ziggyiu

1. No one has ever thought it was on his accord. 2. If he's not the coach at IU next year there's a good chance he'll be a coach elsewhere, therefore he'll keep recruiting.

If I could sum up Frank Martin with one point, it would be this: Miami basketball didn't want him. He was asked to leave KSU because of his attitude and he never did anything special record-wise either at KSU or SC. He is known for crossing the line over and over again in how he treats players, he schedules terrible non-conference opponents, he is not a great recruiter and he never took either KSU or SC to any kind of title or deep in the tournament. (1 EE and that's the only time out of the first weekend). IU will have proven to be at a new low of Martin were hired. He would raise money and his antics would grow old quickly. The thought that his name has surfaced should make all IU fans reconsider the state of the program. Before any IU fan considers a coach of Martin's caliber or person with his character they should do some research.

I understand that one post won't likely change any opinions, but before discrediting Sean Miller take a look at the situation he inherited at Arizona. There was a lot of talk about NCAA infractions and kids leaving the program when Lute left. So. E in the media thought it was going to be similar to what happen to IU. Of course it ended up not being as bad, but Sean had to build the program up (again admittedly not as bad as the IU situation). Also, look at his success at Xavier. That's a decent program, but people think of it as a decent program in large part because of what Sean accomplished. Thad was only there for one year. It's not like Xavier is known for Final Fours. Sean hasn't been at Arizona a long time. He already has two Elite Eights. He has conference titles and conference tournament titles. Not every year he's been at Arizona has been a down year for the conference. Look at what he's accomplishing this year with a seriously young roster (A truly young roster. Not a made up Crean young roster.). A lot of coaches, ADs, and others closely associated with college basketball respect him. He's a USA team coach because of the respect people in the game have for him. If Sean came to IU, fans would see a level of success they haven't had on a consistent basis in about 20 years. Before you bash him, look into his whole profile. You'll be pleasantly surprised.

Take the 8th best offense rating with a grain of salt. Remember that rating is based on the 348 best schedule. If Crean didn't load the schedule with so many terrible teams that rating wouldn't look so good. Note, that's not to say the defense is terrible.

It's sad that some IU fans are talking about what could boost the team into the tourney. That should never be the goal or a relief or even part of the discussion. If IU barely makes it into the tourney again and gets bounced in their first or second game, that's not progress. That's not success. That's the sign of a stagnant program. P. S. I'm not calling those fans out in anyway. It's just my observation of the state of the program and what that lends fans to talk about. If IU were more successful we'd talk realistically about titles, for example.

I'm curious what's the different idea? I'm confused by that statement. I'm only noting that a trait of many successful coaches is surrounding themselves with other successful coaches. Do you disagree with that idea?

I like that you noted that football is a different sport from basketball. Thanks for the clarification. Interesting that you noted how I noted it was an extreme but you posted anyway. Use a basketball coach, the idea is what matters, not whether or not you think OCs/DCs are similar to associate/assistant. Noting that is missing the forest through the trees.

I really like the discussion of assistant coaches. I find it very interesting. There are coaches that want to be challenged and want the best staff. This is extreme, but look at Urban Meyer's staffs at OSU. He recruits the best assistants, knowing they are going to be great recruiters and great with game plans. He has a tremendous coaching tree because coaches want to work with him and see their time with him as a stepping stone to a head coaching position. Meyer then reloads with new quality assistants. This is a trademark of a great coach. One who isn't afraid to be challenged, keep learning, and fosters careers. Other ADs want Meyer's assistants because of the respect they have for Meyer. Tom Crean's track record with assistant coaches is quite the opposite. To me, there's much to be inferred here and this serves as just one example of a quality coach compared to a not-so-quality coach.

It's a good idea to throw it to him. He just needs coached to identify where the swarm is coming from and pass the ball to the open teammate. His decision-making was rushed and he isn't great off the dribble. Oh, a coach, a coach. My kingdom for a coach.

There's a big difference between identifying the problem and solving the problem.

I don't understand bragging about beating one of the worst UK teams under coach Cal to advance to the sweet 16. Sure, it was fun, but beating a 4 seed to get to the sweet 16 used to be something greater is on the horizon, perhaps. Now, that's it. The three times Crean has taken IU to the sweet 16, the team has lost by double digits. But that's enough to keep some IU fans happy. It's like that with the two Big Ten titles. Sure, they're great. Happy to have them, but never finishing better than 5th in the league every year expect for those two is more concerning. Between the title seasons was a year IU didn't even make the NIT and a team that earned the lowest tournament seed in school (then got bounced by Wichita State).

I saw Crean do that on TV. My first thought was no amount of cheering with teach this team defense.

IU hasn't beaten any really good teams either, though. The team looks better, but it's difficult to learn how much better until the competition gets better.

You've pointed out two games against bad defensive teams, and he's played two years. The kid isn't a shooter. He wasn't in high school either. He isn't a terrible addition, but you have taken two exceptions and made them the rule. There's a larger sample size from this kid, and it strongly suggests he isn't much of a shooter. He can score around the rim though, and he will have more opportunities to do that (and distribute) at IU than at Pitt.

Not a good example. Noah was no where near featured. He wasn't happy in his role. Whether his fault, the guards' fault or coaching or any combination. He was neglected, especially when you look at his shot attempts and how many were just based on offensive rebounds. He was a top 10 pick regardless of where he went to school, though the same can be said of UK's talent.

Definitely wouldn't say "like Vonleh did" considering many people close to the situation, including Vonleh himself, think he was misused and underutilized.