They “Retired” Coach Woodson Thread

[go iu bb]

9 hours ago, Schreckbagger said:

And finally, the 2 guys that were fired for "not winning enough" that you speak of, had 5 and 8 years on the job before being let go.

 

There's the "we kept other bad coaches too long so we should keep this bad coach too long as well" argument again. It's not the great point that you think it is.

[go iu bb]

2 hours ago, iu-dl said:

And way, way down the list:  Dan Dakich.
1. Sampson, and there's a considerable gap between him and the rest
2. Crean
3. Mike Woodson and Archie Miller 
4. Tie for the toilet bowl, Mike Davis & Dan Dakich

None of #2-4 make the best of what we have. They stink, actually. Davis was a clown. Dakich is a clown. Crean & Woody's success has been totally dependent on talent. I love the coaches who can really squeeze talent out of a program and medicre players. Painfully: Purdue, Wisconsin, FAU, Virginia, etc. I honestly thought Archie was that guy.
 

Woodson on the same level as Miller? I'm going to have to disagree with you here. I don't think Woodson is a very good coach but I do think he's better than Miller. 

[Hoosierfan2017]

44 minutes ago, go iu bb said:

Woodson on the same level as Miller? I'm going to have to disagree with you here. I don't think Woodson is a very good coach but I do think he's better than Miller. 

He’s probably better than Archie, but he does have two big advantages that no other IU coach has had. What would Woodson look like without the transfer portal and NIL? He’s sitting at 31-29 in the Big 10 with it. Without it, he’d likely be a total disaster given his halfhearted recruiting efforts. 

[HoosierHoopster]

5 minutes ago, Hoosierfan2017 said:

He’s probably better than Archie, but he does have two big advantages that no other IU coach has had. What would Woodson look like without the transfer portal and NIL? He’s sitting at 31-29 in the Big 10 with it. Without it, he’d likely be a total disaster given his halfhearted recruiting efforts. 

Completely fair, imo. Woodson also benefitted from having TJD, and then JHS, both made a huge difference. 

Real test is this season, with this roster at least on paper as we see it now, this team should compete at the top of the B1G. I'm in the wait and see camp. 

[HoosierHoopster]

Side note for levity -- Driving in this morning (Houston) the car in the lane next to me has IU personalized plates, and I found myself thinking I should lean out the window and ask if he thinks Woodson should be fired. Lol

[AH1971]

1 hour ago, Hoosierfan2017 said:

He’s probably better than Archie, but he does have two big advantages that no other IU coach has had. What would Woodson look like without the transfer portal and NIL? He’s sitting at 31-29 in the Big 10 with it. Without it, he’d likely be a total disaster given his halfhearted recruiting efforts. 

Or....

He only targets freshman that he believes can contribute from day 1 and uses the portal otherwise to land players who are seasoned and don't need 2-3 years to develop. The portal and NIL has completely changed the landscape of college basketball and the dynamics in recruiting and the philosophy on how it is approached. 

[Golfman25]

2 hours ago, go iu bb said:

There's the "we kept other bad coaches too long so we should keep this bad coach too long as well" argument again. It's not the great point that you think it is.

Chit, does that mean Woodson gets 8 years?

[Stuhoo]

[CSP]

I mean---every coach has that (NIL) advantage now, it's not like Woodson does and whoever is at Michigan, OSU, and others don't. 

Woodson is just better than Archie because Woodson is better than Archie. 

Archie was 33-44 in B1G games and 1-3 in the BTT and couldn't make the NCAAs. He'd been 1-4 in the BTT but there was Covid. 

Woodson is 31-29 and 4-3 in the tourney. 2-2 in the NCAA. 

----------------------------

None of it's good enough, but Archie isn't close to Woodson. Really speaks to how poor Archie was. 

[CSP]

5 hours ago, iu-dl said:

We can agree to disagree. Once the Knight guys and their habits were gone, it was a full program deterioration. Plus an administrative failure. I can't speak to why Archie found success at Dayton and that didn't transfer to IU, but I would never put Davis in any conversation relating to a quality coach. Archie at least "gets" how to coach, whether the players listen to him or not. Davis....look at his track record after those first couple of years. It's amongst the worst ever, at any school for any coach.

