Transfer Portal w IU Interest

[CSP]

3 minutes ago, HoosierX said:

You just proved that you don't understand the concept. Ultimately skills can be developed while height and athleticism cannot.

You can plot physical traits and basketball skills on a 2x2. You can only get into the top right quadrant if you have both. He is a high ceiling prospect because he can actually get into the top right quadrant by developing skills since he already has the physical traits. But right now his level of basketball skills is low and if they don't improve, he won't contribute.

But just having physical traits doesn't give you a high floor, because you need skills to contribute meaningfully. Hanner Perea was the poster boy for this concept.

100% I understand it lol 

Skill can be developed, sure. But.... he isn't having offense run through him. Not in the modern game. 

 

But false, he doesn't need to develop THAT much skill to contribute because he already has the physical traits. Hence... high floor. 

 

Hanner Perea was a great bench big. Hence... high floor. 

[Pagoda]

12 minutes ago, Chris007 said:

I don't think we should try to compare the IUFB turnaround with this upcoming IUBB season. Remember Cig brought his whole coaching staff and all of his best players. That's not the situation with DDV. Not saying he won't have the same success but he's not starting on at least second base like Cig was. 

I get your point.  But I’m not sure how to factor in how Cig had NIL in the #30-35 range with a modest budget to run his program vs CDD having top-10 payroll and a huge budget to run his program.

Also a bball roster is obviously much much smaller than football.

I guess I’m just saying CDD has some advantages Cig didn’t have.

[Hoosierfan2017]

1 minute ago, Certified Sunshine Pumper said:

Hanner Perea was a great bench big. 

In what world?

[Hoosierfanyuh]

We’re going after very quality players idk where this narrative is coming from lmao 

[CSP]

4 minutes ago, Hoosierfan2017 said:

In what world?

Do you usually struggle? I know you're young, but mercy man. 

[CSP]

Hanner Perea-- 19MP 7p 4r 1b 59% FG

If that isn't a good bench big, not sure there are any 

[TrueHoosier62]

55 minutes ago, moyemayhem said:

I have no horse in this race, but I've seen plenty of unplayable 7 footers.  What were the floors on Peter Jurkin, Jeremiah April, and Dallas James?

There will never be another Peter Jurkin. Message boards simply do not get fodder like that, twice in a lifetime.

[Hoosierfan2017]

2 minutes ago, Certified Sunshine Pumper said:

Do you usually struggle? 

Do you? I don’t think I’ve ever heard stone hands Hanner referred to as a “great bench big” at any point in my life before today. 

[dwtaylor1055]

weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee this chat as turned absolutely upside down lol

[str8baller]

1 minute ago, iu eyedoc said:

Well if you consider Knueppel, Maluach, Proctor and their 4 other 5 star players role players...I agree

I did consider them. The topic is allocation of NIL money as expressed in percentages. You’re getting hung up on the fact that they were able to get good players for cheap. That’s a credit to their coach. But the known quantity was coming out of HS was Flagg and he was able to command a large percentage of the total NIL spend. Gonna be similar for all the best players that hit the open market.  
 

So when you consider nabbing a couple of the best players at $3+ mil each (for example) you’re going to have $6+ mil of a ~$10 mil budget (or 60+%) of your total spend going to 2-3 players.  
 

Getting other really good players for cheap is a bonus.  Coaches will probably study how Scheyer was able to do that and exploit such inefficiencies. Same with Golden and his strategy of pulling productive mid major guys. Everybody is going to have to work to find strategies that allows them to maximize talent for dollars spent.  
 

But that doesn’t take away from the original point: on the open market the best 2 or 3 guys on some top teams are gonna combine for 50-60%+ of a teams NIL. So if you want to get them, there’s your salary threshold. 

[CSP]

1 minute ago, Hoosierfan2017 said:

Do you? I don’t think I’ve ever heard stone hands Hanner referred to as a “great bench big” at any point in my life before today. 

I really do not care what you've heard and haven't heard. You have shown very little understanding during your time here. 

You complain loudly, though. 

[Hoosierfan2017]

Just now, Certified Sunshine Pumper said:

I really do not care what you've heard and haven't heard. You have shown very little understanding during your time here. 

You complain loudly, though. 

