General Coach Candidate News

[8bucks]

51 minutes ago, Treesh said:

I get all that.
 

Look, he’s won at a weaker conference where they really don’t care about basketball in the south. He has Indiana ties, I get it. But I can’t get over this one thing... well two things actually...

HE WANTED TO DEPORT HANNER. Scott was our assistant AD at the time, you don’t think he remembers that? 
 

Also, I’ve learned from the many years of March Madness to NEVER have Baylor go far in the dance. They are on the list, a short list. A list of great regular season teams but will screw your bracket each year. 

 

 

He is not my top guy but he is far above many others. The Hanner thing is not a good look but does not seem to be a pattern. 
 

As for the tourney he has 2 elite 8s - 2 sweet sixteens and is consistently in the tournament with a chance to go far. I am sure after 10 years where we are in the tournament 9/10 times we will get frustrated with not getting past the elite 8. 

[Demo]

2 hours ago, Alford Bailey said:

I would certainly entertain the thought of Scott Drew.

I wouldn’t for 2 reasons:

1) Mark Morefield

2) Hanner Perea 

It wouldn’t bother me as much if Drew had fired Morefield or at least publicly condemned the guy. He did neither. I don’t believe he was even suspended during Baylor’s “investigation.” He coached the year and left on his own.  When you then factor in that he has been assumed to be dirty by pretty much everyone for years, though in fairness he’s been smart enough not to be caught, the guy just doesn’t do it for me. I mean, he got Mark Vital into Baylor, a really good academic school, after Vital graduated from Prime Prep, which lost it’s academic accreditation and folded. I think the crap he used to get for being a poor bench Coach was unfair. But, there’s just way too much smoke for my, admittedly, old man tastes.

[Magisterium]

3 hours ago, lillurk said:

Yeah I could absolutely get behind this. The recruiting issues have been minor. The Hanner/Jurkin thing was in poor taste but doesn’t seem to be a pattern. He’s hopefully learned.

Baylor has dudes but he’s done great with transfers who aren’t necessarily headline guys. That bodes well for him as a talent evaluator.

They’re good on both sides of the ball. He’s adapted over time. I would not worry about postseason success in hiring: the trick is getting there with a good seed regularly. If you do that, you’ll have some years where you underperform but also some years where you hit it big.

It's not just "recruiting issues" with Drew. He basically did the same thing IU fired Sampson for FWIW. In the end, he was actually suspended (briefly).

Now, perhaps the people most in favor of Sampson's dismissal are no longer within the decision-making circle, in which case Drew might get a pass. But if they are still there, I'd doubt if Drew would even get an interview.

[Magisterium]

1 hour ago, Demo said:

I wouldn’t for 2 reasons:

1) Mark Morefield

2) Hanner Perea 

It wouldn’t bother me as much if Drew had fired Morefield or at least publicly condemned the guy. He did neither. I don’t believe he was even suspended during Baylor’s “investigation.” He coached the year and left on his own.  When you then factor in that he has been assumed to be dirty by pretty much everyone for years, though in fairness he’s been smart enough not to be caught, the guy just doesn’t do it for me. I mean, he got Mark Vital into Baylor, a really good academic school, after Vital graduated from Prime Prep, which lost it’s academic accreditation and folded. I think the crap he used to get for being a poor bench Coach was unfair. But, there’s just way too much smoke for my, admittedly, old man tastes.

Morefield may not have been suspended, but Drew himself was.

[NashvilleHoosier]

4 hours ago, Treesh said:

Baylor harder place to win than Indiana?!

 

I quit reading there. 

Yeah, without thinking too much about it, it would be like comparing IU football with...maybe Texas? IU football has no football history and a muuuuuuch larger football brand in state and everywhere surrounding it. That’s Baylor basketball pre Drew. So yeah, much harder to be successful there. I suppose Tom Allen is our Scott Drew.

[lillurk]

1 hour ago, Magisterium said:

It's not just "recruiting issues" with Drew. He basically did the same thing IU fired Sampson for FWIW. In the end, he was actually suspended (briefly).

Now, perhaps the people most in favor of Sampson's dismissal are no longer within the decision-making circle, in which case Drew might get a pass. But if they are still there, I'd doubt if Drew would even get an interview.

This is more than fair, and I also worry I undersold how bad I think the Hanner threat was.

[Magisterium]

12 minutes ago, lillurk said:

This is more than fair, and I also worry I undersold how bad I think the Hanner threat was.

to reiterate, I'm personally agnostic re: Drew's past behavior, but I also don't have a vote on who Miller's potential replacement might be.

If any of the people involved, directly or otherwise, in the Sampson debacle are still involved now, I'd be surprised if Drew got any serious consideration.

[Honkyman]

I imagine IU will find a way to hire another Archie Miller or Tom Crean.

