NCAA MBB Transfer Portal

[IUHoosierJoe 1,545]

14 hours ago, Chris007 said:

You’re going to get less than 5 minutes a game but we really want you to stay. Then you tell everyone you tried.

I see 3 possible ways the staff could have dealt with Joey Brunk:

A: Tell him he's not welcome anymore;  B: Tell him they appreciate his work ethic and leadership and they want him to stay, but they only see him getting 5-10 minutes per game and leave the decision to him;  C: Lie to him and "promise" him 25-30 minutes per game, but then only play him 5-10 minutes.

B is by far the best, most honest, ethical option, in my opinion.  And you're saying that's what they did.  I'm good with that.  Further, I would argue that C is worse than A.

[RaceToTheTop 27,592]

2 hours ago, Brass Cannon said:

What metics?  

plus/minus.   Offensive and defensive efficiency.  The worst combinations we had involved Brunk -- specifically when Brunk, TJD, and Smith were in the lineup at the same time....which makes sense because it put three guys on the court that had no perimeter game.

[RaceToTheTop 27,592]

1 hour ago, iu eyedoc said:

If CMW is  looking for guys that are worried about losing PT to Joey Brunk types... oy vey.

That sounds good, but let's not act like he wasn't playing 20 minutes per game when he was here two years ago.  He's not Tim Priller.  He's a guy who serves a purpose.  And if you can get a guy whose skill set is similar to Brunk but who has three years of play left, there is no reason not to take him.  Hell, how much time do you think Duncomb would get next year with Brunk around?  IMO, it's already a very limited amount of time that a true big is going to get.

[Chris007 51,066]

2 minutes ago, brumdog45 said:

That sounds good, but let's not act like he wasn't playing 20 minutes per game when he was here two years ago.  He's not Tim Priller.  He's a guy who serves a purpose.  And if you can get a guy whose skill set is similar to Brunk but who has three years of play left, there is no reason not to take him.  Hell, how much time do you think Duncomb would get next year with Brunk around?  IMO, it's already a very limited amount of time that a true big is going to get.

Exactly he’s going to a team that has been better than us the last few years.

[JSHoosier 21,235]

21 minutes ago, brumdog45 said:

plus/minus.   Offensive and defensive efficiency.  The worst combinations we had involved Brunk -- specifically when Brunk, TJD, and Smith were in the lineup at the same time....which makes sense because it put three guys on the court that had no perimeter game.

In fairness to those 3, most of our guards didn't have much of a perimeter game either.

[jk34 1,105]

I want the 13 players that the coaching staff wants. We have high quality coaches, who know a hell of alot more than we do. If they think we need to make more changes,  then I'm all for it!

 

 

 

[iu eyedoc 2,834]

1 hour ago, brumdog45 said:

That sounds good, but let's not act like he wasn't playing 20 minutes per game when he was here two years ago.  He's not Tim Priller.  He's a guy who serves a purpose.  And if you can get a guy whose skill set is similar to Brunk but who has three years of play left, there is no reason not to take him.  Hell, how much time do you think Duncomb would get next year with Brunk around?  IMO, it's already a very limited amount of time that a true big is going to get.

Yeah, I agree. The premise brought up about Brunk was that he had been treated  in a way that I and others don't want any of the current players to be treated in order to make space for an "upgrade" player.

It's an idea that ignores that Brunk didn't count against scholarships and, even at that, he entered the portal at a time when IU had 2 scholarship spots open.

I don't think anyone saw Brunk getting anywhere near 20 min/G if he had stayed, I would guess less than the 13 M/G he averaged over the last 9 games of 2019-20. My reply to you was a bit in jest, as Brunk would have been a useful keep, but also I don't think CMW would be recruiting guys that would look at Brunk as a competitor for minutes.  As for Duncomb, as a good but not OAD type incoming freshman, I don't think he expects a ton of PT and Brunk wouldn't factor into his thinking.

My thoughts are that Brunk was told, this is what we are going to run and it isn't an offense in which you are likely to see much playing time. And that is the exact type of the conversation that hopefully was done with every player, and really unrelated to a Creaning type conversation that some are advocating if a certain player became available.

