BGleas

As the AD, I'm not concerned with Holtman, Mack or Beard, other than keeping tabs on Beard in the event that the current situation doesn't work out. But, I'm not judging or reviewing Archie based on those guys. They all took over very different situations. This idea that Holtman in particular, took over a similar situation and is killing Archie is false. It's narrative that isn't really there if you add context to the conversation. I'm judging Archie on his own merits. Is the program heading in the right direction? Is progress being made? Can I see his system being implemented and becoming successful and is year-to-year improvement there? Is he building the culture I/we want for IU basketball? And, of course how is recruiting going?

Love seeing Jager on the staff now. Obviously we don't know what the future holds with wins/losses and the longterm success that will/won't come, can we at least agree that Archie gets Indiana and how to build a program? He kept Elston on staff, every recruit he's brought in but one (Forrester) has been from Indiana or at least the greater Midwest area (Hunter/Ohio, Thompson/Minnesota), he added a former player in Mike Roberts to his staff, and now he's added a former player of his to the graduate manager spot where I assume he'll be groomed to one day be a coach. That's how you not only build a program but you build a culture.

Interesting. Any new thoughts or opinions after watching the season with some distance from it and probably a little more clarity (Langford’s injury, etc)?

I agree with a lot of what you wrote there. Clearly Dan Dakich is infinitely more invested and has given infinitely more of himself to IU basketball in his lifetime than any of us on here. We're fans. He actually lived it and it was a part of his life for 20+ years or so, and I have a ton of respect for that. He certainly comes off brash and egotistical much of the time, but that's what he gets paid to do. That his job and I fully understand that. My only real big issue with Dakich is that I feel he's been really unfair, and borderline hostile (not physically) to Archie, at least publicly. Calling him things like 'lil Archie' is demeaning and disrespectful. Even little things, like during the IU-Purdue game last season he went on a rant about Purdue winning with Indiana kids (though not mentioning their two best players were from Texas and Alabama) while IU is going all over the country recruiting AAU guys. That would have been a perfect time to mention that IU's current freshmen (Archie's first class) were mostly Indiana kids and that Archie had locked up two more Indiana kids (TJD/Franklin) for the next year, but he didn't do it. Just one example. The only reason I can think of is that Dakich is mad that Alford didn't get the job? Either way, it's unprofessional. I'd be curious what type of relationship they have, if any?

Great post!

Exactly. I can’t imagine being upset about this? Do the people that are upset know a single thing about Mike Roberts the coach, any recruiting ties he may or may not have, or really anything about his coaching prowess. Is he good at advanced scouting, implementing game plans, developing players?

Absolutely agree. If Archie can bring in a consistent pipeline of the TJD's and Jerome Hunter types, both being top 50ish guys with eventual NBA talent but also guys you expect to stay 2-3 years, and then surround them with guys like Phinisee, Franklin, Brunk, Leal, Galloway, etc., etc., then he's going to build something really nice at IU. But, you do need that consistent pipeline of the top 50 guys. Virginia basically won a National Championship by getting 4 guys (Diakite, Guy, Jerome and Hunter) in back-to-back classes and they all stayed 3 years.

It's an interesting theory that Jay Wright and Tony Bennett are positioned as coaches that win with under recruited players and win without high end talent. While it's absolutely true that Villanova and Virginia won titles without one and done players, both rosters had plenty of top 50/100 ranked kids. For Nova, of the 8 guys that played double-digit minutes for their 2018 team 5 were top 100 recruits and 6 were top 125. Brunson and Spellman were ranked in the 20's, with Brunson being a McDonald's All-American, and then they got lucky that DiVincenzo (ranked 124) hit like an Oladipo (to a lesser extent). For Virginia, Diakite was ranked #32, Guy was #37 (McDonald's AA), Jerome was #44 and Deandre Hunter was #91. The core of that team was mostly top 50 guys and then again Hunter turned out way better than even his top 100 position. I really think the key to winning, especially when you're not going to compete with UK, Duke and Kansas consistently on the recruiting trail, is to build around as many of these top 20-70 guys as possible that stay 2-3 years, and then surround them with your Phinisee's, Franklin's, Leal's, Galloway's and Brunk's.

You're right. I read that incorrectly. The first paragraph says there is evidence and the second says there is no evidence. Gotcha.

I don't think it's really shoddy journalism. They're saying there is proof that Nike offered money to Zion and Romeo. There is no proof that either player accepted that money. With the available info though, we can make the assumption that Nike does engage in paying high school basketball players.

Wow, take a post out of context much? I never said 'load up on top 50 players'. I'd love Archie to get to a point where there are 3-4 guys on the roster consistently that were ranked in that 20-50 range, and then keep surrounding those guys with what he's doing (the Phinisee, Franklin, Leal, Race Thompson and Galloway's of the world). While it is a crapshoot, the crapshoot is a lot less unpredictable in the 20-50 range than it is in the 100-150 range. To repeat myself, I love the Franklin, Phinisee, Leal, Galloway, etc. recruitments, and I said I'm a big Archie supporter. I was basically looking for something to criticize and if I have to come up with one in terms of recruiting that is it.

