Evariste Galois

Assuming that Stevens was considering the job last week, we only have had 1 week to interview people. Assuming Dolson is putting time and consideration into everyone's interview, that is not a lot of time. I hope he interviews as many people as he needs to and gives them all consideration. Heck, when I was hired, the interview process at my company had 4 interviews (the fourth was just to discuss salary) and took several weeks.

Sounds as plausible as most of our rumors.

I think this one.

It would be insane if they did not contact him...

Nihil sub sole novum - things cycle around. If a team came out with Loyola Marymount's 7 second offense it would seem pretty new now.

+1000 We are actually arguing over many really great potential coaches. We are only ~10 days out and it seems like we missed on our top choice. It took 10 days last time and got our top choice and we seem to be swinging harder this year.

If it is only recent, then that is literally the definition of "flavor of the month". Edit: To be clear, I am not knocking Musselman. I also think he could be a great hire.

Musselman's NBA experience is significantly less impressive than Woodson's. I would be very excited about Beard (and even Musselman for that matter - or Oats - I think we have a great list of "hypothetical" candidates.) But let's be honest, if he did not have the RMK connection, there would not be any talk about him coming to IU either. My only point, is that I definitely could see why Dolson might decide that Woodson is the best option out of all them.

If the next coach does not succeed within 5 years, regardless of who it is, the program will be in less good shape. We simply do not agree on whether Woodson represents a bad risk. We also don't agree on what "proven power 5 means". There is only 1 proven power 5 guy that is seriously mentioned: Drew (& maybe Alford). And I would not place him at the top for reason mentioned above. Beard is getting close to "proven" but would need a couple more years for proven Oats and Musselman have only been in P5 for 2 years, I am not sure how that is proven by anyone's standard I think they are all potentially great hires, but there is no "Roy Williams to UNC" in 2003 slam dunk hires on this list. EDIT: More accurately, there was - but he elected to stay in Boston (and technically he is not a proven power 5 guy).

They are probably just doing due diligence. Once one player explored the portal, many will. I think Shrewsberry was an excellent hire for PSU, but effectively all of their players entered the portal.

Obviously Dolson needs to determine if Woodson has the personality and energy to bring in recruits. We simply do not know there and fans will come back when we are winning. Proven power 5 is relative - I do not know details on the discussions with Dolson, but winning in the SEC can (and not due to playing style...) can be very different than winning at IU. If the Perea story is true, I will only support Drew if he is actually hired. Until then, threatening someone with deportation is a no-go in my book. However the bolded part is one of the reasons I think Woodson is the lowest risk hires we have. If he is not cutting it in 5 years, he can just retire. If he is doing well, we can get 5 more good years out of him. There is limited risk. I am not Woodson or bust, there are lot of names that excite me on our list (I do no get the panic crowd). And I will support our coach, regardless of who he/she is, until they cease to be our coach (I was still behind CAM until the end... especially because he did not cheat).

It takes longer to turn around football team in general - lots of players. A couple really good recruiting classes and a coach who knows what they are doing and you are winning in basketball. Plus it is not like the cupboard is bare... and with decent transfers we could be wining at a good pace next year.

If we do not consider circumstances (i.e., the team), Coach Allen has an average record (24-22, no bowl victories). I am pretty sure there are MANY major football programs who will gladly take him off our hands. You cannot ignore the performance of the team before and after the coach was there. There is some validity to the lack of college coaching and recruiting experience, but I think the understanding of the IU way more than outweighs this. We know for a fact that making the sweet sixteen this year is not a sufficient condition to succeeding at IU (see Houston). We have higher off-the-court standards than a lot of schools.

Given that Woodson should understand the off-court expectations at IU, I think he is actually a lower risk. Of our 4 bad hires (if one counts Mike Davis - which one probably should not), two fully failed because they did not understand the off-court peculiarities of IU. And if one considers that CAM did not embrace the visibility of the position then one could argue that all failed because they did not understand the peculiarities of IU.

To be honest, once I got over the fact we were not getting CBS, I am enjoying this. My only desire for a somewhat quick resolution has to do with the current players on the team. If it weren't for this, I would be casually following the tournament (like the previous several years). Now I watch the games with - Is that the future IU coach? What do I think of his offense and defensive style? Presence off the court? I especially enjoyed watching the TT/Arkansas game because of that.

This is probably the best comparison. If you start with a lousy product and improve it over time, you are a good coach. Period. Technically speaking, Allen has only had two winning seasons at IU... I think we would all now agree that he is the IU football coach by divine right.

+1 It is no longer there...

We all are in the same boat... we want to reestablish an identity and win consistently. It is tough to realize that Wisconsin has become a reference point...

Right, but sustaining winning is complex. If we were to try and model it mathematically, it would be WAY more complex than the calculus sequence. Calculus was developed to model some of the "easiest" - that is most natural - things to model mathematically.

No problem. I was not arguing for Crean! I was saying that sustaining winning is a continual effort that will require establishing long-term functioning relationship with the state of Indiana (in particular the high school and AAU coaches). Winning never becomes "smooth and easy" - just ask Roy or Coach K.

You are basically arguing my point. Crean had two good seasons in 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 and it did not just smoothly snowball into perpetual winning and eventually he could not even recruit Indiana.

Crean won some games for a few years and the rest did not follow smoothly and quickly.

Then Beard is probably the target. This is a tight-lipped event and the less chatter about something, the more probable it is.

People are aware that the game goes in cycle, right? If you do not like the current style, just wait a few years and it will evolve.

This was my initial fear last week when the Stevens train got started. That the possibility of Stevens would ruin our expectations of any other coach (regardless of how good). Of course by Friday I had drunk the cool-aid...