Coaching vs Recruiting

[CriticArisen]

Often comments here that recruiting is to blame rather than coaching for poor results. If you look at some of the softer stats that are more dependent on coaching rather than natural ability you find that IU is at the very bottom of Division 1. Rebounding has a lot to do with hustle, desire, and positioning that are amenable to coaching rather than strictly due to natural ability. IU is at the bottom of D1 in offensive rebounding (243rd) and middle of D1 in field goal percentage (165th D1). When you are not a good shooting team (more an innate skill) then you can offset it with the softer coachable skill of rebounding that requires intensity and hustle. When you blow at both then you have a horrible offense especially when you couple that with high turnover rate (172nd D1) that is also a coachable skill. Sitting at 274th in D1 in FT % is icing on the mud pie.

On defense you have a team that fouls far too frequently (268th D1) and that is also amenable to coaching and not a hard wired innate talent.

My conclusion is that recruiting could be far better but coaching is horrible. You coach the team you got not the team you wish you had and in this case the coaching is just bad.

 

[Tasmanian Devil]

Often comments here that recruiting is to blame rather than coaching for poor results. If you look at some of the softer stats that are more dependent on coaching rather than natural ability you find that IU is at the very bottom of Division 1. Rebounding has a lot to do with hustle, desire, and positioning that are amenable to coaching rather than strictly due to natural ability. IU is at the bottom of D1 in offensive rebounding (243rd) and middle of D1 in field goal percentage (165th D1). When you are not a good shooting team (more an innate skill) then you can offset it with the softer coachable skill of rebounding that requires intensity and hustle. When you blow at both then you have a horrible offense especially when you couple that with high turnover rate (172nd D1) that is also a coachable skill. On defense you have a team that fouls far too frequently (268th D1) that is also amenable to coaching and not a hard wired innate talent.

My conclusion is that recruiting could be far better but coaching is horrible. You coach the team you got not the team you wish you had and in this case the coaching is just bad.

Good points.

 

[aajohn2000]

Often comments here that recruiting is to blame rather than coaching for poor results. If you look at some of the softer stats that are more dependent on coaching rather than natural ability you find that IU is at the very bottom of Division 1. Rebounding has a lot to do with hustle, desire, and positioning that are amenable to coaching rather than strictly due to natural ability. IU is at the bottom of D1 in offensive rebounding (243rd) and middle of D1 in field goal percentage (165th D1). When you are not a good shooting team (more an innate skill) then you can offset it with the softer coachable skill of rebounding that requires intensity and hustle. When you blow at both then you have a horrible offense especially when you couple that with high turnover rate (172nd D1) that is also a coachable skill. On defense you have a team that fouls far too frequently (268th D1) that is also amenable to coaching and not a hard wired innate talent.

My conclusion is that recruiting could be far better but coaching is horrible. You coach the team you got not the team you wish you had and in this case the coaching is just bad.

Excellent take.

 

[Beorik]

Often comments here that recruiting is to blame rather than coaching for poor results. If you look at some of the softer stats that are more dependent on coaching rather than natural ability you find that IU is at the very bottom of Division 1. Rebounding has a lot to do with hustle, desire, and positioning that are amenable to coaching rather than strictly due to natural ability. IU is at the bottom of D1 in offensive rebounding (243rd) and middle of D1 in field goal percentage (165th D1). When you are not a good shooting team (more an innate skill) then you can offset it with the softer coachable skill of rebounding that requires intensity and hustle. When you blow at both then you have a horrible offense especially when you couple that with high turnover rate (172nd D1) that is also a coachable skill. Sitting at 274th in D1 in FT % is icing on the mud pie.

On defense you have a team that fouls far too frequently (268th D1) and that is also amenable to coaching and not a hard wired innate talent.

My conclusion is that recruiting could be far better but coaching is horrible. You coach the team you got not the team you wish you had and in this case the coaching is just bad.

I agree that coaching leaves a lot to be desired. I disagree rebounding is a stat that points to it. The best pound for pound rebounder maybe of all time went to Southeastern Oklahoma State University. I don’t remember a top coach being there.

