RevMatt

I'm stunned when I read here that some people are claiming that since Coach Crean is a good ambassador for the program and "brought us back" when the program was mostly destroyed after the Kelvin Sampson fiasco, that it's ok that he's not a great bench coach. Really? It's ok that he's not a great COACH? I'll remember that the next time I go see my local cardiac surgeon. I hear that he's a great guy. He's a good representative for the practice. He also hires competent and effective office staff that other doctors covet. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that I'll wake up from my surgery because he's not a great SURGEON. But he's great at all of the other parts of the job. Do you not realize how silly that sounds?   Coach Crean seems like a nice guy. I have a nephew who attends school with his son and has nice things to say about Coach's family. I think that it would be great for him to succeed. And it's great that he was willing to take on the job after Sampson (although it's not like he was being a philanthropist. I read somewhere reputable today that he was the 8th highest paid college basketball coach in the country), However, the bottom line is that Crean has been here 6 years. I would argue that almost any competent coach, given the fertile recruiting ground of Indiana and IU's facilities, would have had some success in that period. They would have also brought "IU back" to relevance, just like Coach Crean. It was far from a miracle reclamation job. IU SHOULD BE RELEVANT IN BASKETBALL. It's not that big of a stretch. Was it a "miracle" when Alabama returned to prominence in Football? Of course not. Will Texas be great in Football again? Of course they will.   But let's not forget what the number one part of Coach Crean's job description is -- to be able to COACH the game. IU's abysmal half-court offense, abundant number of turnovers, and coach's absolutely bizarre substitution patterns should make any IU fan wonder if our coach is competent to fulfill the job's number one requirement.