lillurk

Listen, no one wants a rebuild but that isn’t what we need. It’s not even what we needed when Archie was hired. College basketball programs change quickly, even those that don’t get 1-and-dones regularly, and it was a red flag when Miller’s media mouthpieces said it was. No one expects a ton in year 1. Take some sit out transfers, hit the trail hard, strike while you’re the new thing in town, watch literally one (1) good offense and figure out what they do, realize 3s are worth 50% more, etc. At a place resourced like IU, you may have some down years after early draft entries or whatever, but unless you have a Sampson-esque apocalypse, multi-year, miss the tourney rebuilds just shouldn’t be necessary.

That gives Nate Oats step tournaments to make a run that silences the one remaining knock some have against him

Right, I agree. Having a good, modern offense helps in recruiting, and it’s the side of the floor where you have more control over your fate, so you’ve gotta fix it. Archie also gives the impression of aiming for “good enough” on offense instead of trying to be greet.

Yep, Crean did more pre-IU than Archie, and Crean did more at IU than Arch. You used to occasionally see the pro-Arch folks mention all the woe-is-he stories about what he inherited...which was light years ahead of what Crean inherited. By year four Crean had a great team. By the time he was run out of town the well had been poisoned with Crean, but folks who were mad about one disappointing tourney exit and some volatility would do well to consider the extent to which that was a self-fulfilling prophecy based on the reaction to the Syracuse game and the following (Vonleh) year. Those were both disappointing but not disqualifying. So he got run out of town for a “defense first” guy who “recruits the state...” and then what?

Alford would be the wrong choice for off court reasons and I oppose the pick on basketball grounds, too. But I think it’s clear as day that he’d win more than Archie from Day 1 based on his track record.

What would actually be worse? Given the resources in play it’s hard to imagine a competent coach could be worse.

Now whose fault is that? [edited to change “who’s” to “whose”]

Like the win streak vs. MSU, the win at Iowa only serves to mask how truly bad things are. Those wins are anomalous good fortune, not signs of things to come.

I feel bad saying so but if losses lead to a coaching change then the temporary pain will be worth it for forcing what’s clearly the right decision.

1. SEC may be down but Kenpom etc. are adjusted for opponent, home vs. road, so on. 2. If they’re to be believed, Archie never had a team nearly as good as Oats’ last Buffalo team or this Alabama team. That’s especially true on offense. 3. You hire coaches for what they will do, not what they’ve done. Of course the past is prologue, but “Oats hasn’t won anything” is a weird measuring stick. He clearly has a scheme, finds talent, turns a program quickly. If he’s good at those things, the milestones will come. I just hope they come at IU.

Nate Oats’s second year at Alabama so far: tenth in Kenpom (13th offense, 11th defense, 12th tempo). Write the check.

Talent + Tom Allen’s scheme = cookin’ with gas

I think it’s clear what to do, and in looking back, one of the strange things of the Archie years is how — MSU wins notwithstanding — we’ve never even seen a sort of “dead cat bounce” run of luck where a decent team earned a string of results that made you feel they could be something more. Like if they’d won at UW, beat PU, and upset Iowa next week we might’ve said, “hey, they’re turning a corner,” but they never even strung two of those together.

Yes. There are transition costs in coaching changes, and good teams lose to lesser teams all the time. But those teams blew IU out. It wasn’t a talent issue.

Narratives to be skeptical of under a new college basketball hire: 1. “His system takes years for players to learn” — red flag. If it’s true he’s running a bad system, but more likely it’s simply false and it’s a convenient excuse. 2. “Wait until he gets his guys” — coaches are always working around egos, guys who want more PT, etc. Make it work, that’s your job. Even if you’d prefer a type of personnel you didn’t inherit (say, bigs who shoot, or a real defensive anchor of a center), you can adapt. Will it mean your ceiling is lower? Maybe, but it shouldn’t mean you miss the tournament. 3. ”something something roster management” — in some ways Miller has been better than Crean here, but should he have fought to keep Clifton Moore? What was the deal with Jake Forrester? What did he see in Damezi over Aaron Henry? Why didn’t they offer Eric Hunter? And especially why did they carry an empty scholarship last year (this year too so far)? It’s fine to do it with a plan, like taking a mid year transfer. They didn’t do that last year and it’s leaving an asset unused. In my opinion that’s worse than oversigning if you know someone’s leaving. 4. Anything valuing defense over offense — a good defense is good but that’s the side of the ball you have less control over. Recruit and develop good offensive players, run a good system, coach good defense. In that order. 5. Look for early red flags, and whether they’re corrected. Under this regime the defense immediately gave up too many open 3s, should’ve switched more, hedged too hard. The offense couldn’t shoot. It took two or three years for Miller to adjust, and some of those are still issues.