hoosierpap

Nothing I've heard supports he was leaning that way. Was Purdue a player? No doubt.

I told the Mod board I was back the other night. Ask me whatever, I’m hoping to know/tell ya what I can. No promises Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners

God I miss this place. And you Old Friend, despite our differences. Can’t wait for how this season plays out. Go IU Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners

Pretty slip there

Just for some context...you'd have to be pretty close to the family to know this one. I don't know and the info channels from the athletic dept on down or some hs coaches not close enough to this one. The way those guys talk "not close enough" tells the story

Man, it sure is fun when they play like that. Rob out there controlling the game. Just getting great looks with a combo of good offense and bad Illinois defense. You're not losing shooting 58% from the field Big Ten Geek @bigtengeek 4m Indiana scored 1.58 points per possession in that half. Season high for a game is 1.29 vs Chicago State.

Wow Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners

Just what he is at this point of his career Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

This is a largely accurate summary of the state of things down there as I’ve been told. There are significant financial achievements, construction projects, and academic initiatives. McRobbie has spearheaded (which the majority on here do not care about) but others very clearly do. McRobbie did this while significant state budget cuts to higher education were happening due to the Great Recession. The irony in it is a huge funding source which helped offset the financial problems higher education was facing was/is the Big Ten Network- which was started under McRobbies tenure- so that’ll probably chap some ***** around here. Until the BOT is pressured to make a change at the highest level or McRobbie heads off for greener pastures- IU athletics will have some extra hurdles to hop to achieve at the highest levels. I’ve never heard the GT rumors anywhere but the internet, but the BOT do plan to reconvene and discuss McRobbie’s status next spring. So there is that? Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

Green can be a maddening player. The good, then the bad. Possession by possession. It’s just what his game is. Last night it was a net positive- Thursday could be a different story. Who knows Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

Yeah, I'm by no means saying it should entirely replace the coach in recruiting. Hell, the coach is a huge source of data collection in the model. It would just be a collaborative tool as it is in professional sports- operating on a spectrum- some coaches/programs value it in differing degrees. I get the backlash on a site with a user base with such diversity but analytics, big data, AI, is undeniable. Ultimately, this thread was about recruiting approach and I don't think the original user who PM'd me even cared about the last bit.

Glass is a nice guy, not a great AD. Hampered by McRobbie for sure. IU could do better in both positions and would improve as a University as a whole.

