But it seems to me that a good coach controls the parts of the game that he can control. Defense seems like it’s mostly scheme and effort. It’s not random. It’s subject to being controlled. A good coach should have a good defense. Free throw percentage is also something that a coach can control through practice and effort, except in the case of maybe chronic brick-layer like Shaq or something. A good coach’s team should hit its free throws at a good percentage.
On the other hand, offense seems less controllable. Turnovers and shot selection are controllable, but when it comes to shooting, sometimes teams are hot and sometimes they’re cold. That’s random. Well coached teams can get hit scoring droughts and lose games they should win, and poorly coached teams can get hot from three and win games they should lose.
So what’s my point? I see some of the candidates like McCollum and Bennett who won at a high level, while not having a high scoring team, getting put down for boring offense. I think I’d prefer those guys because to me they’re the better coaches. They control what they can. In my opinion, winning is what’s exciting. Those guys finished in the top three of their league at a much higher rate than the other candidates. Isn’t that what we all really want? Tony Bennett’s average finish in a tough ACC in 15 years was 3rd. He won the league 6 times. I’d have liked to have had “boring” results at IU like that the last 15 years. Coach Crean and Fran McCaffery are known for scoring a lot. Are they great coaches? Scoring a lot and losing is not exciting.
I understand Archie was a defense guy and he failed. I also hear the argument that the top players won’t want to play the slower pace. But the landscape has totally changed since Archie was here. We can pay players now, and we have tons of dough. It’s not like it was. We’re getting talented players to come now when we’re finishing 10th, missing the tournament half the time, and running both a bad offense and a bad defense. Imagine the players that might come when we’re top three in the Big Ten every year with a great defense and and effective, though boring, offense.
I don’t think Coach Pearl will come, unfortunately. He’d de a definite winner. I’d absolutely love to have Coach Beard, but I think the cowards in charge won’t hire him. That said, I think McCollum or Bennett would be great. If it’s not one of those guys, I really hope they don’t hire one of the long list of decent but average candidates (Cronin, Williams, Brownell, McDermott, etc. ). I’m sure they are good coaches and good people, but they will doom us to being average. If we get to that point, I hope they hire Coach Alford. He’s just as good as anyone not named Pearl, Beard, McCollum or Bennett, and he’d have a competitive advantage over the others I listed because of his local fame.
I really don’t know anything. I’m not sure why I even write any of this. I just want IU to be good again.
On the other hand, offense seems less controllable. Turnovers and shot selection are controllable, but when it comes to shooting, sometimes teams are hot and sometimes they’re cold. That’s random. Well coached teams can get hit scoring droughts and lose games they should win, and poorly coached teams can get hot from three and win games they should lose.
So what’s my point? I see some of the candidates like McCollum and Bennett who won at a high level, while not having a high scoring team, getting put down for boring offense. I think I’d prefer those guys because to me they’re the better coaches. They control what they can. In my opinion, winning is what’s exciting. Those guys finished in the top three of their league at a much higher rate than the other candidates. Isn’t that what we all really want? Tony Bennett’s average finish in a tough ACC in 15 years was 3rd. He won the league 6 times. I’d have liked to have had “boring” results at IU like that the last 15 years. Coach Crean and Fran McCaffery are known for scoring a lot. Are they great coaches? Scoring a lot and losing is not exciting.
I understand Archie was a defense guy and he failed. I also hear the argument that the top players won’t want to play the slower pace. But the landscape has totally changed since Archie was here. We can pay players now, and we have tons of dough. It’s not like it was. We’re getting talented players to come now when we’re finishing 10th, missing the tournament half the time, and running both a bad offense and a bad defense. Imagine the players that might come when we’re top three in the Big Ten every year with a great defense and and effective, though boring, offense.
I don’t think Coach Pearl will come, unfortunately. He’d de a definite winner. I’d absolutely love to have Coach Beard, but I think the cowards in charge won’t hire him. That said, I think McCollum or Bennett would be great. If it’s not one of those guys, I really hope they don’t hire one of the long list of decent but average candidates (Cronin, Williams, Brownell, McDermott, etc. ). I’m sure they are good coaches and good people, but they will doom us to being average. If we get to that point, I hope they hire Coach Alford. He’s just as good as anyone not named Pearl, Beard, McCollum or Bennett, and he’d have a competitive advantage over the others I listed because of his local fame.
I really don’t know anything. I’m not sure why I even write any of this. I just want IU to be good again.