[RaceToTheTop 27,592]

36 minutes ago, iu eyedoc said:

Yeah, I agree. The premise brought up about Brunk was that he had been treated  in a way that I and others don't want any of the current players to be treated in order to make space for an "upgrade" player.

It's an idea that ignores that Brunk didn't count against scholarships and, even at that, he entered the portal at a time when IU had 2 scholarship spots open.

I don't think anyone saw Brunk getting anywhere near 20 min/G if he had stayed, I would guess less than the 13 M/G he averaged over the last 9 games of 2019-20. My reply to you was a bit in jest, as Brunk would have been a useful keep, but also I don't think CMW would be recruiting guys that would look at Brunk as a competitor for minutes.  As for Duncomb, as a good but not OAD type incoming freshman, I don't think he expects a ton of PT and Brunk wouldn't factor into his thinking.

My thoughts are that Brunk was told, this is what we are going to run and it isn't an offense in which you are likely to see much playing time. And that is the exact type of the conversation that hopefully was done with every player, and really unrelated to a Creaning type conversation that some are advocating if a certain player became available.

Gotcha.  My point of view is just meant to say that there are certainly guys that will transfer into places where they are going to be 5 to 10 minute guys.  Lots of teams out there filling rosters and guys transferring for different reasons.

[RaceToTheTop 27,592]

3 hours ago, JSHoosier said:

In fairness to those 3, most of our guards didn't have much of a perimeter game either.

They didn't, which was also an issue.  But it was so obvious that our best lineup was not to have Brunk, TJD, and Smith on the court simultaneously.  And it wasn't a shock that when Smith went to Arizona, he played the 4.  

[iu eyedoc 2,834]

10 minutes ago, brumdog45 said:

They didn't, which was also an issue.  But it was so obvious that our best lineup was not to have Brunk, TJD, and Smith on the court simultaneously.  And it wasn't a shock that when Smith went to Arizona, he played the 4.  

[Brass Cannon 25,155]

5 hours ago, brumdog45 said:

plus/minus.   Offensive and defensive efficiency.  The worst combinations we had involved Brunk -- specifically when Brunk, TJD, and Smith were in the lineup at the same time....which makes sense because it put three guys on the court that had no perimeter game.

Can you post these numbers?  
 

I don’t think our problem was Brunk our problem was we were playing Brunk and TJD at the same time. 

[RaceToTheTop 27,592]

33 minutes ago, Brass Cannon said:

Can you post these numbers?  
 

I don’t think our problem was Brunk our problem was we were playing Brunk and TJD at the same time. 

I wasn’t able to find the numbers but it wasn’t a secret that Bruno’s minutes were going down because he and TJD being on the court (especially with Smith at the 3) was hurting.  
 

in terms of TJD and Brunk being on the floor together....I assume you agree that it hurt to have them both clogging the lane and that Brunk isn’t as good as TJD.  That makes Brunk a 5 to 10 minute player with proper game management.

[lillurk 4,146]

57 minutes ago, Brass Cannon said:

Can you post these numbers?  
 

I don’t think our problem was Brunk our problem was we were playing Brunk and TJD at the same time. 

Not sure if anyone has a Hooplens login but they have on/off court splits and allow you to do more than one player. So you could do “Brunk w/o TJD” vs. “Brunk w/TJD” and “TJD w/o Brunk” for some idea. I don’t have hooplens access lest I’d do it.

For what it’s worth mgoblog posted his on/off splits from Butler when he transferred to IU and the defense was terrifyingly bad w/him on the court at BU

[OKHOOSIER 4,249]

9 hours ago, Alford Bailey said:

Lots of hand wringing happening about 2 guys who absolutely do not fit in CMW scheme......

I love coming back to random threads to see what the conversation is, and the Brunk departure is causing this much hubbub? Hand wringing about a guy who averaged 6 points and 5 rebounds in 19 minutes worth of work per game. He isn't athletic, cant shoot the three, is abysmal from the the line (57% career) and was an average rim defender (0.3 blks per game). To say he doesn't fit the CMW system is an incredible understatement, aside from coming off an injury that is often the kiss of death for a big man, and any basketball player (back problems). At best in our system he is five fouls to give under the basket, at worst he does not see the floor, and I am certain CMW was straight up with him. I am sure they want Logan to get whatever minutes would have gone to Joey. 

