(2017) PF Billy Preston to Kansas

[Brass Cannon 24,913]

1 hour ago, mdn82 said:

How do we know if the ROI is low until they get on campus? By recruiting services? By our perception of misses? I think that is what Pap is saying. We have to wait and see for sure before making concrete claims. The ROI on 2012 and 2013 looked great on paper, and it was not. That's on Crean. Plus, each years recruiting budget isn't specific to the year you are in unless you live and die by the Freshman like Calipari. For IU we have to create relationships 4 years in advance. It didn't take local coaches one year to dislike Crean. It will take longer than one year to build stronger relationships. It will take a few years to determine ROI on 2017 class. All we can do is keep winning in conference and hopefully more on a national level to become a more adequate option for higher end players. IMO


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

Here's the thing we're spending like the the teams that land one or two five stars every year. If we had to spend that to get 1 middle of the pack 4 star and 2 diamonds in the rough there's a problem  

That's why people are saying we aren't getting our ROI on recruiting.  Yes the whole 800 thousand wasn't spent on 2017 recruits but likewise over the last 4 or 5 years we have been spending money on this class. So it's fair to say the money spent is upwards of 500 thousand for the 2017 recruits. 

Did we really need to spend that money to get our 3 recruits. Even if our diamonds in the rough pan out did we need to spend that money to land them?  Moores best other offer was from a team that has never made the tourney. 

Were spending the money for a five star restaurant and get some corner joints food. Maybe it turns out great but should we really be spending the money for those kind of results?

[Jam 278]

I am as frustrated as anyone by the recruiting misses, but I cannot understand the concern about the expenses. It's not like tickets are going to be reduced or they hand out free popcorn if we spend 500k less. I would be more upset if we regularly heard that our coaches were not visible on the recruiting circuit.

[Walking Boot of Doom 18,170]

I know it was high and I know that we aren't in the mix for any remaining elite level talents. 

So as of now the ROI is low. I will be the first to say that's changed if we get an elite level talent. 

The budget in the last 6 months wasn't just spent on 2017. Don't know how else to explain this...


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

[WayneFleekHoosier 48,688]

I am as frustrated as anyone by the recruiting misses, but I cannot understand the concern about the expenses. It's not like tickets are going to be reduced or they hand out free popcorn if we spend 500k less. I would be more upset if we regularly heard that our coaches were not visible on the recruiting circuit.

I think the only argument on expenses is our recruiting results don't match them.

I like that we are a top spender for recruiting. Just want similar results as other top spenders.

People by default start to think if we are going to land mostly 3 and 4 stars do we really need to spend top dollar?

It's a natural reaction born from frustration.

People inherently want us to land top talent and spend whatever it takes to do so.

Sent from my iPad using BtownBanners

[Brass Cannon 24,913]

7 minutes ago, Walking Boot of Doom said:

The budget in the last 6 months wasn't just spent on 2017. Don't know how else to explain this...


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

Well I get that. But going further back in time only increases the amount spent on the 2017 recruits which makes the ROI worse for 2017. 

For example we pursued Wilkes for what 5 years?  Really bad ROI. 

[Walking Boot of Doom 18,170]

Well I get that. But going further back in time only increases the amount spent on the 2017 recruits which makes the ROI worse for 2017. 

For example we pursued Wilkes for what 5 years?  Really bad ROI. 

Wilkes is one recruit... pap's point is that if ROI is only measured by on-court results, let's call them tournament wins and B1G championships, then we've got a pretty good ROI. Actual recruiting "results" mean nothing. Wins and titles are the only things of value.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

[Brass Cannon 24,913]

1 minute ago, Walking Boot of Doom said:

Wilkes is one recruit... pap's point is that if ROI is only measured by on-court results, let's call them tournament wins and B1G championships, then we've got a pretty good ROI. Actual recruiting "results" mean nothing. Wins and titles are the only things of value.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

But those results are from PAST recruiting successes. Those successes are easier to attain with high level talent which is why the current recruiting failures have people concerned. We're worried about the future. 

[Walking Boot of Doom 18,170]

But those results are from PAST recruiting successes. Those successes are easier to attain with high level talent which is why the current recruiting failures have people concerned. We're worried about the future. 

Your claim has been that the realized return is not adequate given the investment. In that regard, I strongly disagree. Your other claim is that ROI with the 2017 investment is not adequate. In that regard, you cannot support that as we have not had a chance to see what the return actually is.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

[HoosierAloha 30,077]

I couldn't care less what we're spending on recruiting as long as we're competing on the national stage. IUBB has money to spend but needs talent to compete. I guess time will tell if we remain a top 25 team and compete in the 2017-2018 season. As the class stands right now combined with what should be returning we will be good but not great. I can see how that irks some with the money were spending.

[MikeRoberts 7,196]

Wilkes is one recruit... pap's point is that if ROI is only measured by on-court results, let's call them tournament wins and B1G championships, then we've got a pretty good ROI. Actual recruiting "results" mean nothing. Wins and titles are the only things of value.

Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

Are we not top 5 in spend year in and year out? We are not top 5 in performance year in and year out so that is not a good ROI which is everyone's point

[Walking Boot of Doom 18,170]

Are we not top 5 in spend year in and year out? We are not top 5 in performance year in and year out so that is not a good ROI which is everyone's point

Yeah there's never going to be a direct correlation...


