ScoopScout: Luke Fischer


This will be the first in an ongoing series breaking down the game of IU commitments and targets. I’ll start by looking at the guys we saw this past weekend at the Spring Classic in Fishers, using a baseball-inspired five-tool approach. Up first, 2013 commit Luke Fischer, a 6-foot-11 forward/center out of Germantown, Wisc.

ATHLETICISM: This is a mixed bag. He’s not explosive off the floor and not overpowering with his strength. As a matter of fact, it was when Fischer got pushed off the block that he was least effective offensively. But he is a fluid player who runs the court well and excels at sealing opponents to gain post position or to rebound. Fischer also has a frame that will easily handle putting on more weight/muscle. He is also a good shot blocker using his length. Of course, his worst game of the weekend came against the Eric Gordon All-Stars, the team with the most length and athleticism in the tournament. Grade: B-

BALL HANDLING: Not applicable. I didn’t see him hold the ball for more than a couple seconds at any point, let alone try dribbling much. Grade: NA

SHOOTING: Didn’t get to see much in the way of mid-range shots from Fischer, but he has an excellent free-throw stroke. He was outstanding finishing around the basket, showing comfort with using either hand in close. He was also surprisingly efficient in finishing with contact, including multiple three-point plays. Grade: B+

REBOUNDING: This might be the area where you’d most like to see Fischer improve, which is a compliment to the rest of his game. On the plus side, he’s excellent at establishing rebounding position — routinely finding a man to block out before he goes after the ball. Sometimes that does actually hurt him, as his lack of quickness to the ball sometimes allows an opponent to come beat him to the rebound. But because his man is blocked out, it also gives teammates a chance to clean up more easily. Fischer is a good two-handed rebounder, but still not strong enough or dynamic enough when he can’t get two hands to the ball. Grade: C+

COURT AWARENESS: Fischer displays a good understanding for the game, whether it’s passing out of the post, setting a screen or establishing position. He seems to know his skill set well, as well as that of his teammates, and seems like the kind of guy anybody would enjoy playing with. Grade: A

Share the Scoop!

40 comments:

  • Laffy #1


    Monday, April 30, 2012 - 10:39 AM EDT

    Love this stuff. Thanks.

  • Cookie #2


    Monday, April 30, 2012 - 1:30 PM EDT

    Yeah! You should do this for all of the recruits!

  • Laffy #3


    Monday, April 30, 2012 - 1:52 PM EDT

    Since it says “First in an ongoing series”, my guess is they will.

  • Podunker #4


    Monday, April 30, 2012 - 2:29 PM EDT

    Sounds like Luke Fischer has a lot of upside and the desire to realize it.

  • Cookie #5


    Monday, April 30, 2012 - 2:29 PM EDT

    Do you think Ron Patterson is a D- for shooting? I’ve seen him play and he takes an insane amount of shots and only makes a few!

  • Aruss #6


    Monday, April 30, 2012 - 2:58 PM EDT

    Ron Patterson gets an A+ for Swagg.

  • BeatPurdue #7


    Monday, April 30, 2012 - 3:02 PM EDT

    Jeremy, go back to writing articles (you are pretty good at that). As a talent evaluator you leave a lot to be desired: “Fischer finished with 17 points, 11 rebounds and six blocks in the game after being largely invisible in the first half.” This quote is from another HT article describing Fischer’s club win in the championship game. Your observations are good as indicating the things that Luke needs to work on. But to assign a “letter” grade indicates that you know something about all of the other 7′ junior centers in the HS land. You failed that test miserably! Give me the name, the dates you watched them play, and the grades for the 10 best 7′ junior centers. I thought not.

  • Joey #8


    Monday, April 30, 2012 - 3:25 PM EDT

    I don’t see how it indicates that he knows anything about the other Jr. centers; it just indicates where the player’s skills fit in relative to the best possible skill set that the author can imagine for a 17 year old kid.

    Thanks for the post, Jeremy. Looking forward to reading the rest of them.

  • Geoff #9


    Monday, April 30, 2012 - 6:32 PM EDT

    The unfortunate thing about the post is that the grades are based solely on one weekend of play and not a bigger sample size. As admitted under a couple of the “tools” there just wasn’t enough to observe to give an an accurate assessment. Depending on the weekend and the opponent any player can look like a god or a goat. That’s the tough thing about this and what I think you should be careful about in the future…

    …but hey good luck Jeremy, and welcome to the fire.

