Liam decomitting

[True Fan]

3 minutes ago, str8baller said:

Your whole premise rests on this logical fallacy. If you remove that, you’ve described the same reasons to get fire him as every one else.  
 

With all due respect, being nice to a bad coach and having your AD say “pretty please” aren’t how you land a great coach. If anything that sort of mickey mouse BS turns off great hires. Nobody wants to work with people who are soft and uncompetitive, if they themselves are maniacally competitive and driven. 

I'm not quite following what you're saying with the logical fallacy part, but I do respect and partially agree with what you are saying with everything else.

Honestly what is killing me with all of the forum talk, and what made me finally stop lurking and start posting here, is that it feels like everyone is just oversimplifying it and thinks getting rid of Woodson is a viable solution to the problem.

[JSHoosier]

11 minutes ago, codesbane said:

I'm sure the guards were lining up to come to IU when we are returning a 6 year point guard and a 4th year wing who shot 40+ percent from deep.  Do you even consider that or are you just assuming Woodson was sitting there doing nothing?

Or they don't want to play on an offense as outdated as Woodson's and feed the post, and would rather go someplace with a modern offense that embraces the 3.

Yeah, I'm sure it was being afraid of competing with someone as inconsistent as Xavier Johnson though.

[CSP]

8 minutes ago, codesbane said:

I'm sure the guards were lining up to come to IU when we are returning a 6 year point guard and a 4th year wing who shot 40+ percent from deep.  Do you even consider that or are you just assuming Woodson was sitting there doing nothing?

I mean... the proof is in the pudding. We SUCK. 

[CSP]

Just now, codesbane said:

I'm not quite following what you're saying with the logical fallacy part, but I do respect and partially agree with what you are saying with everything else.

Honestly what is killing me with all of the forum talk, and what made me finally stop lurking and start posting here, is that it feels like everyone is just oversimplifying it and thinks getting rid of Woodson is a viable solution to the problem.

When you have your highest-paid employee this incompetent, yeah you move on. 100% a viable solution to the problem... especially when you can get Pearl and May. This isn't rocket science. 

[Home Jersey]

Gotta give you guys credit for educating the youth on here. I don't have the patience for this discourse anymore

[AKHoosier]

16 minutes ago, codesbane said:

I'm sure the guards were lining up to come to IU when we are returning a 6 year point guard and a 4th year wing who shot 40+ percent from deep.  Do you even consider that or are you just assuming Woodson was sitting there doing nothing?

You're NGW using a different handle aren't you 

[pumpfake]

This is all part of a very carefully orchestrated plan by Buckner and the Simon family.  They're clearing the deck of HS players and will force out as many returning players to achieve a near empty roster.  Then the "magic" happens: they shock the CBB world and forego the portal route, instead they will buy an existing G-League team and hand the reins over to Mike.  Guaranteed lock to finish no worse than third in the B10 next season and get a 5 seed minimum!

Seriously though, this is why you never, ever hire a CBB coach with zero experience as a college coach.

[True Fan]

Just now, AKHoosier said:

You're NGW using a different handle aren't you 

Hahahah no, but it sounds like NGW and I would be friends. 

 

3 minutes ago, btownqb said:

When you have your highest-paid employee this incompetent, yeah you move on. 100% a viable solution to the problem... especially when you can get Pearl and May. This isn't rocket science. 

Can we get May or Pearl?  Probably an unpopular opinion on here, but I'm not that impressed with Pearl.  I'm also not interested in the mid major flavor of the year.   We tried that with Archie and saw how that turned out.  Use this next year to find a replacement, don't panic buy now.  That is a viable solution.  Anything we do right now is reactionary is just as likely to blow up in our face.

[CSP]

1 minute ago, codesbane said:

Hahahah no, but it sounds like NGW and I would be friends. 

 

Can we get May or Pearl?  Probably an unpopular opinion on here, but I'm not that impressed with Pearl.  I'm also not interested in the mid major flavor of the year.   We tried that with Archie and saw how that turned out.  Use this next year to find a replacement, don't panic buy now.  That is a viable solution.  Anything we do right now is reactionary is just as likely to blow up in our face.

"mid major flavor of the month" yeah, tired of reading that. That's a cop out. You have nothing to back that, other than using other people as the example... and that makes 100% zero sense. 

Not impressed with Pearl? Hard to take serious then, tbh. 

