yes. But Collins had pippen and grant and paxson. Etc. he just couldn't get them over the top. He took them out of the bottom tier and made them better but he was never winning a title. His style and ego wouldn't permit it. He got Jordan the ball but the triangle offense is what made them a team. Cream got us out of the sewer and made us competitive again but he didn't /doesn't have what it takes to hang a banner.
hopefully DD does
Seems like most of us can agree on relatively what it will take to make us elite again. Blue blood status I can agree we still are ... history doesn't evaporate... it just patinas
Back to back Sweet 16 runs would go a long ways.
Start to make the tournament every year. Then have a couple E8 runs for a FF. It will happen when we consistently have good showings in March.
@dbmhoosier I also think it's important for us to reestablish ourselves within the conference and with Purdue. Gonna be harder, if not impossible, if we're playing second fiddle to the Boilers in our own state and conference.
@kkott I think part of what you said is true. I think it implies part of what you said, with regards to Purdue. But I don't think its overly necessary for us to beat them out, for national media to take notice. Purdue has competed with IU in the B10, for long stretches...forever basically. And it was our tournament successes, versus theirs, that made us a blue blood and them not one.
So, I think competing at the top of the B10 would be necessary. But making deep NCAA runs is what will get the National Media writing stories about IU, and the glory days coming back, etc... They've proven they largely don't give a crap about what Purdue does.
Whatever we are right now, step 1 to being "back" is comfortably making the tourney this year, landing a strong three to five player high school class, and doing well in the spring portal. That foundation can power us to be a top-15 or 20 team in year 2 of CDD -- if that happens we'll all be enjoying IUBB again.
@tammany How good the guys that can return next year are, and how much they play and impact important games...and then how many of those guys come back... will also determine a lot for us. If very few of them are high end producers, and all of them come back, that will limit us a little bit. And if they aren't good, and don't come back, we're starting from scratch again, and that would also limit us. Conversely, if 3-4+ of them are better than expected, and make a major impact, and come back... we might have a pretty quick rise "back".
Like most things, I'm expecting a blend of both. Probably 4-5+ of them return, 2-3 of them being guys that cracked the main rotation for long stretches. Just a guess, obviously.
In this era of players earning 5-6 figures, there's no room for letting "non producers" come back. I hope we will move past the years where fans are asking "why is that guy on the team?"
@iunorth Agree. I kinda figured if we make the tourney without issue this part of it will probably work itself out. But you’re right, we do need some of our key producers this year to be guys with eligibility who return.
It’s so annoying we are doing this rebuild now vs starting a year earlier. We could be so much further along right now. But we had to keep Woody around… But that’s water under the bridge, let’s get this program fixed now.
@ams66 You're always going to have "bench" guys for depth and development. What's your expectation, that we're going 13 deep just because they are all getting paid? I've said it for years: the ideal situation is to be 3 deep at every position: starter, backup and developmental. Obviously there can be crossover between posts, wings and 1/2s, but that's the ideal. The developmental guys are not going to play much. Right now, I'd expect that's going to be guys like the 2 Euros, Drake, maybe Sisley, etc... and doubt once the season gets going, those guys will see much floor time barring injury, suspension or foul trouble. But, good to have them back because they know the systems and expectations, if they have promise. I really liked what the Euro kid in PR showed (Ristic?), but it won't surprise me if he doesn't play much this year.
@ams66 As a point of reference on this "5-6 figures" comment... There are now A LOT of NAIA players getting "5 figures"...and some even getting "6 figures" in NIL money. I would assume that means D2 kids are similar, maybe more of them getting some, and more of them getting 6 figures? And maybe even D3 kids getting a little bit at some programs too. So... I would assume basically ALL B10 level, scholarship, players are 6 figures plus in some form or fashion.
@iunorth Yeah after I wrote that I realized I'm probably guessing too low.
And sure you will always have bench guys who don't play a lot, but if we have enough guys coming back who are not "producers" that it is limiting us, then some of them will have to go so we can bring more "producers" in. These are paid pros now.
that is one advantage to the portal and NIL. If they are not producing you can move on and restock. You're no worse off
@ams66 Its all relative. There are team and program building dynamics that can lead to non game producers having a very valuable role. But putting a dollar value on that, versus the fellas that are out there in games stroking 3s and dunking the ball... well that's what the coaches are being tasked to figure out.
I only learned of the prevalence of fairly significant NIL money down in to the NAIA ranks within the last 6 months or so... it surprised me initially, but then didn't when I thought through it a little more. Its being used to supplement athletics scholarship money, when that's lacking...I assume at every level.