Is Indiana just UCLA at this point?

[Magnanimous 4,603]

4 hours ago, southernindianahoosier2 said:

You don't see our swag in Dicks Sporting goods because Adidas merch doesn't sell. Terrible for IU to stick with Adidas a few years ago. 

Maybe we should switch to Northface. 

[yogisballin 2,341]

We’re not even UCLA level imo. The next guy and the guy after that will always be compared to RMK. And I hate that for our program.
I may catch a lot of grief for this but idc. The more I listen to DD. The more I believe that the right guy will be someone like Alford. Someone that knows grassroots and understands what the program is. Does this mean that I want Alford? Hell no! So, Dolson has a tough tough decision because we REALLY NEED to get this one right


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners

[Lebowski 2,744]

I'll never understand these types of questions.  IU will have to play in 7 more and win 6 national championships,  go undefeated 3 more times, win 9 more season conference championships, win 4 conference tournament titles, and so on to be 'just' UCLA?   I get it.  IU and UCLA haven't won a title in a long time.  And both programs have a fan base that have high expectations.  But that's shortsighted in the grand scheme of things.  

To put things into perspective here:

• Currently, there is only 6 total coaches in the entire history of the tournament (since 1939 [80 total championship games played]) that have won 3 or more national championships.  Two on that list are still active.  
• There is a grand total of 15 schools with multiple titles since the tournament began and 5 schools with 5 or more titles.  (One school on the 5+ list has won all of its titles with the same coach.)  
• One coach alone has won 12.5% of all tournament championships

Bottom line, schools like IU and UCLA had the luxury of hall of fame coaches.  It's not like they grow on trees.  Some schools have been fortunate enough, or blessed, if that's your thing, to hire hall of fame coaches multiple times.  IU being one of them.  

If I'm being completely honest, I think our current basketball fan base is a lot like the character Veruca Salt from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.  This whole Brad Stevens embarrassment is a prime example of what I'm talking about.  I bet there are people on this site that still think, hope, or believe Brad Stevens is going to be the next HC at IU.  Even after he put the nail in the coffin, twice.  It's embarrassing and pathetic to be frank.

 

Sorry to get all up in here and be a Debbie Downer and highjack this thread.  Might be because of what kind of day I'm having but whatever. 

[HoosierTrav 7,890]

Yes. Except I believe UCLA has a higher ceiling going forward. This opinion is based solely on location and access to NBA superstars.

[Lebowski 2,744]

No.  Not even close.  Lol.  

[Trish 11,570]

7 hours ago, Lebowski said:

No.  Not even close.  Lol.  

The media was right.

Indiana has fallen off.. 

[IUBBx5Banners 227]

Even before yesterday, UCLA had been to 3 final fours in the last 15 or so years. Now 4. 

If they are/were a dying blue blood living in the past, what does that make us? 

[ap2345 7,877]

5 minutes ago, IUBBx5Banners said:

Even before yesterday, UCLA had been to 3 final fours in the last 15 or so years. Now 4. 

If they are/were a dying blue blood living in the past, what does that make us? 

IU is on life support in terms of blue blood status. That said a couple of good years and things can be revived quickly. With the right coaching and players things could be righted pretty quickly. 

[Magnanimous 4,603]

6 minutes ago, IUBBx5Banners said:

Even before yesterday, UCLA had been to 3 final fours in the last 15 or so years. Now 4. 

If they are/were a dying blue blood living in the past, what does that make us? 

A dying blue blood living in the past with a larger, more passionate fanbase.

[IUBBx5Banners 227]

Just now, ap2345 said:

IU is on life support in terms of blue blood status. That said a couple of good years and things can be revived quickly. With the right coaching and players things could be righted pretty quickly. 

And I’m glad we finally got a hometown hire, although not the one I preferred. I wanted us to name  Luke Brown as Player / Coach. 

[8bucks 6,460]

1 hour ago, Magnanimous said:

A dying blue blood living in the past with a larger, more passionate fanbase.

I don’t really understand what living in the past means with respect to basketball at IU. I feel we are clearly looking at our current teams and giving them a poor grade. 
 

When we complained about Archie we compared him to other BT coaches hired at the same time and the turn around they have done. 
 

We gave Crean a ton of years and had he been able to produce an NCAA caliber team each year he would still be here. With top 10/20 pay it is fair to expect top 10/20 results and he did deliver. 
 

Sure we want to win championships as well and that is based on having done it before but it is also a goal of every top 25 program. 

[Loaded Chicken Sandwich 8,676]

I don't believe Blue Blood status ever goes away. 

