boilers at 41-39, the Wildcats at 38-42. So split them up. After that the two best records are Michigan State (32-48) and Minnesota (30-50). Split them up. Last is Illinois (26-54) and IU (18-62).
Key rivalries to consider include Michigan State-Michigan, Ohio State-Michigan and Indiana-Purdue.
Because the divisions wouldn’t be based on geography it would be hard to call them Big Ten East or Big Ten North, but given the 12-team league is still called the Big Ten, does it really matter?
How about a Big Ten East of Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio State, Michigan State Purdue and Indiana. That would leave a Big Ten West of Penn State, Nebraska, Iowa, Northwestern, Minnesota and Illinois.
Or, if you wanted to potentially go a little easier on the Hoosiers, you could put Minnesota and Illinois in the Big Ten East and Indiana and Purdue in the Big Ten West.
Each team would play five division games and three non-division games. Each team could schedule non-conference games based on the needs and fit of its program.
So there you have it. We have done all the work, so Big Ten athletic directors can implement it and focus on what’s really important in major-college football:
A playoff.
Nothing, of course, is up with the Irish because expansion fever has cooled. For now, they don’t have to do anything but keep their independent status, and let Big Ten officials dream about what might never be.
Those Big Ten officials, however, are doing more than dreaming. They’re busy figuring out how to fit Nebraska into next year’s schedule, and beyond. The big ticket item is football and dividing the new 12-team league into two six-team divisions.
As far as Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany is concerned the keys are as follows:
1) Competitive fairness
2) Rivalries
3) Geography
Competitive fairness, by the way, would not be a division of Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan, Nebraska, Indiana and Purdue.
So how do you divide it? Conference athletic directors will gather to hash it out. They will get input from coaches and presidents. They will consider all the options.
Tradition indicates the four major teams are Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State and Nebraska. It would make zero sense to put all four in the same division.
Michigan and Ohio State deserve each other. Competitive logic would indicate putting Penn State and Nebraska together in the other division.
Over the last decade or so the best teams after that would be Wisconsin and Iowa. So split them up, maybe Wisconsin with Michigan and Ohio State, and Iowa with Nebraska and Penn State.
That leaves Indiana, Purdue, Northwestern, Minnesota, Michigan State and Illinois.
A 10-year snapshot of Big Ten action puts Purdue and Northwestern with the next best records, the Boilers at 41-39, the Wildcats at 38-42. So split them up. After that the two best records are Michigan State (32-48) and Minnesota (30-50). Split them up. Last is Illinois (26-54) and IU (18-62).
Key rivalries to consider include Michigan State-Michigan, Ohio State-Michigan and Indiana-Purdue.
Because the divisions wouldn’t be based on geography it would be hard to call them Big Ten East or Big Ten North, but given the 12-team league is still called the Big Ten, does it really matter?
How about a Big Ten East of Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio State, Michigan State Purdue and Indiana. That would leave a Big Ten West of Penn State, Nebraska, Iowa, Northwestern, Minnesota and Illinois.
Or, if you wanted to potentially go a little easier on the Hoosiers, you could put Minnesota and Illinois in the Big Ten East and Indiana and Purdue in the Big Ten West.
Each team would play five division games and three non-division games. Each team could schedule non-conference games based on the needs and fit of its program.
So there you have it. We have done all the work, so Big Ten athletic directors can implement it and focus on what’s really important in major-college football:
A playoff.
Friday, July 2, 2010
Acclaim Continues For Indiana’s Basketball Recruiting Targets
Are you one of those people who love basketball recruiting? Do you scour the Internet, newspapers and everything else you can get your hands on to find out about America’s best talent and how many of those guys are interested in Indiana?
Then take a look at what Rivals.com and Scout.com have in store for you.
The two rival national Internet recruiting services have just come out with their latest national rankings. Rivals has updated its top 150 list for 2011. Scout has released its top 75 for the Class of 2012.
Indiana is targeting eight members of Rivals’ 2011 list and seven on Scout’s 2012 list.
That’s the good news. The bad news is IU doesn’t have any commitments from any of these guys.
Hold on, you say. What about Austin Etherington of Hamilton Heights, who has committed to the Hoosiers and who has been rated for a while?
Well, he’s been out with a back injury. Apparently out of sight is out of mind. Figure once the 6-6 guard gets back in action, he’ll return to the ratings. If he’s healthy, he’ll have plenty of opportunities this month to show what he can do. Elite players will be in tournaments all across the country, including Indianapolis, Las Vegas and Orlando.
In the meantime, here’s where IU’s recruiting targets are rated.
For the Class of 2011 Branden Dawson is at No. 25, B.J. Young is at No. 33, Cody Zeller is at No. 35, Aaron Thomas is at No. 95, Marshall Plumlee is at No. 99, Naadir Tharpe is at No. 109, Jeremiah Davis is at No. 118 and Mitch McGary is at no. 119.
In the Class of 2012 Gary Harris is at No. 10, Hanner Perea is at No. 11, A.J. Hammons is at No. 30, Yogi Ferrell is at No. 34, D’Vantes Smith-Rivera is at No. 35, Jeremy Hollowell is at No. 37 and Ron Patterson is at No. 57.
For the record, the No. 1 player in the Class of 2011 is 6-6 forward Mike Gilchrist of New Jersey. He’s committed to Kentucky. The highest rated player in the state of Indiana is Marquis Teague of Indianapolis Pike. He’s at No. 5. He, too, is committed to Kentucky.
