lillurk

Folks can complain all they want about institutional support but the facts are that IU was able to get one of the “next big thing” coaches at the time, would pay to keep a successful coach, and has the conference’s highest recruiting budget. It’s still a good job. USPS says best in conference, which I think is reasonable; it’s no worse than top 4 in conference (UM, MSU, OSU are the other contenders). It’s not an easy job, but the idea that moving on from Archie requires you to have the perfect candidate ready to take the job is just wrong. Beilein, Holtmann, Bennett, and Underwood had all succeeded in major conferences; Archie hadn’t. You can find a mid-major coach who could succeed, but having a famous brother and one elite eight run was too thin of a resume for me to be confident at the time.

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.

I think it’s fair to wish to have seen more from Oats. I’m a fan but the resume isn’t long yet. His best team lost to a national runner-up TTU in the second round. I like that he attracts players, even to Buffalo, and plays a creative and modern offense. Tournament success will come. He’s made teams competitive at or above their historical water level in two or three years. If there’s any silver lining to the fact this coaching change may not happen until 2022, it’s that a guy like Oats may continue a good trajectory and give us more data before a change is made.

I understand the sentiment but strongly disagree. You want Porter Moses? Crean circa-first IU hire? Overvalue tourney success and you get Sampson/Crean over Beilein, Archie over Holtmann.

Right, and it’s not even true that the only alternative is a UK/Duke-style one-and-done approach. It’s not true that the pack line takes years to learn. (Speaking of “years to learn,” that’s how long it to Archie to realize the hard hedge was killing him). Below the long shots (Stevens, Donovan), I wanted Holtmann and stand by it. I know there are some rumors he’s happier at a football school — maybe so — but I’m skeptical of the idea he would not have come. May be wrong but in my opinion the evaluative difference for Holtmann over Miller at the time was twofold: 1. Holtmann had done it at a higher level, Big East vs. A-10. 2. Archie’s rep rested lots on one tourney run. It was only one game farther than Holtmann’s longest. There was other stuff — Holtmann’s offense was consistently better, I worried Miller was a bit of a Golden boy because of relationships — but the above were my main concerns comparing the two.

Someone up thread had a good list of the pro-Oats position mostly focused on his impressive work at Alabama. I’d add that he out-performed Bobby Hurley at *Buffalo* and he was a great HS coach less than a decade ago. He’s a Midwesterner and would have some regional HS and AAU connections. I wouldn’t go for Collins for a number of reasons, but I do tend to agree he could succeed at a place with more support. I’m just not interested in being the place that figures out if he will.

Nate Oats!

Yeah Beilein (despite the age), Oats, I could be talked into Fife.

I want tournament success, everyone does, but one thing I’d caution everyone to consider in evaluating coaches is consistently making the tournament, and doing so with a high seed. I know everyone’s other issues with Crean, fair and otherwise, but the 2013 loss wouldn’t look as bad if he could’ve consistently built teams as good as that and the one before it. When you’re a top 4 seed most years, still making the tourney in “down” years, there will be years you underperform and lose in the S16. Happens to literally every elite coach. The issue is when you have the resources at a place like IU and can’t consistently get there. Nobody really grumbles about Crean’s other two S16 losses. They lost to a UK title team while playing well and a hot-shooting national runner-up UNC team. If he’d more consistently had too ~12-15 teams, one year or another you win one of those tough S16 games, or your region is destroyed by upsets and you cakewalk to the F4. Some of that is outside your control, much as we don’t like to acknowledge it.

Yeah, it’s one thing for the defense to outpace the offense but right now, nobody in the Kenpom top ten has an offense below 26th. This is Archie’s best offense at IU and it’s in the 50-60 range. That’s unacceptable in year 4. To add insult to injury, his post-loss press conferences always mention offense as though it just needs to be slightly better — hit a shot here, grab an OReb there, if only Trayce had a better game, etc. But the problem is much bigger, and he doesn’t seem to know that. (I’ll add that offense is a recruiting tool. Who wants to play in a bad offense?)

I’d agree with this. Obviously it’s not quite this simple but in my opinion IU should almost always be a top ~7 tourney seed, of course often shading higher and acknowledging that even the best programs have down years in a success cycle occasionally. The down years are easier to endure if you’re otherwise consistently winning. Once in the tournament, IU should regularly make the second weekend and threaten to go deeper, achieving it sometimes, of course. The nature of tournaments means even the best years (‘12, ‘13) sometimes fall short of their potential, and other teams (‘16) roughly meet it but could luck into more with a favorable path. At a place like IU this is imminently reasonable, even quickly after a coaching change. Sampson didn’t have tons beyond DJ White and some serviceable B1G caliber guys, he made the tourney both years (and had a great team in y2). Crean inherited nothing and had the aforementioned ‘12 and ‘13 teams in years 4 and 5. Archie inherited a few B1G caliber pieces — less than Sampson but way, way more than Crean — and hasn’t met my outlined expectations above. It’s of course still possible he meets them this year, and if that sets a new level for his version of the program, the slow growth will be easier to forgive. But: 1. There’s no inherent reason the growth had to be this slow. See above, see Illinois or OSU or heck, Rutgers. Those who point to other pack line teams may have a point about the defense’s timeline to elite status, but I’m skeptical it has to be that way. 2. in year 4 at IU your offense should be better. Better guard play, better shooting, better depth, better overall results. Even if you’re “defense first,” you can or should outsource to an assistant or tweak. 3. The roster is absolutely his responsibility, good and bad. He didn’t offer Eric Hunter. He slow-played Aaron Henry to wait on Damezi. He’s mostly sat out the transfer market even with glaring holes. I know some here like carrying an empty scholarship, but wouldn’t it be nice to have an extra big or a better, experienced guard in that grant right now? And as mentioned elsewhere, while Lander and Stewart early plus Duncomb is an okay if unorthodox 2021 class of sorts, the recruiting has mostly whiffed in 2021 and has nothing beyond that. His teams have consistently been a guy short and/or one injury from disaster Without significant growth, that gives me concern about next year’s team even if this year ends up better than last night. Two terrible performances in eight is bad. In my opinion, there are substantial problems I’ve outlined here that concern me about the big picture of the Miller program as well as the snapshot today, Christmas Eve 2020. I want IU to win consistently and I have some concerns that he’s the guy to make that happen, as I’ve had since the day he started. If he can get the program there of course I’ll be pleased, but I think the reasons here are a stronger argument than the hope, faith, and eternal patience of the folks who think we’re fine still.