Jump to content

Thanks for visiting BtownBanners.com!  We noticed you have AdBlock enabled.  While ads can be annoying, we utilize them to provide these forums free of charge to you!  Please consider removing your AdBlock for BtownBanners or consider signing up to donate and help BtownBanners stay alive!  Thank you!

JaybobHoosier

General New Coach News

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, Feathery said:

Unless you believe the Archie found out he was out early and was telling the players. So Dolson fired him earlier than he wanted. 

Is this the latest theory Feathery?? If so, I could absolutely believe it. Also explains why Archie has been radio silent since his exit — he is ticked!!! (Of course he‘s ticked anyway)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Coach Robby said:

I´m likely in the minority here, and that´s okay with me...I think the longer this plays out...the bigger the surprise waiting on the end of the line...Dolson isn´t going to make a $10M buyout turn into someone small unless he´s played all of his hands. You don´t pony up that kind of cash without a plan in place...I guess I´m going to think it might be Brad until someone else is announced.  I have been on this train for 2 weeks tomorrow...kind of lonely but not totally!

There's no grand plan as that rarely happens. The 10 Mil was to get Archie out ASAP. The offer was made to Stevens who said no. Dolson is now having associates cold calling coaches to see who is interested. Holtman was a no. Probably Matta as well. Should be an interesting week. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Stuhoo said:

Why? What about Michael Lewis makes you so very convinced he so so terrible?

Possible that Dolson believed Archie had to go no matter what, took a shot at Stevens and failed, and now arrived at Lewis as the preferred young Coach solution?

That deal would be done and announced.

If an asst coach gets a huge HC gig:

1) it isn't beyond SOP to announce and continue to asst until seasons end.

2) it also wouldn't be wrong to just step down for a huge promotion and pay raise.

3) as a 1st time HC it would be crucial to keep current players, so either #1 or #2 would have already happened.

If any asst coach, NCAA or NBA, or other available coach ends up with the job it will be strictly because the currently unavailable target says no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Ghost of Rick Majerus said:

Keep Archie? Are you serious? 4 years of mediocre basketball and you want a 5th just because you are scared of change? 

This program was in need a refresh, a new vision, different direction. And you would rather risk another year in the bottom half of the big ten with Archie then get somebody new in there? 

 

You don’t make a move just for the sake of making a move. We would’ve been stuck with Archie for one more year at most. If this next hire is a stinker we’re stuck with him for the next four years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, iu eyedoc said:

That deal would be done and announced.

If an asst coach gets a huge HC gig:

1) it isn't beyond SOP to announce and continue to asst until seasons end.

2) it also wouldn't be wrong to just step down for a huge promotion and pay raise.

3) as a 1st time HC it would be crucial to keep current players, so either #1 or #2 would have already happened.

If any asst coach, NCAA or NBA, or other available coach ends up with the job it will be strictly because the currently unavailable target says no.

Shrewsberry at Purdue supports first point.  Hard to notice since they were bounced so early.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, iu eyedoc said:

That deal would be done and announced.

If an asst coach gets a huge HC gig:

1) it isn't beyond SOP to announce and continue to asst until seasons end.

2) it also wouldn't be wrong to just step down for a huge promotion and pay raise.

3) as a 1st time HC it would be crucial to keep current players, so either #1 or #2 would have already happened.

Fair enough, but I’m not sure it is true that a team that is playing would want to  announce a departure.

Also, if Stevens was in play for awhile that would have delayed everything.

I guess if your theory is true, we’re getting Drew, Musselman, Oats, Enfield, Altman, or Moser, because no one else would fit your theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeing a lot of tweets about Sampson and realize it’s a hot button as many of us are on different sides of the “we need to be more flexible breaking the rules” argument. 
 

Sore subject but just want everyone to be clear as to why the administration(s) have been so adamant about being sqeaky clean (and yes I do believe that will continue to be a factor in our next hire).

So why is the admin so adamant?

Drumroll ....... Robert Montgomery Knight.

That is the absolute irony in all of this. Bobby put this program on his back and built it into a National power. A true blue blood by anyone’s measure throughout his tenure. 
 

BUT, his antics ultimately lead to his dismissal and put the administration on a course where they were terrified to ever subject themselves or the university to those types of public relations nightmares ever again. 
 

And 20 years later, here we are. The administration doesn’t have to worry about physical, emotional, etc. abuse allegations or “illegal texts” ..... but they do have to worry about a bad basketball team. 
 

“Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.” —— I guess Newton was right. Does he coach basketball???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Redleader said:

Shrewsberry at Purdue supports first point.  Hard to notice since they were bounced so early.

