Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
40 minutes ago, maharkn said:

Surely iu will get money for holding the tournament can't we use that

Sent from my SM-A515U1 using Tapatalk
 

New to the board here .... but I know IU Athletics is tens of millions (40-60 million from what I've heard) in the hole this season with no butts in the seats.  They'll get some money from hosting the tourney but not sure it's going to be enough to make up for the massive loss.  

That being said, they did just upgrade Coach Allen, so, what do I know about finances? :)

 

Posted
4 minutes ago, Mr. Hoosier Pride said:

I haven't had the chance to peruse the thread in its entirety just yet ... do we have a consensus? 

Well since it should only take 5 or 6 years to peruse in its entirety I will help you out... with the disclaimer that I got to about page 96 and then skipped ahead to 297... LMAO...

Consensus seems to be *ANYBODY is a candidate... and a better option!

* Exceptions include Alford, Calipari, Pearl...… not ruled out are Samson or Crean!

Posted
5 minutes ago, Mr. Hoosier Pride said:

I haven't had the chance to peruse the thread in its entirety just yet ... do we have a consensus? 

No one wants Steve Aflord

We all want Brad Stevens

We've eliminated a lot of candidates such as Oats, Beard, and Bennett due to them eliminating us lol

Right now it appears to be Scott Drew, Dane Fife, Thad Matta, or John Belien. 

 

Posted
12 hours ago, Irish YJ said:

7M is not chump change, but honestly it's not near an insurmountable barrier. It likely is not costing the school a thing. Reports/rumors are that boosters have already ponied up. 

And that's simply the way things they are right now with big time college sports like FB and BB.  

So in short, if the money is there, there's really no reason to stand pat. 

I wouldn't call it political capital either. Boosters boost. That's what they do. It depends on the dynamics between the admin/BOT and the boosters. So long as the boosters don't run the show, or feel like they are entitled to run the show, it's not an issue. It does give them input though, and I think that's fair.

And to be honest, boosters can be better than the BOT/AD at identifying the right guy to "win". ADs and the BOT can play favorites or be incestuous about who they pick. On the other hand boosters can turn a blind eye to red flags. All in all, having the right mix can bring good balance to the decision. 

Well, that's one take on it. Think whatever you want, brother.

Posted
Just now, Str8Hoosiers said:

Well since it should only take 5 or 6 years to peruse in its entirety I will help you out... with the disclaimer that I got to about page 96 and then skipped ahead to 297... LMAO...

Consensus seems to be ANYBODY is a candidate... and a better option!

I'm on board with that!  

Any chatter about Porter Moser? 

Posted
8 minutes ago, Mr. Hoosier Pride said:

I haven't had the chance to peruse the thread in its entirety just yet ... do we have a consensus? 

Welcome to the board. It's the usual names Matta, Beilien, Drew, Musselman, some guy named Stevens, Fife, Mack, amongst others. I think IU wants a proven P5 guy but that's just me and I don't know much

Posted
1 minute ago, Chris007 said:

Welcome to the board. It's the usual names Matta, Beilien, Drew, Musselman, some guy named Stevens, Fife, Mack, amongst others. I think IU wants a proven P5 guy but that's just me and I don't know much

don't forget ya boy Andrew Enfield. 

Posted

Bottom line is this. 

We want a Power 5 coach with great experience. We don't want a mid-major guy after this experience with Archie.

If we're going the IU connections route, it appears to be Dane Fife as the favor amongst the board. 

 

Posted
3 minutes ago, Treesh said:

Bottom line is this. 

We want a Power 5 coach with great experience. We don't want a mid-major guy after this experience with Archie.

If we're going the IU connections route, it appears to be Dane Fife as the favor amongst the board. 

 

Not true. 

I would be completely stoked by the right young coach. Would FAR prefer over someone in his late 50's or 60's who will always be known for his successes at another school.

 

Posted
Just now, Stuhoo said:

Not true. 

I would be completely stoked by the right young coach. Would FAR prefer over someone in his late 50's or 60's who will always be known for his successes at another school.

 

What about a guy in his mid 40's that is known for his successes at another school?

 

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...