General Coach Candidate News

[Loaded Chicken Sandwich]

I'm on the Calipari-train, Matta-train, Beilein-train, Alford-train, LiterallyAnyoneElse-train. 

[Loaded Chicken Sandwich]

39 minutes ago, Hoosierfan2017 said:

Honestly, yes, I would be willing to take that opportunity. We’re in desperation mode as a program. We aren’t even a top-tier Big Ten program at this point. We’ve made it past the sweet 16 once since 1993. The high school kids we’re trying to recruit right now weren’t alive the last time IU made it past the sweet 16. Maybe we hire Calipari and it doesn’t work out, but there’s a pretty good chance whoever we do hire won’t either. We need a home run hire, and we won’t get one without swinging for the fences.

Cal has proven he can win differently than he has now. He did it at UMass and he did it at Memphis. 

[Hoosierfan2017]

47 minutes ago, Stuhoo said:

 

I want to act like other winning programs:

Villanova, Gonzaga, Wisconsin, Virginia.

• Student athletes
• Extremely well-coached
• Truly engaged with the University
• Winners at the college level, regardless of whether they are NBA prospects.

How many of those criteria describe the UK program under Calipari?

 

I’ll give you Wisconsin, but it remains to be seen how Gard does in the tournament with his own players. His two sweet 16 appearances were with Bo Ryan’s players. Gonzaga gets the benefit of playing in a mid-major conference. If you stuck them in the Big Ten how good would they be year in year out? Villanova consistently lands elite talent. Their 2018 national championship team had four NBA players on it. Their 2016 team had five NBA players on it. Their recruiting classes routinely include top 50 players. Virginia’s championship team also had a ton of talent. Kyle Guy, Deandre Hunter, Ty Jerome, and Mamadi Diakite.

We've tried following the Virginia/Villanova motto of “get old stay old,” but the problem with that is they’ve succeeded with that strategy by getting old with great talent. We’re “getting old and staying old” with mediocre players. You can succeed in college basketball with great talent and above average coaching. You can succeed with good talent and great coaching. But even the best coaches need to have talented players. Tony Bennett or Jay Wright would struggle with our team. I’d have no problem with being like Virginia or Villanova. No problem at all. But there are only so many coaches out there like theirs, and I’m pessimistic we’d find one of them. 

[Str8Hoosiers]

31 minutes ago, kreigh8 said:

Bobby Knight didn't cheat, but I'm not sure the "optics" of his program were always peachy. Just sayin'.

Agree 100%, and most of the same people that wouldn't be ok with Calipari or Alford also wouldn't be ok with Knight currently.... I love what he means to IU, but I wouldn't want those optics right now either... even given the wins...

[JSHoosier]

I can't remember where I heard it but it was "9 out of 10 teams cheat, the one that's not is in last place".

There might be varying degrees of dirty, but I'd be shocked if any winning program is 100% clean.

[Brass Cannon]

For people thinking Knight won without cheating just remember he didn’t win a conference title his final 14 years coaching. The game has changed. And so has rule enforcement. 

[NashvilleHoosier]

43 minutes ago, Hoosierfan2017 said:

Honestly, yes, I would be willing to take that opportunity. We’re in desperation mode as a program. We aren’t even a top-tier Big Ten program at this point. We’ve made it past the sweet 16 once since 1993. The high school kids we’re trying to recruit right now weren’t alive the last time IU made it past the sweet 16. Maybe we hire Calipari and it doesn’t work out, but there’s a pretty good chance whoever we do hire won’t either. We need a home run hire, and we won’t get one without swinging for the fences.

Fair enough, but I don't really believe we are in desperation mode as a program. Desperation mode was after we fired Sampson and had scraps left of a roster to move forward with and sanctions to work through. We haven't won at the level we want to and expect to for a long time. But everything else is there for us to do besides the on court success led by the right person roaming the sidelines. I agree that we need a home run hire, and in order to hit a home run you have to swing for the fences. I just think hiring Cal is swinging for the fences with your eyes closed. It is indeed possible that you'll make contact and hit that home run. I'm not willing to bet on it though. 

[Str8Hoosiers]

1 hour ago, Hoosierfan2017 said:

Adherence to rules that the NCAA itself doesn’t give a crap about does nothing but hurt ourselves. Most elite programs are playing outside of the rules, the NCAA knows that they’re playing outside of the rules, and the NCAA lets them. Louisville went beyond paying players, the NCAA actually punished them, and they’re right back to landing top-tier classes. If fans don’t want to play in the same gray areas as programs like Duke, UK, Kansas, etc., that’s perfectly fine. There’s nothing wrong with it. But they need to accept that it will be much harder to succeed as a program, and mediocre results will probably be the norm. Right now, we’re a region program. Top talent isn’t coming here unless they’re from Indiana. We haven’t landed an out of state 5 star since Thomas Bryant in 2015, and that was due in large part to Crean’s shady recruiter (whose name I can’t remember).

UofL is right back to landing top tier classes.... for now... but they have yet to receive their punishment... they punished themselves... and the NCAA took away a banner, but the real legs of the punishment haven't been seen yet and I believe they are going to be major (as do all my UofL friends down in this area)….

