Old Friend

I don't disagree with this, and regardless of what I have said above, he isn't and wasn't ever the guy I wanted hired. But.... Blue blood programs like Duke and North Carolina who have generally kept things "in the family" have had a large amount of success Indiana simply has not. UCLA has not. Dakich's comments I agree with are the ones when he says we have become just like everyone else. We had a culture. We had expectations. The University let the drop in favor of east coast money, "diversity," "bigger names," and myriad other reasons. I will say this, however. Mike Davis was also a disaster for this program. Kelvin Sampson was also a disaster for this program. In some ways, Crean was a disaster for this program. I didn't ever want Dakich either, but he would have been no worse than who we hired. We bring back Michael Lewis? Dane Fife? Someone like that as the hire if Archie doesn't get it done in a couple of years? We'll be better off than we have been. I know many if not most will disagree, but I'm convinced. There's a culture at Indiana that's been largely ignored for 2 decades and look where we are.

"Same as everybody else."

No. His being a Knight guy is why he wasn't considered. You may not know the story, but it's far more than an excuse. There is a chronological sequence of events that began in September of 2000 that have led us directly to the point we are now. These things happened. Decisions were made for reasons, not all of which have been made public, but no less accurate. Indiana University has itself and only itself, the board of trustees, the presidents it's hired, and its policies to blame for the state of the basketball program.

Disagree. He's not there because of things well beyond his knowledge. He never had a chance at the job because he was a Knight guy and because IU's administration was convinced Tom Crean was their guy, Had zero to do with whether or not he had the answers. He's absolutely spot on as far as I'm concerned and I don't have any idea why so many people think he's wrong. We've tried it every other way we can, and look where the program is. You're selling him way short if you believe his answers are created sitting at a desk. Not like he played and coached at Indiana for 18 years or whatever it was.

Because nobody has expectations anymore. People can love or hate Dan Dakich, but he is exactly right. Indiana has become just like everyone else because it's all about kumbaya. One team. Blah, blah....bleccch. Give me a break, Bring me a coach like Knight who got pissed off when the team didn't play well, win or lose. Who heaped expectations on the players and the program. So many people said the game passed him by. I remember "Knight time is over..it's a new Day..vis" Give me a damned break. This is an embarrassing display game after game.

The way I see it, Cliff, Jake, and Anderson are bad. They may improve, but they're not going to improve much on "bad." You either have spacial awareness or you don't. You either understand angles and gaps or you don't. You are either physical or you're not. Anderson played 3 minutes tonight. He had 2 turnovers and a foul. That's it. Forrester played 2 minutes. Had a block and a turnover. Moore showed more than that, but he's also a sophomore. As a team, we shot 38.3% from the floor. (This is not aimed at you) I don't care who your players are, you have to be good enough as a coach to get better shots than that against a very average defensive team. To me, there's a lot more wrong than simply waiting for bad players to get older. And I am losing patience watching us walk the ball up the floor into bad shot after bad shot. When we do run, we seem to rush shots. There's no middle ground. No efficiency anymore. We held NW to < 40% shooting as well...good enough to win almost all the time. Unless your offense is incredibly anemic. And Indiana's is.

Crean recruited with a shotgun. It was common for him to have 40-50 offers outstanding. He could get guys to say yes...but I always tired of people who called him a good recruiter. He was actually awful at building teams. And as you said, some of his guys are guilty of bad attitudes and low basketball IQ. That said, I'm watching us walk the ball up the floor and get no good shots unless we dump it to Juwon down low; then chuck something up with the shot clock at :02. So far, Archie has convinced me of exactly nothing.

I'm sorry....Archie's offense is garbage. And his offensive philosophy is worse. I am sick and damned tired of watching Indiana walk the ball up the floor, weave or dribble for 30 seconds, and throw up some bull$hit shot as the clock ticks to zero. We should have been up by 20. And if Langford thinks he is remotely close to NBA ready, he's crazier than the guy who compared him to Abraham Lincoln. McRoberts is an offensive liability. Absolutely awful offensive display from a team that looks like it has no clue.

I would agree 100% if I saw effort. If I saw ball movement. If I saw consequences for lack of effort and hustle. If I saw Archie recruiting and landing shooters. If I saw an offense that got good shots consistently. Those things don't require specific players. I do agree with you in principle, though.

Archie's teams at Dayton had many similar-looking players. Long and athletic. Sometimes good enough if the defense is great; but if they can't score? A difficult way to win. As much as I love defense, and I grew up with Bob Knight; his teams also led the Big Ten in scoring almost every season. They got, and made good shots. The long athletes I see on Indiana's teams cannot and do not make shots. Granted, many are not Archie's recruits; but scoring 55 points doesn't win, and I couldn't care less about their ranking or efficiency. 63, 51, and 55 points in the last 3 games while looking absolutely awful doing it simply needs to change immediately. Archie needs to bring in kids who can make shots. Kids who will sprint. Kids who will buy in. Romeo? Glad we got him, but he just doesn't give maximum effort all the time. Purdue did. And won by 15. It's just not that hard. Given the way our team has looked for a couple of weeks and the suspensions, injuries, etc..... This would be a great thing for the players and coaches to take into account. http://kentsterling.com/2019/01/22/answer-for-archie-rebuilding-indiana-basketball-is-recruiting-to-a-specific-culture-iubb/

Given this is the first season any of "Archie's recruits" are playing, I'm willing to wait and see, but his offense is awful. We are so easy to guard it's comical, and having next to no perimeter weapons, I'm not sure I see it getting any better. McRoberts starts the other day, and had one shot that almost broke the backboard and rim at the same time. The ball doesn't move, it's deliberate, slow, and predictable. I don't even see Indiana do much in transition. It has been a frustrating couple of weeks for sure, mostly because I see no "help on the way."