  • Podunker #10


    Monday, April 30, 2012 - 9:05 PM EDT

    Yep, while reading Jeremy’s article, I kept asking myself, “relative to what?” A C+ in rebounding? Relative to whom? A top college center, a pro center, or other High School centers?

    If you’re going to give the young man a grade on certain skill sets, I suggest you announce what or whom the grade is relative to.

    As for the ultimate criteria, I’d say he’s getting A+ on what matters most. The teams he’s played for are all winning championships.

  • Cookie #11


    Monday, April 30, 2012 - 9:37 PM EDT

    Yeah if you compare him to other high school players he would be much better at all of those things.

  • Give him a break #12


    Monday, April 30, 2012 - 10:49 PM EDT

    Hold up fellas. Don’t forget that Mr. Price holds the single game 3-point shooting record at a high school in North Carolina, he’s been a huge Tar Heel fan for forever and he is using a baseball-inspired five-tool approach. He’s fixin to show y’all some gradin. Bless his heart.

  • Jeremy Price #13


    Monday, April 30, 2012 - 11:41 PM EDT

    You guys are thinking too much. It’s a simple grading system with C average, B above average, etc. There’s no ranking involved, just strengths and weakness.

  • TsaoTsuG #14


    Tuesday, May 1, 2012 - 12:02 AM EDT

    On Mr. Price’s write up on Luke Fischer:
    Analysis- Fischer looked at five areas of LF’s game. some like athleticism with some detail to emphasize apparent physical weakness and underlines it by returning to the subject while pointing out that LF was easily moved off the floor through physical play.

    But, the analysis totally ignores the defensive side of LF’s game- zilch-nada on defense comments. Was LF well positioned?, was his stance correct?, arm and hand position? Was there movement in his feet so as to not get caught flat footed?, Did he react quickly to the away-from-the–ball attacker’s moves to get open?, Did he support on help side?, Did he stay low? Were his eyes on the ball? Did he play the passing lanes and deny penetration? All fair…and this is at least 50% of what the analysis should tell us. It’s a huge part of the game- and most often ignored.

    Ball handling- Not applicable…LF did not have the ball. So why use it as criteria?

    Shooting- Again, didn’t do much. He had a nice stroke on free throws??? What was good about it. Forearm perpendicular and close to the body? Smooth break of the wrist with turn downward? Fingers pointing down at the end of the stroke> What about leg action? But, he was “surprisingly efficient finishing”. What kind of a comment is this. Sounds like you were expecting him to fall down. The writer gave him a B+ on virtually little. Sounds like a refs ‘make up call’. No break down at all.

    Rebounding- “This might be the area where you’d most like to see Fischer improve, which is a compliment to the rest of his game.” Not clear …are you saying he sucked at everything else or that he really…but really needs to improve his rebounding. And the…you suggest (never explicitly) he approaches puny and even timid when he does get both hands to the ball.

    Awareness- Sounds like you are saying he’s a nice playmate.

    So- about Price’s graded analysis……….
    Analytical skills- So, so offensively. No clearly defined categories, rather hazy descriptions. Complete;y ignored an entire facet of the game- defense- considered b many as the pivotal aspect of top level (Big Ten) basketball. I don’t think I read one single comment in the entire review about LF’s defensive performance and skills. D-F+.

    Concept development- Never stated the objective of the exercise. Was it an evaluation of LF based on clear criteria? What were the criteria? How and why were they selected? C-

    Completeness- Beyond totally ignoring the defensive side, the evaluator failed to even mention LF’s game on offense without the ball. Did he move and make himself hard to guard? Passing skills? Did he set up creative passes? Selfish? Did he help team mates with directions? Did he show himself with gestures? Did he fake movement to create space? Was he communicate loud and clear assisting his team mates with voice commands and assistance? D-

    Sentence construction- Ok, though some sentences were rather opaque and used overlapping vocabulary to hide sentence meaning. C+

    Spelling- Ok. A-

    The writer/contributor who wrote that an evaluation like this can be done after a series of situations based on exact definitions, a base line for the comparisons and a clear reference point is entirely right. As is it is, it is not informative to the reader or fair to the player.

  • TsaoTsuG #15


    Tuesday, May 1, 2012 - 1:12 AM EDT

    Second sentence ought to reach “Price (not Fisher)looked at five areas of LF’s game.