Rules / Cheating is definitely part of the issue with Cal.... but it isn't the whole reason I wouldn't want him.

As I said I don't think he would win here... I don't think IU could be turned into a 1 and Done Factory like UK allowed him to do... I don't think the administration or the fanbase would let that fly... my few UK fans tell me at the beginning of every year that they can't talk to me about their team yet because they don't even know the players names from 1 year to the next... for me that is NOT OK...

To me Cal thinks he is the program... he always wants the spotlight on him... if he loses the players aren't buying in but when he wins he is upfront at the NBA Draft, and his recruiting pitch is I GOT THESE GUYS TO THE NBA (nevermind most were going regardless).

There is a specific type of coach that to me (personal opinion) scream sleazy and I wouldn't want anything to do with any of them no matter the wins (Calipari, Pitino, Pearl, Alford to name a few)

I want a coach that WINS, not just on the court but in the family living room, in the interview, in the locker room! WINS EVERYWHERE, no matter what he is doing... has the look, the talk, and the action! WINS

[Stuhoo]

11 minutes ago, Hoosierfan2017 said:

I’ll give you Wisconsin, but it remains to be seen how Gard does in the tournament with his own players. His two sweet 16 appearances were with Bo Ryan’s players. Gonzaga gets the benefit of playing in a mid-major conference. If you stuck them in the Big Ten how good would they be year in year out? Villanova consistently lands elite talent. Their 2018 national championship team had four NBA players on it. Their 2016 team had five NBA players on it. Their recruiting classes routinely include top 50 players. Virginia’s championship team also had a ton of talent. Kyle Guy, Deandre Hunter, Ty Jerome, and Mamadi Diakite.

We've tried following the Virginia/Villanova motto of “get old stay old,” but the problem with that is they’ve succeeded with that strategy by getting old with great talent. We’re “getting old and staying old” with mediocre players. You can succeed in college basketball with great talent and above average coaching. You can succeed with good talent and great coaching. But even the best coaches need to have talented players. Tony Bennett or Jay Wright would struggle with our team. I’d have no problem with being like Virginia or Villanova. No problem at all. But there are only so many coaches out there like theirs, and I’m pessimistic we’d find one of them. 

 

I'm going to boil down your post to two options -- key points, quoted exactly as you stated them, which I believe are spot on:

1. You can succeed in college basketball with great talent and above average coaching. (likely the dirty way)
2. You can succeed with good talent and great coaching.

I pick option 2.

 

[Brass Cannon]

3 minutes ago, Stuhoo said:

 

I'm going to boil down your post to two options -- key points, quoted exactly as you stated them, which I believe are spot on:

1. You can succeed in college basketball with great talent and above average coaching.
2. You can succeed with good talent and great coaching.

I pick option 2.

 

I do to.  But you have to pay for great talent ir great coaching.  Archie was a top 10 paid coach when we hired him. I would have rather taken somebody who was already successful at a high level and made them a top 5. 

[NashvilleHoosier]

Another point about Cal....It's fair to look at how he did before UK where he wasn't relying on one and done's. Let's leave the vacated seasons out of the discussion for a minute. My counterargument is first to throw what he did at UMass in the garbage. If we're talking about what someone did in the 80s and 90s, not interested. So let's look at Memphis. Since an argument will be made that he proved he can win without relying on one and done's at Memphis, and let's assume he goes back to his Memphis ways of running a program, here's what that looks like:

NIT, NIT, NCAA first round, NCAA 2nd round, NIT.....then his real success from year 6 on. 6 years to build that. This isn't advocating for keeping Archie for 6 years. Just pointing out that if you think he can win in other ways, the example we have of that was building a program up for 6 years before he actually did win in another way. 

[Stuhoo]

12 minutes ago, Brass Cannon said:

I do to.  But you have to pay for great talent ir great coaching.  Archie was a top 10 paid coach when we hired him. I would have rather taken somebody who was already successful at a high level and made them a top 5. 

 

Okay...Beard...I'd be stoked if that happened.

The problem is when Few, Bennett, Beard, Donovan, Stevens, and Wright all say no to a pay raise to come to IU. Then what? Because that is overwhelmingly likely to be exactly the case.

By the way, when Few, Bennett, Beard, Stevens, Donovan, and Wright started out at Butler, Florida, Nova, Tech, Gonzaga, and Virginia, NONE of them were already successful at a high level. None, and there's no close call or 'kinda'.

So, the solution to a having coach that establishes a dream program is apparently not finding a failing Calipari or hoping to lure away an uninterested Stevens or Donovan; it's having the expertise and foresight to identify the NEXT Stevens or Donovan. That's how IU football got the best coach in the history of the program--and Tom Allen is committed to the program that he built--he's not going to fill the open Tennessee slot (a program that has similarities with IU bball).

That's why I was a fan of the Archie hire. Not because I knew he was the right choice for the next 25 years, but because, unlike Alford, he had a chance to be. If it's not working out? That was always part of the equation.

