Bankshot

One difference would be that they were cheating more prolifically than IU before NIL.

Maybe not all “HOF” but: Ryan at Wisconsin Donovan at Florida Izzo at MSU Pitino from Providence

Not for me (and others too I presume/hope). It’s not just about the W/L record, it’s also about how we play. Playing stupid, sloppy, inconsistent, etc. needs to be addressed, and it doesn’t seem like this staff is showing a strong enough commitment (so far…year 3) to address it.

Yes! I've heard that stuff too (don't know for sure how true and accurate it is or not) but it is EXACTLY the kind of short-sighted and questionable upper management behavior I'm referring to. Indiana hasn't just been bad for almost 30 years because we're cursed or because there aren't any capable coaches out there. Most of our wounds have been self-inflicted. Successful organizations that truly pursue excellence do not do business this way.

UNC and UK both hired guys with college coaching experience. That could be important.

As a taxpayer and Indiana Alum, I'd like to know how and why we think hiring two straight athletic directors with no previous experience as division 1 (or even D2) ADs is wise, good management, good stewardship, or defensible when other, more qualified candidates were available. And, in my opinion, this kind of thinking/failure is a root cause issue for IU's now multi-decade athletic mis-management problems, and plays a direct part in our problems and failures when ADs routinely make or are involved in multi-million dollar decisions that spend or waste at least some public funds. IU has a long standing history of making blunder after blunder in the hiring and firing portion of athletics. I would also like to know exactly how we ended up hiring Mike Woodson in this last hiring approach. (Note: I like Woodson, he's a beloved former player and IU legend. I just don't understand at all how we ended up hiring him out ofwhat should have been a pursuit to find the best possible candidate. I.e., another in a long string of terrible hiring mistakes , IMO.) IMO, if you want to know why IU is still lost and struggling after so long, it's because we have made many, many terrible hiring/firing decisions...bad AD hires, bad coach hires, keeping coaches too long, and possibly a few bad president hires too. (Many of these mistakes were made by inexperienced or unqualified people who themselves should never have been hired). We need PROVEN competence and experience from the president down. If you hire unproven amateurs you're likely to get sub-par results. Successful organization simply do not operate like this.

As a taxpayer and Indiana Alum, I'd like to know how and why we think hiring two straight athletic directors with no previous experience as division 1 (or even D2) ADs is wise, good management, good stewardship, or defensible when other, more qualified candidates were available. And, in my opinion, this kind of thinking/failure is a root cause issue for IU's now multi-decade athletic mis-management problems, and plays a direct part in our problems and failures when ADs routinely make or are involved in multi-million dollar decisions that spend or waste at least some public funds. IU has a long standing history of making blunder after blunder in the hiring and firing portion of athletics. I would also like to know exactly how we ended up hiring Mike Woodson in this last hiring approach. (Note: I like Woodson, he's a beloved former player and IU legend. I just don't understand at all how we ended up hiring him out of what should have been a pursuit to find the best possible candidate. I.e., another in a long string of terrible hiring mistakes , IMO.) IMO, if you want to know why IU is still lost and struggling after so long, it's because we have made many, many terrible hiring/firing decisions...bad AD hires, bad coach hires, keeping coaches too long, and possibly a few bad president hires too. (Many of these mistakes were made by inexperienced or unqualified people who themselves should never have been hired). We need PROVEN competence and experience from the president down. If you hire unproven amateurs you're likely to get sub-par results. Successful organization simply do not operate like this. Sorry, meant for this to be in the ‘Complain’ thread.

You mean you don't have to rest your starters every 6-8 minutes? BTW, Knight used to play starters long minutes too. And Alexander traveled on that shot to put Creighton up by 1.

This is a great way to put it.

I have no idea what actually did or didn’t happen with Brad Stevens. But I don’t think I would be in favor pursuing him either because the way I remember it, after we supposedly had discussions with him, he basically ended up saying “go $@&%# yourself, I’m a Masshole now”. I didn’t expect Plan B to be Mike Woodson (that’s a whole other issue), but I don’t think I’d walk across the street to talk to Brad Stevens either.

Yep. A competent (and unhindered) AD should be able to assess candidates against these criteria and down select to a hire. : )

I've thought quite a bit about this over the years and I believe the solution to be both simple (in concept) and difficult (to actually achieve). Here's a list of criteria for a great head coaching hire (my opinion). I think we got a guy like this when we hired Knight. Since then...not so much. I think that the closer a program comes to hiring someone who meets criteria like this, the better they will be. The further you stray from it, the worse you will be. In that sense, the solution is simple...hire someone who comes as close to it as possible. 1. Proven commitment to and execution of a ‘winning basketball philosophy’: a. Stresses/requires sound fundamentals i. Shooting, passing, blocking out, ball handling, shot selection, etc. b. Prioritizes recruiting players with sound fundamentals c. Prioritizes both offensive and defensive excellence (being good on both ends) d. Prioritizes recruiting players that fit and play within this system e. Stresses/requires minimizing mistakes, taking good shots, valuing each possession, playing hard, playing smart, etc. 2. Demonstrated ability to recruit players and build a balanced and effective roster 3. Demonstrated ability/willingness to make as-needed adjustments to talent/roster 4. Demonstrated ability to implement the system while keeping it attractive to modern players 5. Demonstrated ‘game management’ abilities: in-game coaching adjustments, timeouts, substitutions, foul management, matchups, etc. 6. Demonstrated ability/willingness to make adjustments to talent/roster strengths/abilities 7. Proven ability to develop players and measurable improvement of players (players get better) 8. Demonstrated ability to maximize player skills and production (gets the most out of the team) 9. Demonstrated ability to translate winning philosophy to on court results (the system is effective and produces wins) a. Win/Loss records b. Conference standings c. Tournament success 10. Demonstrated ability to achieve and sustain success across seasons, rosters, etc. (wins consistently without dramatic ups and downs) (Harder to evaluate with younger coaches or coaches from smaller schools?) 11. Possesses additional necessary D1 head coaching acumen: personable, personality, etc. 12. Does not possess disqualifying traits or issues that negate the above

