I don't mind the Leal and Galloway signings, they could be good players. I would like to see a 5 star and high 4 star to finish the class out. Have to have the stars to win anything meaningful
IU has commitments from 2 4* guards in 2020..
- Thread starter jimmygoiu
- Start date
I agree with that. I'd say we're more in a league with, say, Iowa. And that's depressing enough.
Nothing against Iowa. But, as far as basketball programs go, that's simply not who we should aspire to be.
But there just doesn't seem to be an attitude from the top which unequivocally insists on excellence. And that has permeated through to many of our fans.
We may not like to admit it. But the truth is that, in many ways, we've come to accept this.
So if we can all agree that we're in a similar camp as Iowa, can't we at least all agree that transcending to the top isn't going to happen overnight? A program like Iowa isn't going to become an elite program overnight. You're never going to become an elite program if you fire a coach every two years when you don't see immediate results.
There are 3 programs in the entire country that have seen sustained success for over a 50 year period and that's Kentucky, North Carolina, and Kansas. Duke didn't become elite overnight and in fact is was quite a struggle for Coach K his first 5 or 6 years. Villanova didn't become elite overnight and in fact it took over 10 years for Villanova to really become elite. Same thing with Tony Bennett at Virginia. He didn't exactly hit the ground running his first 4 or 5 years either.
The only way Indiana is going to get back to the top is through consistency and continuity. That's not going to happen after firing a coach after 2-3 years because there is no instant gratification. Sure, someone like Chris Beard is the example of instant gratification, but Texas Tech still has a way to go to prove that they actually belong at the top.
My guess is Archie has revised recruiting to adapt to change. There is a lot going on now that was not in play before.
Rule changes allow kids to go straight to the NBA; "elite players" can hire agents; being able to come back if not drafted; kids choosing to go overseas instead of college becoming more of an option; and highly rated players waiting longer and longer to declare --- it puts coaches in a tough spot.
It could be Archie is now looking for solid 3 to 4 year players and foregoing the 5 stars. Or more likely Archie is trying to regroup, build a base of core players that will be around for at least 3 seasons and adding the occasional 5 star instead of fighting with Duke and others over the few 5 stars that may play college ball.
Rule changes allow kids to go straight to the NBA; "elite players" can hire agents; being able to come back if not drafted; kids choosing to go overseas instead of college becoming more of an option; and highly rated players waiting longer and longer to declare --- it puts coaches in a tough spot.
It could be Archie is now looking for solid 3 to 4 year players and foregoing the 5 stars. Or more likely Archie is trying to regroup, build a base of core players that will be around for at least 3 seasons and adding the occasional 5 star instead of fighting with Duke and others over the few 5 stars that may play college ball.
I disagree. I think it would be drastically different than 2013. The 2013 team was extremely talented and any coach with a pulse could have done what Crean did. Of course, he underachieved and somehow managed to lose 7 games, look clueless against Syracuse, and Wisconsin (2x) (taking out Zeller against Butler was idiotic as well). The 2013 team was a great team, but they didn't overachieve because of Crean.
So, far I don't think Archie has overachieved, yet. The first year was meh and last year was a disappointment. I think next year an average power 5 coach could make the tournament. If Archie is able to make this team a top 20 team and make a deep run in the tourney, it would be the first sign, in my opinion, that he might be the guy. It would definitely be a team that overachieved for their talent level and an indication of a well coached team.
Last edited:
Both Kentucky (Gillispie) and North Carolina (Doherty) have fired coaches after short periods of time. And that is because their PTBs insisted on a certain standard of excellence and they simply wouldn't tolerate anything short of that. In Doherty's case, he was even one of their own. No matter -- he clearly wasn't cutting the mustard and they weren't going to sit there and wait it out.
That said, our situation isn't like theirs. Our downward trajectory began decades ago and has been allowed to fester. Some say it was the day RMK was fired. I'd actually put it earlier than that. But, either way, there's no question that where we are today is the product of many bad decisions made over a long period of time.