Indiana 65 Northwestern 60

That's not the point, though. That Indiana has maintained the level of interest among it's fan base it has,despite even a modicum of success IS the point.

It has nothing to do with stories or watching old games. You're missing the context. The culture and tradition of this program goes back 100 years. For myriad reasons, that tradition has taken a beating since 1993....absolutely true. But, as this list shows, interest in the program itself is still elite regardless of the team on the floor. The program and the team are very different things. The list by itself doesn't say that, but the implication sure does. That's why it matters if we're lazy. Why it matters that we strayed from the "family." Why it matters that we recruit players who understand where they are. It has nothing at all to do with stories about 1976.

I don't even know how to respond to this, but I'll try. Go back 100 years. That's "blue blood." The guts of college basketball history. It's exactly why the interest is still there. Historically, we are absolutely in the same class as they are. Why do you think Indiana was on national TV 5 times Crean's first season? Good grief.

In response to the above : 1) Mismanagement of the program for a long time. Mike Davis should never have been the coach here. Kelvin Sampson should never have been the coach here, and he was hired for reasons having nothing to do with basketball by a man who cared nothing about tradition or winning. Crean was given an extension before he won more than 4 games in the Big Ten, and yeah, he won 2 titles, but finished 10th and 8th the years following. Consistency was never prioritized and he stopped recruiting Indiana or kids who knew what Indiana is all about. Or was all about. The fans older than 35 get it. Seems the people inside the program do not. Michael Lewis was interviewed on Dakich's show yesterday and told a story of one of Nebraska's players saying "wow, you can just feel the tradition in here." I don't believe the people inside the program get that now or have since Knight left. Currently, we have a board of trustees who are complete yes people, and a president who couldn't care less about sports. And an AD who's kumbaya and all about the budget. Winning is not prioritized. 2) Students are apathetic now. They get tickets to every game and they aren't close to as passionate about the team as they once were. The home court advantage is now only present when the team plays well. Sorry....that's the truth. I'm not talking only about the ones who dress up as Power Rangers...I think the entire student body that attends games is nowhere near the asset they could be. 3) Many fans (and I have been on the other side of their ire and castigation for suggesting this) have said they don't care where kids come from and that it doesn't matter. Bull$hit, it doesn't matter. Kids have to understand Indiana like they understand Duke or Kansas or North Carolina. And...they don't. It showed in the effort the other night. It shows when they jog back on defense. It shows when Archie doesn't have a reliable shooter on his roster. Right now? Indiana is 140th in 3pt FG% with just 103 made. That ranks 295th in makes. Imagine that. Indiana University....ranks 295th in the country in made 3 pointers. Let THAT sink in. I am laughing again at the couple of people who argued vehemently with me a week ago that IU has shooters. No....We don't. Archie is trying to do it with long athletes; Crean tried to do it with kids from the east coast, (in part, IU's current university blueprint, and THAT has been a detriment, also. Indiana University is no longer sacred to Indiana. McRobbie has been after east coast money for a long time) Davis tried to do it with kids from the south. One man's take....but I rest my case.

I was interested to see where Louisville, Minnesota, Butler, and Vanderbilt were on this list.

Exactly my point. It doesn't matter.

This is interesting. The usual suspects are at the top of the list. For anyone who doesn't think Indiana is in this class anymore, check this list out. Interest in Indiana Basketball is still at the very top of the list and Indiana is among the nation's obvious blue bloods. Not that social media followers means anything....it doesn't, but a program isn't second on this list if it's Joe Schmoe. Archie needs to get this figured out. He is not the head coach of just any program. It is, in fact, Indiana - unlike other programs. And that does matter. Discuss.

Purdue 76 IU 64

Ball handling. Maybe. McBob is supposed to be a great defender and effort guy. I said last spring that if he were required to be a major contributor this season like he was last, we're in big trouble. He's not even a threat to score. At least Fitzner has the capability and teams have film of it. McRoberts seems to have drastically regressed.

Yes. And that was my exact reasoning earlier. He's going to have his number called eventually; and he can't get lost on defense. He is ready now for "spark" role, but he can't give up points on the defensive end. Many saw the 5 he scored but not the 3-5 he gave up. Not saying I think Fitzner is the answer, but he may be more equipped on defensive positioning and awareness, which is enough of a reason right now.

I do hope some changes are coming. Or that Fitzner becomes the player he was early. I still don't understand why anyone had expectations of him. 5 PPG @ St. Mary's his junior year with declining numbers each season don't exactly spell "answer."

Look at their bodies. Fitzner is far stronger physically than Moore is. Come on... Your other points can stand on their own, but none have to do with physical stature. I'm not telling you I think Fitzner is any good. He clearly hasn't shown he is. But...unless you think Archie is a moron, there's a reason Moore's not playing yet.