NIL resources, fan support, recruiting and more.
With the Indiana men’s basketball job set to open at the conclusion of the 2024-25 season, it’s worth taking stock to find out just what the job means in the year 2025.
This obviously isn’t the same job that it was a quarter of a century ago but it’s also not the same one it was even four years ago. A lot has changed in college athletics in a pretty short time and, by some measures, the Indiana job could be seen as more appealing than ever.
Here are the positives and negatives that come with the Indiana job:
Perks
- Strong NIL support
By some outside measures, Indiana has access to a top-10 NIL budget in the country with some estimates having them closer to the top-5. That kind of support, if used well, would enable a coach to have a talented roster with a high ceiling just about every season.
A new coach in this job probably doesn’t need to worry about barnstorming donor events to raise money, a solid amount will be available from the jump. Look for Indiana to capitalize on the excitement of a new hire with an NIL funding drive similar to the one that took place upon the hiring of Curt Cignetti for the football program. The money will raise itself for a new coach, not the other way around.
- Extremely strong fan support
It’s no secret that Indiana is among the most widely-followed programs in all of college basketball. The Hoosiers enjoy robust support throughout the state of Indiana and the university itself boasting one of if not the largest alumni network in the United States. Plenty of people are in on the program and are more than willing to fill Assembly Hall to take in a good, winning product.
- Strong recruiting footprint
The state of Indiana and other pockets throughout the Midwest are strong starting points for recruitment with specific emphasis on the state itself. If someone starts to look like an NCAA Division-I level prospect within the Hoosier state, programs like Indiana and Purdue should be the first ones to know about it. The program doesn’t have to land every kid from the state but it should keep track of prospects and be in strong position to land top talent like former Hoosier great Trayce Jackson-Davis.
Drawbacks
- Lots of cooks in the kitchen
It’s readily apparent that Indiana has a substantial donor base and administration pulling the program in a few directions as all parties seek to return it to the top of the college basketball world. Whoever takes this job is going to need to have the strength of personality and persuasion to get all of these factors aligned.
The easiest way to do so? Winning.
- The specter of expectations
The Indiana fanbase writ large has gotten something of an unfair label of having unrealistic expectations for the program’s head coach that isn’t wholly grounded in reality.
Imagine any big fanbase like Kentucky, North Carolina or Kansas for men’s basketball or Ohio State, Alabama or Texas for football. Have them sit through an almost decade-long stretch featuring just two NCAA Tournament appearances and an even longer stretch of inconsistency. Every single one of those fanbases is going to get just a bit impatient. Indiana is not uniquely overzealous in that regard.
Indiana’s fanbase, barring a very vocal minority, is not clamoring for the next Bob Knight. What they’d like is a program where the postseason is a bare minimum expectation rather than a fleeting occurrence.
But Indiana is a fishbowl. All of the attention is on the head coach and they’re an extremely prominent public figure in the state. That’s a negative for people who don’t necessarily like attention but a big positive for those who enjoy the spotlight.
- A program facing an identity crisis
What is Indiana basketball? Are the Hoosiers the blistering group of pace-setters led by the innovative coaching of Branch McCracken? The tough, man-to-man defense and motion offense oriented teams that won the majority of the program’s national titles under Bob Knight?
It’s a question Indiana has been asking itself for a quarter of a century now. Nobody has come in and defined what the modern program is in a way that has worked, at least not consistently.
You know exactly what you’re getting out of certain programs in a way that works. For Purdue, it’s how hard they play and how many sets they’re running on the offensive end of the floor. For Duke, it’s sheer talent. For any Rick Pitino team, it’s intense defense that can hamper even the best offenses.
Indiana hasn’t had that. Mike Davis never found his footing. Kelvin Sampson’s tenure was too short and dominated by other storylines. Tom Crean was too inconsistent. Archie Miller’s defense soured over time. Mike Woodson’s has done the same.
Part of the next coach’s challenge will be defining just what their program is going to be about and then acting on that and succeeding.
Conclusion
Indiana is a bit of everything you’ve heard. A fading superpower. A sleeping giant. A blue blood. A perennial disappointment. Champions of the offseason.
The reality is this: the program does not need some kind of extreme gutting in order to return to some level of prominence. What it needs, all it needs, is to hire a good coach for the first time in a long time.
Success at Indiana, given the resources listed above, is not as difficult as past staffs have made it seem. The next hire will have the kind of support that countless programs around the sport envy. They just have to use it wisely.