Rebounding is about hustle, effort and heart! I played basketball from the time I was 8 years old and had a ton of not so good coaches along the way. Yet they all still emphasized effort and hustle. I am certain Coach Miller and all the assistants are doing it every practice just like every other sports coach in the world.

Heart cannot be taught.

Also our third best big is 6’6”

 

[CriticArisen]

Beorik,
Funny that you use a measure of the greatest rebounder of all time with a team currently near the bottom of D1 in team offensive rebounds. I didn’t imply that coaching could turn any of the current players into Rodman but the 246 teams currently above IU in team offensive rebounding don’t have any rebounders as good as Rodman either. IU is near the bottom of D1 in many of the softer statistical categories and dismal team offensive rebounding is very significant for a poor shooting team. Also funny that our third best big is 6’6” so about the heigth of Rodman.

 

[Birnk403]

I agree that coaching leaves a lot to be desired. I disagree rebounding is a stat that points to it. The best pound for pound rebounder maybe of all time went to Southeastern Oklahoma State University. I don’t remember a top coach being there.

Rebounding is about hustle, effort and heart! I played basketball from the time I was 8 years old and had a ton of not so good coaches along the way. Yet they all still emphasized effort and hustle. I am certain Coach Miller and all the assistants are doing it every practice just like every other sports coach in the world.

Heart cannot be taught.

Also our third best big is 6’6”

Many of us have seen a distinct lack of hustle and effort during Miller’s time as coach. Do you think that’s because he doesn’t demand it from players or because he does, they don’t listen, and there aren’t negative ramifications for it?

 

[Beorik]

Many of us have seen a distinct lack of hustle and effort during Miller’s time as coach. Do you think that’s because he doesn’t demand it from players or because he does, they don’t listen, and there aren’t negative ramifications for it?

It’s tough to determine when you are not at every practice and meeting. My gut feeling is that he emphasizes it as much as anyone.

I think that it is a combination of 2 things. First, players are not doing what they need to do and are taught to do from a young age. Second, players will do what they think they can get away with.

The coaching failure part in my opinion is Coach Miller not pulling players who clearly aren’t hustling. A couple examples of that are.... a few games ago TJD was clearly just jogging back on defense was not pulled. And in yesterday’s game Lander made a bad pass which was picked off and lead to a fast break the other way. Lander who made the pass from nearly half court was caught by I believe Franklin who was on the wing. In both of those situations it is an opportunity for Coach Miller to send a clear message that no matter who you are you will sit without maximum effort on every play.

So I guess my opinion is that it is a failure from both and ultimately it results in fewer wins which will cost the Coach his job.

 

[Champs1976]

Often comments here that recruiting is to blame rather than coaching for poor results. If you look at some of the softer stats that are more dependent on coaching rather than natural ability you find that IU is at the very bottom of Division 1. Rebounding has a lot to do with hustle, desire, and positioning that are amenable to coaching rather than strictly due to natural ability. IU is at the bottom of D1 in offensive rebounding (243rd) and middle of D1 in field goal percentage (165th D1). When you are not a good shooting team (more an innate skill) then you can offset it with the softer coachable skill of rebounding that requires intensity and hustle. When you blow at both then you have a horrible offense especially when you couple that with high turnover rate (172nd D1) that is also a coachable skill. Sitting at 274th in D1 in FT % is icing on the mud pie.

On defense you have a team that fouls far too frequently (268th D1) and that is also amenable to coaching and not a hard wired innate talent.

My conclusion is that recruiting could be far better but coaching is horrible. You coach the team you got not the team you wish you had and in this case the coaching is just bad.

Spot on! Three years of poor FT shooting which is just repetitive motion with a modicum of coaching is on Archie and his staff. When I went to Bulls games (season ticket holder with a group of friends during the Jordan era) we use to check the "hustle board" and surprise, the Bulls during that period nearly always won the hustle stats and when not winning there, the games were always much closer or losses. Archie may be coaching based on a different set of stats but whatever they are they don't translate to wins.

 

[Birnk403]

It’s tough to determine when you are not at every practice and meeting. My gut feeling is that he emphasizes it as much as anyone.

I think that it is a combination of 2 things. First, players are not doing what they need to do and are taught to do from a young age. Second, players will do what they think they can get away with.

