NCAA MBB Transfer Portal

[RaceToTheTop]

1 hour 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.

But that would be different than simply saying 'move along'.  

To me there is a difference between saying 'you aren't going to get playing time with us so if you want to, you'll have to go somewhere else' and 'you aren't welcome here'.  In some cases, they actually mean the same thing and the first is just a nuanced way of saying the second.  But in Brunk's case, his scholarship wasn't going to count against us, so by itself him moving on -- at least on the surface -- wouldn't help.  The only possible benefit would be if sometime prior to the roster being finalized there would be an open spot and another big would be more likley to take the spot if Brunk wasn't around due to less competition for PT.  

[Hoosierfanyuh]

2 hours ago, Chris007 said:

You’re first paragraph talks about getting rid of a die hard Hoosier, for someone a little better. But didn’t we just do that with Brunk?

Mans spitting nothing but facts

[RaceToTheTop]

2 hours ago, Brass Cannon said:

Not sure about Metrics but Archies only semi decent team was the one with Brunk Playing 

But the metrics on that team with Brunk playing were worse than when he was playing.  And it was no secret that as the year progressed he was getting less and less time.  In his last 8 games in 19-20, he was under 10 minutes three times and over 20 minutes just once.

Edited April 25, 2021 by brumdog45
inaccuracy

[RaceToTheTop]

*worse when he played

[Alford Bailey]

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

[Brass Cannon]

8 hours ago, brumdog45 said:

But the metrics on that team with Brunk playing were worse than when he was playing.  And it was no secret that as the year progressed he was getting less and less time.  In his last 8 games in 19-20, he was under 10 minutes three times and over 20 minutes just once.

What metics?  

[iu eyedoc]

11 hours ago, brumdog45 said:

But that would be different than simply saying 'move along'.  

To me there is a difference between saying 'you aren't going to get playing time with us so if you want to, you'll have to go somewhere else' and 'you aren't welcome here'.  In some cases, they actually mean the same thing and the first is just a nuanced way of saying the second.  But in Brunk's case, his scholarship wasn't going to count against us, so by itself him moving on -- at least on the surface -- wouldn't help.  The only possible benefit would be if sometime prior to the roster being finalized there would be an open spot and another big would be more likley to take the spot if Brunk wasn't around due to less competition for PT.  

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

[IUHoosierJoe]

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]

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]

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]

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 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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