General Coach Candidate News

[NashvilleHoosier 3,906]

10 minutes ago, IUHoosierJoe said:

Ok.  I get that you guys love to argue.  I said I’d take either Pearl or May.  Pluses and minuses to both, I said.  But I still wish you guys that know the future with such certainty would share the Power Ball numbers with me sometime.

I agree with you there, pluses and minuses to both. I wasn’t responding to that. I was responding to your posts about him not winning immediately anywhere and us not being happy if it took him 5 years to get past the S16. Some ppl on here love to argue, sure. But someone countering a point you make instead of just agreeing isn’t just loving to argue. Pretty soft to think so. No one thinks they know the future. Not a single coach is a guarantee. It’s discussion. In a discussion topic. On a free message board of which its sole purpose of existing is to….discuss.

[IUHoosierJoe 2,155]

2 minutes ago, Hoosierfan2017 said:

Winners win. The best predictor of future success is past results. Bruce Pearl is a winner. He’s coached 29 seasons. Won 72% of his games during that span. He’s coached at four schools and won all at four of them, leveling up in difficulty as he’s advanced. D2 national championship at USI, and at least 1 sweet 16 appearance at each of his other three schools.  

Nothing in life is guaranteed. But Bruce Pearl succeeding at IU is as close to a guarantee as you can get when picking a coach. If he can’t win at IU when he’s won everywhere else, we’d really need to question if anyone can. 

No doubt.  I’m not completely convinced he’d win big first year, especially given what he’s probably going to be left with, and winning big early would be his main advantage over hiring a guy like Dusty.  And if he was going on 53 instead of 63, I don’t even think I’d care about that.

[IUHoosierJoe 2,155]

1 minute ago, NashvilleHoosier said:

I agree with you there, pluses and minuses to both. I wasn’t responding to that. I was responding to your posts about him not winning immediately anywhere and us not being happy if it took him 5 years to get past the S16. Some ppl on here love to argue, sure. But someone countering a point you make instead of just agreeing isn’t just loving to argue. Pretty soft to think so. No one thinks they know the future. Not a single coach is a guarantee. It’s discussion. In a discussion topic. On a free message board of which its sole purpose of existing is to….discuss.

And I made the same consistent point every time.  Wasn’t moving goal posts and not being soft.  Those aren’t statements one makes when “discussing” with me.

[lillurk 5,151]

1 hour ago, Demo said:

There are a lot of complicated moving parts with Pearl and I just don’t see it. The fact that he’s been busted at every single D1 job he’s had, as both HC and Asst, may not be disqualifying but it should be part of the calculation to a program that was literally incinerated by a guy like that. Dude got busted at Milwaukee for God’s sake, are you kidding me? He’s on a long deal for top of the market jack right now. Are you ready to pay a huge buyout and then reset the market, because that’s probably what it’s gonna take? Plus, any deal will certainly include Steven Pearl as a designated successor. Given Bruce’s age you better believe Steven’s a Guy as well and if you don’t you have no deal. But the guy energizes programs and he wins, so it’s defensible if you’re willing to swallow all that. 

I think Pearl would probably really like one shot at a blueblood job. He’s got a great team and that gives him some leverage.

I imagine he would genuinely entertain the UL or IU job. But especially if Auburn makes a deep run next month, I think they’ll be inclined to do what it takes to keep him — financially and probably with a Kellen Sampson-style commitment to Stephen Pearl.

[lillurk 5,151]

9 minutes ago, Scotty R said:

Well to me the ppg is the most important thing. I couldn't care less about some of these made up advanced metrics crap.

It’s fine if you don’t care, but a defense that gives up 70 points a night in 75 trips is preferable to one that gives up 70 in 68 trips even if you don’t have an aesthetic preference for faster games

[Hoosierfan2017 25,031]

Just now, IUHoosierJoe said:

No doubt.  I’m not completely convinced he’d win big first year, especially given what he’s probably going to be left with, and winning big early would be his main advantage over hiring a guy like Dusty.  And if he was going on 53 instead of 63, I don’t even think I’d care about that.

Pearl’s age is the only concern I have with him, but I don’t have too big of a concern about it. Our last five coaches have coached for:

Davis - 6 years

Sampson - 2 years 

Crean - 9 years 

Miller - 4 years 

Woodson - 3 years  

Average of 4.8 years. If you take Sampson out since he was fired for reasons unrelated to on-court performance, it’s 5.5 years. Pearl could definitely give us at least that long. Ideally you want to find a long-term option, but I think the likelihood of doing that is higher after a successful Pearl stint than it would be after this year when the program is in disarray. 