 

 

[Stuhoo]

2 minutes ago, NashvilleHoosier said:

Another point about Cal....It's fair to look at how he did before UK where he wasn't relying on one and done's. Let's leave the vacated seasons out of the discussion for a minute. My counterargument is first to throw what he did at UMass in the garbage. If we're talking about what someone did in the 80s and 90s, not interested. So let's look at Memphis. Since an argument will be made that he proved he can win without relying on one and done's at Memphis, and let's assume he goes back to his Memphis ways of running a program, here's what that looks like:

NIT, NIT, NCAA first round, NCAA 2nd round, NIT.....then his real success from year 6 on. 6 years to build that. This isn't advocating for keeping Archie for 6 years. Just pointing out that if you think he can win in other ways, the example we have of that was building a program up for 6 years before he actually did win in another way. 

 

Umm...he started flat out paying for high level talent at the end of his Memphis run. He was never going to build a big winner without doing so IMO.

 

[Brass Cannon]

1 minute ago, Stuhoo said:

 

Okay...Beard...I'd be stoked if that happened.

The problem is when Few, Bennett, Beard, Donovan, Stevens, and Wright all say no to a pay raise to come to IU. Then what, because that is overwhelmingly likely to be exactly the case.

By the way, when Few, Bennett, Beard, Stevens, Donovan, and Wright started out at Butler, Florida, Nova, Tech, Gonzaga, and Virginia, NONE of them were already successful at a high level. None, and there's no close call or 'kinda'.

So, the solution to a having coach that establishes a dream program is apparently not finding a failing Calipari or hoping to lure away an uninterested Stevens or Donovan; it's having the expertise and foresight to identify the NEXT Stevens or Donovan. That's how IU football got the best coach in the history of the program--and Tom Allen is committed to the program that he built--he's not going to fill the open Tennessee slot (a program that has similarities with IU bball).

That's why I was a fan of the Archie hire. Not because I knew he was the right choice for the next 25 years, but because, unlike Alford, he had a chance to be. If it's not working out? That was always part of the equation.

 

 

Beard or Oates tbh.  And I’m not saying the person has to be winning their leagues. But all those names you listed I doubt any were given too 10 money when they started at their current or most recent schools.  They earned what they are getting.  
 

If you are going to hire a guy who hasn’t proven crap. You don’t pay them as if they have proven something.  

[Stuhoo]

Just now, Brass Cannon said:

Beard or Oates tbh.  And I’m not saying the person has to be winning their leagues. But all those names you listed I doubt any were given too 10 money when they started at their current or most recent schools.  They earned what they are getting.  
 

If you are going to hire a guy who hasn’t proven crap. You don’t pay them as if they have proven something.  

 

Just saying...Archie at Dayton had proven himself infinitely more than Oats at Buffalo/Bama. And Oats would cost more than Archie to hire.

That's not me saying 'no' to Oats--I think he's an up and comer and would have a chance of being that 25 year star coach.

[Hoosierfan2017]

17 minutes ago, Stuhoo said:

 

Forgive me...I'm going to boil down your post to two options -- key points, as you stated them which I believe are spot on:

1. You can succeed in college basketball with great talent and above average coaching.
2. You can succeed with good talent and great coaching.

I pick option 2.

 

I’d have no problem with option 2 at all. If we could land our Jay Wright who’s here 20+ years I’d be all for it. I’m just burnt out on IU right now and doubtful that we’ll be able to find him. Another young guy like Archie or Steve Alford both seem more likely, and I don’t think either would work out. 

[NashvilleHoosier]

3 minutes ago, Stuhoo said:

 

Umm...he started flat out paying for high level talent at the end of his Memphis run. He was never going to build a big winner without doing so IMO.

 

I'm sure he did. And it seems inconceivable that he didn't do that at UK as well, especially with world wide wes around. I'm intentionally leaving those things (including his crowning achievements at both previous stops being vacated) out of the argument for why we should or should not hire him. I'm also leaving out the fact that I don't believe there is a single chance in hell he would leave UK and come to IU.  

[JSHoosier]

So hire a young guy that hasn't done anything to deserve a blue blood look (Oats), give him a top 10 contract, then we're hamstrung when we need a new coach in 4 years.  I see we still haven't learned.

[Brass Cannon]

4 minutes ago, Stuhoo said:

 

Just saying...Archie at Dayton had proven himself infinitely more than Oats at Buffalo/Bama. And Oats would cost more than Archie to hire.

That's not me saying 'no' to Oats--I think he's an up and comer and would have a chance of being that 25 year star coach.

I’m going to say a guy undefeated in the SEC in his second year has proven himself decently. A guy with a little success in the majors is more impressive than a stud in the minors 

[Brass Cannon]

1 minute ago, JSHoosier said:

So hire a young guy that hasn't done anything to deserve a blue blood look (Oats), give him a top 10 contract, then we're hamstrung when we need a new coach in 4 years.  I see we still haven't learned.

I wouldn’t give him a top 10 contract. Give him Archies which is about top 20 now.  But give him huge incentives.  Or do a roy Williams where almost everything is incentive