  • hiensohn #16


    Tuesday, May 1, 2012 - 7:58 AM EDT

    Great article.we very much want to hear what an informed reporter thinks of the recruits based on what he has seen.He’s not claiming the opinions are caved in stone just a basic analysis of current info.Ease up boys, applaud the man for doing a good job.

  • Geoff #17


    Tuesday, May 1, 2012 - 9:37 AM EDT

    Heinson – we disagree with you. There’s nothing I got from this write-up that I couldn’t get from the 3 minute highlight clip over at ITH. I agree with Tsao, BP, and Po… If this is going to be an on-going series then there should be some sort of baseline definition and/or context for the analysis. Also, I assume (maybe wrongly) that the series will continue with several other recruits before (possibly) returning to Fischer. That means there will be long-standing incomplete grades on a couple of his tools, simply because he chose to write the article before gathering enough data to do it accurately.

    I am only doing this out of love for The Scoop because this is where I prefer to come to get my Hoosier news. I expect more and better from a recruiting analysis on here. Hoosier fans for the most part are savvy basketball people and require more depth. Personally I thought this article was lazy and pointless.

    Sorry Price, I’m sure you are quite good, but this wasn’t. If you want to give us fans something worth reading You should give serious consideration to some of the commenters’ suggestions.

  • Hoosier Clarion #18


    Tuesday, May 1, 2012 - 11:17 AM EDT

    JP, Keep it coming. It is not hard to understand your synopsis is only for a snapshot on the skills of Fischer. Your energy for covering IU is apparent. I personally think your addition will make you and DD the best duo to date.

  • Harvard for Hillbillies #19


    Tuesday, May 1, 2012 - 11:52 AM EDT

    Here’s the problem. Jeremy needs to understand the difference between a blog writeup and a story that gets dropped into the dust bowl an HT daily piece.

    On the blog, it’s best to be a little more vague, post a clip or two of the recruit…give generalizations(anything from “he still likes to eat Captain Crunch” for breakfast to the impending doom of another looming scholarship crunch), so that we, the most knowledgeable group of basketball analysts/nose-pickers ever assembled to type arrogant thoughts into humble little boxe…only to see those boxes explode into masterful looking paragraphs fully displaying the elegance of our thoughts… our names highlighted in dark monstrous fonts boldly displayed above the gibberish to headline our insights of perfection……allowing the world(world = a pet squirrel named Laffy that is starving of nuts and 5 dudes in stained khakis not washed their acorn pouches for a month give perpetual peeling all the wallpaper off this site with the constant blow out their a$$es)a rare glimpse into how true experts living under the blanket all the charlatans use their abundant, unappreciated, inexhaustibly abounding knowledge of sports can put the earth in momentary stop her gravitational spin around the sun each time we hit the “Submit Comment” button.

    Back away, Jeremy…You may think you’re no longer wet behind the ears, but you’ve consumed less in a lifetime in front an ESPN channel than we do in our ‘First Take’ mid-afternoon craps…You’re the new guy in this blogging town and you’re damn lucky to be graced by our responses. These boxes are not unsold plots a cookie-cutter cul-de-sac an Inside the Hall of Pleasantville Hoosiers. These boxes are our homes..We’ve installed draperies and have repainted the walls more times than you’ll ever know…Without our marvelous grunts, only interrupted by the few minutes a day imagining CNN’s Brooke Baldwin wearing Victoria Secret, you’d be without your weekly paycheck of two Alexander Hamiltons more a McDonald’s cheeseburger flipper.

    Journalists don’t know diddlysquat on Scoop streets. If you want pretend you’re the ‘Mayor of B-ball Brains’ than go work for ITH or IDS. Don’t stretch your thoughts and strain a left testicle here…Only strain yourself to kiss our feet(give Laffy a lollipop when he blows out racism accusations with the perfectly timed regularity Old Faithful at Yellowstone..or give Tsao an occasional foot massage and toe-sucking when his endless rivers of gibberish fill all oceans equating Coach Wilson to Gandhi…or ask Geoff if you could have the privilege just one, once-in-a-lifetime, glimpse his stat book).. Step away, naive twit with feathery pen and novice sports tongue… for it is only the petrified boogers under the desk of a Scoop blogger where all the genius grows…

    Feel the earth suddenly put on her anti-rotational brakes while I toot my own horn ..It will always be the pimply petty thoughts the guy that gets paid to write to give spite to the face of truth our real expertise we shall rightfully scorn. This is our blogging world and you no longer rule in this school. So back away..Go on the kiddie swings..This is where the big boys play.

