IU basketball coach Darian DeVries was misrepresented by the overreactive types last month when he acknowledged a shortcoming of his first Indiana team was a lack of true Big Ten size.
No, DeVries didn’t have a midseason epiphany that size matters in basketball. But the extent to which the best teams were the biggest teams, and his constructed on-the-fly roster was coming up short, both on the scoreboard and roster — yeah, that was a stark reminder.
In his opening Indiana press conference a year ago, DeVries and AD Scott Dolson talked about playing a modern style. DeVries placed a heavy emphasis on shooting threes in constructing his first IU roster, and his team finished No. 14 nationally with a 50.5% 3-point volume (3-point field goal attempts divided by total field goal attempts). That was a staggering 17.3 percentage points higher than the 2024-25 Hoosiers — and produced one less win.
So it begs the question — what does playing a modern style mean in 2026, because many in recent years would have told you high 3-point volume was the panacea.
It appears the tide is already turning.
After producing back-to-back No. 1 seeds and a national title, Florida coach Todd Golden was asked this weekend by Kevin Sweeney of Sports Illustrated the most important aspects of modern roster construction in the college game.
“That (3-point volume) was kind of the wave for a couple of years, teams that sold themselves as playing a ‘pro-style’ offense and spread out, but when you play that way, you allow a lot of volatility to enter the equation,” Golden said.
“When you have the opportunity to recruit bigger, stronger, faster athletes and play a style that allows you to raise your floor with high two-point field goal percentage and get on the glass, that just gives you a better chance to be consistently successful.”
Volatility was a major problem for Indiana in 2025-26, from game-to-game and within games. And once opponents figured out they could slow IU’s offense by switching screens on the perimeter, the efficiency plummeted. It’s not nearly as easy to eliminate the impact of height and athleticism.
Efficiency on 2-pointers might be one of the most important metrics in this year’s NCAA Tournament field. 19 of the top-30 teams in 2-point percentage this season made March Madness. Moreover, 16 of the top-30 tallest teams made March Madness, and 16 of the top-30 teams in offensive rebounding percentage qualified.
Of course making threes at a high rate is important too. 13 of top 30 teams in 3-point field goal percentage made the NCAA Tournament. But 3-point attempt volume? That’s where teams might want to start questioning their approach. Only six of the top-30 teams in 3-point attempt volume were NCAA Tournament teams.
It will be interesting to monitor Indiana’s transfer portal additions this spring and see how much they pivot towards what appears to be the new trend. DeVries has already signaled the shift.
“The size and the girth here (in the Big Ten), and the physicality is a lot different,” DeVries said earlier this month. “As you go into year two, you’ve learned from going through the league in one year, and how everybody plays and their different styles, that’s been the number one thing where we’ve got to build depth is on that interior at the four and five spots.”
Of course just adding big men won’t get it done. Athletic and skilled size matters. Throwing a couple slow bigs on the floor who can’t shoot or dribble and crowd the paint won’t be the answer either.
Here’s what the resume of this year’s No. 1 seeds looked like, when compared to all 365 Division I teams:
Michigan
- Offensive rebounding %: No. 47
- 2-point %: No. 2
- Average Height: No. 28
- 3-point %: No. 36
- 3-point attempt volume (3PA/FGA): No. 140
Arizona
- Offensive rebounding %: No. 4
- 2-point %: No. 57
- Average Height: No. 7
- 3-point %: No. 44
- 3-point attempt volume (3PA/FGA): No. 363
Duke
- Offensive rebounding %: No. 5
- 2-point %: No. 7
- Average Height: No. 2
- 3-point %: No. 142
- 3-point attempt volume (3PA/FGA): No. 83
Florida
- Offensive rebounding %: No. 2
- 2-point %: No. 17
- Average Height: No. 13
- 3-point %: No. 315
- 3-point attempt volume (3PA/FGA): No. 229
Here’s the national 3-point volume ranking of the No. 2 seeds, all thought to be national title contenders:
- Purdue (No. 155)
- Houston (No. 159)
- UConn (No. 162)
- Iowa State (No. 196)
The average 3-point attempt volume national ranking for the No. 1 and 2 seeds — No. 186.
(Data from KenPom.com)
For complete coverage of IU basketball, GO HERE.
The Daily Hoosier –“Where Indiana fans assemble when they’re not at Assembly”
- You can follow us on X: @daily_hoosier and find us on Facebook and Instagram
- Seven ways to support completely free IU coverage at no cost to you.
