lillurk

Wonder if he thinks he’s got bigger fish on the line? Could just be that he can afford to be choosy for a top-tier spot, even if he doesn’t have anything lined up

“The latter is true” meaning it’s time to call the moving company?

I was there the year prior for the 28-0 run game, happier times: https://iuhoosiers.com/news/2016/2/2/MBB_0202161318.aspx I’ve seen my share of blowouts in the wrong direction but mainly at Breslin.

Not a lawyer but you could negotiate it down AND eliminate it if he gets another job. It already offsets a new job’s salary, but especially if he has a desire to get right back out there and prove himself, or has ideas about his next spot, maybe he can negotiate a lump sum and get on with it

“Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?” https://iufilmroom.com/2020-21/indiana-under-archie-miller-its-time-to-move-on/

Since the buyout currently equals 100% of remaining salary, one way to take the money being there is that there’s at least enough pledged for the buyout. Probably some more to call on if you can land a big fish — folks who’d balk at a big donation earmarked for the buyout but who could be convinced to throw in to up the salary for the next coach, or to buy the next coach out of his current contract elsewhere.

I think when things were less clear this was a more compelling argument. If you could say, “we would’ve made it in ‘20, we made it in ‘21, we’re bringing back some pieces and we’re really building something by adding _____ transfer(s),” you buy yourself some cushion. Maybe that works great and you become a real destination for prime transfers or you really help yourself on the trail. As is, though, the program has no juice if you stand pat. A new staff had a much better shot at impact transfers because they have a vision to sell, playing time may be distributed differently, etc

I think this is also a nice selling point for the hire: “hey, we think we have a nice nucleus coming back, some open spots to take a couple transfers, you don’t need to commit to a full rebuild.”

Hard to imagine we wouldn’t, then. We’ve argued for weeks about who to pursue in replacement but if the $ is there that’s the only question.

I mean I don’t dispute IU had injuries or was dinged up. But everyone deals with those. I dispute that some dings and a couple injuries to good-but-not-star freshmen excuse THOSE particular losses

The injuries excuse for y2 rings really hollow to me. Look at the box scores from losses at home to Nebraska, at bad NW or Rutgers teams, or the OSU conference tourney loss: IU had everyone (except a freshman Hunter).

All told this would be a fine set of results if you coupled it with consistently winning games you should: ISU, IPFW, Rutgers, Northwestern, more than like the two total wins against the non-MSU class of this era of the conference.

Not sure his record against the spread or as an underdog, but combing through...: y1: only obvious one is Norte Dame. Can make a case for PSU and UMd. y2: Marquette, @PSU? Louisville? Then the MSU games and Wisconsin. y3: FSU, OSU, MSU, home vs. Iowa and MN are probably toss-ups, PSU, @ MN y4: PSU and UMd look pretty good with hindsight, but otherwise it’s just the Iowa wins

Indeed. Justin could’ve really helped this year. Would’ve been nice to have someone well-suited to guard Ron Harper Jr., Eric Henry, Franz Wagner...

Probably so and I admire @Stuhoo’s commitment to pumping him up. Hope he succeeds...BC seems like a tough gig to me.

Yeah I wouldn’t argue this a ton, though I think in both spots you recruit lots of IN and Midwest kids and if IU was cookin’ more of them might prefer IU.

Hard to compare but I think it would be easier to recruit at IU if you got it going consistently.

I recall last offseason I made the point that while the three MSU wins were nice, they were real outliers and the pro-Arch crowd should consider just how close IU had been to losing all three. IU had been pretty middling even WITH those wins. Without them, IU would’ve been nowhere close to the bubble two years ago, and sweating a lot more last year.

The start was bad but there have been lots of bad moments along the way, too

Me too. I’m much more pro-Glass than a lot of folks here but he went 50/50 on revenue sport hires, which followed similar methods as far as the public knows: find you coach and focus on him. IU has a different context in Fb Vs. BB though. Dolson’s doing it right.

This wouldn’t be Fife’s first gig, and he did better than he had any right at IPFW. I guess if (like me) you’re somewhat skeptical of the really big fish, if you think Drew and Mack and maybe even Enfield would listen but are inclined to stay put if they get raises, then you’re looking at the other names on the list @Chris007 posted, and among those there’s no sure thing. So you call Stevens, you do your diligence with the Drew/Enfield/Mack tier, you check on the retirees, you interview the youth candidates...does anyone doubt Fife would interview pretty well? Gates and Shrewsberry too. The pessimism about the younger coaches is unwarranted. It’s not like Butler hired Brad Stevens away from the Lakers. Coaching is a lot of work, but it isn’t brain surgery

Four years ago I was wary of Mack for the same reason as Archie: I thought some nice tournament performances were propping up some middling results otherwise. I think Mack’s work at UL has proven I was wrong there. I continue to be surprised how many are dismissive of Fife’s candidacy. Whether you think he’d be good or not, he checks a lot of the boxes we would imagine those making the hiring decision will look at. Where do y’all think head coaches come from? Except the very rare, they were all assistants

The other reason he could be interested is to drive up his own price to stay at UL. I’d be interested if the opponent 3Pt% and 3Pt rate were low enough. Those have been the weaknesses of Archie’s packline. Well, one weakness

Agree, unless the resume has some other meat on it

No no no