The Portal Report ranks Indiana highest in its formula of determining what was gained and lost via the portal.
LINK: I LOBSTER, AND NEVER FLOUNDER
LINK: I LOBSTER, AND NEVER FLOUNDER
Website lists Indiana's transfer haul No. 1 in nation
- Thread starter BabyHoop
- Start date
Okay, not buying. On3 has IU 6th in the conference, based solely on the # of recruits, not quality. In fact IUs average player rating is 83.11, over half the conference has better player ratings. Michigan, USC, Wisconsin and Washington have done excellent. On3 has IU Portal class currently at #17. Their metrics show them to be a Middle BT teams.
Let's see the finished product on the floor before we begin making judgments.
You're the special ed version of Kenpom.
The issue with that ranking is that if the outgo was near zero, any income makes the net a big positive.
You seem sad PUkie.
These rando rankings are meaningless. No one cares about this one but sobbing Purdue fans
Last year we were number one dont care just win games. I do like that we have alot of shooters for once we have guys that can actually shoot the ball.
I like the idea of having shooters once again but we badly need a rim protector.
We better have one of or the best portal hauls. When we're getting the entire team that way.
I don't care if it's just a made up ranking, it's still publicity that keeps our name out there.
,
I don't care if it's just a made up ranking, it's still publicity that keeps our name out there.
,
To be fair, rankings at the moment can only be based on what the transfers look like on paper.
We are all hoping that fit and other factors help us overachieve (or at least not underachieve like under Woodson) on the court.
It’s interesting that this is a net ranking (considering what was lost versus gained). We supposedly had a haul last season, lost a bunch of those players and brought in a new roster.
So, this says as much about what we lost as what we gained. Interesting that what we lost isn’t being valued highly, yet 12 months ago it looked so good on paper.
What we lost missed out on the NCAA tournament, and was mediocre by most metrics. No idea how this ranking is measuring/projecting how all these low/mid major guys are going to adapt to high major basketball. Maybe that's explained in there somewhere, haven't taken the time to fully dissect it.
In the end... its a projection, and one that I hope is close to being accurate. But obviously there's no way to know how this whole collection of very good low/mid major guys, will come together, will adapt to B10 levels of play, and how CDD and his style and system will mesh with all of them.
So until the season starts, things like this are about as good as we can get to predict how it might go. Again, hope this one is close to being accurate.
That is true and we also have top NIL money though I don't think we are even going to use it all. Most of the guys he has signed are not highly ranked so I cannot imagine they cost a ton. I think we will be picked to be in the middle of the big ten or even lower when the season starts. I guess that is fine so for once we do not have inflated expectations.
So whose rankings do you use? I’m sure it’s same ranking formula you use to rank Purdue coed’s and Guinea foul.
for a Purdue fan, he spends more time thinking about and mentally projecting IU's 2025-2026 season than I am right now. And arguing the math from some of these sites...specifically as it relates to the IU Bball team.
Rent free in his head, in perpetuity.
