General Coach Candidate News

[AZ Hoosier]

1 hour ago, Hoosierinbham said:

I was told last night by someone very connected to the Bama program there is a decent chance Oates moves north after this season. They were thinking more Michigan or Ohio State, but sounds like he's open to a change of scenery. I'd take him in a heartbeat. Guess we'll see.

 

[Stuhoo]

4 minutes ago, AZ Hoosier said:

 

That guy wearing the sweatshirt has a $10,000,000 buyout through March, 2025.

[WayneFleekHoosier]

That guy wearing the sweatshirt has a $10,000,000 buyout through March, 2025.

You know, “shoot for the moon, land in the stars” and such.


Sent from my iPad using BtownBanners mobile app

[IndyHoops]

8 minutes ago, Stuhoo said:

That guy wearing the sweatshirt has a $10,000,000 buyout through March, 2025.

And Woodson’s is $12,000,000….we are gonna need more donors….  :)

[Artie86]

I honestly think if/when this actually becomes official and IU is in the market for a new bb coach, it will finally be proven, quality coach. Dolson and Co. are going to want to really make this right. We totally have the funds to pay for an Oats, Pearl type coach ….JMO

[Kentuckysucks]

So is Trilly really reporting that Dolson supports a change but Buckner is a hard no?  That's what I read on another site.

[94Bulldog]

I’m sure some won’t agree but I’ll just say this, I want a consistent top 20 winning program.   Is that too much to ask?  I don’t care anymore about perception and sparkling clean image.  College athletics are so far past those days.  I’m past the days of caring if a coach had prior sanctions, charges dropped, or found innocent.  If it wasn’t for age I’d take Sampson back in a heartbeat.  Pearl’s past?  Doesn’t bother me in the least.  Should have went after him 8 years ago.  Beard’s issues?  Charges dropped, move on.  Winning makes a lot of things better.  Just my grumpy Monday morning take as I stare at another March and the best time of the college sports year and once again, I don’t care about it because my team will be just like me, sitting on the couch watching.  

[str8baller]

12 hours ago, AH1971 said:

I have no clue what you’re talking about or how that pertains to analytics? Analytics is nothing more than data. It’s a mathematical fact that a 3 point shot is a more efficient shot (over an entire setting) than a 15 foot jump shot. You’re literally arguing against data and math.

Most efficient shot is still an open shot, especially in the hands of your best shooter. An open 15 footer for a guy like Alford is more efficient than a contested 3 pointer.
 

I think that is what Scotty R is getting at. And I agree with him that it has become a bit of a lost art in today’s game to work your best shooters into an open space that isn’t a 3.  
 

I think a lot of coaches gravitate towards getting all their shooters on the 3pt line not only because it gives you a statistically strong shot, but imo, it is easier to teach to a guy in 6 mos time than something like a motion offense. Tony Bennett still teaches a version of the latter and you can see how his team has really had its ups and downs on offense this year trying to integrate 4 new players. If those players stay though, I bet they’ll be incredibly efficient on offense next year and the following

[Chris007]

11 hours ago, Stuhoo said:

Hey; I’ll give you a coaching style comp for Nate Oats:

Oats = Branch McCracken with a three ball

Is it true you were at IU during those McCraken days? Oldfart told me you were and I believe everything he says

[AH1971]

1 minute ago, str8baller said:

Most efficient shot is still an open shot, especially in the hands of your best shooter. An open 15 footer for a guy like Alford is more efficient than a contested 3 pointer.

Open and if it goes in*

If you shoot 35% as a team from 3, you have to shoot at least 53% from the mid-range to make it a more efficient shot. Very few people in the world shot 53% from the mid-range whether they're open or not, let alone an entire team. That's literally why teams are willing to give up that shot possession after possession....it's not a high probability shot regardless if it goes in or not. 

[Chris007]

7 minutes ago, str8baller said:

Most efficient shot is still an open shot, especially in the hands of your best shooter. An open 15 footer for a guy like Alford is more efficient than a contested 3 pointer.
 

