Old Friend

Whew. An ally. Always appreciated!!

The pieces don't fit. They just don't. Yes...the concept of a total rebuild is fabricated CYA bull ___. Absolutely. Is some of this on Archie? Yep. Our offense is Godawful. But...the pieces just don't fit. I don't think anything is obvious yet, but his seat is going to get hot without improvement next season.

If you have any room on that bandwagon, I may need a ticket. I'm willing to give him into next season because I saw some flashes of a really good player a year ago; but I don't disagree with one word of what you said.

I don't expect anyone to agree with me about him. I'm venting, really, I just hate the way he plays. 1-7 from the floor tonight w 3 turnovers; and it's not as though that's an uncommon stat line for him. He's is - to me - un-necessarily cocky. His shot selection is awful; I think he's careless and fundamentally bad. I'm just done with him. I've seen 3 year's worth of him. He is not "our problem" as I see it, but I think he is "a problem," and he doesn't help us win. Cocky is one thing. Dumb and situationally unaware is another. The best team mates don't try to do things they can't do. He tries to "make plays" all the time, and he's just not that great at it. My dislike for him as a player is a me thing. I just didn't see anything tonight that changed my mind and I thought he took - again - some ill advised shots for him.

37% from there isn't bad. It's over 1 point per shot, which has become the acceptable standard. His sophomore year, he got a ton of great looks he didn't get last season; but he made ~ 3 per game. How much would that help us now? Hell, even the threat of it would help.

I'm not going to get into this game other than to mention Indiana has given up 55 and 48 points on its home floor...and lost both games. I love defense as much as the next guy, but it's ugly and if you try to win with defense, you leave no margin for error. We just made 15 FG's in a college basketball game; and in that same game....we had 17 turnovers. How in the holy hell do you have in ANY game more TO's than FG's??? That's coaching on some level. I would like to see at least 2 changes in the assistant coach chairs for next season; and if I were Archie, I'd study the best offenses in the last 2 decades; the best secondary breaks; and I would go get at least 2 shooters regardless of how I had to get them. And I would punt Green to the curb as fast as I could.

I chose that lineup thinking Romeo was the second ball handler. I'm done with Green. Durham as the ball handler on the bench, and I completely agree he needs major minutes. Thompson solely because of the effort he showed Saturday. He's not ready, but we lost 10 of 11 without him starting, and "major changes" were suggested and needed. That was my thinking. The point was made by both Kent Sterling and JMV that IU is not getting the most from its players. They (and Dakich )hate the athlete bill of rights because it gives athletes a cushion and no real accountability. Sterling (whose son played AAU locally and in college somewhere) said - and I agree with this - Archie basically runs a screen and roll offense like many teams, but with no shooters to space the floor, that offense is a horrible fit for this team. He said IU's players have either not bought in to his system or he isn't communicating well with them. He said he has so far seen Archie recruit a collection of talent, but not yet build a team that can play within his system....or his system is so flawed, there's no chance for success (I'm paraphrasing). He said someone on a national show said Archie needs to feel his way into the job; and he called BS. Archie is being paid over $3 million to KNOW the job. Nobody is paid that kind of money to learn on the job; and if he can't do the job; pack his bags. JMV said he thinks Archie is the one who's soft and that IU looks like a junior high team offensively. I'm in the car a lot.

Archie getting killed today on local Indy radio...and not by Dakich. I'd start Thompson, Langford, Morgan, Davis, and Phinisee.

Yep. Absolutely.

Dakich and Fischer both said pretty glorifying things about what he was doing in practice to have it be nothing more than light shooting drills. Interesting.

Maybe I'm late to the party.. He was practicing to some degree two weeks ago. Enough to the point where both Don Fischer and Dakich said they were really encouraged about Hunter's future. Has something happened since?