[Scotty R 3,765]

2 minutes ago, lillurk said:

It’s fine if you don’t care, but a defense that gives up 70 points a night in 75 trips is preferable to one that gives up 70 in 68 trips even if you don’t have an aesthetic preference for faster games

I would take Oats in a heart beat. The problem I have seen with his style is that if they are off shooting the 3 they have no other way to heat you. I have seen games where they look unbeatable and other times they just struggle because they miss a lot of 3's

[Scotty R 3,765]

1 minute ago, Hoosierfan2017 said:

Pearl’s age is the only concern I have with him, but I don’t have too big of a concern about it. Our last five coaches have coached for:

Davis - 6 years

Sampson - 2 years 

Crean - 9 years 

Miller - 4 years 

Woodson - 3 years  

Average of 4.8 years. If you take Sampson out since he was fired for reasons unrelated to on-court performance, it’s 5.5 years. Pearl could definitely give us at least that long. Ideally you want to find a long-term option, but I think the likelihood of doing that is higher after a successful Pearl stint than it would be after this year when the program is in disarray. 

I also think the times where coaches stays at tbe same place for 30+ years are coming to an end. With how much money they make why coach for 40 years. Also with the stress of the job getting worse with the NIL and the portal I don't see coaches being lifted any longer.

[lillurk 5,151]

1 minute ago, Scotty R said:

I would take Oats in a heart beat. The problem I have seen with his style is that if they are off shooting the 3 they have no other way to heat you. I have seen games where they look unbeatable and other times they just struggle because they miss a lot of 3's

Yeah, I tend to agree. I like a high volume of 3 attempts but I also think when you’re more talented you can shoot plenty of 3s AND get to the rim and the line.

He’s been a little too willing to play 3pt% roulette for me, though I think he’s great. Over a season, that makes sense, but it doesn’t always equalize within the game.

[JF87 2,149]

1 hour ago, HoosierHoopster said:

I’m wondering if there are some other possible candidates out there that the U may be looking at (look at down the road) that are strong, legit candidates but that we’re overlooking, I mean like a Pasternack, Hell of a job at Santa Barbara, 27 W’s last season was most ever there, or Jeff Linder, Wyoming after Northern Colo. - his rebuild track record looks good. 

Otzelberger at Iowa State has been mentioned on this board.  Grant McCasland currently at Texas Tech has won everywhere he's been.  Mitch Henderson from Princeton, Darian DeVries at Drake, or Schertz at ISU would be intriguing imo.  

[Scotty R 3,765]

Just now, lillurk said:

Yeah, I tend to agree. I like a high volume of 3 attempts but I also think when you’re more talented you can shoot plenty of 3s AND get to the rim and the line.

He’s been a little too willing to play 3pt% roulette for me, though I think he’s great. Over a season, that makes sense, but it doesn’t always equalize within the game.

I guess I am to old school because I don't see anything wrong with an open 12-15 foot shot.

[IUHoosierJoe 2,155]

1 minute ago, Hoosierfan2017 said:

Pearl’s age is the only concern I have with him, but I don’t have too big of a concern about it. Our last five coaches have coached for:

Davis - 6 years

Sampson - 2 years 

Crean - 9 years 

Miller - 4 years 

Woodson - 3 years  

Average of 4.8 years. If you take Sampson out since he was fired for reasons unrelated to on-court performance, it’s 5.5 years. Pearl could definitely give us at least that long. Ideally you want to find a long-term option, but I think the likelihood of doing that is higher after a successful Pearl stint than it would be after this year when the program is in disarray. 

I get that.  If I'm a decision-maker, though, I want to try to get that turnover rate slowed down a bit.  All things being equal, I would lean toward the guy who can give me 15-18 years over the guy who can give me 6 or 7.  Especially if that first year or two has a chance to be less than ideal no matter who the coach is.  And maybe we just need a big name this time, I don't know.  If so, I'd love to do a real search and see if Oates is interested before I'd call Pearl.

[NashvilleHoosier 3,906]

8 minutes ago, IUHoosierJoe said:

And I made the same consistent point every time.  Wasn’t moving goal posts and not being soft.  Those aren’t statements one makes when “discussing” with me.

