1. Thanks for the Sunday Scoop Dustin and Jeremy. I think the most interesting part is the last few minutes where you discussed the scholarship numbers. One thing I did not know is that the kids can officially start signing next Wednesday. This makes things very interesting. Based on scholarship numbers I believe that 4 guys could sign and that would be okay. (The math here would be the current 13 scholarships minus Hulls, Watford, and Elston PLUS 1 oversign). That then leaves two guys waiting to see how things shake out.

    While Dustin and Jeremy don’t feel comfortable speculating about what may happen to make things work out I think we can agree that there are a pool of players that might leave early to go pro (Zeller, Yogi, VO, Sheehey — with only Zeller likely to rate at an over 50% chance of doing so). Then there are the possible transfer guys (Etherington and/or Creek with a possible Roth situation for Creek). Finally, there are Davis or Hartman who may look at the numbers and choose a different route before signing day such as prep school or de-committing and going to another school.

    Everybody always says these things “work themselves out”. But this one has the feel of having a lot of things left to work out. I wonder if we will be able to tell something next week during signing week or if it will linger well into next spring. I would think before the spring semester ends we will need to know a lot more than we do now.

  2. I was talking to Collin Hartman at a party a few weeks ago and he said he was seriously thinking about decommitting and going to Duke. Don’t be surprised if this causes him to make that decision.

  3. Interesting party… Did someone spike the punch? Why would Duke be recruiting a 2-star player from 5 states away?

    Now if you said he was thinking about going to Butler that would make sense. Good fit, playing time to be had, successful program that will give him a chance to stick it to the Hoosiers, can still be an in-state hero… And I’m sure Butler has seen him enough to be able to make a judgement on his talent.

  4. Looking at some box scores today… Surprised to see Sam Dekker did not start and only played 17 minutes in their win.

  5. 1) Creek graduates this year
    2) One of Zeller, Oladipo, or Yogi go to the draft
    3) Somebody will move on to another opportunity

  6. The only thing I take exception to in the ScoopTalk is the continual painting of Watford as the occasional loafer. I believe that label is a bit unfair. The minutes expected out of Watford were pretty demanding for a guy with that size. This team wouldn’t have made it to a Sweet 16 without his huge games and the momentum carried on his performances. If we overly focused up and down the roster on players that occasionally get burned because of trying to survive the pace or buy minutes vs. total exhaustion, then I doubt there would be a single name we couldn’t put the same labels. How can you expect a guy carrying that load and frame to go the pace a point guard? At the onset of the ScoopTalk, Jeremy stated Vonleh’s field goal efficiency was the only weakness he witnessed when he saw the phenom play in Indy…He attributed it to “tired legs.”

    Maybe Watford has enough savvy in his game to pace himself(at the expense of being called a loafer or someone with a lack of ferociousness/tenacity on every sequence)to still keep his “legs,” play big in big games, and hit season-changing shots against #1 ranked teams….? All players deal with fatigue and find ways to cheat the exhaustion. Hulls got burned many times on defense..We just called him slow and the “worst defender in all of college basketball”…Heaven forbid we raise the possibility he may be catching wind and loafing a bit on defense to keep his own arms from falling off.

  7. And there’s also knowing how to bring the right level of tenacity while still keeping yourself out of foul trouble. How do you foul out against Bryant? Some of these super-athletic phenoms our still projects in the sense of not understanding how to play a savvy style…They get too physical..they slap…they replace the craftiness and sneakiness a heady defender with brute and chest-pounding that attracts the referee’s whistle. Don’t mistake Watford’s clever and coy behavior to not having the heart of a champion. Even Muhammad Ali knew when to use a bit of “rope-a-dope” to manage discrepancies in power his opponent and wait for the proper moment to unleash his energy and skills.

    You don’t contribute anything when you foul or go to the canvas in the first round with all your macho tenacity preserved.

  8. You don’t contribute anything when you foul [out carelessly] or go to the canvas in the first round with all your macho tenacity preserved.

  9. Watford has been lazy on defense/rebounding a lot.

    And your “pace himself” makes zero sense because Kaintuck played 6 guys who attacked the board all the time.

  10. Until Cody’s arrival, Watford was flanked by Tom Pritchard, Bobby Capo, and an Elston not nearly 100%….Pretty easy to be singled out as the versatile lazy guy when you’re not surrounded at every position by top NBA draft picks. With the level athleticism on that Kentucky roster from last year, it would be far easier to steal minutes without it looking like the lonely lazy wart. The most versatile and athletic guy on a team full of Matt Novers will always be the targeted guy “not giving enough.” We see his versatile skills at the game eclipse the others and it’s natural human tendency to then believe his results are always a reflection of his effort that should eclipse them as well. So easy to paint Watford as the guy with no effort when teams(prior to Cody’s arrival) would key on him knowing he was often our best option.