In the Class of 2012 the No. 1 player is 6-11 power forward Andre Drummond. He remains uncommitted. His list includes Connecticut, Duke, Georgetown, North Carolina, Syracuse, Texas and West Virginia. The highest rated in-state player is Harris of Hamilton Southeastern. He’s looking at Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, Vanderbilt, Iowa, Washington and Xavier.
Then take a look at what Rivals.com and Scout.com have in store for you.
The two rival national Internet recruiting services have just come out with their latest national rankings. Rivals has updated its top 150 list for 2011. Scout has released its top 75 for the Class of 2012.
Indiana is targeting eight members of Rivals’ 2011 list and seven on Scout’s 2012 list.
That’s the good news. The bad news is IU doesn’t have any commitments from any of these guys.
Hold on, you say. What about Austin Etherington of Hamilton Heights, who has committed to the Hoosiers and who has been rated for a while?
Well, he’s been out with a back injury. Apparently out of sight is out of mind. Figure once the 6-6 guard gets back in action, he’ll return to the ratings. If he’s healthy, he’ll have plenty of opportunities this month to show what he can do. Elite players will be in tournaments all across the country, including Indianapolis, Las Vegas and Orlando.
In the meantime, here’s where IU’s recruiting targets are rated.
For the Class of 2011 Branden Dawson is at No. 25, B.J. Young is at No. 33, Cody Zeller is at No. 35, Aaron Thomas is at No. 95, Marshall Plumlee is at No. 99, Naadir Tharpe is at No. 109, Jeremiah Davis is at No. 118 and Mitch McGary is at no. 119.
In the Class of 2012 Gary Harris is at No. 10, Hanner Perea is at No. 11, A.J. Hammons is at No. 30, Yogi Ferrell is at No. 34, D’Vantes Smith-Rivera is at No. 35, Jeremy Hollowell is at No. 37 and Ron Patterson is at No. 57.
For the record, the No. 1 player in the Class of 2011 is 6-6 forward Mike Gilchrist of New Jersey. He’s committed to Kentucky. The highest rated player in the state of Indiana is Marquis Teague of Indianapolis Pike. He’s at No. 5. He, too, is committed to Kentucky.
In the Class of 2012 the No. 1 player is 6-11 power forward Andre Drummond. He remains uncommitted. His list includes Connecticut, Duke, Georgetown, North Carolina, Syracuse, Texas and West Virginia. The highest rated in-state player is Harris of Hamilton Southeastern. He’s looking at Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, Vanderbilt, Iowa, Washington and Xavier.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
'Edgy' Crean Needs A Big Month
It’s time for Tom Crean to kick some recruiting … well … rump, and land some in-state studs.
Does that sound too harsh?
Of course not.
Recruiting is not for the meek, who might inherit the earth, but won’t get a sniff at, say, Cody Zeller or Branden Dawson.
So with a big month of evaluating coming up -– coaches get to watch, but not talk to, players competing in events from Indianapolis to Orlando to Las Vegas to Los Angeles –- it’s time for Crean to get his recruiting edge.
It seems he already has. We know this based on a couple of tweets that were not so sweet. Opposing coaches apparently are not playing nice in the recruiting game -- imagine that!! -- and Crean has had it.
“Frankly, some of the assistants we go against I wouldn’t let valet my car. They either would lose the keys or drive away with it,” Crean wrote.
And then:
“In all honesty there are some head coaches that would be the same way. The ones that wake up on third base and think they hit a triple kill me.”
This last one is a little cryptic, but it makes the point that Crean is mad as heck and he’s not gonna take it.
If this were reality TV, Crean and some of those unnamed coaches would get in front of a camera and go all MMA on each other. Because this is college sports and decorum has to be followed, we miss that in-the-gutter entertainment for this bottom-line truth:
Crean’s anger needs to translate into big-time recruits, say a dynamic point guard and a rock-the-rim big man.
Crean’s reputation –- based on an impressive recruiting display as a Michigan State assistant combined with his Final Four run at Marquette -– suggests good times are coming.
The sooner the better given the total of 16 wins over the last two seasons.
Last year’s class of Maurice Creek, Christian Watford, Jordan Hulls, Derek Elston and Bobby Capobianco was very good. Bawa Muniru didn’t work out, but that happens.
This year’s newcomers -– guards Will Sheehey and Victor Oladipo, and center Guy Marc-Michel -- aren’t as heralded. It’s uncertain how much impact they’ll make, but it needs to be extensive, especially from the 7-1 Michel.
That brings us to the upcoming Classes of 2011 and 2012. As the world knows, the in-state high school talent is win-a-national-championship good.
There’s still-available guys like Dawson, Zeller, Michael Chandler, Jeremiah Davis and Mitch McGary for the Class of 2011. The Class of 2012 has Gary Harris, D’Vauntes Smith Rivera, Jeremy Hollowell, A.J. Hammons, Ron Patterson, Yogi Ferrell, DeJuan Marrero and Glenn Robinson.
They’ll all be in action this month.
What will Crean and the rest of his coaching brethren be doing?
Sitting, watching and being seen. Showing that they care. Proving that they’re willing to put in the time and miles it takes to land special players.
NCAA rules prohibits basically everything else.
Along the way maybe Crean can find a diamond in the rough, somebody who isn’t on every major team’s radar, but who has what it takes to make a college difference. Those guys are out there, and if Crean can land some of them, as well as the superstars, all that talk about restoring Indiana’s glory will have substance.
It will, in fact, become reality.
In the end, that’s what it’s all about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)