I’m not saying they couldn’t have announced earlier; just not necessarily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, iu eyedoc said:

at 67-58, 12-15 last season and 9th, 10th, and 10th finishes in the B1G the last 3 years, I think you do make a move just for the sake of making a move.

I completely disagree. If you’re firing him it’s because you have a better candidate coming in. You don’t pay $10 million to make a lateral hire. It’s 1 more year of bad play versus potentially 4 (or more). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Moye > Boozer said:

Is this the latest theory Feathery?? If so, I could absolutely believe it. Also explains why Archie has been radio silent since his exit — he is ticked!!! (Of course he‘s ticked anyway)

It’s a rumor yes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Feathery said:

You don’t know if any name will be better or lateral. Stevens could come and bomb as well. He wasn’t killing it at Butler when they moved up a conference. You get rid of an issue when it’s clear you have an issue. Firing Archie was the right call. We will see if the next hire pans out or not. Waiting a year just kicks the can. Candidates this year are the same next as far as established coaches are concerned. A booster paid the $10 mil so it’s not a financial issue. It’s a winning issue. If we get a former IU guy, why would we have another terrible year next year with Archie to hire an IU guy next year. Makes no sense. Firing Archie was always the right call. His buyout was his job security. Once that wasn’t an issue it’s a no brained to move on. 

We thought the same thing with Crean. We made a move for the sake of making a move. We didn’t think it could get worse than Crean. And then it got way worse under Archie. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I’m not saying they couldn’t have announced earlier; just not necessarily.
I could see a Mick Cronin, for example, not wanting any distractions for his team while they are in the tournament and telling an assistant I do not want this going public yet.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Hoosierfan2017 said:

You don’t make a move just for the sake of making a move. We would’ve been stuck with Archie for one more year at most. If this next hire is a stinker we’re stuck with him for the next four years.

You make a move when it's obvious your current coach is not making strides in the right direction. To be a successful, you have to always strive to be the best or at least make that attempt. Sometimes you swing and miss, other times you hit a home run. But at least you know that you aren't going to fail by staying put with a situation that hasn't worked the past 4 years. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Moye > Boozer said:

Seeing a lot of tweets about Sampson and realize it’s a hot button as many of us are on different sides of the “we need to be more flexible breaking the rules” argument. 
 

Sore subject but just want everyone to be clear as to why the administration(s) have been so adamant about being sqeaky clean (and yes I do believe that will continue to be a factor in our next hire).

So why is the admin so adamant?

Drumroll ....... Robert Montgomery Knight.

That is the absolute irony in all of this. Bobby put this program on his back and built it into a National power. A true blue blood by anyone’s measure throughout his tenure. 
 

BUT, his antics ultimately lead to his dismissal and put the administration on a course where they were terrified to ever subject themselves or the university to those types of public relations nightmares ever again. 
 

And 20 years later, here we are. The administration doesn’t have to worry about physical, emotional, etc. abuse allegations or “illegal texts” ..... but they do have to worry about a bad basketball team. 
 

“Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.” —— I guess Newton was right. Does he coach basketball???

And RMK is still worshipped. Well, except by the woke, holier than thou crowd.

I agree RMK's situation started them on their path. RMK ran a clean program, and his kids went to class though. RMK did have his own brand of discipline though when the kids goofed up. But so did most good coaches back then. He ended up being just too old school and behind in the times in some aspects. The admin just wanted to make sure they got someone "nice" and PC.

And I'm all for running a clean program and following the rules. But I also don't have a problem with ones that push the envelop so long as they are not coloring too far outside the lines.

At least we have good women's BB, and football now.. oh the irony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, rcs29 said:

I could see a Mick Cronin, for example, not wanting any distractions for his team while they are in the tournament and telling an assistant I do not want this going public yet.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk
 

Yes...and/or it could be the assistant saying we have put a lot of work into our tourney success and I would prefer to delay the announcement as long as we are still in the tourney

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Hoosierfan2017 said:

I completely disagree. If you’re firing him it’s because you have a better candidate coming in. You don’t pay $10 million to make a lateral hire. It’s 1 more year of bad play versus potentially 4 (or more). 

You’re missing the obvious. If we had kept Archie all of the players would have been in the transfer portal.  Not to keep their options open...but to jump ship never to return.  We would be unable to land any other transfers, so we would have a team of walk-ons.  This would be similar to Crean’s first year but the difference is its Archie’s lame duck year.  It would have been a colossal failure.  Archie had to go now at all costs!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×