I've thought quite a bit about this over the years and I believe the solution to be both simple (in concept) and difficult (to actually achieve). Here's a list criteria for a great head coaching hire (my opinion). I think we got a guy like this when we hired Knight. Since then...not so much. I think that the closer a program comes to hiring someone who meets criteria like this, the better they will be. The further you stray from it, the worse you will be. In that sense, the solution is simple...hire someone who comes as close to it as possible. 1. Proven commitment to and execution of a ‘winning basketball philosophy’: a. Stresses/requires sound fundamentals i. Shooting, passing, blocking out, ball handling, shot selection, etc. b. Prioritizes recruiting players with sound fundamentals c. Prioritizes both offensive and defensive excellence (being good on both ends) d. Prioritizes recruiting players that fit and play within this system e. Stresses/requires minimizing mistakes, taking good shots, valuing each possession, playing hard, playing smart, etc. 2. Demonstrated ability to recruit players and build a balanced and effective roster 3. Demonstrated ability/willingness to make as-needed adjustments to talent/roster 4. Demonstrated ability to implement the system while keeping it attractive to modern players 5. Demonstrated ‘game management’ abilities: in-game coaching adjustments, timeouts, substitutions, foul management, matchups, etc. 6. Demonstrated ability/willingness to make adjustments to talent/roster strengths/abilities 7. Proven ability to develop players and measurable improvement of players (players get better) 8. Demonstrated ability to maximize player skills and production (gets the most out of the team) 9. Demonstrated ability to translate winning philosophy to on court results (the system is effective and produces wins) a. Win/Loss records b. Conference standings c. Tournament success 10. Demonstrated ability to achieve and sustain success across seasons, rosters, etc. (wins consistently without dramatic ups and downs) (Harder to evaluate with younger coaches or coaches from smaller schools?) 11. Possesses additional necessary D1 head coaching acumen: personable, personality, etc. 12. Does not possess disqualifying traits or issues that negate the above

I agree with where you’re coming from. And I think the answer is “it can be very hard to be good at basketball when your approach is wrong”. You can drive a nail with a crescent wrench, but not nearly as well as you can with a hammer. In my opinion, as a program, Indiana abandoned the philosophies and approaches that made us great in basketball. And until we return to those, it may not change. Coach Knight had a sound, winning philosophy and approach to the game, and inserted capable players into that system, and it was very effective and successful (plus he was a genius, or near genius). I think we strayed from that, and really have never fully gotten back to it since.

If I was the coach, I would give strong consideration to showing XJ the door, giving the most deserving walk on his scholarship, then finishing the season with Galloway, Cupps, Leal, and the best walk on guard we have. On a matter of principle if nothing else.

Correct me if I’m wrong (because I don’t think I saw anything like it) but I was expecting us to use Ware more strategically and effectively against Edey. I guess I assumed that it might’ve been smart to have Ware outside more to either shoot or dump it down for cuts to the basket. He was outside, but all he was doing was setting screens and handing the ball off. What the heck was our offensive game plan? I’m sure the fouls had an effect, but I don’t think I could discern a noticeable plan (again).

As far as hiring the next coach , I think we would be better off focusing on method rather than names. By “method” I mean focus on hiring a coach who is “proven”. ”Proven” does NOT have to mean a coach who has already won a championship or even been to a final four. ”Proven” can mean established success in recruiting, developing players, winning record, winning their conference, consistent solid play, etc. Someone who has a solid philosophy of smart, winning basketball. That method is how we got Bob Knight, for example. It’s how Butler got Brad Stevens… it’s how Alabama got Saban. Too many times Indiana has hired the unproven…Mike Davis, Mike Woodson, Tom Allen, etc.

I was trying, seriously and objectively, to identify something that this team is consistently good at. It’s not shooting, or rebounding, or free throws, or taking care of the ball, or defense. So, what is it (if anything)? These guys are talented enough to be good at something… so what’s the problem?

I was trying, seriously and objectively, to identify something that this team is consistently good at. It’s not shooting, or rebounding, or free throws, or taking care of the ball, or defense. So, what is it (if anything)? These guys are talented enough to be good at something… so what’s the problem?

Posted this in the “Rant” thread too… As far as I’m concerned, I’m ready to call the Woodson experiment a failure. It’s like he didn’t learn a $&@!&@#* thing from Bob Knight. Like he was never even taught the game. We suck at free throws. We suck at boxing out. We suck at rebounding on both ends. We suck at valuing the ball and intelligent passing. We suck at shooting. We suck at defense, substitution, roster building, energy, and mental toughness. We are not even an adequately functioning division one team. Tell Mike to go home, give the keys to Calbert for the rest of the season and then hire Michael Lewis or Dusty May in March. This is worse than bad.

As far as I’m concerned, I’m ready to call the Woodson experiment a failure. It’s like he didn’t learn a $&@!&@#* thing from Bob Knight. Like he was never even taught the game. We suck at free throws. We suck at boxing out. We suck at rebounding on both ends. We suck at valuing the ball and intelligent passing. We suck at shooting. We suck at defense, substitution, roster building, energy, and mental toughness. We are not even an adequately functioning division one team. Tell Mike to go home, give the keys to Calbert for the rest of the season and then hire Michael Lewis or Dusty May in March. This is worse than bad.

Sounds like we need Cheaney and Hulls to be working with Galloway too.

Can someone translate this to English?

Quoting his announcement “The environment at Indiana is unmatched.”. love it!