This is probably a question better asked on a different thread, but given this is a popular one, I'm going to ask it here and if the mods see fit to move it; that's obviously just fine. "What does an Archie Miller Indiana player look like?" What characteristics does he have? Does anyone - including Archie - know the answer right now? I honestly don't know. Jake Forrester and Damezi Anderson clearly aren't ready to contribute as freshmen and I'm not convinced either of them will as a sophomore. Romeo Langford didn't fit. Phinisee has been down since his concussion, but prior to looked okay. Hunter's been hurt. Nothing in common among those guys, and Franklin and Davis are different than both. I'm trying to figure out what he's trying to build and I'm struggling to figure it out. Thus the question. Looking forward to the replies and discussion.

I read your post 3 times and this stuck out as I thought about it. I'm not sure I think what made him successful at Dayton and in the Atlantic 10 can also be successful in the Big Ten; and I say that because of the quality of coaches, quality of defenders, number of shooters, number of athletes, size, depth, etc. He did seem to want many similar players there. Long and athletic. They were also relatively experienced in his best seasons, which is a reason to give him some time. I don't see a pattern yet....but the point of him locking down Indiana, while I certainly agree with the right players for HIM; may not absolutely fit what he wants to do, which makes doing that counter productive. While I've been vocal about recruiting the immediate area; I don't know if that "smart, fundamental player who's tough and will compete" fits what Archie wants.....maybe. It sure fits Painter. Yeah...I love Henry. (and he is absolutely that tough, smart,fundamental player) Did in high school. The kids just the correct play every damned time. Someone coached him very well.

PU 76 IU 61 And seats get really hot.

No..It's not, and you're right. I did say "I don't know." My post to 66 was more clarification because I think we'd all like Indiana players to look like that. And...I think we all agree....they don't. So I was trying (poorly, apparently) to clarify what he meant. To me....knowing him as I do, he was providing a description of what he wants an Indiana player to look like. His description did not seem to me like an Archie Miller player, even though I said "I don't know." Does that make sense? (To use an extreme example to help illustrate what I was trying to say, he could have answered "I think of a gymnast who looks like Mary Lou Retton." I wouldn't have agreed with that, either..as an Archie Miller player. I don't KNOW what that player looks like now; but I do know it doesn't look like THAT.) The main reason I made that comment, and maybe why I asked the question is I saw Romeo and Al walking out of a huddle on Sunday..down 28...laughing. That doesn't say "tough" to me, or even committed. Which is also a reason I assumed he meant "what do I want an Indiana player to be," which really wasn't what I was asking. I really was trying to spark discussion. I've heard two people (Jay Bilas and Seth Greenberg) say in the last...10 days, maybe, that a team can't just have one 1 and done kid because of the competing agendas of the players. So...does Romeo fit? Is THAT an Archie player? Same with Brooks. I made the Crean comment because I DON'T know what Archie's system is. I DON'T know the kind of kids he's trying to recruit. I DON'T know what he's trying to build because I can't tell. So yes...I DO want discussion about that. What I didn't want is "what do we want an Indiana player to be?" That has been discussed ad nauseum. And I think we can all agree we don't see that so far with Miller. Now that we've lost 10 of 11 and somehow gone from 12-2 (should have been 13-1) to "awful and look like our players couldn't care less with pieces that don't seem to fit or don't seem to be coming together;" I asked what I wanted to be a question about direction and the characteristics of the players as they fit into __________ (whatever Archie is trying to do). Make sense? Edit : In response to another post above, I absolutely agree Archie recruits more specifically than Crean did, but I question so far what he's trying to do or what he's trying to build. Is he trying to run like Crean did? Trying to be a half court, opportunistic team? A team that wins on defense (and if so, I would be hard pressed to think he can do that with the great coaches in the Big Ten)? A player development/roster development guy like Matt Painter; whose most experienced teams are usually damned good? What is he recruiting to?

I'm interested in what his players look like. What he's trying to build. I'm not looking for speculation or "how he played." My point is, I am beginning to think he's a lot like Crean and just taking anyone who says yes. I don't see a team being built. At all. Every team would benefit from who 66 described. That wasn't my question. We'd all love to have that player across the roster. We don't. We have a mish mash...even among his recruits. We have a bunch of kids who so far don't look like winners. They look like they want everything to be easy.

You think this is what an Archie Miller player looks like or what you want an Indiana player to look like? I don't think this is an Archie Miller player at all.