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

[mdn82 25,546]

Are we not top 5 in spend year in and year out? We are not top 5 in performance year in and year out so that is not a good ROI which is everyone's point

www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/2015/03/17/men

Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

[mdn82 25,546]

Here is another article that explains where some of the costs went. Many of the top spenders like Kansas, Duke, and Kentucky have their own planes. We do not. In one year we spent the most. However, private jet rentals are rather expensive during the recruiting periods. Not all recruiting budgets are created equal. As of right now we are paying most in the B1G on a rolling 5 year. We are winning B1G titles. We couldn't say that in 12-13 that the prior 5 years we spent on recruiting. We didn't go over $250k until 2011.

http://www.indystar.com/story/sports/college/indiana/2015/07/17/indiana-university-basketball-team-news-coaches-recruiting-expenses-tom-crean/30291627/


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

[Brass Cannon 24,913]

9 hours ago, Walking Boot of Doom said:

Your claim has been that the realized return is not adequate given the investment. In that regard, I strongly disagree. Your other claim is that ROI with the 2017 investment is not adequate. In that regard, you cannot support that as we have not had a chance to see what the return actually is.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

We over paid for 1 4 star and 2 diamonds in the rough. 

So yes I can argue the ROI isn't there. Even if both work out we still grossly overpaid for them.

 

[Uspshoosier 46,397]

We over paid for 1 4 star and 2 diamonds in the rough. 

So yes I can argue the ROI isn't there. Even if both work out we still grossly overpaid for them.

 

How do u know for sure the money was spent recruiting the 1 4 "star" and 2 diamonds in the rough? Maybe the staff only spent money on traveling to events and in home visits to the sacred 5 stars. And then the staff went ahead and called Evan Daniels, jerry Meyer to see which players weren't 5 stars. Then instead of using wasted resources they decided to just drive and spend their own money. Come to think why even go recruit anyone during The evaluation period. Instead of wasting money recruiting in spring and fall they should just subscribe to 247 vip, scout, Rivals, and ESPN. Sarcasm button pushed

Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners

[Bobman1 2,909]

oops, the Indiana men's basketball account accidentally tagged Billy Preston instead of Thomas Bryant.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners

[Walking Boot of Doom 18,170]

We over paid for 1 4 star and 2 diamonds in the rough. 

So yes I can argue the ROI isn't there. Even if both work out we still grossly overpaid for them.

 

You can absolutely argue it, but then you are implying that recruiting class rankings exclusively dictate on-court success. So your argument would be severely flawed.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

[Brass Cannon 24,913]

26 minutes ago, Walking Boot of Doom said:

You can absolutely argue it, but then you are implying that recruiting class rankings exclusively dictate on-court success. So your argument would be severely flawed.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

No I'm not  you can put words in my mouth if you have to in order feel better about our recruiting misses then so be it. 

We clearly spent the money these last few years to win some five stars and to stay atop the big ten. 

Instead we are left with hoping to finish in the top 5 in the big ten next year. 

We did not need to spend over half a million dollars to get the recruits we got.  We poured money into countless recruits we had no chance with Bamba and Diallo for example. 

When you overspend and throw money away it's not good utilization of resources. 

You recruit 5 stars because they give you a higher probability of competing than these diamonds in the rough.  We spent the money to get 5 stars and to be assured of competing for the Big Ten next year. Instead we got a chance to be top 5 next year and IF some diamonds in the rough work out being back near the top in 2018. 

So tired of the excuses last year it was how can you expect Crean to recruit with his job on the line like it was. Despite the fact Alford and Groce seem to be recruiting on the hot seat just fine. 

Now it's we don't know how the recruiting will turn out. But that's not the point. 

We are spending the money to where we shouldn't have to worry about Diamonds working out. And we aren't getting it. It seems like our recruiting was more successful before the huge cash infusion. 

[mdn82 25,546]

The recruiting budget for 2017 is not exclusive for the recruits of 2017. Not sure why that is so hard to get around. Our relationships for the most part are a rolling 4 year relationship. I don't even understand why this is a thing? We spent more on recruiting this year than in 2013. The money we spent on say Kris Wilkes is far less than Garland due to travel. This argument is crazy as nobody could put a price on individual recruits as more times than not we aren't watching one recruit then coming home. Bottom line is they need to seal the deal with more players as our national perception changes. How much they spend or ROI is nuts. Unless we get a team plane with dedicated recruiters like other schools that do no coaching how is comparing them accurate? This is the craziest circular argument of apples to oranges we could possibly make on this site. We spent more time on "this years budget" recruiting the following 3 years, because by the time a player gets to be a senior you have an idea of who has legitimate interest. This recruiting budget argument is starting to get insane.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

[Brass Cannon 24,913]

1 minute ago, mdn82 said:

The recruiting budget for 2017 is not exclusive for the recruits of 2017. Not sure why that is so hard to get around. Our relationships for the most part are a rolling 4 year relationship. I don't even understand why this is a thing? We spent more on recruiting this year than in 2013. The money we spent on say Kris Wilkes is far less than Garland due to travel. This argument is crazy as nobody could put a price on individual recruits as more times than not we aren't watching one recruit then coming home. Bottom line is they need to seal the deal with more players as our national perception changes. How much they spend or ROI is nuts. Unless we get a team plane with dedicated recruiters like other schools that do no coaching how is comparing them accurate? This is the craziest circular argument of apples to oranges we could possibly make on this site. We spent more time on "this years budget" recruiting the following 3 years, because by the time a player gets to be a senior you have an idea of who has legitimate interest. This recruiting budget argument is starting to get insane.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

I understand we have been spending money for 4 years that doesn't make this years failures somehow more acceptable?  Not sure why that's so hard to get. 

I also don't get why as our budget has skyrocketed our results have gotten worse.