lillurk

Hmmmmmm. On the one hand, it was a rescheduled game, so some might have missed it for that reason. But I would be interested in the trend there, including the numbers for tomorrow and the BTT game if I were a decision-maker here

The other good thing about a big Stevens offer is it shows you’d be serious in the future. Say he leaves Boston this off-season and (God forbid) you don’t hire a new coach this year...he may wait for you next year if he’d like to return to college.

So make an all-star weekend mega-offer to Stevens, give him a week to decide, and if he turns you down you target Fife?

My feeling about next year is that the nucleus likely coming back is not bad, and with some complementary interior pieces could be interesting. But I have no optimism that’s true without a change.

I’m starting to worry about IU getting cold feet even if they lose their next two. No insight, just paranoid, I guess.

Yeah, he would’ve been my preferred Miller at the time based on recruiting. I was wrong and we really dodged one. IU would’ve gone Sampson 2.0

Bennett wins. I think there’s a way of understanding the last four years as IU taking the wrong lessons about what makes that happen, though.

I think Bennett would pass and I wish his teams were more aesthetically enjoyable on offense, but I actually think he’d recruit better at IU.

Absolutely no inside info here, but if he’s back next year it seems like it could be a tough one on the court unless some Hail Marys come out of the transfer market. That hasn’t been the recruiting forte at IU. So then if next year is this bad or worse, you’ve lost recruiting momentum, you have a couple of classes with maybe one real long-term prospect each, presumably there’s some attrition to transfers...yes you save some, but you’d have one bad lame duck year, then a year 1 with a potentially thin roster, and you’ve made the current run of form longer and worse. Anyway, feels like moving on now has some challenges ($) but later is worse.

My previous theory of the case for how Stevens would end up at IU (this year or ever) would be: He’s out in Boston for one reason or another and IU either moved a coach to upgrade OR Stevens takes some time away until the next hiring season. I assume Chris is kidding but this is the other possibility. Make a big offer when things are okay for the Celtics, but worse than expected.

Yeah, one thing we haven’t spent a lot of time on: IU is a great place to win if you like recognition. If Drew feels like his current run (last year, this year, next year) is a peak at Baylor but the sort of thing he could make happen more often at IU — competing for a conference title, protected seed, a shot at the whole thing — then that and recognition could be compelling.

I guess my Drew take, setting aside gray area, Hanner, etc.: he’ll probably flirt and genuinely consider, then get a fat raise at Baylor. Plus if they’re still playing in three or four weeks, the timing is bad.

I think this is a compelling case, but once you’ve built a perennial contender at Baylor, I wonder if the appeal of moving temporarily farther from a championship to build a program lacks the same appeal

I’m not old but I like points, shooting, and wins. So...I like Oats (I know it ain’t happening).

Best feeling as a fan this time of year is having a good team prepping for the postseason. Second best might be anticipating a coaching change

Thanks for the updates. The kneejerk anti-Fife reaction is confusing to me. If he wants the job, he’s a good recruiter, he’s learned from a great coach...I get wanting a “proven” guy but that’s not realistic right now. As I’ve said, you hire a coach for his future. Fife’s might not be as obviously excellent as, oh, Stevens, but a high level of success is one possibility with Fife. Also...almost anything would be better than a lame duck year next year.

Think it’s probably Beilein, Matta, or Fife if $ is an issue after you pay a huge buyout. Fife might check more boxes, thought he doesn’t check some significant ones. Fife pros: youth, recruiting, IU/Knight connection (that doesn’t matter to me but it might to some), probably relatively cheap, no buyout, long service under a successful coach, prior HC experience. cons: only low-major HC experience, lower name recognition. He could be a huge success, but there’s some risk. As we’ve discussed, Matta and Beilein seem less risky but I think they have their own risks too. Fife with an older hand in the next chair (like Martelli at UM) would be a fine start.

The funniest is when he says they “played well enough to win” on defense in a game where they give up ~1 point/possession to some average offense...yeah, that’s enough to win for a team with a different offense than IU has

I should be clear that Franklin is A Dude. Not a fringe guy at all

I think you’re both right — Henry would help AND IU has more than enough talent to win

Gotta appreciate that, if these are the last weeks of the Miller era, we’re going to get a vintage finish. Inexcusable losing streak, embarrassing shooting, sclerotic offense, 1996 middle school offense, the defensive “calling card” collapses, injuries to fringe players that supporters will hold up as evidence he needs more time, obviously dejected players, a recruiting mistake biting you, obscenely long scoring drought...gonna cap it off by being crushed by Purdue and tucking our tail in the conference tournament. Just playing all the hits

This seems like it might be about something I posted. I’m not bitter and there’s nothing personal — I think it’s even possible Archie could be successful elsewhere. Maybe he’ll be luckier, maybe he’ll learn from this, maybe it’s just a bad context. I don’t think it’s unfair to critique the process that led to the hire AND the idea around CBB at the time that he was an obvious great coach. If we don’t recognize the error — which in my opinion overvalued connections and especially the 2014 tournament run — then we might make the same mistake again.

Big East, which is > A10 > the old Horizon

I would say: -put up with Knight’s antics for too long, then -went with Davis, the guy who’d keep the program from splintering players a thousand directions, who -overperformed and got an extension, but -never lived up to the promise some saw. -then, hired a good coach with known NCAA issues and suffered the inevitable consequences (Sampson), so -reacted strongly against that and set the program back again, so -had a limited hiring pool and chose a good coach who did alright but was inconsistent. -went back to the hiring pool and grabbed a guy who was well-regarded but (IMHO) had a reputation built on less than other candidates (e.g. Holtmann had never been as far in the tourney but had succeeded in a tougher conference with better overall results based on every metric except tournament win streaks — perhaps I was too flippant, as @Chris007 pointed out, but my point that the hire was based on mostly potential, I stand by). (I know the “Holtmann wouldn’t have come” talking post, which may be true, I’m just saying I think it’s 1) correct that at the time Archie was the flashier name in the hiring market based on media/rep, but also 2) one of the hiring market flaws is overemphasis on tournament success. Sometimes that pays off, but both now and at the time I’d take a coach who consistently builds strong teams over a coach with one nice tournament run.)

Well currently they have a coach who wants the program identity to be defense but they’re bad at defense. He’s also the last coach in America to realize that shooting and making lots of threes is good, and conversely preventing the opponent from hitting them is bad. This is at least partially because he was hired on the strength of a three game March winning streak and nice connections.