Do I think we can get back where we want to be, on a consistent basis, in a short period of time? Maybe not. But Tom Crean got 9 years. I forget how many Davis had -- but he should never have been hired as anything but an interim. And now here we are basically saying that merely making the tournament is a sufficient bar for carrying forward with Archie.
Personally, I think we should be more demanding than that.
But we've been stuck in "it's going to take time...we just need more time" mode for a long, long time. Surely you realize that, right?
As you eluded, far different circumstances. Our steady decline started after we lost the great class of Cheaney, Reynolds, and Graham.
Mike Davis earned the right to have his interim tag lifted. Nobody can deny that. And he followed it up with a trip to the national title game. He was given a short leash and only given 4 years after IU's trip to the national title game. The right decision was made.
The decision to hire Sampson was a bad one, if only he had complied. I'm a firm believer IU is still an elite program if Sampson stayed clean as he is one of the better basketball coaches in the country. As far as ability, Sampson was a home run hire.
Then comes Crean. Saying Crean got 9 years is egregious because his tenure should fairly be described in 2 parts. He faced a devastating rebuild and did an admirable getting IU out of the mess he inherited. Years 4 and 5 IU was well on there way back, firing Crean after the Syracuse game wouldn't have been the right move in my opinion. But years 6 and 7 were telling and I would have been fine had IU parted ways then.
You can demand all you want but it's going to take time for IU. Firing yet another coach 3 years into his tenure is only going to set IU back another 3-4 years. That's the reality. The guy we have now hasn't been given a fair chance. I still demand excellence from IU, but it ain't happening overnight. Delusions of Donovan or Stevens coming through the door and instantly leading IU to a F4 is just that, delusions. It's not going to happen. Stevens nor Donovan was leading IU to the F4 any of the last 2 years. The roster wasn't there.
We aren’t in the same situation as Iowa. We recruit better than Iowa year after year. That is why our results have been so difficult to live with. Crean built his resume whilst underachieving every year. We don’t need a top three coach to win Big Ten titles. We need a top 50 coach. I’m confident Archie is there with a lot of upside.
I'm not the one who used Iowa as an example, the person I quoted did.
And nobody is denying that IU recruits at a higher level than Iowa. But there's a big difference in simply landing top talent (which Crean did routinely) and constructing a balance roster (something Crean failed at miserably). This is why you haven't seen instant results with Archie. He isn't playing with a full deck, yet. He's getting there and that's when the results on the court will start to show.
Could you expand on this thought?
What specifically could the "top" done to "unequivocally insist on excellence"?
Are you just talking about firing the coach?
My guess is that because IU won't throw $7-8 mil a year to a coach (Stevens or Donovan), they aren't committed to winning. Which is total nonsense.
I don't think that is the correct question. The question should be (for the first couple of years in their tenure) is do you think the coach is overachieving or underachieving with the talent they have.
That's a fair question, but don't necessarily believe it's a precursor. We would have all loved IU to have made the tournament the last two years. I expected IU to make the tournament, especially last year, and am just as disappointed as the next fan that we didn't and that can't continue to happen. But I'm willing to look at the bigger picture. If missing the tournament in years 1 and 2 because Archie needed to establish a culture and find guys for his system leads to long term success, I can totally live with that. And in my opinion, that's the way I see things going for IU. I could very well end up being wrong, but we won't know for at least a year or two and I believe Archie at least deserves that chance.
Kansas after Phog Allen and Wilt left had around a 25-30 year stretch where they were not playing at a yearly blue blood level. Yeh they got 3 FF appearances and a couple other elite 8's but most those years winning the conference title got you to the sweet 16 without having to play through 2 extra rounds. Since larry Brown arrived in the 80's they have been the blue blood Kansas again.
The 9 years prior to Brown they only made the tourney 3 times. Hard to compare era because not as many teams made it but most those years of not making it they had records around .500 and less than 20 wins.