    And let’s not forget that the one flaw some are still putting on Cody’s game is his lack hungriness/ferociousness going to the glass. I don’t see his occasional passiveness as any more becoming than the labels attached to Watford as a loafer. The only difference currently is with more weapons on the floor we’ll have better chances at victory no matter the flaws. Much of the targeting aimed at Watford began when the talent was excessively thin and our team was being annihilated all over the conference. Watford absorbed a lot of the ‘loafer’ criticism that came with those difficult days of being undermanned at so many positions on the floor. Rarely does anyone look for a goat when you’re winning.

  11. And much like Harvard, Dustin tends to hang on to his ego and proclamations a bit too long. Stubborn..Must be a bit of Irish to go along with the Slovakian.

    He started this gentle criticism of Watford being a semi-loafer long before his game started to shine that came with added weapons in our lineup. He wasn’t alone..Many thought the Hoosier ship could sail without Watford.

    Dustin is also likely to still believe Perea will one day be the next Hakeem Olajuwon..Dustin was as very, very high on Perea..He was about as convinced on Perea’s potential as he was low on Watford ever flirting with playing at the next level. He’s pulled back on Perea, but it took him quite a while.

    And Remy…Oh, the silence on Remy(giggle-giggle..nudge-nudge)

  12. “the only thing I take exception to…” in the Harvard posts are when he takes a generalism or restatement of a common perception and then decides that is the feeling of the person re-stating it. It can’t just be that Dustin says that the knock on Watford has been he may not always give consistent effort… It has to be that Dustin THINKS and PROMOTES that Watford is a loafer.

  13. I followed LiveChats of games, Geoff. I’m not saying Dustin was alone in that assessment, but I do believe he was pretty on board with the “knock.”

    Nothing wrong with the opinion. It was probably the majority opinion on Scoop. I just don’t find a lot of agreement with it. Watford is not a great leaper..Much of his role was to present another danger from the perimeter. It doesn’t really add up to tenacity on the offensive glass when he’s often out of position by design. I think his ball skills our exceptional for his size and we’d be lost without his multitude of threats in scoring the ball.

  14. How do you foul out against Bryant? Know there’s a door someone should be “knocking” on.

  15. Watford should have had a lot more rebounds last year.

    And Crean agrees.

    Example # 45,098 of Hillbilly saying something stupid just so people will pay attention to him.

  16. Cody should have had way more double-double’s last year.

    And Crean agrees. Should we all start calling Cody a passive loafer? Cody needs to show more tenacity and hunger for boards as well.

    I’m all for the criticism of Watford if in the context of not ignoring the multitude of positives he brings our team.

  17. Laffy…#19 and #22…want to start with the name calling again? Can you make a statement, even get involved in an argument, in a language we can all live with. I know I’d appreciate it. Harvard certainly has stayed away from visual imagery directed at you these last few days. Please.

    Just argue the issue Laffy.

  18. Watford is not the kind of a player you can evaluate over one game or in a four minute span during a game, He’s a marathon player… and he is a player fundamental to the Indiana team. Over the last four years, particularly since Maurice Creek got hurt, no one has been more fundamental to Indiana surviving long enough to put itself in a position to win.

    Now we have the luxury of 3-4 players who can do the things only Watford could do before (Remy, Hollowell, Elston). He’s all blue collar and you can’t play without them. But, when it’s all on the line…he’s there.

  19. …loafs at times during games, probably but no one on the team has the ball stripped from his hands more than CW, he certainly has multiple periods of time where he just plays too soft or he simply has weak hands and forearms…

  20. hillbilly,

    as long as you are being critical of people here, you should know that “hungriness/ferociousness” are not words in the english language. i take it you are not an iu alum.

  21. Related forms

    fe·ro·cious·ly, adverb
    fe·ro·cious·ness, noun
    non·fe·ro·cious, adjective
    non·fe·ro·cious·ly, adverb
    non·fe·ro·cious·ness, noun

    Related forms

    hun·gri·ly, adverb
    hun·gri·ness, noun

  22. new words become part of our language because they become common when uneducated people use them often enough to make it necessary. adding “ness” to the end of any word is the latest, lazy way of writing and speaking. next time try hunger and ferocity.

  23. Yeah, I got irritated to learn some dictionaries have accepted ‘irregardless’ as a word. I hate that.

    ‘regardless’ – the opposite of ‘regarding’
    ‘irregardless’ – the opposite of ‘regardless’ (though the people who say it are using it as meaning the same as ‘regardless’ which makes no language sense at all)

Comments are closed.