[IUHoosierJoe]

1 hour ago, codesbane said:

I'm firmly in the "running him out after 1 bad season is going to do more damage to the program long term than keeping him around another year" camp.  If we fire him after missing the tournament one year what type of coach (who is actually worth having) is going to even want to come to our program.  I think this is especially true when coupled with the fact that it isn't like we were projected to be great this year.  We were projected to be mediocre and middle of the pack in the Big Ten.  Do I think we under performed a bit? Yes, but I think it is a bad bad bad look for the program if we run him out now.  

Also all you acting like you aren't part of the problem is copium.  The toxic fanbase is absolutely part of the problem.  I'm sure Liam's decision was much more complicated than "Woodson isn't going to let me shoot" or the "fanbase is toxic".  Like anything else in life I'm sure it was a complicated decision with many contributing factors with Woodson's recruiting (lack of), Woodson's style, the toxic fanbase, and who knows what else being contributing factors.

Anyways my two cents. Light me up.

The fan base is the only thing this program has going for it right now.  If you want to know what this program looks like without the fan base, look at DePaul.  But hey, DePaul doesn't have to worry about "toxic" fans anymore, lol.  And one thing's for sure, once a fan base leaves, it doesn't come back.

[JSHoosier]

2 minutes ago, codesbane said:

Hahahah no, but it sounds like NGW and I would be friends. 

 

Can we get May or Pearl?  Probably an unpopular opinion on here, but I'm not that impressed with Pearl.  I'm also not interested in the mid major flavor of the year.   We tried that with Archie and saw how that turned out.  Use this next year to find a replacement, don't panic buy now.  That is a viable solution.  Anything we do right now is reactionary is just as likely to blow up in our face.

Pearl has won everywhere he's been and still speaks highly of the IU program. Give him Indiana's NIL etc for recruiting? Yes please. If he'd say yes you tell Woodson he's in Pearl's office.

[Tropiiix]

14 minutes ago, codesbane said:

Can we get May or Pearl?  Probably an unpopular opinion on here, but I'm not that impressed with Pearl.  I'm also not interested in the mid major flavor of the year.   We tried that with Archie and saw how that turned out.  Use this next year to find a replacement, don't panic buy now.  That is a viable solution.  Anything we do right now is reactionary is just as likely to blow up in our face.

I do NOT think May would be a good hire at all. Really hoping we dodge that bullet

[Rico]

1 minute ago, Tropiiix said:

I do NOT think May would be a good hire at all. Really hoping we dodge that bullet

Looks like you are going to be dodging bullets with a post like that.

[True Fan]

17 minutes ago, btownqb said:

"mid major flavor of the month" yeah, tired of reading that. That's a cop out. You have nothing to back that, other than using other people as the example... and that makes 100% zero sense. 

Not impressed with Pearl? Hard to take serious then, tbh. 

It isn't a cop out.  All I meant was he is unproven and 1 (maybe 2) successful seasons doesn't illustrate the ability to be successful at the highest level.  I think hiring him would be a huge gamble.  I don't think the upside is worth the risk.

You're right though, the "not that impressed with Pearl comment" isn't a great take by me.  I think he has shown success and could build a program.  I don't think we should be reactionary with these types of choices though.  You don't build a program that way.  They need to be intentional in their search over this next year.

[CSP]

2 minutes ago, codesbane said:

It isn't a cop out.  All I meant was he is unproven and 1 (maybe 2) successful seasons doesn't illustrate the ability to be successful at the highest level.  I think hiring him would be a huge gamble.  I don't think the upside is worth the risk.

You're right though, the "not that impressed with Pearl comment" isn't a great take by me. 

But this is why you vet people. This is why you need "good hiring" people. 

On the outside, just simply from what we've seen... Cignetti is an absolute hit. 

Lets take that hiring group, maybe Dolson did the whole thing, and apply it to basketball. If after that process May is the guy.. hire his @$$ tomorrow. Period. 

[True Fan]

3 minutes ago, btownqb said:

But this is why you vet people. This is why you need "good hiring" people. 

On the outside, just simply from what we've seen... Cignetti is an absolute hit. 

Lets take that hiring group, maybe Dolson did the whole thing, and apply it to basketball. If after that process May is the guy.. hire his @$$ tomorrow. Period. 

I'm 100% on board here.  Maybe I put too many people off with some of my comments, but in summary.

