Lol. There's no mythical IU, either. It's all in your fanbase's head. There was Knight. That was IU. Knight's gone, and the fanbase hasn't detached themselves fully from that. Still.
In the last 80 years (1943-2023), when looking at who IU is without Knight, they are a 558-446 (56%) winning ball club. That is the same as a 17-13 per year average.
Only two coaches in that time (outside of Knight) have beaten that average.
One was Kelvin Sampson.
The other?
Coach Mike Woodson. And Woodson is a dead man walking.
So the question is, who is IU, really? IU without Knight. History says they are what they were before Knight, and are what they have been after Knight.
Probably no one remembers the Bruce McCracken days, and the Knight era has another decade—maybe two tops—before that era is forgotten as well.
So yeah, the clock is ticking. IU is much closer to being who they have always been without Knight than recreating the success they had with Knight—one of the greatest coaches to ever coach the game.
Every coach since continues to live in his shadow and probably will until those who remember him are dead and gone.
IU fans think they are Knight and want Knight results, but they haven't realized that finding the best of a generation isn't that easy.
I simply believe IU would have a better time reinventing themselves than trying to recreate the results of a legendary coach. But good luck convincing the fanbase of that.
P.S> what was Crean's last 6 years? 138-69 (eg 66.7% win percentage). Dude was a tool, but he was performing well for who IU historically is.