SIAP - interesting indictment
- Thread starter KJL
- Start date
We only need 5 of our players to easily surpass Minnesotas entire roster worth of stars.
I've listened to endless interviews where Painter says stars mean nothing. The people who rank them know $%& about $*%@%. You have to do your own due diligence.
First of all, why do you come here and pour your Purdue BS on this board? No one cares.
Secondly, no one is saying a star rating is a guarantee. On the other side, the historical data clearly does show higher rated players often correlate with a higher % being successful in comparison to lower level stars. So stars aren't a given at all (you really broke news there) but it's merely a rating system of players in high school who played vs other high schoolers. To say they have absolutely no meaning is naive. Having a good coach that can coach them is what's necessary.
Everyone understands that, but we can attract great players who could likely go anywhere they want. Yet, they underperform when they get here.
Depends on what you want. Stars end up mattering eventually in the NCAA tournament. It’s unrealistic to have any natty expectations without 4 and 5 star talent on your roster.
But you can certainly be successful at the conference level, and once in a blue moon have a generational mountain of a human being fall in your lap and give you a chance at a final four.
Painter only says that because very few 5 stars ever consider him.
A good coach at IU would be doing his due diligence with multiple 4 and 5 star level kids, AND the top Indiana kids. Filling his roster with the best blend of star rating talent and Indiana talent to fit his style.
What BS am I pouring? Indiana's highly ranked players have been mis-categorized. Whoever is doing the player evaluations at Indiana needs to find a new way to make a living. Tell me where I am wrong and where my initial statement doesn't support this.
You are wrong and I WILL tell you where.
It is NOT IU that puts those star ratings on players.
Go back to the black and urine board.
Yet they're going to drill us in Minny on Mar 6.
That's where you're wrong. IU has a lot of talent but they're not coached. There will be 2 IU players drafted next season before any Boilermaker. It's not talent, it's all coaching.
They mean exactly what they were intended to mean. Their High School ranking. Painter's correct .. they don't mean shit now but ... it's the dumbasses who think they predict the future that overvalue them.
By that chart's standard Edey is still a 3 star ..
What success in college does it predict? Recent national champions have been. dominated by upper class men that were not five stars out of high school. Even for freshmen player of the year this season, Shephard and Haggerty were four stars and Dillingham a 4+. A basketball coach at IU should be doing his own evaluations not relying on rating services in order to pander to a certain portion of the fan base. The only success I am interested in is a return to national contention. If a player contributes to that then good recruit if not then bad recruit.
In order for your argument to be valid would require ratings to be infallible and coaching the only variable. Take the case of MM, his skills right out of high school were limited and to believe he would have a big impact on returning IU to national contention as a freshman even a step lower than naive no matter consensus five star.
Last edited:
After watching virtually every play of MMs career so far, I’m more skeptical than ever about these star ratings. I guess every year requires a certain number of players at 5*, a certain number at 4* and so forth. Maybe this was a lame hs class coming in? I just don’t see how he got that rating. Not as bad of an evaluation as Lander, or maybe even Bates, but they were all over hyped.
do your due diligence...and....don't shit your pants come March year in year out. lol
What were MM’s priorities-
1) Stated one and done-NBA
2) Need playing time to achieve 1)
3) Need weak roster to ensure 2)
4) National media coverage to assist with 1)
5) NIL
IU is a good choice for MM and IU has gotten 311 points and a 14-13 record thus far in return.
Exactly, order a ham sandwich, you don’t get grilled chicken. Woodson has an elementary approach to roster management. It’s NIL and Portal driven, through the lens of star ratings, which is a recipe for disaster. It produces mass turnover and heightens risk beyond control.
Calipari has managed much this way for almost 15 years and although his success and failure could be argued, he seems to be the only one that has pulled it off. No one else does it this way and frankly I don’t believe Woodson has the energy to sustain it year in year out.
This maybe the last season you can say that about Calipari
but Dillingham and Shephard are good guards. Once you get into the tournament and play well coached upperclassmen that have strength and understanding advantages then different level.I would say that Calipari’s model worked as intended only when he had AD.
And he out bid others to get ADThis maybe the last season you can say that about Calipari
I would say that Calipari’s model worked as intended only when he had AD.
Can’t mention these 2 without mentioning Reeves, the senior four star. Their 3 pt percentages are -This maybe the last season you can say that about Calipari
I would say that Calipari’s model worked as intended only when he had AD.
Reeves 45%
Dillingham 45%
Shephard 51%
I don’t quite remember, but that team also had some returning experience. Darius Miller was a senior. Terrance Jones came back. Lamb had a year of experience.
The $200-400K to get AD was key. If that range is right (it’s what’s I remember at the time), that’s a real bargain.
I don't think you read what I wrote. I clearly stated its a valid indicator of the likelihood of a player's individual talent. It's not a guarantee but if you look at the numbers, you will most certainly find the top rated talent has a vastly higher chance of being the top talent in the game when comparing to others. Never a guarantee, of course, as many are guaranteed to fall way short but we are talking about odds here.
Star ratings, however, have nothing to do with team success as you are referring to. Which is what I stated. A coach is needed to mold a team which is why it doesn't matter what CMW does in recruiting, it will not overcome the lack of sound fundamental and structured team ball. IU has as much if not more talent than any team in the B1G but our coach is too inept to make something of that talent.
Not entirely true. Uconn had boat loads of high 4 star kids and Clingan was a 5 star kid. Kansas the year before is well... Kansas. Entire roster is high 4 star and 5 star kids.