Now, as to his transfer to Ohio, that one is puzzling, and I do not see playing time there for him exceeding what he got under Archie. I stated before in a different thread when we were arguing about "big men" that Joey literally becomes the tallest guy on their team by a couple inches. I guess that may have been the draw there for him and why they wanted him. Personally I wish him nothing but the best and hope he has a solid role for them in their rotation, I just don't see it. Either way, and this has been pointed out before, people need to get used to this kind of turnover, this isn't "Creaning" which was over signing for over signing sake and machine gunning scholarships to players that had no business getting an IU offer. This is turnover because every year we will be looking for the best players available to plug holes or make the team better. I think everyone should prepare themselves to lose the IU loyalty nonsense, they are going to build a roster year over year to get better, not clog a scholly on a 3 star at the end of the bench because he is loyal to IU and an "IU guy". This, like it or not, is what it takes to win big now in CBB, and with the transfer rule now, there will be very little "get old, stay old". But that's just like, my opinion man. 

[Brass Cannon 25,155]

51 minutes ago, brumdog45 said:

I wasn’t able to find the numbers but it wasn’t a secret that Bruno’s minutes were going down because he and TJD being on the court (especially with Smith at the 3) was hurting.  
 

in terms of TJD and Brunk being on the floor together....I assume you agree that it hurt to have them both clogging the lane and that Brunk isn’t as good as TJD.  That makes Brunk a 5 to 10 minute player with proper game management.

Sure but guys have value outside their on court production 

 

[bird4par 322]

32 minutes ago, OKHOOSIER said:

I love coming back to random threads to see what the conversation is, and the Brunk departure is causing this much hubbub? Hand wringing about a guy who averaged 6 points and 5 rebounds in 19 minutes worth of work per game. He isn't athletic, cant shoot the three, is abysmal from the the line (57% career) and was an average rim defender (0.3 blks per game). To say he doesn't fit the CMW system is an incredible understatement, aside from coming off an injury that is often the kiss of death for a big man, and any basketball player (back problems). At best in our system he is five fouls to give under the basket, at worst he does not see the floor, and I am certain CMW was straight up with him. I am sure they want Logan to get whatever minutes would have gone to Joey. 

Now, as to his transfer to Ohio, that one is puzzling, and I do not see playing time there for him exceeding what he got under Archie. I stated before in a different thread when we were arguing about "big men" that Joey literally becomes the tallest guy on their team by a couple inches. I guess that may have been the draw there for him and why they wanted him. Personally I wish him nothing but the best and hope he has a solid role for them in their rotation, I just don't see it. Either way, and this has been pointed out before, people need to get used to this kind of turnover, this isn't "Creaning" which was over signing for over signing sake and machine gunning scholarships to players that had no business getting an IU offer. This is turnover because every year we will be looking for the best players available to plug holes or make the team better. I think everyone should prepare themselves to lose the IU loyalty nonsense, they are going to build a roster year over year to get better, not clog a scholly on a 3 star at the end of the bench because he is loyal to IU and an "IU guy". This, like it or not, is what it takes to win big now in CBB, and with the transfer rule now, there will be very little "get old, stay old". But that's just like, my opinion man. 

I think the big deal is that he did not count on the scholarship #'s.  Along with that, IU has been snakebitten the last several years with injuries, and if nothing else he was a safety factor.  Other than that, I am not sure what the panty wadding is all about.  I was under the impression he couldn't attend law school if he was playing bball, maybe I had one too many edibles and am dreaming this up.  

[RaceToTheTop 27,592]

36 minutes ago, Brass Cannon said:

Sure but guys have value outside their on court production 

 

I never said I wanted him to move on — just that he wasn’t going to get much playing time.

[Class of '66 Old Fart 87,168]

LSU transfer Aundre Hyatt has committed to Rutgers.

