He has improved recruiting, no question. Ok and the bottom line is this team with his guys was 6-7. Good enough for you? Talented coaches turn programs around in 2 years.
FYI: Just announced CKW's extension.
- Thread starter TheOriginalHappyGoat
- Start date
He has improved recruiting, no question. Ok and the bottom line is this team with his guys was 6-7. Good enough for you? Talented coaches turn programs around in 2 years.
There is nothing you can point to as evidence of how long it should take to turn IU around. First of all, two years is objectively laughable for most bad programs, but those that do appear to have been turned around that quickly started with a foundation worlds beyond what we gave Wilson to start with. We might have been the worst FBS program in the country when he started. Two years would have been a pipe dream for us.
Since you mention recruiting, I'll point out that the 2016 class early on was looking down compared to the past couple years. One would assume a major reason why was Wilson being at the end of his current contract and uncertainty whether he would be extended. Right now, with that 6 year extension, his contract still only runs until 2021. Players don't want to commit to lame ducks or staffs with contracts set to expire in the middle of them being in school - at least not players who have offers from other major conference schools.
So the options were either an extension of this length or blow the thing up and hire a new coach to a contract of equivalent length. The former makes more sense. Could you argue rather than 6 years, an extension of 5 or 4 and then extending again in a year or two? Perhaps, but what do you gain? Modest savings if you fire him and buyout one season's salary instead of two. What do you lose? Strength in your sales pitch to recruits that they know who they'll play for the entire time they're here (i.e. you lose some recruits). Doesn't makes sense - not with BTN still just printing money for schools right now.
Last edited:
I have no idea about the first part. We had to extend Wilson simply because of how historically bad IU has been.
If he had lost the PU game was he gone?
My only point here is that Wilson's ceiling is low. If people want to delude themselves into expecting more than 6 wins from Wilson that's their prerogative. There is a reason we were 1/7 against tougher opponents and why we were unable to win close games. And the inability to win close games has been a trend throughout Wilson's tenure. He flatly get outs coached.
Have a look at Memphis turn around the past 2 years. There are countless other examples. We suck at finding talented coaches. Absolutely suck.
ToastedBread, you ignorant slut.
I've looked at plenty of data. Final numbers were 25th in the country in FEI (2 spots behind Michigan State, second in the Big Ten) and 19th in the S&P (just behind Ohio State in that stat.) Yes, the numbers dropped during bowl season, pushing us to second. Second in the two more respected efficiency metrics! Oh no -- how will we cope with being second best to teams in BCS bowls?
Wilson's teams are consistently efficient, and are often tremendously explosive in both the running and passing games. It's a versatile system with proven success at the Big Ten and Big XII levels.
If you're not satisfied with that level of three year offensive output at a program that has historically recruited very poorly, I'm surprised you can feed yourself with so few brain cells.
Wilson is an elite (top 10-15) offensive mind. He was absolutely an innovator at Northwestern, and brought the use of the diamond pistol set to Oklahoma (where they used that to, you know, set historical records for offensive production.) He gets a tremendous amount of flak here at Indiana for ways that he works to create the big plays and extra possessions that win you games - particularly with his aggressive playcalling at times. He's a much, much better playcaller than you're giving him credit for.
By all means, please continue on your quest to be an elite contrarian. There are plenty of ways to fault Wilson that I'll agree with you on. But questioning his offensive aptitude is not the hill you want to die on.
Memphis had tremendous success much more recently than we did. The hole they had to be pulled out of a few years ago wasn't near as deep as ours.
This was the unfortunate result of bad hiring, bad firing and the untimely death of the guy who might have been our best coaching hire of the past several decades. Memphis still had a foundation of recent success that we couldn't even remember.
Well, given the significance of recruiting in success of a college football program, lacking information about that doesn't bode well for strength of your overall argument.
It is quite possible. Anyone looking at this rationally shouldn't be saying this season was a runaway success. IU finished 6-7. Based on the weekly betting lines, they were projected to go 8-5. But again, the question is what do you do from here: blow it up or try to keep building? If the answer is not blow it up, then an extension like this is what you have to do in order to keep building. Half-measures and short contracts with no real job security, would tangibly undermine that.
I don't even know what to do with this. D is our issue, not offense. He has been an innovator everywhere he's been. I mean, there are articles written about it that you could, like, read. It's like you're looking at a rock and saying "that's a truck."
To me, he had to win six to earn the extension. After that point, as long as the buyout is remotely reasonable, it's cheaper and more reasonable to continue on the path of incremental progress, which is a path I think we're on.
I don't think anyone's arguing that six wins is even the baseline of what we should expect going forward. But the expectation was a bowl game and visible progress, and that expectation was met. Unless you expected 8 or 9 wins this year (unreasonable considering the defense, which absolutely needs work), I'm not sure how you can claim that progress wasn't, in some capacity, made this year.
Neither of us have any idea why our recruiting has been sluggish. Lack of contract length could be one of many factors. That's pure speculation.
So according to you he did the absolute minimum to deserve an extension. Got it.
We'll need to see the new text to know for sure, but if it's anything like his old contract, his buyout will be based on his base salary, which, depending on how the increase in pay is structured, will probably represent between half and 2/3 of his total compensation. Actually not a bad buyout, compared to some other football coaches. This is one area that Glass doesn't deserve all the flak he's gotten. Our coaching buyouts are actually school-favorable compared to market. His only problem was that Crean's original contract had a very school-favorable buyout, and Glass allowed it to become much less school-favorable, even though it's still much better than a lot of other coaches. But giving up all that ground was what gave him a bad name on this count. On a contract-by-contract basis, he's actually done a good job.
