It's great to have strong NIL, but money alone won't equate to a solid roster; IU isn't exactly a hot basketball commodity right now. This season's poor roster construction probably isn't all about DD not being able to evaluate talent ... perhaps high-level transfers didn't want to come to Bloomington. Why would they?
It's great to have strong NIL, but money alone won't equate to a solid roster; IU isn't exactly a hot basketball commodity right now. This season's poor roster construction probably isn't all about DD not being able to evaluate talent ... perhaps high-level transfers didn't want to come to Bloomington. Why would they?
A good coach succeeds regardless of where they are. Cignetti took over a dumpster fire. Two years later he wins a national title.
Cig had players at his old stop who would run through a brick wall for him, and gladly followed.
I honestly think Coach's son moving on will help him long term. Gotta be tough to balance the needs of the team when your own kid is on it.
Edit: And nooo, I don't think TD was an issue. I think TD played solidly and gave us his best. And I don't think coach played favorites. And don't think coach is weak and can't handle it. etc.
,
It's great to have strong NIL, but money alone won't equate to a solid roster; IU isn't exactly a hot basketball commodity right now. This season's poor roster construction probably isn't all about DD not being able to evaluate talent ... perhaps high-level transfers didn't want to come to Bloomington. Why would they?
If we think just throwing a bunch of money at DD is suddenly going to make things great we tried the same thing with woodson and it failed. Good coaches succeed regardless of things like that. I am also still not convinced he can get any of these high levels guys unless he way outbids the big boys at Kansas and Kentucky. He really does not have much to sell other than money.
@openwheel Agreed never liked it when the coach's kid was on the team. OK for youth, when dads are your primary source of coaches. In HS or above, it creates a weird dynamic (and yes I remember RMK did it too, and I didn't think that was good). You see it a lot, and I guess sometimes it works out, but it's got to be easier to be objective when you don't have that.
@openwheel Agreed never liked it when the coach's kid was on the team. OK for youth, when dads are your primary source of coaches. In HS or above, it creates a weird dynamic (and yes I remember RMK did it too, and I didn't think that was good). You see it a lot, and I guess sometimes it works out, but it's got to be easier to be objective when you don't have that.
McDermott
Hoiberg
Izzo
Self
Beilein
Boeheim
Bennett
Tubby
McCaffrey
Drew
Those are just off the top of my head, coaches whose sons played for them for successful programs.
@openwheel Tucker was an interesting dynamic. He had a good, overall, year for us. But he certainly didn't end up being the All B10 level player many expected him to be. I have no way of knowing this, because he was never really on the open market. But I don't think its out of line to say he would have been one of the most highly sought after portal players, if he hadn't been CDD's son, and was truly on the open market. So I suspect IU "got him" for less than what he could have commanded elsewhere. But he still made All B10 levels of money, so we didn't end up fully getting that output return.
One would have to be in the locker room, and at practices, to really know how having his son on the team impacted CDD, and the team. Coach/son dynamics always depend on the coach and the son. Sometimes its good, and helps... sometimes its bad, and hurts the team. I haven't heard of any issues in the locker room with favoritism, or anything. But it sure could have been there??
@openwheel Tucker was an interesting dynamic. He had a good, overall, year for us. But he certainly didn't end up being the All B10 level player many expected him to be. I have no way of knowing this, because he was never really on the open market. But I don't think its out of line to say he would have been one of the most highly sought after portal players, if he hadn't been CDD's son, and was truly on the open market. So I suspect IU "got him" for less than what he could have commanded elsewhere. But he still made All B10 levels of money, so we didn't end up fully getting that output return.
One would have to be in the locker room, and at practices, to really know how having his son on the team impacted CDD, and the team. Coach/son dynamics always depend on the coach and the son. Sometimes its good, and helps... sometimes its bad, and hurts the team. I haven't heard of any issues in the locker room with favoritism, or anything. But it sure could have been there??
He was ranked the #17 portal transfer so either he was ranked way too high or the portal was not very good at all. That is why building your whole roster from the portal is a total crap shoot.
@gros-louis No doubt it sometimes works. Would you say that in all of those cases it was good for the program and the player (even if the program was overall successful)? I remember speculation that McCaffery's kid had his anxiety issues because Fran was such a nut job himself.
And would Pat Knight get recruited by RMK if he was Pat Smith?