The coaching failure part in my opinion is Coach Miller not pulling players who clearly aren’t hustling. A couple examples of that are.... a few games ago TJD was clearly just jogging back on defense was not pulled. And in yesterday’s game Lander made a bad pass which was picked off and lead to a fast break the other way. Lander who made the pass from nearly half court was caught by I believe Franklin who was on the wing. In both of those situations it is an opportunity for Coach Miller to send a clear message that no matter who you are you will sit without maximum effort on every play.

So I guess my opinion is that it is a failure from both and ultimately it results in fewer wins which will cost the Coach his job.

I think performance in games makes it very clear that there aren’t negative consequences for a lack of hustle and effort. I’m just curious as to why Miller seems tolerant of that type of play.

 

[Beorik]

I think performance in games makes it very clear that there aren’t negative consequences for a lack of hustle and effort. I’m just curious as to why Miller seems tolerant of that type of play.

Yea a tough question. I think part of it is probably pressure to win to keep his job. He is sort of in a catch 22. Bench TJD or Franklin for lack of hustle and your chances of a win go way down. Don’t and you risk it becoming acceptable and your chances of winning go way down. I have always errored on the side of holding everyone accountable no matter the cost to a game.

 

[kmathum]

Often comments here that recruiting is to blame rather than coaching for poor results. If you look at some of the softer stats that are more dependent on coaching rather than natural ability you find that IU is at the very bottom of Division 1. Rebounding has a lot to do with hustle, desire, and positioning that are amenable to coaching rather than strictly due to natural ability. IU is at the bottom of D1 in offensive rebounding (243rd) and middle of D1 in field goal percentage (165th D1). When you are not a good shooting team (more an innate skill) then you can offset it with the softer coachable skill of rebounding that requires intensity and hustle. When you blow at both then you have a horrible offense especially when you couple that with high turnover rate (172nd D1) that is also a coachable skill. Sitting at 274th in D1 in FT % is icing on the mud pie.

On defense you have a team that fouls far too frequently (268th D1) and that is also amenable to coaching and not a hard wired innate talent.

My conclusion is that recruiting could be far better but coaching is horrible. You coach the team you got not the team you wish you had and in this case the coaching is just bad.

as coach wooden once said. no coach wins without talent, but some coaches can't win with it.

 

[CriticArisen]

Spot on! Three years of poor FT shooting which is just repetitive motion with a modicum of coaching is on Archie and his staff. When I went to Bulls games (season ticket holder with a group of friends during the Jordan era) we use to check the "hustle board" and surprise, the Bulls during that period nearly always won the hustle stats and when not winning there, the games were always much closer or losses. Archie may be coaching based on a different set of stats but whatever they are they don't translate to wins.

I am jealous-during that period you saw a lot of historically good basketball.

 

[frikkenfrakken]

Often comments here that recruiting is to blame rather than coaching for poor results. If you look at some of the softer stats that are more dependent on coaching rather than natural ability you find that IU is at the very bottom of Division 1. Rebounding has a lot to do with hustle, desire, and positioning that are amenable to coaching rather than strictly due to natural ability. IU is at the bottom of D1 in offensive rebounding (243rd) and middle of D1 in field goal percentage (165th D1). When you are not a good shooting team (more an innate skill) then you can offset it with the softer coachable skill of rebounding that requires intensity and hustle. When you blow at both then you have a horrible offense especially when you couple that with high turnover rate (172nd D1) that is also a coachable skill. Sitting at 274th in D1 in FT % is icing on the mud pie.

On defense you have a team that fouls far too frequently (268th D1) and that is also amenable to coaching and not a hard wired innate talent.

My conclusion is that recruiting could be far better but coaching is horrible. You coach the team you got not the team you wish you had and in this case the coaching is just bad.

Or, the problem with rebounding is that we only have two big men. No one thinks Jordan Geronimo isn't hustling. His problem is he is 6'6". He isn't a 4.

That's recruiting, and bad luck with Brunk.

 

[CriticArisen]

Or, the problem with rebounding is that we only have two big men. No one thinks Jordan Geronimo isn't hustling. His problem is he is 6'6". He isn't a 4.

That's recruiting, and bad luck with Brunk.