As big a pot calling the kettle black situation as there is. Have a good one mate. 

[steubenhoosier]

58 minutes ago, hoosierbgh said:

The days of really skilled bigs at IU are likely in the past for the foreseeable future. The 5's role in this offense are to 1. defend, 2. rebound, 3. set screens, and 4. catch the ball and dunk it on rare occasions. Being able to make any kind of post move is largely irrelevant.  

Opurum doesn't appear to be as stiff and lumbering as a lot of inexperienced kids his size. He also has a good frame, good timing on blocks, and appears to be able to catch the ball. He probably won't contribute much his first year but is worth a shot as a backup on the bench and a developmental piece.

Bailey was recruited to play the 5 and he is going to be expected to do much more than the role you laid out 

[CSP]

1 minute ago, Hoosierfan2017 said:

As big a pot calling the kettle black situation as there is. Have a good one mate. 

In what world? or whatever you said... when you're rude, don't be surprised when it comes back to you. 

[TrueHoosier62]

Come on children, play nice. Don't make daddy have to go and get the leather strap and duct tape.

[HoosierX]

16 minutes ago, Certified Sunshine Pumper said:

100% I understand it lol 

Skill can be developed, sure. But.... he isn't having offense run through him. Not in the modern game. 

 

But false, he doesn't need to develop THAT much skill to contribute because he already has the physical traits. Hence... high floor. 

 

Hanner Perea was a great bench big. Hence... high floor. 

In his sophomore year, he averaged 2.8 points and 2.1 rebounds per game. Those aren't high floor stats, they are low floor stats.

How would you define a low floor in a way that's not completely subjective? It can't be someone without skills or physical traits because they aren't in the consideration set, they're sitting in an office making powerpoints.

[HoosierX]

4 minutes ago, Hoosierfan2017 said:

As big a pot calling the kettle black situation as there is. Have a good one mate. 

Seriously, he's easily the most condescending poster on the board who just "lol"s at everyone he disagrees with.

[FightFor6]

This board is a great reminder that people live completely different realities. It's fascinating.

[CSP]

3 minutes ago, HoosierX said:

In his sophomore year, he averaged 2.8 points and 2.1 rebounds per game. Those aren't high floor stats, they are low floor stats.

How would you define a low floor in a way that's not completely subjective? It can be someone without skills or physical traits because they aren't in the consideration set, they're sitting in an office making powerpoints.

I'm not sure why you posted his SO stats. 

19 mins-- 7p 4r--- pretty good numbers for what should have been a bench big and defended the rim... took very little shots and was efficient when he did. High floor, low ceiling. 

1 minute ago, HoosierX said:

Seriously, he's easily the most condescending poster on the board who just "lol"s at everyone he disagrees with.

lol you sound soft. Just talk ball. 

[AH1971]

5 minutes ago, str8baller said:

I did consider them. The topic is allocation of NIL money as expressed in percentages. You’re getting hung up on the fact that they were able to get good players for cheap. That’s a credit to their coach. But the known quantity was coming out of HS was Flagg and he was able to command a large percentage of the total NIL spend. Gonna be similar for all the best players that hit the open market.  
 

So when you consider nabbing a couple of the best players at $3+ mil each (for example) you’re going to have $6+ mil of a ~$10 mil budget (or 60+%) of your total spend going to 2-3 players.  
 

Getting other really good players for cheap is a bonus.  Coaches will probably study how Scheyer was able to do that and exploit such inefficiencies. Same with Golden and his strategy of pulling productive mid major guys. Everybody is going to have to work to find strategies that allows them to maximize talent for dollars spent.  
 

But that doesn’t take away from the original point: on the open market the best 2 or 3 guys on some top teams are gonna combine for 50-60%+ of a teams NIL. So if you want to get them, there’s your salary threshold. 

You're losing sight that Duke likely has the largest NIL budget of any team in college basketball and by a decent margin. Those other 4 and 5* players you considered weren't "cheap". Cooper Flagg is a generational talent....something Dix, Conwell, and Tucker aren't. IU can't afford to sink 80% of their NIL budget on 3 guys and still expect to sign "cheap" role players like Proctor, Evans, Foster, etc. who are all 4 and 5* talents with NBA potential. Hence why the comparison isn't really applicable to IU's situation.