Edit: Note that 1/2 to 2/3 is a wild guess. It could be that most of the increase is in the form of promotional income, in which case the key will be to see if Glass follows the CTC extension and changes the CKW buyout from base to promotional pay.
You cretin. Yes, he was. As of 2009, he was calling plays at Oklahoma per several articles that are easily accessible with a Google search.
And Oklahoma fans ripped the hell out of him, specifically, for his playcalling throughout his tenure. Despite, you know, leading the most dangerous f**king offense in the history of Football.
How do you get your pants on in the morning? Or do you just sit at the computer with a bowl of cereal, pantsless, while you dribble spit on the keyboard and post?
Last edited:
Trying to help you with an analogy he's more likely to get.
Yes, he did the minimum to deserve an extension. The key to that sentence, however, is the "deserve an extension" bit. He met my expectations, and to me (and most), earned more time. We can argue for days about how high those expectations should be, but getting over the bowl hump was unquestionably very important for the program.
I'm not arguing that we need to lock him down to a lifetime contract. There are some major issues with the program right now. The defense must improve in the next couple years for him to retain employment three years from now. Recruiting slowed down a bit this year, and needs to take another step forward (particularly on the defensive end) for the program to solidify itself as a middle-of-the-pack Big Ten program. Attendance needs to continue to improve, and Wilson still is developing as a promoter.
These are all flaws that really need to get resolved, and soon, for this program to take the crucial step into top-half of the Big Ten territory (which we need to be in to consistently win 7 or 8 in the Big Ten East.)
But, being frank with you, questioning his ability to build an effective offense goes well beyond reasonable and into "uninformed contrarian" territory. He has a solid offensive staff and the results have been very strong considering the resources he's had at his disposal.
And we're not paying him top level money. In the event that things fall through, we're also (likely) not locked into this contract with a massive buy-out.
My ideal, pie-in-the-sky version of Indiana University football employs a strategy similar to what the Colts had in place during the Manning years. They were going to be elite offensively year over year, and hoped to fluke out a good enough defense to compete for a conference title every now and then. If he's given the resources to build a competent defensive staff, I think Wilson's shown enough that he can get us there with time.
I don't think anyone's arguing that he's the best coach in the country. But considering Indiana's resources, where we're at as a program, and what the available options were, a Kevin Wilson extension is bar-none the best option available to Indiana at this time.
From the little I know of the coaching market I also believe he is the best option currently. That speaks more to the fact that we can't possibly dump him after taking us to a bowl. Where I disagree is that I do not believe that doing the absolute minimum is worthy of a 4 year extension. 2 years, no problem.
Also, those turned around in 2 years don't keep their head coach long. Meanwhile, I always think of VT who could have fired Beamer after going 2-8-1 in his 6th season. Now they are a perennial, albeit 2nd tier, power. And they'll likely be fighting for the playoffs with their new coach.
Only 2 6-win seasons and no bowl games his 1st 6 years. Didn't miss the playoffs after that. And it all started by beating IU and the great Bill Mallory in a bowl game. I still remember watching them block an IU FG try and return it for a TD at the end of the first half.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Beamer
I fully expect you to argue just as effectively, but in the other direction, if and when Fred Glass extends Tom Crean.
Only kidding...sort of...
Memphis got good because of QB Paxton Lynch - a guy Wilson looked at.
I remember Matt Weaver writing an article that Wilson wanted the kid to visit.
http://www.campusrush.com/memphis-tigers-paxton-lynch-1426940661.html
He played at a small school - 150 kids.
He hurt his knee his senior year and sat out 5 games and was overlooked.
He busted a nut in the Florida All-Star game as a replacement for an injured guy.
Florida and IU called.
Florida took Skylar Mohrningweg (sp) and we took Sudfeld.
But at least it shows Wilson (or Johns or Littrell) had an eye for QB talent
Of course I will -- even if how "effective" the argument will be is totally in the eyes of the reader.
The difference there is that, at this stage, I don't see Coach Crean as having met expectations considering the ample resources and assets at his disposal.
At this stage in the rebuilding process, Crean doesn't operate under the same resource and tradition constraints that Wilson has had to work with.
When he took over, Wilson inherited a crater that's always been a crater, and was expected to always be a crater. That's a tough rebuild.
Wilson was the best option of all available options, but considering the reputation, resources, and fanbase that Indiana has, extending Crean isn't. They're two completely different situations, in my view. I'm sure many disagree, but that's not my problem.
IU Football sucks. It is the worst BCS football school. But that also means that IU's not going to be able to go out and find a diamond in the rough who will come coach IU. Wilson has definitely improved the talent level. Let's hope that a few breaks start going IU's way, and that he's able to capitalize on improved talent. While I'm not a fan of Wilson, it would not make sense firing him or letting him walk. The smart thing to do was to give the man a new contract. Let's hope that the entirety of the program is funded in a meaningful way so Wilson has every shot to legitimately succeed.
No no, don't misunderstand me. I am fully onboard with Wilson and fully support the removal of Crean at the earliest possible convenience. I am quite aware of where each one started and the resources at each one's disposal. You'll get no argument from me on how both of them have fared, respectively.
Similar threads