The NCAA leader in offensive rebounding right now is a 6’ 5” guard from Austin Peay. Great if you have talented big men but to be amongst the worst in college basketball as a team isn’t just a matter of height.

 

[CriticArisen]

Also interesting that UH with Kelvin Sampson leads the NCAA in offensive rebounding. They have a poor shooting team, and no one over 6’8”, and are 17-2 and a top ten team.

 

[SoccerSammy]

I agree that coaching leaves a lot to be desired. I disagree rebounding is a stat that points to it. The best pound for pound rebounder maybe of all time went to Southeastern Oklahoma State University. I don’t remember a top coach being there.

Rebounding is about hustle, effort and heart! I played basketball from the time I was 8 years old and had a ton of not so good coaches along the way. Yet they all still emphasized effort and hustle. I am certain Coach Miller and all the assistants are doing it every practice just like every other sports coach in the world.

Heart cannot be taught.

Also our third best big is 6’6”

How big is Ohio State??

 

[CriticArisen]

...against inferior competition. Plus, ya know, he has a "recruiting advantage."

I didn’t intend this as a who has the biggest coaching d$&k but I personally don‘t consider extra text messages as a major infraction. UH’s best player is a local Houston high schooler that transferred from Kansas and was rated lower than Romeo in his class. I don’t know of any other very strongly nationally recruited player on their roster. You have a point about schedule but they do have the win against Texas Tech and I guess that contributes to their high POM ranking.

Kiyron Powell, a freshman from Evansville, is getting some playing time and stats indicate good rebounder.

 

[CriticArisen]

Even if you hate him I believe you will agree that he says things in this interview that are pertinent to the IU situation at this time. I just saw this and thought it cuts right to the matter of toughness that many feel is currently lacking in our program.

 

[Beorik]

How big is Ohio State??

Perhaps you didn’t read my whole post. No worries, I won’t make you go back and read it. Reading is hard.

I said rebounding is hustle, effort, heart, and size. Size was not the issue against Ohio St. All other categories we lost against them.

 

[baileyiu]

Also interesting that UH with Kelvin Sampson leads the NCAA in offensive rebounding. They have a poor shooting team, and no one over 6’8”, and are 17-2 and a top ten team.

They have SEVEN(7) players 6’7” or taller - we have 2

 

[CriticArisen]

They have SEVEN(7) players 6’7” or taller - we have 2

and two 6’5” guards are second and third in rebounding on the team.

 

[frikkenfrakken]

The NCAA leader in offensive rebounding right now is a 6’ 5” guard from Austin Peay. Great if you have talented big men but to be amongst the worst in college basketball as a team isn’t just a matter of height.

Yeah, playing every night against other teams in Austin Peay's conference.

Who leads the BIG ten?

 

[kmathum]

Even if you hate him I believe you will agree that he says things in this interview that are pertinent to the IU situation at this time. I just saw this and thought it cuts right to the matter of toughness that many feel is currently lacking in our program.

View embedded media

right now. i miss the guy.

 

[CriticArisen]

Yeah, playing every night against other teams in Austin Peay's conference.

Who leads the BIG ten?

IU is 11th in the Big Ten in team offensive rebounding. Couple that with eighth in FG% and 12th in FT% and not a well oiled offense.

Lots of complaints about poor shooting but performance statistics are even worse in softer statistics that coaching can impact more easily.

 

[CriticArisen]

right now. i miss the guy.

I’m with you. Not a big fan while he was here but in 20/20 hindsight-he da man.

 

[frikkenfrakken]

IU is 11th in the Big Ten in team offensive rebounding. Couple that with eighth in FG% and 12th in FT% and not a well oiled offense.

Lots of complaints about poor shooting but performance statistics are even worse in softer statistics that coaching can impact more easily.

Repeating your conclusion doesn't answer my question. The answer is: big men. Big Men lead the BIG ten on rebounding. Trace is 3rd overall and tied for first in offensive rebounds. But you suppose he's just not being coached to play hard?

Or, do you suppose that Jerome Hunter and Jordan Geronimo, both of whom are under 6'8", might struggle against a 7'0" 285 pound behemoth?

If all it takes is effort, why does that giant dude lead the toughest conference in the country by a wide margin?

