General Coach Candidate News

[HoosierHoopster 6,292]

4 minutes ago, IUHoosierJoe said:

The down years didn’t help for sure.  But maybe he could have survived the down years if he’d made the final four or better in 2013 (not sure the year is right, going by memory).  There were people who wanted him fired after that, before the down years.  We put so much focus on the tournament that that season, despite all its successes, became a huge disappointment in our fans’ eyes.

it was the inconsistency, which resulted from failing to build depth in recruiting while sending players to the League, and losing the faith of IN HS coaches. The fill-ins he gave schollys to.... His sideline mannerisms and often bad D didn't help, but if he'd not had such huge falloffs following the B1G champ - SW16 runs he'd like still be the guy. built some fantastic teams, the Cody, Vic, Hulls, Wat etc. teams, OG, Morgan, Bryant etc. but the inbetween falloffs were abysmal, and then he started losing the HS coaches

[AH1971 1,173]

2 hours 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.

Just say you don’t understand how advance metrics work. 

[LamarCheeks 17,167]

FAU gonna lose at Memphis. 

Scratch Dusty off the list -- again! 

[LamarCheeks 17,167]

Ohio State wins in East Lansing! 

Scratch Tom Izzo off the list!

Add Jake Diebler to it!!!

[WayneFleekHoosier 47,179]

Ohio State wins in East Lansing! 
Scratch Tom Izzo off the list!
Add Jake Diebler to it!!!

Wow. Coaching matters?!?


Sent from my iPad using BtownBanners mobile app

[Scotty R 1,941]

3 hours ago, AH1971 said:

Just say you don’t understand how advance metrics work. 

I know how they work and know they ruin basketball and the way it is meant to get played.

[AH1971 1,173]

1 minute ago, Scotty R said:

I know how they work and know they ruin basketball and the way it is meant to get played.

How so?

[Scotty R 1,941]

Just now, AH1971 said:

How so?

Saying that the only good shots are a 3 or a layup and taking half the court away from the game. It makes it so much easier to go hard when you know a team won't shoot in the mid range. I don't want some computer geeks telling me what you s tbe best thing since they probably never played a sport in their life. If analytics led to better offensr and more scoring I would he alright with it. The problem is that scoring and shooting are down compared to the 80's and 90's.

[Stuhoo 76,716]

3 minutes ago, Scotty R said:

 If analytics led to better offense and more scoring I would he alright with it. 

Then you must be alright with it, because they do.

[AH1971 1,173]

14 minutes ago, Scotty R said:

Saying that the only good shots are a 3 or a layup and taking half the court away from the game. It makes it so much easier to go hard when you know a team won't shoot in the mid range. I don't want some computer geeks telling me what you s tbe best thing since they probably never played a sport in their life. If analytics led to better offensr and more scoring I would he alright with it. The problem is that scoring and shooting are down compared to the 80's and 90's.

Oh brother lol. That’s literally not at all what they say.

Analytics say that that a 15 ft jump shot is way less efficient than a shot at the rim considering they’re both worth the same amount of points or a shot 5 feet further worth an additional point. And that would be unequivocally true.

In order for a 15 foot jump shot to be a primary staple of your offense, you’d need a player(s) who could consistently shoot ~60% from that distance. Considering the best players in the world only shoot at about a 50% clip from that distance, a 3 point shot made only 35% of the time is still a better shot. There’s a lot more 35% 3 pt shooters in this world than 60% jump shooters. Analytics have nothing to do with “computer nerds who have never played a sport”. It’s simple probability and literal data computed and incorporated to differing sports across the globe.

Edited February 26 by AH1971

[Alford Bailey 12,284]

5 minutes ago, AH1971 said:

Oh brother lol. That’s literally not at all what they say.

Analytics say that that a 15 ft jump shot is way less efficient than a shot at the rim considering they’re both worth the same amount of points or a shot 5 feet further worth an additional point. And that would be unequivocally true.

In order for a 15 foot jump shot to be a primary staple of your offense, you’d need a player(s) who could consistently shoot ~60% from that distance. Considering the best players in the world only shoot at about a 50% clip from that distance, a 3 point shot made only 35% of the time is still a better shot. There’s a lot more 35% 3 pt shooters in this world than 60% jump shooters. Analytics have nothing to do with “computer nerds who have never played a sport”. It’s simple probability and literal data computed and incorporated to differing sports across the globe.

Good breakdown. I agree. 15 ft jumper BAD!

[Free Jurkin! 1,496]

Saying that the only good shots are a 3 or a layup and taking half the court away from the game. It makes it so much easier to go hard when you know a team won't shoot in the mid range. I don't want some computer geeks telling me what you s tbe best thing since they probably never played a sport in their life. If analytics led to better offensr and more scoring I would he alright with it. The problem is that scoring and shooting are down compared to the 80's and 90's.