Eh, agree to disagree I suppose. I'm not the one who said goalposts were moved. But saying he's never won anywhere immediately (he has), and saying we wouldn't be happy that it took him 5 years to get past the S16 (requires far more context that just that one point) are two entirely separate points, not really consistent points at all. Unless your "win immediately" is as simple as having one a title immediately, in which case, yes, consistent points, of which we'll be able to compile a candidate list of ZERO coaches. And hey, I don't mean it personally. I don't know anyone on here personally, so I don't mean anything I say here personally. But if somebody counters something you post here instead of just agreeing with you and your response is "you just love to argue" and we "think we know the future", sorry....pretty soft.

[Scotty R 3,765]

Also with the way Oats teams play I wonder how that would translate to the big ten.

[HoosierTrav 8,339]

1 hour ago, Scotty R said:

This year his offense is 1st but the defense is 312 and just gave up 117 to UK

Outlier season

[IUHoosierJoe 2,155]

7 minutes ago, NashvilleHoosier said:

Eh, agree to disagree I suppose. I'm not the one who said goalposts were moved. But saying he's never won anywhere immediately (he has), and saying we wouldn't be happy that it took him 5 years to get past the S16 (requires far more context that just that one point) are two entirely separate points, not really consistent points at all. Unless your "win immediately" is as simple as having one a title immediately, in which case, yes, consistent points, of which we'll be able to compile a candidate list of ZERO coaches. And hey, I don't mean it personally. I don't know anyone on here personally, so I don't mean anything I say here personally. But if somebody counters something you post here instead of just agreeing with you and your response is "you just love to argue" and we "think we know the future", sorry....pretty soft.

As I noted before, I took "win immediately" to mean win enough to satisfy our fan base.  If Sweet 16s did that, I imagine we'd have kept Crean.  But we didn't.  So, again, the post I responded to, the poster said he'd rather win immediately with Pearl than wait 5 years for Dusty to learn P5 and win, or something of that sort.  And as I've said a few times now, both went deep enough in the tournament, at a level that historically would satisfy our fan base, in year 5, although Dusty did it at low major.  Nothing really earth-shaking or non-factual there.  

[Hoosierfan2017 25,031]

7 minutes ago, IUHoosierJoe said:

I get that.  If I'm a decision-maker, though, I want to try to get that turnover rate slowed down a bit.  All things being equal, I would lean toward the guy who can give me 15-18 years over the guy who can give me 6 or 7.  Especially if that first year or two has a chance to be less than ideal no matter who the coach is.  And maybe we just need a big name this time, I don't know.  If so, I'd love to do a real search and see if Oates is interested before I'd call Pearl.

I agree with you 1000% about Nate Oats. I don’t think he’s a realistic candidate so I don’t mention him, but he’s easily #1 on my wish list. Would absolutely love to get him. Pearl is just, imo, the most realistic of the home run hires given his time at USI and his past comments about IU. Not saying that he is realistic, but if any of the big names would come, I think it’d be him. 

[str8baller 7,606]

36 minutes ago, lillurk said:

Per Kenpom, they’re 97th per possession, which is 9 spots better than IU. Not good but not among the bottom ~10% of D1 either.

That’s still objectively bad for a maj conf team and fairly unheard of for such a good team.  It’s also about what FAU’s is even though they have less talent. 
 

I don’t watch them enough to know if that’s a red flag or just a weird anomaly. 

[IUHoosierJoe 2,155]

1 minute ago, str8baller said:

That’s still objectively bad for a maj conf team and fairly unheard of for such a good team.  It’s also about what FAU’s is even though they have less talent. 
 

I don’t watch them enough to know if that’s a red flag or just a weird anomaly. 

Seems like their offense is good every year and their defense is good every other year.  Not sure why the pattern, but that's what it's been.

[Hoosierfan2017 25,031]

12 minutes ago, IUHoosierJoe said:

As I noted before, I took "win immediately" to mean win enough to satisfy our fan base.  If Sweet 16s did that, I imagine we'd have kept Crean.  But we didn't.  So, again, the post I responded to, the poster said he'd rather win immediately with Pearl than wait 5 years for Dusty to learn P5 and win, or something of that sort.  And as I've said a few times now, both went deep enough in the tournament, at a level that historically would satisfy our fan base, in year 5, although Dusty did it at low major.  Nothing really earth-shaking or non-factual there.  

The sweet 16 losses weren’t the problem for Crean, it was the down years. He went to 3 sweet 16s in 6 years. In the other three years, he won 0 tournament games, missed it altogether twice, and finished T-8th, T-7th, and T-10th in the Big Ten. He’d still probably be our head coach if he wasn’t so inconsistent.