Impossible for us to say without inside knowledge of every specific instance. And several of those kids, PK included, wouldn't have been recruited to those schools without their fathers being the coaches there, but that doesn't mean it wasn't good for them or the program.@gros-louis No doubt it sometimes works. Would you say that in all of those cases it was good for the program and the player (even if the program was overall successful)? I remember speculation that McCaffery's kid had his anxiety issues because Fran was such a nut job himself.
And would Pat Knight get recruited by RMK if he was Pat Smith?
@ams66 I think any time a player would not be at a particular school, starting, playing a lot, really whatever their role is...without the coach being their parent... its not an ideal situation. Tucker was obviously good enough to start, and play a lot, for IU. So I think then you'd have to know how specific decisions, interactions, treatment, etc... went between CDD, Tucker, and the rest of the team.
I disagree completely. Unless the head coach is shoving his kid into a role he can't adequately fulfill, then it absolutely can and has worked. I think Pat at IU is a good example. Hoiberg's kid is a good example. Sounds like Izzo's kid, who almost never played, filled a role on his teams outside of what we see on the court. There's so much one of those kids can bring to a locker room and practice dynamic (positively and negatively, I guess).@ams66 I think any time a player would not be at a particular school, starting, playing a lot, really whatever their role is...without the coach being their parent... its not an ideal situation. Tucker was obviously good enough to start, and play a lot, for IU. So I think then you'd have to know how specific decisions, interactions, treatment, etc... went between CDD, Tucker, and the rest of the team.
@hoosier-clarion I want that too. And I've posted at length, on the prior forums, about how I think Indiana needs to force that culture with their entire basketball organization, rather than wait and hope that the bball coach is going to fix it all. But the reality is, the bball coach kind of has to be the tip of the spear with setting those expectations, for the bball program. So with regards to this conversation, I'm not sure Carr can have a huge impact on that mindset, approach, and expectations establishment... But maybe if DeVries is open to knew thoughts and ideas on such things, they could work together to reestablish this mindset? Maybe Carr has skills and ideas from his Pacers days, that can help DeVries? From most accounts that I've ever heard, or read, DeVries handles himself, and holds himself to many of these levels of work and expectations. Maybe Carr can be a guy that helps him lead that drive down through everyone else in the program?
Cig is one of those rare birds... that can handle all the heavy lifting on setting the culter, the expectations, the daily execution... all of it. There are many examples of guys that needed some help with that. And that became wildly successful when they had the right group around them to do it. Dan Hurley is a guy I keep referring to. He was floundering at UConn. They shook the staff up, hired Luke Murray, and everything changed. I don't think anyone would question who's steering the ship in Storrs, but changing and adding guys like Luke Murray made Dan Hurley a MUCH, MUCH more effective basketball coach. It could happen to and for CDD as well.
It happened with Beilein at Michigan. He turned his D over to a coordinator type and the program took over. There are a couple of problems with that approach at IU. First, DeVries has no particular strength as a HC. We would need both an Offensive and a Defensive coordinator. Second, none of the assistants we currently have appear to be elite in coaching any particular aspects of the game of basketball. The 3 top assistants are all said to be recruiters. With the addition of Carr and the retention of the present asst coaches, we appear to be intent on recruiting our way out of our problems. We'll see how that works out. Good luck to us all.
lol ......................
Also not crazy about having the coach's son on a college team. Doesn't bother me as much when they are the last guy on the bench like Izzo's kid or Dusty May's son, Charlie. In 2 years Charlie might have gotten into 10 games and played perhaps 20 total mop-up minutes.@openwheel Agreed never liked it when the coach's kid was on the team. OK for youth, when dads are your primary source of coaches. In HS or above, it creates a weird dynamic (and yes I remember RMK did it too, and I didn't think that was good). You see it a lot, and I guess sometimes it works out, but it's got to be easier to be objective when you don't have that.
@tjinman1987 I want Michigan, MSU, St Johns, Arizona, Illinois, type players. Obviously we'd have to see who the entire class brings, but Vaaks is going to be expensive, and DeVries focusing on a guy like him, early... Maybe an unfounded concern as lots of programs would love to have him, I'm sure. But I just want a bunch of dawgs. And I think DeVries would kill it with a bunch of dawgs. And Vaaks is NOT a dawg, in any way, shape, or form. Nor is the Cornell kid.
If you get Vaaks, he'll start, as you said. And that creates a weakness on defense. Why settle for that? The teams I mentioned have zero weak points like Vaaks defensively in their main rotations, let alone starting lineup.
Players at those schools are a direct reflection of the head coach that brought them in. Tough, hard playing, hard nosed kids playing for tough, hard nosed coaches who demand that players play hard or go elsewhere.