IU has a rebounding problem, for sure. But, if you look at what Joey Brunk and Justin Smith did last year, and that under different circumstances they would both have been playing this year, it's not hard to figure out why we aren't as good at rebounding this year.

Still, it's Archies job to field a team that can do that competently. But our problems aren't because CAM is like, "eh, rebounding isn't important, let's not try hard."

 

[CriticArisen]

Repeating your conclusion doesn't answer my question. The answer is: big men. Big Men lead the BIG ten on rebounding. Trace is 3rd overall and tied for first in offensive rebounds. But you suppose he's just not being coached to play hard?

Or, do you suppose that Jerome Hunter and Jordan Geronimo, both of whom are under 6'8", might struggle against a 7'0" 285 pound behemoth?

If all it takes is effort, why does that giant dude lead the toughest conference in the country by a wide margin?

IU has a rebounding problem, for sure. But, if you look at what Joey Brunk and Justin Smith did last year, and that under different circumstances they would both have been playing this year, it's not hard to figure out why we aren't as good at rebounding this year.

Still, it's Archies job to field a team that can do that competently. But our problems aren't because CAM is like, "eh, rebounding isn't important, let's not try hard."

Last season IU was 6th in FG% and 7th in rebounding in the Big Ten and 12th in FT%. When you have a low FG% you have more opportunities for offensive rebounds. I can’t remember any CAM IU team that wasn’t poor in rebounding and hit the boards hard on offense. Of course I don’t believe Archie tells them not to rebound but clearly he doesn’t produce teams that have the toughness and training to rebound well.
Last year also shooting s#%^ed but rebounding s#%^ed even more. If you are not a good shooting team you can recover some by hitting the boards hard on offense.
My point is that rebounding is less constrained by natural ability then is shooting. Smaller players with less natural ability, through effort and hustle, can excel at rebounding.

 

[frikkenfrakken]

Last season IU was 6th in FG% and 7th in rebounding in the Big Ten and 12th in FT%. When you have a low FG% you have more opportunities for offensive rebounds. I can’t remember any CAM IU team that wasn’t poor in rebounding and hit the boards hard on offense. Of course I don’t believe Archie tells them not to rebound but clearly he doesn’t produce teams that have the toughness and training to rebound well.
Last year also shooting s#%^ed but rebounding s#%^ed even more. If you are not a good shooting team you can recover some by hitting the boards hard on offense.
My point is that rebounding is less constrained by natural ability then is shooting. Smaller players with less natural ability, through effort and hustle, can excel at rebounding.

No matter how many times you repeat your point, that won't make it true. If effort and hustle was the determining factor in rebounding success, some little guys would lead the league sometimes. But they don't. Because it isn't.

Half our front court transferred or isn't playing. Hunter and Geronimo are young and not 4's. Miller didn't recruit effective replacements. That's the problem.

 

[.Gerdis]

Intelligence, or basketball IQ, plays a big part as well. Certainly Rodman is up there with greatest rebounder of all time, playing 6-6 tops in the NBA. He was an extremely underrated player as far as intelligence and awareness go. He spent a great deal of time studying how different types of shots would come off the rim. He also had a tremendous understanding of positioning.

Yes, he was somewhat of a physical freak and had a high motor, but don’t let that fool you. He was extremely smart.

No doubt that effort is very important. You see that when one player gets 3-4 rebounds all on the same possession. But understanding positioning (having the awareness of where people are and keeping a body of them) is critical, especially in defensive rebounding.

I love it when the blocking out is done so we’ll that the ball actually hits the floor before it’s rebounded.

 

[Birnk403]

No matter how many times you repeat your point, that won't make it true. If effort and hustle was the determining factor in rebounding success, some little guys would lead the league sometimes. But they don't. Because it isn't.

Half our front court transferred or isn't playing. Hunter and Geronimo are young and not 4's. Miller didn't recruit effective replacements. That's the problem.

And it’s the biggest surprise most of us have with Miller: Recruiting failures. When he was hired, I think most of us thought he would greatly expand the quality of our recruiting, and it really hasn’t happened in either talent or “fit”. In the end, I think that’s what gets him a ticket out of Bloomington (next year).

 

[CriticArisen]

No matter how many times you repeat your point, that won't make it true. If effort and hustle was the determining factor in rebounding success, some little guys would lead the league sometimes. But they don't. Because it isn't.