Now I can't say Archie is on level with Brown, roy or Self but I can't say he cannot get there like Bennett or Wright either. I believe the roster he inherited had chemistry flaws based around lack of center play and poor PG play. I believe Phin will go a long way way in fixing the PG play. Hopefully he stays healthy.
While there is an anti Archie group, I haven't seen many details from them on his poor coaching that lead me to believe that he is not the guy other than they did not make the tourney or he is not recruiting like his brother. Or comments like Mack and Holtman have turned those programs around are just meh to me. Louisville went 4-7 down the stretch going into the NCAA and lost to Minnesota so they clsed the season 4-8. They also lost to IU. OSU also finished the season at 4-8. They did manage to win a tourney game and beat IU twice both by less than 5 points. IU won 6 of 8 after the team fell apart when they could of just packed it in. SH#$@%#$% happens on the bad 13 game streak but Archie got them on track.
The 9 years prior to Brown they only made the tourney 3 times. Hard to compare era because not as many teams made it but most those years of not making it they had records around .500 and less than 20 wins.
Now I can't say Archie is on level with Brown, roy or Self but I can't say he cannot get there like Bennett or Wright either. I believe the roster he inherited had chemistry flaws based around lack of center play and poor PG play. I believe Phin will go a long way way in fixing the PG play. Hopefully he stays healthy.
While there is an anti Archie group, I haven't seen many details from them on his poor coaching that lead me to believe that he is not the guy other than they did not make the tourney or he is not recruiting like his brother. Or comments like Mack and Holtman have turned those programs around are just meh to me. Louisville went 4-7 down the stretch going into the NCAA and lost to Minnesota so they clsed the season 4-8. They also lost to IU. OSU also finished the season at 4-8. They did manage to win a tourney game and beat IU twice both by less than 5 points. IU won 6 of 8 after the team fell apart when they could of just packed it in. SH#$@%#$% happens on the bad 13 game streak but Archie got them on track.
The 247 sports updated rankings not the composite. On 247 alone, Ivey is 78 Leal is 109. It’s clear that the composite rankings haven’t updated since Ivey is ranked higher than Leal on rivals, espn, and 247.
I may respond to the rest of your post later. But I couldn't let this go unaddressed.
The decision to hire Mike Davis as the full-time head coach is at or near the top of the list of really bad -- inexplicable, really -- decisions made by the IU brass.
You're talking about somebody who had never been a head coach at any level before. Not at Div 2, not at a mid major, not in the CBA, not even at a High School. And we're handing him the keys to not just a Big Ten program, but a pretty prestigious one? Really?
I get that the timing of Knight's firing was all messed up -- the result of yet another really bad decision (if they were going to fire him, they should've done so that spring...instead of creating a situation where we even had to have an interim HC).
So, no, it's not true that "nobody can deny" that Davis deserved to get the full-time gig. I'll deny it now just as I did the day they did it. Mike Davis is a fine guy and we all appreciate him stepping up to the mic in terrible circumstances (of our own making). But he never should've been retained.
I can’t believe the program is up in flames and we’re here bragging about 2 recruits not even in the top 100. We can’t even make the tournament and we’re recruiting like a mid major but we have cult members on here beating their chests. What a joke.
I guess we’ll just agree to disagree. Davis in my opinion earned his right to become the head coach in his campaign year. And then he followed it up with a trip to the national title. It’s easy to look back in hindsight now and say it didn’t work out, but at the time it was perfectly acceptable. IU had to look no further than up the road in East Lansing to see how a long time assistant with no prior head coaching experience jumpstarted the Michigan State program.
People always say this as if Crean himself didn't have a hand in creating a need for such a massive rebuild. He did. It's not uncommon for incoming coaches to have players transfer so some of the team may have been lost anyways. Some of the team had been kicked off by Dakich but Crean could've allowed them back on if he chose to. He didn't. Others he chased off himself. So it's not as if he came in where there was only 1 former walk-on player as the only option, it's the option he chose.