  • Geoff #20


    Tuesday, May 1, 2012 - 12:06 PM EDT

    Classic stuff Harvard. So much better than the personal sparring matches you’ve been getting in lately.

    P.S. – in my defense, my wife’s favorite color is pink and she gave that to me as a gift…. Wrapped in her chastity belt that I picked with such skill back in the day.

  • who? #21


    Tuesday, May 1, 2012 - 1:16 PM EDT

    Some of us are getting a little big for our britches here as the self-annointed keepers of the flame. What gives any of us the right to think that we own the content or determine editorial direction on this blog? You guys have a subscription to view the site’s content just like everyone else. I don’t recall anyone receiving a golden invite to sit on the editorial board. Make comments, suggestions and offer critiques as you wish but the demands regarding who, what, where, when and how are a little much. Seriously. We are all fans. Simple as that. We are not coaches, talent evaluators or sports journalists except in our own minds. But then again, I could be wrong…

  • Harvard for Hillbillies #22


    Tuesday, May 1, 2012 - 1:37 PM EDT

    Once again…satire eludes some.

    I do believe most enjoyed Jeremy’s evaluation and understood it to be only the developing snapshot his opinion; a Polaroid his view this day while still evolving without final judgment the fixed state of complete and total clarity living within the deception of the moment.

  • Geoff #23


    Tuesday, May 1, 2012 - 1:52 PM EDT

    Well, I work for a media company that owns several newspapers as well as online content… And I can certainly tell you that we are concerned with the quality of the product. We need readers and subscribers to be able to sell advertising and stay afloat. The world of print is fading and the blogosphere is exploding. It is more and more important to have quality online content because you don’t have a geographically locked audience. Readers have endless choices now, not what is just printed and sold at the corner store. So I would think that the Herald and The Scoop might be concerned with what their readers have to say. I am certainly not threatening to go elsewhere – I love The Scoop – nor do I think that I’m that important that people would care if I left, but I do expect (and it seems others do to) higher quality content or at least if it’s just filler to frame it as such (instead of an “on-going series” where he’ll “break down the game of” recruits). If this is going to be an ongoing series then it needs improvement, and if he’s going to break down the game of the recruit he better be more thorough. I seriously could have written the same article after watching his 3 minute highlight film.

    Sorry if I sound high and mighty. I’m not saying this with any ego. I’m saying it like I would to a teammate if I saw them not giving their best effort. “C’mon, you’re better than that!”

  • who? #24


    Tuesday, May 1, 2012 - 3:16 PM EDT

    @ Harvard, I guess it does miss some of us! My post was written tongue-in-cheek with a bit of pointedness. Read it again. I played your own game on you and you bit… I think I got Geoff too!

  • Harvard for Hillbillies #25


    Tuesday, May 1, 2012 - 4:18 PM EDT

    Hard to say who bit first..Was it Harvard who bit or who? who bit Harvard who was only playing whose game? Who?’s? Hell, who knows? I sure as hell don’t know who it was or if it was who?. All I know is who?’s claiming it was he, who?, who knew who was duping who. It went something like this.

    Now for something completely different…or is it?

    Geoff-

    Have you seen some of the video dissections of highlight clips that they often do on Inside the Hall? It would be dreadful if that type of unsophisticated tedious tutoring came to Scoop.

    I sorta liked Kartje’s Big 10 Power Rankings and other forms of delivering the product in a manner that gives the reader a sense of admitted journalistic bias and explanation a direction to the opinion(whether we agree or find cracks in the foundations an argument) rather than “schooling” or “coaching” us, condescending and spoon-feeding with simplistic absolutes where the journalist acts more qualified and coach-like than the student, as if by mere functioning within a sportswriting profession is entitlement by way of occupational authority an end-all opinion far superior any “thinking too much” novice fan/reader could ever provide.

    Then again, a few grades for a recruit that may appear as overly simplistic thoughts in this venue that garners interest a much more defined segmented group of readers primarily Hoosier fans, is far less condescending to a reader in approach than a national sports journalist that takes it upon himself to perpetuate the sensationalistic labeling of a kid he’s likely never watched play one full game of hoops as the “worst defender in all of college basketball.” It may not be the depth you want, but it’s certainly not purposefully trite to the level of viciousness.