What argument could you make for Archie being a better coach than Woodson? 

[JSHoosier]

3 hours ago, go iu bb said:

There's the "we kept other bad coaches too long so we should keep this bad coach too long as well" argument again. It's not the great point that you think it is.

Yeah, the solution is to stop keeping bad coaches too long. Not keep giving them too long.

[JSHoosier]

5 hours ago, Schreckbagger said:

The solution is PAYING for a real Tier 1 coach and doing said at the right time. Playing musical coaches is not a winning formula long term.

Sent from my SM-S906U using BtownBanners mobile app
 

Hiring a good coach to begin with would be my preference. Keeping a bad coach because the previous bad coach was kept around too long just damages the program.

[HoosierAloha]

We’re paying top 15-20 coaching money while getting top 40-50 results the last 3 years. Underperform and get overpaid, seems like the IU way

[Napleshoosier]

20 hours ago, HoosierHoopster said:

Side note for levity -- Driving in this morning (Houston) the car in the lane next to me has IU personalized plates, and I found myself thinking I should lean out the window and ask if he thinks Woodson should be fired. Lol

What freeway?

[Napleshoosier]

There is no discussion, Archie sucked!

[HoosierHoopster]

31 minutes ago, Napleshoosier said:

What freeway?

I was on Main Street (since TexDOT in its infinite wisdom closed the 288 exit off 610….)

[HoosierX]

18 hours ago, btownqb said:

I mean---every coach has that (NIL) advantage now, it's not like Woodson does and whoever is at Michigan, OSU, and others don't. 

Woodson is just better than Archie because Woodson is better than Archie. 

Archie was 33-44 in B1G games and 1-3 in the BTT and couldn't make the NCAAs. He'd been 1-4 in the BTT but there was Covid. 

Woodson is 31-29 and 4-3 in the tourney. 2-2 in the NCAA. 

----------------------------

None of it's good enough, but Archie isn't close to Woodson. Really speaks to how poor Archie was. 

Our NIL pool is much larger than most other schools, that is literally an objective fact. I'm not saying Archie was a better coach, but Woodson has an advantage there that Archie didn't have. That is not debatable.

[CSP]

22 minutes ago, HoosierX said:

Our NIL pool is much larger than most other schools, that is literally an objective fact. I'm not saying Archie was a better coach, but Woodson has an advantage there that Archie didn't have. That is not debatable.

Woodson's biggest advantage is ---- he's just a better coach. That's what I find to be not debatable. Ballo, Rice, and Kanaan, regardless of money, aren't coming here to play for Archie Miller. Goode would have--- but Archie's dumbass recruited others instead....

Franklin transferred on him. Archie couldn't create an advantage for himself in any way. 

Phinisee, Gunn, Lander, Fitz, Hunter, Anderson, Duncomb, Forrester, Geronimo, Parker Stewart...  the list goes on and on of just horrible scouting, development, whatever else. 

[go iu bb]

7 minutes ago, btownqb said:

Woodson's biggest advantage is ---- he's just a better coach. That's what I find to be not debatable. Those guys, regardless of money, aren't coming here to play for Archie Miller. 

Franklin transferred on him. Archie couldn't create an advantage for himself in any way. He was poor at his job. 

Phinisee, Gunn, Lander, Fitz, Hunter, Anderson, Duncomb, Forrester, Geronimo, Parker Stewart...  the list goes on and on of just horrible scouting, development, whatever else. 

Yes, Miller was bad at almost all aspects of the job. Woodson is definitely better than the very low bar Miller sets.

[CSP]

Just now, go iu bb said:

Yes, Miller was bad at almost all aspects of the job. Woodson is definitely better than the very low bar Miller sets.

Yes. Just absurdly bad. 

Miller --- .536 winning %

Woodson--- .612 winning %

Case closed