They closed the school because of numbers. You're right on your comment about the IHSAA.

They did, but are now playing a varsity schedule again. Think they opened it as a private school with < 70 kids at the high school level. Could be wrong...

I'll make the comparison again. Brody Boyd played at Union Dugger and their schedule was and is far worse than Blackford's. Currently, so small they're not even in a sectional; and back when Boyd played, they played schools like Shakamak, Tecumseh, Bloomfield, North Central of Farmersburg, Eminence, White River Valley, and Jac Cen Del. It's clearly not without precedent that a kid like Boyd or Brown comes out of the cornfields and does some good things at a high college level. Maybe not as a freshman and maybe not as a sophomore; but Boyd made 195 three pointers at Iowa and was a solid contributor as a junior and senior, starting 29 games as a senior under Alford. Blackford is in the same sectional as New Castle and Delta, who is undefeated. We'll likely get to see them play better competition; but their Sagarin rating is 132 of 410, so it's not like they're scraping the bottom. For the simple sake of reference....one of Blackford's losses was to Northwestern. Lost 90-79. Northwestern is 18-1, having beaten Tipton (northern suburb of Indy), Frankfort (where they filmed Blue Chips and a basketball crazy town), Hamilton Heights (just north of Westfield/Carmel), and West Lafayette coached by a guy named David Wood who's been there....25 years, won over 340 games, and knows what the hell he's doing. Northwestern's defensive average is 47.1. Blackford scored 32 points above NW's average. Blackford is 6th in Indiana in scoring; 23rd in scoring margin Dumb of Hoover to play not a single sectional opponent in the regular season. Why any coach does that is beyond me. I'm not suggesting at all that Brown would be an immediate asset; and I know everyone wants kids who will contribute immediately; but I think he's a gamble worth taking. It should be noted that Blackford - as it says in the video above - lost 61 straight games before he got there; and they are 13-4 this season.

Agreed and I think the jury's still out on all but maybe Allen.

Maybe a small part...but.... They scout us but we don't scout them? Or we're so inept at it we lose 9 of 10 with a team talented enough to beat 3 teams in the top 12? I don't think it's quite that simple. Or at least for that to be a major part of the answer. Something else is off and I don't think anyone can put a finger on it,

Fellas, the changes have to come from the administration and Board of Trustees. Not Glass. He's the face and the voice, but not the problem. He's been told to operate in the black. And he does. He's been told Indiana will be different and guarantee scholarships. And he has. He's been told it will NOT be about winning, that sports, and especially men's basketball will not be bigger than the university; and that we will be "one team." Those aren't his initiatives. They are that of the University administration. I have maintained for a long time that sports (and in particular a college's most visible entity) are the world's window into that place. Without men's basketball, what would most people know about Duke? Would the world know as much about Indiana University as people do without Bob Knight and success of our basketball program? Not close. No way. But....to academes, sports is an afterthought, not a priority or vital tool. Michael McRobbie has zero interest...and that's not far from absolute truth...in whether or not we hang banners. He wants to make money and stay out of trouble. That's how HE defines success. We define it a little differently, as success on the field/floor is equally or more important; but Fred Glass is as much a fan as we are. He's just doing his job as defined by those who manage him. He's not the problem. You have to remember this is a guy who ran the Indianapolis capital improvement board and was in large part responsible for the sports growth here. He's not an incompetent guy and far better as a growth minded administrator than Greenspan was.

Absolutely

So I talked yesterday with someone very close to the team. Won't name him, but he's on the bench or close every game. Also spoke with a former player (walk on) who I trust...played for Crean. Neither had any clue what to say. Just that everyone's pointing fingers and not headed in the same direction. One did say he knows Durham is bought in and loves the kid. Also said Romeo is a little (and has been) disengaged. I don't think there's an easy answer. I'm not sure there IS an answer. My concern though is deeper than chemistry. Something has changed since December; and I can't tell if teams have scouted us differently or what's happening, but we don't look like the same team. I'd like to see more Davis, less Smith. More Durham/Phinisee, less Green. I'd like to see more transition. I'd like to see Romeo with the ball in his hands 12-15 feet from the rim; not 22.