  • Dustin Dopirak #26


    Tuesday, May 1, 2012 - 4:23 PM EDT

    I may regret this, but I’m just too curious. Where do I fall in this spectrum, Harvard?

  • Geoff #27


    Tuesday, May 1, 2012 - 5:13 PM EDT

    Who¿ You definitely got me….

    Harvard, I never know what your serious about, and I don’t know if you are saying I was vicious. I certainly don’t think I was, as I tried to explain in the last line of post #23.

    I also don’t have an issue with a little puff from time to time. I just have no interest in reading the “series” if it is going to be as flimsy as the first offering. For what it’s worth there are far more wel-funded sites that do a worse job of “breaking down” prospects (read: ESPN) than Jeremy did here. But they have the excuse that they have to give evaluations on hundreds, if not thousands, across the country. The Scoop only has to evaluate a handful or two. Therefore, I am hoping for something a little more in depth than Weekend At Tourneys… As I said before it was a such a small sample size he couldn’t even evaluate under his own criteria… And as Tsao said it was missing some essential pieces like his defensive prowess.

    This was more like the updates that Dustin gave us over the season telling how the recruits were performing in games. He wasn’t positioning that as a breakdown or evaluation series.

  • BornHoosier #28


    Tuesday, May 1, 2012 - 6:46 PM EDT

    I think a couple of you have nailed what I observed about Mr. Price during his years of covering the women’s team. He seems lazy in what he writes and a little old school with one-way communication that has a “I’m the journalist and I’m going to tell you about this,” tone to it, yet isn’t particularly insightful or thorough.

    What I’ve greatly appreciated from the newer guys on the H-T staff like Dustin, Ryan and Chris Korman is that it’s been obvious that they hustle. They’re constantly posting stories, blog updates, video, links to other stories and on and on. They seem to be on top of everything at all hours of the day and night. And they’re also humble in their approach and genuinely try to engage readers in a conversation and try to understand our needs and listen to our perspectives without positioning themselves as the know-it-all experts who need the rest of us to stop “thinking so much” and be thankful for whatever they bestow upon us.

  • Harvard for Hillbillies #29


    Tuesday, May 1, 2012 - 6:55 PM EDT

    I think many the writers that have come and gone from Scoop have honed their craft while working around great tutors like Dustin and Andy. I certainly have no business critiquing. I have no knowledge the true workings of the professions. It appears it takes quite the thick skin in this type of atmosphere so I doubt I’d last a more than a week.

    The great thing about Scoop is there are many ways to shine. Dustin does a marvelous job with the ScoopTalk sessions.. I think his strength is in front of the camera..I’ve told him many times that I think he seems a perfect fit for a television/sports anchor style job. And please don’t interpret that as meaning he is weak in his writing. I think he’s a very skilled and balanced 5-star journalist. I just think his skills and knowledge really come to the surface in the live broadcast setting.

    And Jeremy will do the same. He will find his game/niche within the many aspects of journalism and he will also finely craft his skills, work at adding depth and breadth to his pieces, while working around some very good sportswriters on Scoop we tend to take for granted. I’m sure being a writer is an evolutionary process and takes time for green grapes to mature into a fine wine.

    You must have misinterpreted my words, Geoff. I had no intention my comments about viciousness be aimed at you or anyone else on this thread. I was talking about national sportswriters that can be as slippery a snake in their often flippant and harmful shallow evaluations a kid they merely use as fuel their sensationalistic intent to gain readers. I can’t and won’t defend that as casual ignorance due to sheer numbers from someone that has been in the profession and writing national sports columns for decades. It’s easy to spot and it doesn’t belong in any sense the word “professionalism” anymore than an elbow thrown from Ron Artest being called a celebratory thump on the chest. We are not blind to intent and journalists should spend a little less time covering the asses of those that go out of bounds.

    Chet once said you are one of the most honest and sincere bloggers on here. I thoroughly agree with that point of view.

  • Podunker #30


    Tuesday, May 1, 2012 - 9:04 PM EDT

    I enjoyed Jeremy’s evaluation the same way I enjoy eating one potato chip. I like it, but I want a lot more.