I think we can agree that he hasn't really overachieved his first two years. We probably disagree on how much he has underachieved.
Year 1: Took over a team that that finished just over the 0.500 the year before that lost its 3 best players to the draft while keeping the incoming freshmen class which had no stars to replace even one of the outgoing players. He lead that team to a finish of just over 0.500. I would consider this at worst meeting expectations to slight over-achievement.
Year 2: Lost the best 3-point shooter from the year before but returned Morgan after his breakout season and brought in a heralded recruiting class which included a star in Langford. Because of Langford alone most predictions had them as a good but not great team that should make the NCAAT. Of course, some bought in to the hype and went crazy with their predictions. I think this season could actually be looked at in 3 separate parts.
Part 1: Beginning of season - began 12-2 with only the loss against Duke looking bad. I would rate this as slight over-achievement.
Part 2: January 6 through February 22- a stretch in which the team went 1-12. Even with the possible contributing factors I think everyone would agree that this stretch would be considered massively underachieving.
Part 3: End of February through March - Finished out the regular season strong to get onto the NCAAT picture, mostly by winning games they should have with a surprise against MSU. Laid an egg in the B1GT. Earned a #1 seed in the NIT where they go 2-1 at home without Langford. I would consider this portion to be meeting expectations with good and bad surprises.
Overall for season 2 I would consider it slightly underachieving due to the losing stretch. If it weren't for the Part 3 of the season I would've said that Miller had completely lost the team during Part 2 and his inability to get them back would have me doubting him more. As it is, he was able to get them back on track, it just took longer than I would've liked.
So overall, while I concede he's not over-achieving, I don't think he's been underachieving. Last season was definitely disappointing but to me many of the extenuating circumstances (aka excuses) contributed greatly. So I've seen enough to think he can turn it around in the future but also enough to see that it's possible he won't. It's this uncertainty that has me squarely in the wait and see group because firing coaches every 2-3 years won't work out.
What are the top 100 recruits called if a guy ranked 103 (RP) is a home run? Are you referring to a game other than baseball?
100 recruits is A LOT. Enough for the top 50 programs to each get 2. We must not even be top 50 anymore.
In baseball terms Archie is hitting about .165 with 1 HR, a triple, and an infield hit.
Typical hyperbole from you.
2-2 is hardly "owning." Granted he should probably be 4-0 or 3-1 but 2-2 is not getting "owned."
That's funny because so are you.
And to be clear, I never suggested the IU basketball program was on par with Rutgers. I said the TREND was pointing that way. I thinks it's fair to say that our program has gone from a top 5 National Program to one that is currently on par with a middle of the pack BT program like Iowa. That's a precipitous fall. The Trend is not our friend right now.
Really? Who? Half of that team was going to flunk off anyway because of grades, there's a reason the majority of the transfers ended up at JUCO's and there was a rampant drug problem amongst the majority of the team. Not a good look after just getting hammered by the NCAA.
Agree with you, except for the "hammered by the NCAA". IU administration elected to commit program suicide on its own, for some reason. The NCAA gave us a slap on the wrist.
First, I’m not just saying this in hindsight. I said the exact same thing the day it was announced. It may have surprised you that the Davis hire ended badly. It did not surprise me — and I know I’m far from alone.
It was a truly baffling decision.
Moreover, you simply can’t compare Davis’ resume at that time to Izzo’s at the time he took the helm at MSU. He had been groomed to take that job for 12 years. And, what’s more, he actually had been a head coach before. Yes, it was at the HS level. But that’s more than could’ve been said about Davis.
Even Mike Davis himself publicly questioned if he was the right guy for IU job. He knew he was in over his head. How is it that the IU brass didn’t???
IU has disappointed for sure, but Iowa it is not.