I think Woodson has to stay another year.  I don't like him.  I don't think he is doing the stuff we need him to do.  I just don't think you can fire him now without causing too much damage, and I don't think you can just hire someone in a reactionary way to fix the problem.  We need to look at what our problems are as a program and be intentional about our search for someone who can address those problems. 

[Rico]

8 minutes ago, codesbane said:

It isn't a cop out.  All I meant was he is unproven and 1 (maybe 2) successful seasons doesn't illustrate the ability to be successful at the highest level.  I think hiring him would be a huge gamble.  I don't think the upside is worth the risk.

 

If you had it to do all over again.  You would have still hired Woodson because he was proven.

[True Fan]

5 minutes ago, Rico said:

If you had it to do all over again.  You would have still hired Woodson because he was proven.

Anyone who thought he was proven because he was an NBA coach should be laughed out of Assembly Hall.  I wouldn't even call his NBA coaching career mediocre.  Wasn't his win rate less than 45%?  So no, I would never have hired him because he obviously wasn't "proven".

[NashvilleHoosier]

2 hours ago, Tropiiix said:

I think "kicking him to the curb" contributes to wrecking things though. He has to go out on his terms even if that's BS and there's really pressure on him behind the scenes to walk, I think for the program image we cannot "fire" him.

What is the risk to the program image if we allow him to stick around while he's outwardly proven the inability, and unwillingness to handle recruiting at this level, while pushing a system that is counter to what is successful in college basketball today? This situation has gone well past just the poor results this season where Woody's bosses can point to a pretty clear dereliction of duties. Dolson, Whitten, the BoT, whoever would be involved in parting ways can do so with a message that doesn't even mention on court results and most reasonably minded people would understand, especially those involved in college hoops, and likely even more so, coaches and recruits. So, the question to me would be is the program image more at risk for parting ways with a former player coach who has shown a pattern of either under performing or simply not performing essential duties of the job, or is program image more at risk by allowing a coach to continue leading the University's flagship program while pretty clearly showing a pattern of either under performing of simply not performing essential duties of the job because he's a former player? To me this has escalated pretty far past a tricky situation straight to a "facts are friendly" situation. Anyone left in Woody's corner who would be upset if he was let go, would have no logical recourse if the facts are laid out to them behind the decision to part ways, again, completely leaving on court results this season aside. This probably sounds drastic, but in my opinion, the administration needs to adopt the mindset that they can no longer allow someone, former player or not, to steward the program in this way, and recognizing that and acknowledging that publicly head on could be a very positive thing. To me, the risk to the program image is far worse to continue on this path any further.

[Tropiiix]

1 minute ago, NashvilleHoosier said:

What is the risk to the program image if we allow him to stick around while he's outwardly proven the inability, and unwillingness to handle recruiting at this level, while pushing a system that is counter to what is successful in college basketball today? This situation has gone well past just the poor results this season where Woody's bosses can point to a pretty clear dereliction of duties. Dolson, Whitten, the BoT, whoever would be involved in parting ways can do so with a message that doesn't even mention on court results and most reasonably minded people would understand, especially those involved in college hoops, and likely even more so, coaches and recruits. So, the question to me would be is the program image more at risk for parting ways with a former player coach who has shown a pattern of either under performing or simply not performing essential duties of the job, or is program image more at risk by allowing a coach to continue leading the University's flagship program while pretty clearly showing a pattern of either under performing of simply not performing essential duties of the job because he's a former player? To me this has escalated pretty far past a tricky situation straight to a "facts are friendly" situation. Anyone left in Woody's corner who would be upset if he was let go, would have no logical recourse if the facts are laid out to them behind the decision to part ways, again, completely leaving on court results this season aside. This probably sounds drastic, but in my opinion, the administration needs to adopt the mindset that they can no longer allow someone, former player or not, to steward the program in this way, and recognizing that and acknowledging that publicly head on could be a very positive thing. To me, the risk to the program image is far worse to continue on this path any further.

Ok slow down. #1+2 bolded is a gross over-reaction. We sucked, Woodson got hired, we made the tournament 2 times in a row. I'm assuming you mean not recruiting, Ware was the #2 ranked portal player last year!! Yes, the guard situation needed more done to shore it up, but I doubt nothing was attempted. 

#3 bolded is a fine point and I understand that is your opinion, but in my opinion firing Woodson would give an image of total instability and lower our brand even further in the mind of recruits and parents. He HAS to retire. I'd be thrilled if he retired after this season but I'm telling you. Firing him now will do more harm then good.