[woodenshoemanHoosierfan 6,378]

I love coming back to random threads to see what the conversation is, and the Brunk departure is causing this much hubbub? Hand wringing about a guy who averaged 6 points and 5 rebounds in 19 minutes worth of work per game. He isn't athletic, cant shoot the three, is abysmal from the the line (57% career) and was an average rim defender (0.3 blks per game). To say he doesn't fit the CMW system is an incredible understatement, aside from coming off an injury that is often the kiss of death for a big man, and any basketball player (back problems). At best in our system he is five fouls to give under the basket, at worst he does not see the floor, and I am certain CMW was straight up with him. I am sure they want Logan to get whatever minutes would have gone to Joey. 

Now, as to his transfer to Ohio, that one is puzzling, and I do not see playing time there for him exceeding what he got under Archie. I stated before in a different thread when we were arguing about "big men" that Joey literally becomes the tallest guy on their team by a couple inches. I guess that may have been the draw there for him and why they wanted him. Personally I wish him nothing but the best and hope he has a solid role for them in their rotation, I just don't see it. Either way, and this has been pointed out before, people need to get used to this kind of turnover, this isn't "Creaning" which was over signing for over signing sake and machine gunning scholarships to players that had no business getting an IU offer. This is turnover because every year we will be looking for the best players available to plug holes or make the team better. I think everyone should prepare themselves to lose the IU loyalty nonsense, they are going to build a roster year over year to get better, not clog a scholly on a 3 star at the end of the bench because he is loyal to IU and an "IU guy". This, like it or not, is what it takes to win big now in CBB, and with the transfer rule now, there will be very little "get old, stay old". But that's just like, my opinion man. 

I don't recall anyone who was upset he left. The whole debate started with someone saying he was pushed out to make room which would be similar to someone being pushed out if Brooks or someone else entered the portal and wanted to come to IU. It wouldn't be because his scholarship didn't count toward allowable scholarships and he transfered while 2 spots were open.. It wasn't whether IU should have kept Brunk.

 

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

 

 

 

[IUCrazy2 2,589]

15 hours ago, OKHOOSIER said:

I love coming back to random threads to see what the conversation is, and the Brunk departure is causing this much hubbub? Hand wringing about a guy who averaged 6 points and 5 rebounds in 19 minutes worth of work per game. He isn't athletic, cant shoot the three, is abysmal from the the line (57% career) and was an average rim defender (0.3 blks per game). To say he doesn't fit the CMW system is an incredible understatement, aside from coming off an injury that is often the kiss of death for a big man, and any basketball player (back problems). At best in our system he is five fouls to give under the basket, at worst he does not see the floor, and I am certain CMW was straight up with him. I am sure they want Logan to get whatever minutes would have gone to Joey. 

Now, as to his transfer to Ohio, that one is puzzling, and I do not see playing time there for him exceeding what he got under Archie. I stated before in a different thread when we were arguing about "big men" that Joey literally becomes the tallest guy on their team by a couple inches. I guess that may have been the draw there for him and why they wanted him. Personally I wish him nothing but the best and hope he has a solid role for them in their rotation, I just don't see it. Either way, and this has been pointed out before, people need to get used to this kind of turnover, this isn't "Creaning" which was over signing for over signing sake and machine gunning scholarships to players that had no business getting an IU offer. This is turnover because every year we will be looking for the best players available to plug holes or make the team better. I think everyone should prepare themselves to lose the IU loyalty nonsense, they are going to build a roster year over year to get better, not clog a scholly on a 3 star at the end of the bench because he is loyal to IU and an "IU guy". This, like it or not, is what it takes to win big now in CBB, and with the transfer rule now, there will be very little "get old, stay old". But that's just like, my opinion man. 

Nobody is wringing their hands over Brunk leaving.  They were saying that trying to compare him leaving to trying to bump one of the players currently on the roster off the team for an unnamed, hypothetical person who hypothetically turned down the school once, hypothetically has stats at his current P5 school that are not much better than those we want to replace because "athletic and highly ranked", and maybe some other hypothetical issues.

Most of us are saying you don't boot the guys being discussed here to add someone who has not shown that they are demonstrably better.  That would go for any hypothetical player.