  • TsaoTsuG #31


    Tuesday, May 1, 2012 - 11:57 PM EDT

    Geoff…this was some of the best posting you have done. Whoever reads it should get a good, clear definition of what (I think) “Scoop’Readers and contributors want and what makes it one of the more interesting and wiorthwhile blogs around.

    I agree to an extent with what “Born Hoosier” wrote. I had previously followed Mr. Price as HT’s soccer writer and I recalled feeling the writing never really gave me a good sense for the play on the field; that the sequences and movement within the play were not transmitted (right side, center midfield, 18 yard shot, over-the-bar, kissing the right post/stick), cross in the air, brought it down, quick touch passing on the ground)…all the fundamentals that one expects when reading ‘acceptable’ soccer writing. (I’m also trying to recall a specific game where somehow a ‘guest writer’ was involved, made the game unrecognizable and barely got the score right. I confess, the details about the specific game are hazy now and I basically started following IU soccer elsewhere, but it was disappointing. Now that the issue of focus. work habits. completeness of analysis were mentioned it gives me increased pause. It literally literally showed in the piece about Luke Fischer.

    I do hope that, as suggested, if the analysis is going to be done, it be done with penetrating looks at the complete ball player- on all facets of the game. And, if it is going to result in a space filler, we as reader would be happier if spared.

    We don’t have to be journalists (though some have been) to be able to tell the difference between a well worked story or a thoughtful, penetrating and enlightening commentary. But, as readers the HT would like to have around (and in many cases move to subscribers), as members of a community of bloggers who take the Hoosier community seriously, wasting time with incomplete analysis and then be told not “think [too] much” seems to defeat the purpose of the medium to begin with.

    I agree and appreciate and am grateful for the standard those who posted seem to be demanding.

  • Chet #32


    Wednesday, May 2, 2012 - 8:17 AM EDT

    Anyone creative, whether they wield a keyboard, a paintbrush, or a craft beer, should be so lucky as to have the fruits of their creation so thoroughly examined as the written word is on the Scoop.

  • Harvard for Hillbillies #33


    Wednesday, May 2, 2012 - 8:33 AM EDT

    I don’t know…Sometimes less is more if not cast in absolutes. I like a bit of openendedness when talking of recruits..Quotes and clips would be a nice addition..Maybe some thoughts from his high school coach and other mentors that have helped develop a young talent..Maybe some views from Tom Crean on his evaluation the recruits skill set..Maybe a couple video clips from some games that can give reinforcement and validation the assessments yet leave a ton of room for the viewer/reader to build some their own ideas.

    Present the skills of a recruit as a bit of an appetizer and allow the reader and the journalist to move forward together to build upon a main course. Build your depth through the building a team of eyes and ears rather than only relying on your own. Interact with your audience and give them tools and clips to make them feel part of the process. Manipulate your audience by relinquishing the absolute.

    And conversely, we should not be guilty of the same mistakes of absolutes in our summations a young writer as our floodgates open from the mouths of the high-and-mighty when pointing out a lack of “penetrating enlightenment” that is not sufficient our sophisticated palate. Soon it begins to feel more like an intentional flood the waters our own inadequacies upon a fruited plain we give excessive critique, drown upon from our undignified and unjustified higher place our tired and envious hearts, more than provide a healthy and gentle morning rain of advice upon the landscape a tender sprout, a young mind just breaking through the soil in the generous honesty his most vulnerable state.

    And with our wanting “more” we deluge upon him and trivialize him and the “more” now becomes the merchandise to stock the shelves our own empty store.

    If those we examine with magnifying glass our words intended to reduce and predispose could only live up to the flawlessness that stands before the mirror in front our all-knowing, all-sensing, all-discerning, fat snooty nose. For soon our words seem more concerned with turning others to mice than guiding with humility and a bit of heartfelt advice. And crown thy good with brotherhood.

  • Harvard for Hillbillies #34


    Wednesday, May 2, 2012 - 10:04 AM EDT

    And why does a young journalist need to be so conventional? Personally, I’m a bit bored with all the science and analytical aspect the evaluation process. Why not ask the recruit a few questions that could allow IU fans to bond to other traits a new Hoosier to soon wear cream and crimson; traits and qualities that go beyond a cross-over dribble or consistent perimeter jump shot?

    Why did you chose Indiana? Who has been the most influential person in your early development and dedication to sports? What’s your favorite thing to do when not on a basketball court? Do you have a favorite place to just get away? Do you prefer casting for Northern Pike or jigging for Walleye? Do you like blonds or brunettes? Pizza? Thin crust or deep dish?

