KathywithaC

How about we hire a qualified AD before we turn him loose?

Zero support to fire a coach one year removed from a Big 10 championship and Sweet 16 appearance. Was never going to happen.

Hire the right guy and you can give them the authority to make decisions, even really big ones. Hire a lawyer or a former athlete from your school with no time as an AD anywhere, ever, and you’re in trouble at some point. We done this, as has Purdue (Burke swam at Purdue but had zero AD experience, by the way), and it never works.. Sometimes, it’s worse than that, but it never works long term. Your friend was right. One of his former BOT colleagues told me just about the same thing during the Crean era. These things happen everywhere. We are hardly alone.

It would seem to very strongly suggest that certain people in positions of contributing to the decision to hire Woody may not have done such a good job, for all of the reasons that knowing and not knowing stuff are important to getting the right guy.

You’d think, right?

He won the regular season Big 10 the year before - he should’ve been fired then?

Relatively quickly? Your Purdue friends might disagree with that. You also noticed I didn’t mention Joe Tiller. There’s a reason for that, and it underscores that their process isn’t much different than ours if you know how he came to be their coach. When you hear the phrase “too many cooks in the kitchen”, think of how many schools do this.

The process, whether a one person effort or a group project, is only as good as the person / people making the decision(s). Really capable people not only know what they know, they also know what they don’t know. We haven’t been good at that for a long time.

You think Crean’s last season was any better than where we are today? In hindsight, you think his retention would’ve made sense? Interesting view. Thanks.

Look up the names Leon Birtnett, Fred Akers, Jim Colletto, Danny Hope and Darrell Hazell and see if you think Purdue can “figure it out”?

Did you think Tom Crean should’ve been retained?

That’s the difference between your company and a University. You have the authority to make decisions for your sales group or the guys who work in your department, and that’s typical. IU has always done things a little differently. I get the frustration, but it’s a process that’s helped come to the right decision, too.

Not running cover for anyone but I don’t disagree with your notion that it is a great inhibitor to success. Why do you think RMK wanted total control of the basketball program, which he had for some time?

Not everyone in positions of authority believe it needs to be fixed. Well if that changes. By the way, unless there’s a scandal related to rules or other personal conduct, it would be rare to have any decision rendered during the season. Only three scenarios have happened in the last 20 years where it was strongly considered and it occurred in two of those three situations.

I’ve repeatedly said this is a group effort. Rarely is there much disagreement, and there isn’t with Woody. I guess I’m surprised that people are so surprised. The AD reports to the President, by the way.

If it’s bad input, does it matter who gave it? Prior to our current situation, bad input produced Mike Davis, Kelvin Sampson, Tom Crean, Archie Miller, Gerry DiNardo, Bill Lynch, Kevin Wilson and Tom Allen. Some of that input came from Trustees, some came from members of search committees, some came from search firms, some came from IU Presidents, and some came from IU ADs. If people either don’t know what they’re evaluating or can’t see issues that are likely to occur down the road, bad results are likely to happen. I get that people think one person can do this, but it’s rarely that straightforward. I realize that’s frustrating but it’s almost never the reason why things haven’t gone well, and it has made fixing some things easier.

The BOT doesn’t have the final say, but they definitely have input, with some having more than others, for obvious reasons. I understand that people want this to be an either / or situation, but it really isn’t and never has been. Even Bill Orwig and Ralph Floyd got plenty of input from others and made decisions based on a consensus of views.

I think it’s successful from the standpoint of those involved, though it frustrates plenty of people outside of the bubble. I don’t think they ever wanted to de-emphasize basketball, but they never wanted to feel like the coach wasn’t answerable or accountable to anyone. Even some of RMKs staunchest defenders became concerned about that toward the end of his tenure.

I’ve tried to patiently explain the “how” of the decision making process, along with the “why” to the extent that I know it to be. Difficult for some, especially people who don’t have much time around IU beyond their time as a student, to be able to understand those things, which I get.

What question were you asking that I didn’t answer?

lol. No need for me to respond to any of your posts going forward.

I have some higher education friends at a few southern / SEC schools, and their Trustees and Regents are far and away more engaged on football matter than ours are on basketball. It is a different stratosphere of involvement there.

There are no BOT votes related to basketball hires.

I think you would be surprised at the level of oversight the Board provides to matters such as this. I’m neither a defender nor a critic of the approach, only one who is attempting to explain how and why decisions have been made. It’s been a time honored approach at IU for many years. In the West but I’ll call it an evening. Nice to chat with you.

It was many more people than Buckner who pushed forward Woody. Many more. And consensus building doesn’t lead to unilateral decision making at IU. It never has.