They “Retired” Coach Woodson Thread

[ziggyiu 672]

1 hour ago, Shooter said:

While I have not been a fan of Woodson lately, it's March 28 and the roster still has 6 open spots. Probably need to wait a bit before making any big proclamations.

For me, the roster is secondary to the coach. This past season he had more star power than any other B1G school. He coached them to 10 losses in conference. 

[IUFAN1976 4,269]

2 minutes ago, ziggyiu said:

For me, the roster is secondary to the coach. This past season he had more star power than any other B1G school. He coached them to 10 losses in conference. 

I agree, he had talent and yet he couldn’t get them over the hump!  

[ziggyiu 672]

24 minutes ago, Papacap said:

Second look at Brownell?

He was a winner at Wright State. He was a winner at UNC-W. He's given Clemson more success than they deserve considering the lack of resources provided. 

I know wouldn't be popular to hire him, but I think he's a good coach. 

[tyappleg 4,914]

6 minutes ago, ziggyiu said:

He was a winner at Wright State. He was a winner at UNC-W. He's given Clemson more success than they deserve considering the lack of resources provided. 

I know wouldn't be popular to hire him, but I think he's a good coach. 

I get Clemson is Clemson, but he's as middling a coach as you can get.  He's had double digit losses 19/22 years coaching. (And one of those years they only played 24 games).  If Indiana can't do better than Brownell, we are in worse shape than we think. 

[Hoosierfan2017 22,773]

NGW can you show this to Woodson plz?

[Chris007 51,699]

Indiana State shot chart the other night.

[LIHoosier 27,120]

The kid who shot the 16 footer from the baseline must've been benched haha

[DChoosier 9,154]

42 minutes ago, ziggyiu said:

For me, the roster is secondary to the coach. This past season he had more star power than any other B1G school. He coached them to 10 losses in conference. 

Coaching aside, and I realize that’s a huge component to put to the side,…..

It’s a guards game but all of our star power was in the front court. We needed, and still need, guards. And yes, I realize it’s Woodys fault we didn’t have the guards.

[iu eyedoc 2,903]

1 hour ago, DChoosier said:

Damn, I was hoping we would land one of the 4 or 5* not interested in getting paid.  Hopefully we will land some great altruistic guys from the transfer portal.

There is a difference between a great player that wants to play at IU getting paid, and a great player that wants to be paid to play at IU. Maybe that subtle nuance is lost on you.

[HoosierX 1,744]

53 minutes ago, NashvilleHoosier said:

I mean, I can kind of see that. But I just can’t imagine the reaction (me included) if we were really behind in NIL or if our program felt like they didn’t really need to play that game. I don’t care the reason behind it. “Competitive” Woodson doesn’t keep his job. Really good coach Woodson keeps his job and the really good job part will have very little, if anything, to do with how much we paid players. I, for one, am glad we are acting like a big boy program and paying players in the era where you have to pay players. Even if we are paying more to try to make our coach more competitive.

I'm with you, we should absolutely be using the advantages we have. I have no problem with these players getting paid.

I think part of the frustration is that Woody had this same advantage last year, and he did very little with it. A lot of people, me included, gave Woody a ton of credit for landing Mgbako and Ware last year. In reality, we probably paid them more than they would have made anywhere else. Again, I have no problem with it, but where is the ROI?

I'm glad we're landing some players, but I'm not sure Woody should get all the credit for it. In reality, the credit probably belongs just as much to the fans he has maligned.

[DChoosier 9,154]

8 minutes ago, iu eyedoc said:

There is a difference between a great player that wants to play at IU getting paid, and a great player that wants to be paid to play at IU. Maybe that subtle nuance is lost on you.

No, it’s not lost on me.
Your post just happened to be one of a thousand referencing us paying guys. Is $$$ the only reason Tucker wants to play at IU? Maybe, but I don’t know that for sure. Many said that about Ware but he turned out seeming pretty dedicated to IU/winning,

[AZ Hoosier 8,846]

4 hours ago, Hoosier DaDa said:

I feel like this thread needs a T-Shirt..  My idea is below but if someone out there can create a better one let see them.  Whoever comes up with the best one we can sell them and the profits can go to a slush fund to FIRE MIKE WOODSON! 

My contribution to the cause:

[HoosierX 1,744]

10 minutes ago, iu eyedoc said:

There is a difference between a great player that wants to play at IU getting paid, and a great player that wants to be paid to play at IU. Maybe that subtle nuance is lost on you.