To your point, kind of where I'm at is that I really, really like the Galloway and Leal commitments. Really happy with those, same as with guys like Franklin and Phinisee. Love those guys and think they'll all have positive impacts on the program, obviously Phinisee already is, and all have the chance to develop into great players. But, I think for Archie/IU to build a consistently winning program, you have to put those aforementioned guys around a team of 3-4 guys that are ranked in that 20-50 range (TJD, Hunter, Yogi, Bryant, Zeller, etc.). The UVA, Villanova and even UNC model. A consistent pipeline of borderline McDonald's All-American's surrounded by these lower ranked, but still really skilled and smart role players. The you sprinkle in the occasional Langford. I'm on record as an Archie supporter, I think he has the ability to end up being the long-term guy at IU. If I have a recruiting criticism right now it's that he's crushing the Franklin, Phinisee, Leal, Galloway types, but I don't think we're getting enough, yet anyways, of the TJD's, Hunter's and then going back the Yogi's, Bryant's, Creek's, Watford's, etc. The kind of 'star' power guys that stay 2-4 years. P.S. I hate to make it all about rankings, but it just makes it easier to frame the conversation.

I can definitely see why they would. I can’t comment on Walter McCarty the coach, but I can comment on Walter McCarty the person. He’s a phenomenal guy, just a really, really good person. In my NBA time with Celtics he was probably the best guy I worked with. Treated the front office staff with tons of respect (which isn’t always the case), went above and beyond in the community, and was a guy that would do things for the business people (pr, community and sponsor stuff) when others players wouldn’t show up, or would just refuse, etc. None of that means he’s capable of running a D1 college basketball program, I completely get that, but I can definitely see why coaches like that would go work with him. He’s just good people, and maybe they thought they could bring experience and help him learn the ropes.

I see stuff posted daily, if not more depending on the platform, from the IU Basketball accounts.

The “positionless” in positionless basketball isn’t meant to be a definition of the word, it’s description of how the game is played in 2019. It’s not even a system that a coach chooses to play, it’s simple how the game is played in 2019. It’s about having skilled players that can do multiple things at every position, both offensively and defensively. It’s about bigs that can switch out on the perimeter defensively and players offensively that have multiple skills. It doesn’t mean there are literally no positions. As far as the IU point, it’s not like IU is the only program that plays like this. But again, it’s not really a system you choose, it’s simply how basketbalk is played in 2019. Look at Villanova’s last title, Spellman and Pascal could switch into almost anyone defensively and then offensively spent most of their time setting ball screens and popping out for 3’s or spotting up for 3’s while Brunson posted or DiVencenzo penetrated.

Positionless basketball does not mean 5 LeBron’s on the floor. It doesn’t mean 5 guys that are wings all playing together. It typically means a guard, 2 wings, a stretch or perimeter 4 and a big that is athletic enough to switch defensively on the perimeter and has the skill to handle a bit, play the pick and roll, etc. Bigs IU has had that fall under a positionless lineup would be Zeller, Vonleh, Bryant, Beifeldt, Morgan, I’d expect TJD, etc. Perimeter 4’s we’ve had that fall under this are Watford, Troy Williams, Justin Smith, etc, So yes, you can build a program that way.

Positionless basketball doesn’t mean you don’t have bigs, it means those bigs are skilled guys that can handle, pass, shoot and defend the perimeter. For example, I just watched Boogie Cousins, who is a big dude, grab a board and take it up in transition and the kick it out to Iggoudala for a 3.

Unpopular opinion, but the more I look at last season, and now what we’ve learned about Langford’s injury since the season ended, I’m chalking last season up to injuries. If even 1/3 of the injuries don’t happen, IU makes the tournament and Brooks probably even commits. But, the reality is that those injuries happened and we are where we are. So, now Archie has to try and overcome it. I really hope he can get this team to gel and overachieve, because I think he was really close to getting the momentum going if the injuries hadn’t been so bad. If he can find a way to get this team in the tourney, then I think he can get all this back on track and get IU back to contending regularly

While the paycheck is certainly nice, being a college basketball coach sounds awful.

Agree completely. Hunter, while seemingly talented, will be a RS freshmen coming off a serious condition, Damezi was completely lost last year, and in two years Smith hasn’t any ability to play the wing. I’m not sure why people think Smith can play the wing, unless he improves dramatically, which is possible I guess. The wing is the position that worries me most.

I think the front court is strong, but man the backcourt is really scary and thin. There’s a not a single proven volume shooter on the team. By volume shooter, I mean a guy proven to be consistently good at scoring from the perimeter.

Why would it be a money jump? The guy has made a ton of money. He’s in his mid60’s, it’s his last shot at the highest level most likely. He doesn’t has to deal with recruiting, FBI scandals, etc. , etc.

Like Aloha and MikeRoberts said, I'm talking more about personality. Defense and limiting turnovers are more of an X's and O's thing. I'm talking about the tenacious, you're not going to outwork me, pit-bull mentality that Archie has. I don't watch his IU teams and see his personality coming through in the teams yet. Do you?

I think Archie has the ability to get the job done at IU at this point I will continue to think that, but with that said one major issue I have so far is his inability to get the team to play in his mold. Yes, the defense has been much better and the turnover issue is better since Crean, but I'm talking about identity and culture. That feeling that while you don't if we'll win or lose, you know it's going to look like an Archie Miller team. You know you're going to get toughness, hustle, defense, etc. I understand culture can take time to implement, but how many times do you see a new coach come to a team and while they might not win right away, most likely just due to lack of talent in the coaching transition, but you can see the coach in the way the team plays. You can see how there's a connection between coach/players and they culture is being implemented. I haven't seen that yet from IU under Archie and it's kind of worrisome. I thought at minimum he'd have IU playing super hard and with energy and toughness.

Yup, we literally have no idea what happened. Time to move on. Regardless of who IU has/doesn't have the proof will be in the pudding on the court. Maybe Morton kills us while at Purdue, maybe he's a dud and whoever IU gets turns out the better player. We will see.