Half our front court transferred or isn't playing. Hunter and Geronimo are young and not 4's. Miller didn't recruit effective replacements. That's the problem.

Penn State for goodness sakes is a much better offensive rebounding team than IU and their players 6’7” or taller have 38% of their offensive rebounds.

 

[CriticArisen]

Spot on! Three years of poor FT shooting which is just repetitive motion with a modicum of coaching is on Archie and his staff. When I went to Bulls games (season ticket holder with a group of friends during the Jordan era) we use to check the "hustle board" and surprise, the Bulls during that period nearly always won the hustle stats and when not winning there, the games were always much closer or losses. Archie may be coaching based on a different set of stats but whatever they are they don't translate to wins.

I lived in Houston and went to Rockets games when there were a couple thousand fans in attendance and you could hear fans on the other side of the court discussing after game plans (no cheerleaders at the time). Then for their first NBA championship someone gifted me two good tickets for the 7th game versus the Knicks. It was a once in a lifetime experience but still didn’t beat some of the games I remember in Assembly Hall.

It was the most incredible thing when an absolutely great but easily upset with his teammates Olajuwon (and underperforming team) had some some sort of off-season religious experience and came back to anchor a great team.

 

[frikkenfrakken]

And it’s the biggest surprise most of us have with Miller: Recruiting failures. When he was hired, I think most of us thought he would greatly expand the quality of our recruiting, and it really hasn’t happened in either talent or “fit”. In the end, I think that’s what gets him a ticket out of Bloomington (next year).

We will see. If he catches a couple of breaks, he could have a good year next year.

But, in terms of recruiting, it really boils down to the bridge class and that first class. Those two classes have produced four role players on a middle of the road BIG team this year. For two classes, that isn't good enough.

Beyond them, we had a OAD limited by injury, basically three whole seasons lost to injuries, and a bunch of transfers. De'Ron Davis Achilles, Phins concussion, it goes on and on.

The sophomores and freshmen classes look much better, but Miller will have to figure out how to win with them pretty quickly, because his seat will be hot next year.

 

[Beorik]

We will see. If he catches a couple of breaks, he could have a good year next year.

But, in terms of recruiting, it really boils down to the bridge class and that first class. Those two classes have produced four role players on a middle of the road BIG team this year. For two classes, that isn't good enough.

Beyond them, we had a OAD limited by injury, basically three whole seasons lost to injuries, and a bunch of transfers. De'Ron Davis Achilles, Phins concussion, it goes on and on.

The sophomores and freshmen classes look much better, but Miller will have to figure out how to win with them pretty quickly, because his seat will be hot next year.

Yep. There has certainly been some bad luck involved on top of these poor results. How good a player would Hunter be without losing a year? Rob? Langford a one and done who was injured all year. Davis and Brunk missing a year.

Even with all that we have to be better though. We are too thin inside and the guards aren’t performing. Gotta be better than this.

 

[Remain]

as coach wooden once said. no coach wins without talent, but some coaches can't win with it.

“thanks Sam Gilbert”-John wooden....probably.

 

[salient43]

No matter how many times you repeat your point, that won't make it true. If effort and hustle was the determining factor in rebounding success, some little guys would lead the league sometimes. But they don't. Because it isn't.

Half our front court transferred or isn't playing. Hunter and Geronimo are young and not 4's. Miller didn't recruit effective replacements. That's the problem.

Didn’t we suck last year with that front court? I think that’s the OP’s point. Yes CAM sucks at recruiting big men but even when we have size we suck at rebounding.

 

[frikkenfrakken]

Didn’t we suck last year with that front court? I think that’s the OP’s point. Yes CAM sucks at recruiting big men but even when we have size we suck at rebounding.

Believe it or not, college kids get better from year to year. Well, except for Phin...

 

[Indymoon]

They have SEVEN(7) players 6’7” or taller - we have 2

Same for Ohio State and Illinois - seven guys 6'7" or taller. Look at their rosters versus Indiana. It's depressing given that all four coaches are in year 4.

Sampson talks about how hard his team plays and mentions depth and competition in practice. IU's 9 regular players are matched up primarily against walk-ons in practice.