    It all seems so damn boring and impersonal anymore..a meat market of sorts…gristly stats and over-glorified numbers with nothing to counter the lean and mean of it all..no fat and marbleizing within the steak to give it flavor and remembrance. It’s all become so dehumanizing in its approach. It’s very naive to believe only basketball draws a person to basketball. We bond to the games for more than skin its numbers. We bond to the happiness and the anguish..to the determination and the faltering..We bond to sports for it can tell the story four decades our own lives in forty minutes a night to prove the fight is still worth fighting.

    It’s not forever about the victories vs. the losses, the 5-star vs. the 3-star…Make the writing have heart again. Tell a damn story. Transform your reader to the man on the court. Build them a hero rather than a pile of numbers. Take off the lab coat…Plenty of empty-headed, unimaginative, journalists sucked into the vacuum that turns every game and every name into a test tube and DNA strand.

    You really can’t beat Mariah Carey’s rendition.

  • Geoff #35


    Wednesday, May 2, 2012 - 11:10 AM EDT

    Harvard – I think it’s a great idea to combine the two, analysis with personality. But again, what you’re saying is “more”, same as us.

    And I am not sure of Price’s age, he may very well be young, but he’s hardly inexperienced. I’m not sure when the last time the “About The Scoop” section was updated but Jeremy has been writing about sports at the HT for over a decade, and closing in on 15 years.

    I’m not asking for “conventional”. I’m looking for depth, which can include personality and the unconventional.

    Thanks for bringing that up!

  • Jeremy Price #36


    Wednesday, May 2, 2012 - 4:20 PM EDT

    Thanks to all who chimed in with likes and dislikes. Being my first attempt at something like this, I expected some mixed responses, though not to this extent — welcome to the Scoop, eh? It was not my intent to look down my nose by suggesting anyone was thinking too much. Thinking is an integral part of what the Hoosier Scoop is about. I just felt a disconnect between intent and interpretation.

    This post was trying to say, ‘Here’s what I see when I watch Luke Fischer play,’ then hopefully spark discussion about what he may or may not bring to IU — from that standpoint, it failed. That’s on me to develop a better delivery, and perhaps a more entertaining one in the process. I’m going to give ScoopScout a little makeover, then try it again.

    Thanks again to those who offered support or constructive criticism. To those who have already made their mind up about what I am and am not, we’re stuck with each other for the foreseeable future. I hope we can co-exist.

  • Laffy #37


    Wednesday, May 2, 2012 - 4:29 PM EDT

    Jeremy, pay no attention to the “experts” on here who think they can do EVERYTHING better than EVERYONE else.

    They are far too stupid and self-important to understand what you were doing.

  • Harvard for Hillbillies #38


    Wednesday, May 2, 2012 - 4:32 PM EDT

    Yeah, 15 years is not really wet behind the ears. Time we get a bit more taste the honey. You’re right again, Geoff.

    Here’s some blow and depth for ya….

  • Harvard for Hillbillies #39


    Wednesday, May 2, 2012 - 6:05 PM EDT

    Geoff-

    I did check out the “About The Hoosier Scoop” section. It does appear slightly dated…Rather sad their budget is so constrained to not update a photo.

    Of course it did take four months of basketball until they finally decided to remove the football scores from the header. Notice how they leave the Kentucky loss up there? Kinda odd they didn’t keep the scores our first two shocking upsets in March Madness. During the regular season, the space was utilized to cram as many previous scores as possible into the space. Now we just eye-catching white space surrounding the final chapter our season. Nothing to tease my memory of Watford’s great game against New Mexico St….or Sheehey’s winning baseline jumper that sent Shaka into shock-ugh.

    I guess it’s more of that “objectivity” filtering through. Leave up the score the one prediction Seth Davis eventually got right, wearing out his eraser on his South brackets, after going 1-for-3 erasing the Hoosiers.

  • Harvard for Hillbillies #40


    Wednesday, May 2, 2012 - 6:08 PM EDT

    oops. Now we just get eye-catching white space surrounding the final chapter our season.

Scoop Poll:

Can the Hoosiers make a bowl game without Nate Sudfeld?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

IU vs Michigan State Football


Find Notre Dame football coverage on NDInsider.com. © Hoosier Times Inc., all rights reserved.