hoosierpap

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

I think Forrester had 15+ fouls on that single defensive possession. That was remarkable.

At the game tonight... Sam Story @Samueltstory 1h Cliff notes: Lander: Lefty PG from Evansville. KU offer. Total stud. Pierce Thomas: Athleticism off charts. SG/ Wing. Training for Olympics? Kaufman: Jared Jeffries in waiting? Huge, huge fan. Leal: Hometown Star. Very interesting recruitment. Deep family ties to IU.

I wouldn't worry so much about that. Score one for the good guys soon enough

Yeah I would agree. When I spoke to that scout at the PSU game he said he was there for Romeo soooo idk

Zach Osterman @ZachOsterman Atlanta Hawks GM Travis Schlenk, who attended IU-Louisville last month, is here tonight. #iubb Mentioned earlier the Hawks are in on Romeo. Saw them at the PSU game

Yup, was told this as well.

Here's the thing...there are 3 main problems freshmen face in their transition and they vary in severity to each individual so this isn't in any order. This is how it's been explained to me and it's something to consider when watching freshmen.... 1) Physical strength- D1 workout regiment blows HS out of the water. It can be a man vs boy situation often 2) Mental aspects- confidence, crowd, pressure, expectation, adversity 3) Defense- the game is just so much faster and everyone can score so the system becomes more complicated Damezi and Romeo clearly struggle with the second. That happened to Yogi...I watched him go from 30 to 40, to 41, to 42 %. You'll notice the outlier...

Forrester with some confidence out there...

It's alllll gooood

Very sad to hear. I only know him from him working with us on this site but was always gracious with us both on the main board and mod board. Almost to the point where I thought it was strange (for lack of a better term) he even dealt with us...I soon just realized he was a genuine, good man who was passionate about his career, Indiana sports, and his family. Thoughts are with his family...

Yeah. I don't think it should be overlooked. IU has another link to their camp here Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

Chris Lowery from Harrison High is the in here for KSU. Archie is taking the lead on this and making some in roads. Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

Let's get it back on track. Debates branch out, I get that. Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

Always a better place when Jaybob's around....good to hear from you

I really like Leal. Archie and Co. are handling this the right way. I think at the end of the day he's a Hoosier

I'm pretty critical but reading this you'd think we were down 11 not up 2 Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

Yikes Smith, man. Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners

Gotta run the ball through that low block Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners

Currently re-watching.

Yeah, he was what they needed on defense. Held him under 10 pts of his avg. The turnovers and overall lack of effectiveness on offense are frustrating and stick out, but you grab 9- and 3 very important boards- and keep their biggest weapon in check...Smith is big in this win.

Just getting back from the game. A couple things... Green absolutely frustrates the hell out of Archie. Green seems like the kid who really doesn't respond well to the tough love Archie was giving him. A couple of managers were trying to bring him back up after getting reamed out by Archie. Green's biggest issue, imo, is just forcing it when things aren't going well when the approach should be to slow things down, simplify it. Green's parents were a row in front and a section over behind IU's bench and certainly didn't have the greatest experience outside of his two big threes in the first. Juwan seemed a little off, on the floor and the bench. I don't know, I never have really seen that side of him. Possibly related to the bone contusion but, idk. I think it was reflective in the box score. You have to like how Rob showed up down the stretch. That's what you want out of a PG and he's a freshmen at that. Interesting to see Archie drew that last PSU inbound up and the execution on Rob's part was there. This kid is not afraid to lead...at one point Archie was coming at him after a set play where Romeo was supposed to come from the corner 3 for a handoff to start the action. Romeo stayed in the corner, Archie called time out and laid into Rob. I'm not entirely sure what the play was, but it did appear to be a standard variation of a 4 out set. Rob looked right at Romeo and yelled "I tell you all the f-ing time on that, let's go." Rob is the kid in a couple years who leads you in a tourney run if you get the pieces around him. Clifton and Fitz are tough to watch on defense. I know Clifton had a couple impact plays towards the end of the 1st but I'm telling you he is absolutely lost at times throughout the possession. Fitz, man, just a lack of awareness. Plays his man only 75%, eyes locked, and can't see the ball. He did have two decent hedges which tells me he's being coached to do it, it's just not happening consistently. That said, they did play some solid team defense overall. This team is well coached. Archie has command of this group which is a glaring difference from the previous leadership. When you see it up close, it's like night and day. The offense has a ways to go, Rob got into some situations in the 2nd where IU was really struggling to get their sets initiated and he ended up dribbling north of 15 seconds. That's not a recipe for success. One thing of note...I spoke with a Hawks scout, Dotun (sp?), before the game. He was down on the floor pregame and said he was there for Romeo. He claimed not to know if any other scouts were there, idk that I believe that lol, but he's the only one I saw. He said Romeo is going in the top ten. Not breaking news. At this point, they have prospects above where he is projected but never know where they'll end up. I asked about strengths and weaknesses.. strength, something to the effect of "the kid understands the game on both sides more than anyone in his class. He knows he can score anytime but there is a hesitancy." Weaknesses, again, paraphrasing "Attitude affects his play. Being passive in the NBA won't warrant the value of a top 10 pick. That's the concern. He knows he's a killer, so kill." I didn't see him after the game, but have to think his eval of strengths and weaknesses was a tale of two halves. Said RJ, Bol Bol, Zion.