Probably because it's a nuance that's ultimately meaningless in the modern age of college basketball.

The only way you could objectively qualify as the former is by taking less to play at IU than you could make somewhere else.

[DChoosier 9,154]

3 minutes ago, HoosierX said:

I'm with you, we should absolutely be using the advantages we have. I have no problem with these players getting paid.

I think part of the frustration is that Woody had this same advantage last year, and he did very little with it. A lot of people, me included, gave Woody a ton of credit for landing Mgbako and Ware last year. In reality, we probably paid them more than they would have made anywhere else. Again, I have no problem with it, but where is the ROI?

I'm glad we're landing some players, but I'm not sure Woody should get all the credit for it. In reality, the credit probably belongs just as much to the fans he has maligned.

Ware and MM were great “gets” but the ROI was limited due to the backcourt.

Woody didn’t get guards which turned out to be catastrophic. All the coaching issues aside there are not many programs that would have won more than 10 BT games with Cupps/Leal/Gallo/Gunn and the last season version of X on the perimeter. 

[JSHoosier 21,316]

5 minutes ago, HoosierX said:

Probably because it's a nuance that's ultimately meaningless in the modern age of college basketball.

The only way you could objectively qualify as the former is by taking less to play at IU than you could make somewhere else.

Players have been getting paid for a long time, it's just out in the open now. Rex Chapman admitted he took a pay cut to go pro in the 80s.

[HoosierX 1,744]

12 minutes ago, DChoosier said:

Ware and MM were great “gets” but the ROI was limited due to the backcourt.

Woody didn’t get guards which turned out to be catastrophic. All the coaching issues aside there are not many programs that would have won more than 10 BT games with Cupps/Leal/Gallo/Gunn and the last season version of X on the perimeter. 

OK, fair, can't judge the ROI of Ware and Mgbako in a vacuum. However, what I was trying to refer to was the overall ROI of our team. I'm willing to bet we were top 10 in NIL and our team was...not that.

I couldn't care less that we're paying Bryson Tucker, and happy we landed him. But I'm understanding of people who don't think it necessarily means anything.

If your only point is that people shouldn't complain about us paying players, then yeah I agree with you.

[Herotime 984]

#TrueFanOfIUandNoFanOfMikeWoodson

[AZ Hoosier 8,846]

2 hours ago, NashvilleHoosier said:

Seems like a lot of posts that have a negative tone about us paying players. We can’t possibly be upset that we are playing the game we have to play, right? 

So, do you really want to open than can of worms? :D

I don't think this is what the NCAA had in mind when they dreamed up the NIL thing. That said, we have to play if we want any chance of being competitive. But where Indiana is right now is exactly what's wrong with NIL in general, and "paying players" specifically. Because Woodson was either unable or unwilling to recruit HS players as has been done since Dr Naismith hung the peach baskets from the balconies. So now he's scrambling to "buy" a team, and no clue how that will turn out, as it's still pretty early in the cycle. And there's the caveat that it will be a "new" team, and Woodson will be the coach to somehow make it all work. It just creates a whole new excuse if this fails, and if it somehow succeeds, then it will very well become his M.O. going forward.

Personally, buying a team of mercenaries kind of turns my stomach. I understand that UCLA started that (with Wooden and Sam Gilbert), and the Kentuckys, Dukes, Kansases and North Carolinas have never looked back. One could argue that at least it's a fairly level playing field, but it truly does just feel wrong.

[HoosierX 1,744]

1 minute ago, JSHoosier said:

Players have been getting paid for a long time, it's just out in the open now. Rex Chapman admitted he took a pay cut to go pro in the 80s.

Ok, I'm not sure how that relates to my ultimate point though. How does someone prove they want to play at IU vs. getting paid? If they want to play at IU but insist on getting paid fair value, what difference is there really? If that person wouldn't take 5% less to play at IU, does that mean they only care about money?

[AZ Hoosier 8,846]

20 minutes ago, DChoosier said:

Ware and MM were great “gets” but the ROI was limited due to the backcourt.

Woody didn’t get guards which turned out to be catastrophic. All the coaching issues aside there are not many programs that would have won more than 10 BT games with Cupps/Leal/Gallo/Gunn and the last season version of X on the perimeter. 

That backcourt limitation was fully and squarely on the architect of that roster - one Michael Dean Woodson. He left an open scholarship and a dearth of serviceable personnel at the guard position. You can't give him credit for the all-star front court and excuse the crappy backcourt. It's his job. He claimed that he did his job, but the proof in in the playing.