I don't know about college, but NBA offenses have never been more efficient than they are right now, and the shooting is stuff that guys in the 80s and 90s wouldn't even have been able to imagine. If college scoring and/or efficiency is down from the 80s and 90s, it's likely just because the overall talent in college is lower as guys now leave early compared to guys like MJ, Hakeem, Drexler, Ewing, etc., who stayed 3 or 4 years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AH1971 1,173]

1 minute ago, Alford Bailey said:

Good breakdown. I agree. 15 ft jumper BAD!

Let me add, a 15 foot jump shot isn’t BAD (or at least in the context Scott is suggesting) in a one off setting. But over the course of a season, you’d have to shot at an unreasonable percentage to justify a mid- range shot over a 3 point at even a reasonable clip.

[go iu bb 4,967]

26 minutes ago, Scotty R said:

Saying that the only good shots are a 3 or a layup and taking half the court away from the game. It makes it so much easier to go hard when you know a team won't shoot in the mid range. I don't want some computer geeks telling me what you s tbe best thing since they probably never played a sport in their life. If analytics led to better offensr and more scoring I would he alright with it. The problem is that scoring and shooting are down compared to the 80's and 90's.

How has this IU team, built like it's still the 90s done against teams whose coaches have based their offenses and defenses on those metrics? The answer is "pretty poorly." Those teams are blowing IU out, not the other way around. 

Coaches adopted them because they are effective, no other reason. If they were shown to not work, the coaches who tried them wouldn't last long.

Also, that isn't a new concept. The Pitino UK teams played with that philosophy and they were really good. Won a NC.

[IUFAN1976 2,427]

My candidate choice is a proven P5 conference coach that’s a proven winner.  No risk for this hire and I think Dusty May, ISU’s coach and any one below a P5 would be a risk to me.  This is my opinion and we’ve already been burned by non P5 head coaches, yes you can include Davis in this group.  Yes it narrows our scope but that’s where the search should start and end, IMO

[Alford Bailey 12,284]

3 minutes ago, IUFAN1976 said:

My candidate choice is a proven P5 conference coach that’s a proven winner.  No risk for this hire and I think Dusty May, ISU’s coach and any one below a P5 would be a risk to me.  This is my opinion and we’ve already been burned by non P5 head coaches, yes you can include Davis in this group.  Yes it narrows our scope but that’s where the search should start and end, IMO

My fear is Dolson becomes fixated on May. We will have to beat out a few solid programs for the proven guys.

[Alford Bailey 12,284]

Would our weak a** athletic department compete against Louisville for Pearl, Oats or Musselman? I think we would cower down in the corner.

[Scotty R 1,941]

38 minutes ago, AH1971 said:

Oh brother lol. That’s literally not at all what they say.

Analytics say that that a 15 ft jump shot is way less efficient than a shot at the rim considering they’re both worth the same amount of points or a shot 5 feet further worth an additional point. And that would be unequivocally true.

In order for a 15 foot jump shot to be a primary staple of your offense, you’d need a player(s) who could consistently shoot ~60% from that distance. Considering the best players in the world only shoot at about a 50% clip from that distance, a 3 point shot made only 35% of the time is still a better shot. There’s a lot more 35% 3 pt shooters in this world than 60% jump shooters. Analytics have nothing to do with “computer nerds who have never played a sport”. It’s simple probability and literal data computed and incorporated to differing sports across the globe.

Funny how our all time leading scorer made his living shooting those terrible shots. Alford only had the 3 one year a d is the second.leading scorer. With some of the shot blockers taking it to the basket is a lower percentage shot. Funny we lived and loved the game way before analytics and IU scored around 80 points a game. Not many teams average that much today and the offenses are horrible.

[Scotty R 1,941]

34 minutes ago, Free Jurkin! said:

I don't know about college, but NBA offenses have never been more efficient than they are right now, and the shooting is stuff that guys in the 80s and 90s wouldn't even have been able to imagine. If college scoring and/or efficiency is down from the 80s and 90s, it's likely just because the overall talent in college is lower as guys now leave early compared to guys like MJ, Hakeem, Drexler, Ewing, etc., who stayed 3 or 4 years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am only talking about the college game. The NBA offense today is amazing 

[Scotty R 1,941]

35 minutes ago, Free Jurkin! said:

I don't know about college, but NBA offenses have never been more efficient than they are right now, and the shooting is stuff that guys in the 80s and 90s wouldn't even have been able to imagine. If college scoring and/or efficiency is down from the 80s and 90s, it's likely just because the overall talent in college is lower as guys now leave early compared to guys like MJ, Hakeem, Drexler, Ewing, etc., who stayed 3 or 4 years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Also I just don't like the style of offense that is used today

 I hate the ball screen and brongimg two defenders to the ball. Also I hate seeing the other 3 players standing outside waiting for the pass out. I think the 30 second clock is to short and it leads to a lot of horrible shots trying to beat the click. Tbe main thing that hurts offenses is that they wait to long to get into their offense

 I see to many times a guard dribbles out top until 15 is left on the clock and then get into the offense. At least with our best teams under RMK we get into the motion right away and usually shot within the first 15 second of the possession. One old game I just watched I counted the number of passes before we shot in the first half and the most was 4 passes.