I think that is what Scotty R is getting at. And I agree with him that it has become a bit of a lost art in today’s game to work your best shooters into an open space that isn’t a 3.  
 

I think a lot of coaches gravitate towards getting all their shooters on the 3pt line not only because it gives you a statistically strong shot, but imo, it is easier to teach to a guy in 6 mos time than something like a motion offense. Tony Bennett still teaches a version of the latter and you can see how his team has really had its ups and downs on offense this year trying to integrate 4 new players. If those players stay though, I bet they’ll be incredibly efficient on offense next year and the following

This day in all basketball if you are running a 4 out 1 in or 5 out offense you want almost all of your shots to be a 3 or a shot with at least one foot in the paint. Everything out of those are bad shots. That is the analytic part that Woodson won't listen too. 

[TrueHoosier62]

53 minutes ago, str8baller said:

Most efficient shot is still an open shot, especially in the hands of your best shooter. An open 15 footer for a guy like Alford is more efficient than a contested 3 pointer.
 

I think that is what Scotty R is getting at. And I agree with him that it has become a bit of a lost art in today’s game to work your best shooters into an open space that isn’t a 3.  
 

I think a lot of coaches gravitate towards getting all their shooters on the 3pt line not only because it gives you a statistically strong shot, but imo, it is easier to teach to a guy in 6 mos time than something like a motion offense. Tony Bennett still teaches a version of the latter and you can see how his team has really had its ups and downs on offense this year trying to integrate 4 new players. If those players stay though, I bet they’ll be incredibly efficient on offense next year and the following

Best post I've read in a long time.

[JF87]

If we are going to have to get a proven coach, I would prefer Oats.  His offense is fun to watch and although his defense stinks this year, last year his defense was ranked 3rd in Kenpom.  'If we're going to consider an older coach like Pearl, I'll throw in a few names of other older consistent winners.  Tony Bennett, Randy Bennett, and Greg McDermott are all coaches that I could be happy with.  

[AH1971]

I'd take Greg McDermott as a 3rd or 4th option. I think Randy Bennett is perfectly content in the Bay Area and I may be in the minority, but I believe the game of basketball has simply passed by Tony Bennett. If I wanted to watch a team with a poor, antiquated offense who doesn't defend the 3 point line I'd simply revert to watching Mike Woodson. 

[Scotty R]

32 minutes ago, JF87 said:

If we are going to have to get a proven coach, I would prefer Oats.  His offense is fun to watch and although his defense stinks this year, last year his defense was ranked 3rd in Kenpom.  'If we're going to consider an older coach like Pearl, I'll throw in a few names of other older consistent winners.  Tony Bennett, Randy Bennett, and Greg McDermott are all coaches that I could be happy with.  

I just found out a couple of weeks ago that Randy Bennett is from Indiana and his mother still lives in Southport

[Stuhoo]

8 minutes ago, Scotty R said:

I just found out a couple of weeks ago that Randy Bennett is from Indiana and his mother still lives in Southport

Please not another 62 year old.

[Scotty R]

1 minute ago, Stuhoo said:

Please not another 62 year old.

So Pearl is a no for you

[woodenshoemanHoosierfan]

So Pearl is a no for you

For me, he is a hard no

Sent from my SM-S908U using Tapatalk

[Scotty R]

Just now, woodenshoemanHoosierfan said:

For me, he is a hard no

Sent from my SM-S908U using Tapatalk
 

I use to he as well but I have changed a little in him. Since it is pay for play now it doesn't matter what he did before with the NCAA rules. The only hard no for me is Beard

[Stuhoo]

5 minutes ago, Scotty R said:

So Pearl is a no for you

Not my first choice. I guess if I had to pick an old guy Pearl would be the best one -- Bruce and his teams are fun as hell and they win. 

But this is a young man's job. Find the 40-50 year old that is a great fit and let's roll. I do not care a bit that Archie did not work out. If we find the right younger guy we're set for 20 years. That's what I want first and foremost.