Indiana, UCLA, Kansas, Kentucky, North Carolina, Duke... Those are your blue bloods. 

I think there is a tier just below that of Michigan State, Michigan, Syracuse, Louisville and some others. And I don't think that'll ever change. Has nothing to do with current success or anything and more of just the grandfather's of college basketball of. And I'd say Duke is really the only one that sneaker into the group of the other 5. 

[Old Friend 8,389]

UCLA built its brand with one long run which was accomplished in large part because a booster funded the players' career there.     When Indiana has that as their legacy, we can make that comparison. Today's UCLA is not the 1960's UCLA.  Not even close.   John Wooden's fingerprints are long gone from that program.  Bob Knight's are still very much on Indiana's program.  I don't think the two are really comparable.

But......

Indiana made a conscious decision as a university to de-emphasize basketball and every president through McRobbie upheld that standard until 2 weeks ago when McRobbie finally got out of the way and allowed Scott to do what he needed to do.   Indiana turned down Rick Pitino TWICE.   Indiana never contacted one of its own until recently.  Indiana ran from its roots and we got what we got.  That was a decision made by academes who preferred to be known for the Kinsey Institute or Kelly School; and had no interest in sports nor any care that men's basketball was their proud university's most visible and marketable entity.   We now have :

A former Indiana player with significant NBA pedigree as the head coach (understanding the role is critical and I've said so for 2 decades)

A high level college coach (who boasts a 74% win percentage in a 17 year career) with strong ties to Indiana who has 15 conference or conference tournament championships on his resume, and elite 8's with 2 schools plus a final four.  He also recruited the most sought after duo in the history of our state - with the possible exception of Edwards/Jones - OUT of Indiana. 

Next, it's rumored we'll have a very old hall of fame guy who's won championships at every level of basketball serving as a consultant.   Larry Brown is one of the top basketball minds of all time

Nobody knows yet what the results will be, but that's the resume of an entity treating itself like a top tier college basketball program, not some dying dinosaur.

Oh, and UCLA is in the final four.   =)

[str8baller 5,263]

7 hours ago, Old Friend said:

UCLA built its brand with one long run which was accomplished in large part because a booster funded the players' career there.     When Indiana has that as their legacy, we can make that comparison. Today's UCLA is not the 1960's UCLA.  Not even close.   John Wooden's fingerprints are long gone from that program.  Bob Knight's are still very much on Indiana's program.  I don't think the two are really comparable.

But......

Indiana made a conscious decision as a university to de-emphasize basketball and every president through McRobbie upheld that standard until 2 weeks ago when McRobbie finally got out of the way and allowed Scott to do what he needed to do.   Indiana turned down Rick Pitino TWICE.   Indiana never contacted one of its own until recently.  Indiana ran from its roots and we got what we got.  That was a decision made by academes who preferred to be known for the Kinsey Institute or Kelly School; and had no interest in sports nor any care that men's basketball was their proud university's most visible and marketable entity.   We now have :

A former Indiana player with significant NBA pedigree as the head coach (understanding the role is critical and I've said so for 2 decades)

A high level college coach (who boasts a 74% win percentage in a 17 year career) with strong ties to Indiana who has 15 conference or conference tournament championships on his resume, and elite 8's with 2 schools plus a final four.  He also recruited the most sought after duo in the history of our state - with the possible exception of Edwards/Jones - OUT of Indiana. 

Next, it's rumored we'll have a very old hall of fame guy who's won championships at every level of basketball serving as a consultant.   Larry Brown is one of the top basketball minds of all time

Nobody knows yet what the results will be, but that's the resume of an entity treating itself like a top tier college basketball program, not some dying dinosaur.

Oh, and UCLA is in the final four.   =)

I agree with this mostly. IU is a sleeping giant that has been mismanaged horribly. We easily have the upside of Duke, Kansas, Kentucky, and maybe to a smaller degree UNC if you take away coaches. 
 

I actually think UCLA is the biggest sleeping giant of them all. They have nice tradition, are in a city all the best players in the world want to live, and have a nice natural talent base. They’ve been pretty mismanaged too, but have found success with 2nd tier coaches like Howland and Harrick. 
 

So are we UCLA? Not exactly. But we are one good coach away from being a top 5 program again. I view Sampson as a second tier type coach and fully believe he would’ve had us there if he wasn’t such an idiot. 

[Loaded Chicken Sandwich 8,676]

Are we UCLA? Simple answer: NO. 

Another simple answer: Not even close.