[lillurk]

A note on rebuild speed:

4 of UM’s top 6 contributors have arrived in Juwan Howard’s two years. Wagner committed to him (though the relationship began earlier), Dickinson is a frosh, Smith and Brown are immediately eligible transfers.

They get almost nothing from the sophomore and junior classes he inherited. The defense is at least as complicated as the packline and they’re a top team in defensive efficiency.

Don’t make excuses the next coach doesn’t need.

[Hoosier Guy]

I’d get behind Scott Drew

[Southside]

I think we need a poll lol. 

If anyone wants to list the top 5 to 10 realistic candidates, I'll create one. I'm a little surprised there are not more articles about potential replacements.

[rcbowla]

1. Scott Drew
2. Thad Matta
3. Steve Alford
4. Dane Fife
5. Casey Alexander
6. Bruce Pearl
7. Nate Oats
8. Mike Tonagel
9. Rick Barnes
10. John Belien

These are the one's which are deemed realistic (by various posters) I've seen the most. You could add Beard, Stevens and Donovan if you feel they are realistic. Certainly open to changes but this gets it started anyhow.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

[rcbowla]

Of that list I just made my top 3 in order would be

1. Pearl

2. Drew

3. Matta

 

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

[Southside]

1 minute ago, rcs29 said:

1. Scott Drew
2. Thad Matta
3. Steve Alford
4. Dane Fife
5. Casey Alexander
6. Bruce Pearl
7. Nate Oats
8. Mike Tonagel
9. Rick Barnes
10. John Belien

These are the one's which are deemed realistic (by various posters) I've seen the most. You could add Beard, Stevens and Donovan if you feel they are realistic. Certainly open to changes but this gets it started anyhow.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk
 

Cool. I'll give others time to add input and put up a poll this afternoon.

[sweetpain]

I’d get behind Scott Drew

Me too, hell, he was trying to help us by getting rid of Hanner. Just kidding but kinda not, Hanner was not much help!

Sent from my SM-N981U using Tapatalk

[Stuhoo]

12 minutes ago, rcs29 said:

1. Scott Drew
2. Thad Matta
3. Steve Alford
4. Dane Fife
5. Casey Alexander
6. Bruce Pearl
7. Nate Oats
8. Mike Tonagel
9. Rick Barnes
10. John Belien

These are the one's which are deemed realistic (by various posters) I've seen the most. You could add Beard, Stevens and Donovan if you feel they are realistic. Certainly open to changes but this gets it started anyhow.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk
 

Tonagel and Barnes Are not realistic choices in any way  whatsoever. Oats just got an extension with a massive buyout, so I can’t imagine he’s realistic either.

Add Smith, Devries, Altman. Probably could add Shrewsberry and Moser, and maybe even Musselman. 

[rcbowla]

Tonagel and Barnes Are not realistic choices in anyway whatsoever.
are not realistic choices in anyway whatsoever.
Add Smith, Devries, Altman. Probably could add Shrewsberry and Moser

Why isn't Barnes out of curiosity? I think they are both attainable. I do not think they are desirable from our standpoint in anyway shape or form.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

[Stuhoo]

2 minutes ago, rcs29 said:

Why isn't Barnes out of curiosity? I think they are both attainable. I do not think they are desirable from our standpoint in anyway shape or form.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk
 

“Barnes' new contract comes after he had an offer to coach UCLA, but his $5 million buyoutproved an issue and he remained in Knoxville. At Tennessee, Barnes will make $4.95 million in 2020-21, $5.2 million in 2021-22, $5.45 million in 2022-23 and then $5.7 million in the 2023-24 season””

[rcbowla]

“Barnes' new contract comes after he had an offer to coach UCLA, but his $5 million buyoutproved an issue and he remained in Knoxville. At Tennessee, Barnes will make $4.95 million in 2020-21, $5.2 million in 2021-22, $5.45 million in 2022-23 and then $5.7 million in the 2023-24 season””

Wasn't aware of his contract. Yeah that I would agree is not realistic. Just remembered seeing his name on here a few times.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

[LamarCheeks]

16 minutes ago, rcs29 said:

1. Scott Drew
2. Thad Matta
3. Steve Alford
4. Dane Fife
5. Casey Alexander
6. Bruce Pearl
7. Nate Oats
8. Mike Tonagel
9. Rick Barnes
10. John Belien

These are the one's which are deemed realistic (by various posters) I've seen the most. You could add Beard, Stevens and Donovan if you feel they are realistic. Certainly open to changes but this gets it started anyhow.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk
 

Alexander -- not realistic. We're gonna go from an Atlantic 10 coach to an Ohio Valley coach? Meh. 
Pearl -- not realistic. Due to his past, he would never pass muster with the Trustees. 
Tonagel -- We're gonna go from an Atlantic 10 coach to an NAIA coach? C'mon. 
Oats -- just signed a big contract extension. Probably not realistic.