Actually not deep at all since I (like most) really have no inside information and mostly don't know what I'm talking about.
I think IU is in a deep hole and may be in situation they can't recover from. If they're going to stay in the game, they don't have time for a long and slow re-build.
I think that means they really do need to recruit the current roster. There's talent in spots and they probably can't afford to lose it. They can't turn over the entire roster via the portal that quickly. Time isn't their friend. Among other things, that means hiring a guy (and a staff) that will be relatable and able to inspire a new vision to keep the talent they do have.
IU needs to loudly commit to a new vision. They shouldn't just be looking to do better than Tom Allen. They should by word and deed make it clear that they're now (belatedly) in it to win it. That's not just a function of the new coach. It's the staff. The financial commitments. The standards. The expectations. I think they're already losing that battle a bit now (the names being floated, the lack of comment, etc.), though surely they can recover some or all of that if they do well over the next day or so.
They don't just need a caretaker coach who's proven himself competent at running a big program. That's not the mission. The mission is to re-invent IU football and to dig it out of a hole and probably to come up with something innovative and new to make a stark change in the program and to draw interest. Again, probably unwinnable at this point, but I think that's the challenge.
I think the game is so different than what it was even 5 years ago with the money, the conference realignments, etc. They need to staff that appropriately regardless of whether it's the head coach that has responsibility for navigating the new landscape. I'm sure the MAC-type head coaches would do okay, but I'm wary that they're removed from the different league of what high level college programs are today.
I think Michigan and OSU, just as two examples, likely have really talented staffs. I think they know how to get it done. That means over-staffing, over-recruiting. Excellence, standards, preparation all around. That's why OSU's receiver bench always looks like an NFL all-pro line-up. I'm not voting for Frye and/or Hart, but I wouldn't be bothered by them either. I think they're on a track and part of something great that coaches at lesser programs aren't even fully aware of.
I think IU needs to be about done here and I would have thought lots of legwork would have been done months ago. Probably all fine and good, but surely they didn't just start sniffing around.
I'd probably prefer a coach who's "relatively" young and out to establish himself as opposed to a veteran caretaker. Especially if they get the full staff right.
Tom Herman is probably fine. This article shows, I think, some of the good and bad.
I think IU is in a deep hole and may be in situation they can't recover from. If they're going to stay in the game, they don't have time for a long and slow re-build.
I think that means they really do need to recruit the current roster. There's talent in spots and they probably can't afford to lose it. They can't turn over the entire roster via the portal that quickly. Time isn't their friend. Among other things, that means hiring a guy (and a staff) that will be relatable and able to inspire a new vision to keep the talent they do have.
IU needs to loudly commit to a new vision. They shouldn't just be looking to do better than Tom Allen. They should by word and deed make it clear that they're now (belatedly) in it to win it. That's not just a function of the new coach. It's the staff. The financial commitments. The standards. The expectations. I think they're already losing that battle a bit now (the names being floated, the lack of comment, etc.), though surely they can recover some or all of that if they do well over the next day or so.
They don't just need a caretaker coach who's proven himself competent at running a big program. That's not the mission. The mission is to re-invent IU football and to dig it out of a hole and probably to come up with something innovative and new to make a stark change in the program and to draw interest. Again, probably unwinnable at this point, but I think that's the challenge.
I think the game is so different than what it was even 5 years ago with the money, the conference realignments, etc. They need to staff that appropriately regardless of whether it's the head coach that has responsibility for navigating the new landscape. I'm sure the MAC-type head coaches would do okay, but I'm wary that they're removed from the different league of what high level college programs are today.
I think Michigan and OSU, just as two examples, likely have really talented staffs. I think they know how to get it done. That means over-staffing, over-recruiting. Excellence, standards, preparation all around. That's why OSU's receiver bench always looks like an NFL all-pro line-up. I'm not voting for Frye and/or Hart, but I wouldn't be bothered by them either. I think they're on a track and part of something great that coaches at lesser programs aren't even fully aware of.
I think IU needs to be about done here and I would have thought lots of legwork would have been done months ago. Probably all fine and good, but surely they didn't just start sniffing around.
I'd probably prefer a coach who's "relatively" young and out to establish himself as opposed to a veteran caretaker. Especially if they get the full staff right.
Tom Herman is probably fine. This article shows, I think, some of the good and bad.