The difference between them and IU is coaching. Last year's team was loaded with upper class men and high star recruits. Didn't do shit really.
I did read what you wrote that includes the following “historical data clearly does show higher rated players often correlate with a higher % being successful in comparison to lower level stars.”. I just asked what specifically is the measure of success you are referring to. If not team success is it scoring average or what? The last thing this program needs at this point is another highly ranked one and done (or wannabe OAD) as we have had with Romeo, Lander, JHS, and MM.
I am not claiming that there aren’t good players that are four stars or five stars.
It all depends on what you want your program to compete for. What level of success do you want your team to have.
I just looked at National Championship teams rosters...And I stopped at 10 years in a row that the National Champion has had a roster filled with high 4 stars and/or 5 star kids. Obviously depends on the ratings company you look at, but literally EVERY National Champion, at least in the last 10 years, probably well further back than that, is led by guys that were rated as 4 or 5 star kids, coming out of high school.
Now...very few of them are led by 1 and done type 5 star kids. So this is where the coaching and development side comes in. The key, as I see it, is to have kids on your roster that were rated highly coming out of high school...still on your roster as juniors and seniors (or get them from the portal).
As it pertains to Indiana...I still think it might be the ONLY program in the country that would be able to effectively fish in the national 4/5 star "top 100" ponds...AND dominate and get most of the best Indiana/regional kids. With the most essential key being...the talent needs to fit your style and the program. 5 star kids that don't fit your style, don't end up leading you to national titles. Ones that do, mixed in with 3 and 4 star kids, that also fit your style, do.
Coaches that say they don't care about the star ratings, are rarely considered by high 4 star and 5 star kids.
Coach Cig can't win big in the B10 without highly rated football players...he could at JMU. His tune will change.
Painter has done incredibly well regionally, and has made a name for himself lately on the national stage. But does he have any NCAA success to show for it? Not yet. And even if he does, are we really aspiring for one final four in 40+ years types of success?
We're markedly worse than Purdue right now, as a program. That doesn't mean we need to set our sites on being like Purdue. We have a much higher capacity than that.
Also look at who was the head coach in those 10 years, Your outlier is Kevin Ollie or Tony Bennett. The right HC is other half of the battle. IU hasn't been remotely close to having the right guy.
I think what you stated was once true especially the dominate Indiana statement.
Unfortunately and it pains me to no end to say it but that other school is really dominating Indiana now when it comes to recruits.
I just threw up in my mouth.
You’ve had a few long posts, but I can’t criticize, I’ve done the same.
At first read, I thought, man that’s a long post talking about this topic, and you didn’t use the word “talent” once. I did find one use of that word, it’s a word that gets thrown around a lot in recruiting.
Stars are a rating system that is a snapshot in time (for our purposes, HS).
Talent is something altogether different. There is basketball talent which isn’t the same as athletic talent. There is the mental part of the game, work ethic, ability to be coached, knowledge through experience, instincts, etc , etc.
What you said about talent above, is really good. PU has basketball players that are talented for that system, fit with what Painter is trying to do, and mesh well together. Had all of those players came to IU, they wouldn’t fit.
You are correct in the stars. We need some 4 and 5 stars to win it all. But, starting with the idea that the more 4 and 5 stars we have, the better we will be is incorrect.
PU, U-Conn, Villanova, Gonzaga, etc have built programs by finding the talent that fit what they were trying to do, and they have a program and culture that fosters growth and team development with those players.
Talent is the foundation of which a player has the ability to excel. So it encompasses a lot of things. You have all-stars in the NBA that play for the absolute dog worst teams in the league. Are those players talented? Yes. Therefore, I wouldn't judge a players talent upon the success of the team because that goes well beyond talent. You need to have a system in place that allows the collection of talent to have success as a team. Especially in the college game where kids are still learning how to play as a team, you need a coach who's instilling their talented players with fundamentally sound technique. Repeatedly going over situational awareness/communication until it becomes a natural part of their game.
Let me put it this way. If you are taught how to play the game the right way as a team, over time you are likely to be more instinctual in response to situations occurring in real time which further accentuates or brings out one's talent advantage. Look at our team on defense, they question their positioning or movement with each pass which causes them to be delayed in response and completely negates the high-end physical abilities they have. Meanwhile an undersized, less athletic team who is coached well and understands the game well through repetition, is able to bypass a team of more talented individuals simply because they're always playing one step ahead.
Lastly, the issue isn't completely OAD's on the roster. I think it's hard to build a team on just OAD's because of what I outlined above. You don't have enough time to teach all of them the skills needed to excel as a team in just a few months. You can however have a few of them added to a team of players who have been coached and can help shorten the younger kids learning curve. IU has two 5 stars that are obviously talented and playing in year 2, not OAD's, yet they still aren't able to beat teams in an awful B1G seasons. Thats coaching, period.
Last edited:
It needs to be a combination. You cannot make your total class out of 5 stars and expect to do it every year and make it work. Needs to be a core group added with your elite talent you can pull in.UConn and Baylor are two really good examples of how to have continued success.
Woody needs to actually recruit…he has 4 guys in two years from recruiting. Portal is for holes in roster not your total recruiting plan
Pretty sure IUs stars are not in the backcourt where the trouble is. Misleading article. We have a star distribution issue. Massive grin! Season sucks. New team next year. Maybe they can shoot and stay in front of a true upperclassmen B1G point guard. Can't now. I knew we'd be down but not this bad. Go Hoosiers!