I had someone (who all know, but I didn't clear this with him) PM me regarding some questions about recruiting in general and then, more specifically, Anthony Leal's situation. The general questions were about offering scholarships. Below is my experience/knowledge of the situation. It's unnecessarily long, and gets unnecessarily techy at the end but I figured it may generate some discussion while the on the floor product has been less than desirable. I don't think you're going to love this initial answer- but I'll explain- each coach/program has their own style. There are no hard and fast rules to the approach of scholarship offering. The factors are all there; the when, the why, the who, how many, etc. You have some coaches/programs who take the (infamous to us) shotgun approach which starts early in classes. You have coaches/programs who take the opposite approach and don't offer anyone until a certain criteria is met. And then you have, in my estimation, the programs that operate in between those two extremes and are malleable to the individual recruitment and class composition/quality. In the first scenario (ex. Crean), the idea is to get the offer out when they're younger, or showing some potential. The idea is you show "we're serious" initially. By the end, the approach is "we knew it before others, we were sure, we were right, you can trust my judgement, we've been around longer, we're family at this point." The problem with this approach is it's simply a numbers game which most can see it (these kids all talk, all know each others offers) and this is where you get the "cheapened offer" talk. "Oh, he believes in 35 of the top 100 just like me?" The overall idea is you hit on some, you miss on others both for commitments and impact on the floor. Now, sometimes this stuff really pays off. Some kids/families buy into that. To some kids, it's truly important. That probably has to do more with biological and socioeconomic factors than anything else- but can be effective. In the other extreme, there are coaches/programs where the approach is much more selective and patient. For example, notoriously, John Beilein, does not offer a kid until 3 things have happened: the recruit has been on campus, John Beilein has seen the recruit play in person, and the recruit has completed his sophomore year of high school. Now, that's about as strict/selective and patient as it comes currently. It instantly takes UM out of recruitments especially in a time where kids are stacking offers for no other reason than to measure up to their buds. Think what you will of that mindset, but it's a reality, and plays into things. He doesn't waiver from the approach though as it allows him to evaluate the prospect with the idea of offering the right scholarship to the right prospect for the right results on the floor. This approach obviously strengthens the weight of the offer. Some kids/family's value the heck out of that. They value that the decision has been thought out on the programs end and there is substance and meaning to it. Another example, Stanford doesn't offer until you get accepted to their school. That certainly limits them, but can have some serious appeal. Most coaches/programs operate in the middle of that spectrum. If a prospect is elite- why wait? MOST depends on the family/camp/prospect and what you gather is important to them. Is this kid a bit of an attention seeker or someone in his camp feels disrespected and value an offer even if it isn't actionable? Offer. Is this kid not focused on recruiting and an offer would have more weight when family/camp/prospect is getting more serious? Hold off. Does a coach really see potential which may be exploitable with an early offer? Offer. And so on and so on, but this approach is most common. With regards to slow playing a kid...it's tough but they know what they're doing. Generally, you have SOME insight into where a kid is in a recruitment before you offer. So, if there is no chance of a commit coaches/programs can make offers that aren't actionable- it's a mutual thing. For coaches/programs it means- "we're serious, we're going to be around, consider the idea of putting on this uniform." Most times that all goes unsaid. In certain situations, say a blue blood is offering a fringe 4 star w some unseen potential it's more "we're serious, we're watching, here's what you need to work on, work hard enough and you can succeed here." In more rare situations, like Anthony Leal, it's well known he will commit to IU at anytime. IU is genuinely not sold on Leal. It's not that they know he's in their pocket and they're just going to keep trying until he's the last girl at the bar. You have to do it with respect and I can tell you this is the approach I have heard to this fairly unique situation. The pitch to Leal is "we like you as a player, as a person and we care about you and your family. We want the best for you and for this program. Here's what we'd like to see develop, we want like hell to have you here but we want to make sure you're in the best spot to succeed on the floor." Now some of that is because it's not only in IU's best interests to secure top talent to maximize success, but it's also a pretty bad look around the state if the hometown boy with parents employed by the school can't get in a game and has to transfer. I think Archie operates on his own accord. Some coaches pay attention to other offers, maybe the upcoming trip to MSU for Leal DOES impact the offer/not offer- I just tend to doubt it. It would certainly in some coaches. You may have no interest in this next part but it's been I've been thinking about since I was back in college. I should probably just try it and track it on my own. All recruiting at this point is subjective. The shotgun approach is less informed subjectivity. The Beilein approach is more informed- but nonetheless- subjective. I'm fairly convinced that there is a science to it. I work in a field where computers and people merge to predict behavior and determine outcomes. I'm fairly certain that an algorithm could be programmed to more accurately yield desired results based on personality traits, socioeconomic factors, brand influence vs accolades, performance, growth of performance, quality of opponent, and a myriad of other factors. A "Moneyball" approach, if you will. I think there would be resistance to this but using empirically data-based analytics to accompany subjective feelings/assessments would be a useful tool. Just today, I saw Dakich on Twitter defending his take that Porzingis would be a bust because of "his eyes" (meaning Porzingis') and endlessly, laughably arguing that anyone who wasn't a coach "wouldn't get it." It's that type of subjective nonsense that leads to a lot of swings and misses, imo, and analytics could be used as a tool guide coaches in recruiting.

I'm not trying to be dramatic but I have never seen anything like that and I think I'll always remember it hahaha