Iowa has had 7 Top 100 rated recruits sign over the past 10 years (including the upcoming season). IU has had 7 McD AA's over the same period and 20 Top 100 recruits..
Iowa has received two #7 seeds, a #10 and a #11. The Hawks have not managed to advance past the first weekend of the NCAA Tournament and their best B10 finish is 3rd.
As disappointing as IU has been, they've received a #1, #4, #5 and #10. IU has advanced to the Sweet 16 three times and have won two outright B10 Titles, these accomplishments would qualify as a mini golden era at Iowa.
Currently Iowa has 4 players who were ranked 4-star or better by at least two of the three free services (Rivals, 247 & ESPN). The average for power conference teams is 5.25 players per roster of these highly touted recruits. IU, on the other hand, has 9 on it's current roster. Only MSU, Maryland, Arizona and Texas have more than 9 coming into this season.
Now I'll admit that I'm way to emotional when it comes to Crean, I hated him ever since I saw him grandstanding at Marquette and then was forced to watch his carnival barking ways for nine years here...so I'm crazy negative towards him.
But the only guys he really wanted to kick off was Ellis and Thomas. He tried, really hard, to keep Bassett, Crawford and Holman which would have stabilized his first couple of years.
He failed and when he failed he couldn't let it go so he made sure the world knew how bad he had it by airing dirty laundry and talking like he had the hardest rebuild in the history of sports (which was offensive to Baylor)...cause that's what he does.
It probably why I want Archie to succeed, because I love everything about him off the court.
He just works and has brought in high character kids who are actually getting real degrees vs 3/4 of the team majoring in recreational sports management.
I don't think we've had even one off the court issue yet. We will but our ship has been tightly run since Crean left.
First off, Izzo was not successful at Michigan State because he was the head coach in the UP as a 22 year old so let's just get that out of the way acting like he's somehow more qualified than Davis.
Davis was the reason why half of those guys were on the team in the first place. He had taken over as lead recruiter for Knight and guys like Newton, Moye, and Jeffries who was best friends with Davis' eldest son aren't on the team if not for Davis.
I wasn't sold on Davis, until he actually coaches. The players responded to him and fought for him and most (obviously not all) supported him after his first year. And then he followed his interim year up with a run to the national title. You can say, "I told you so all you want" but you are in the minority of IU fans who after 2 years said Mike Davis was the wrong hire.
And the Davis hire isn't what crippled the IU program. It's not like he left Sampson with a talentless roster. IU's own undoing was hiring Kelvin Sampson and the baggage he brought. IU found themselves in the top 10 up to the week of Sampson's resignation, so don't act like IU hiring Mike Davis is the reason why IU is where they are today.
No, that's not really it. In fact, I always tread lightly when discussing spending somebody else's money. It's one of the things that irritates me about sports fans. As far as they're concerned, short of any salary cap issues, they virtually always think their favorite team/school should spend whatever amount is necessary to secure the services of star players and coaches.
And that's awfully easy to do when you're not the one accountable for the budget.
No, what I'm getting at is what seems to be the prevailing attitude of university leadership since the Myles Brand era. And, yes, it mainly comes down to hiring and firing coaches -- who they've hired, how long they've kept coaches despite soft results....generally just an aura that it's OK to come to Indiana and be mediocre. You should still expect to get at least 5 years out of it...if not 9.
I much prefer the way UK handled the Gillispie debacle. And that worked out pretty well for them. Yes, Gillispie made it easier for Barnhart to can him with the booze. But make no mistake that the poor results on the floor set the stage.
Had that happened here, a whole lot of people would've said that Gillispie just needed more time. And I'm pretty certain that IU's leadership would've agreed.
That's the difference between a culture devoted to winning and a culture devoted to being nice.
UK had no choice but to fire Gillespie. IU has never had an instance that made it that easy. Davis was the full time head coach for 5 years. He had 2 bad years and they fired him after a year in which he made the NCAAT and won a game. So don't act like IU gave Mike Davis some ultra-long leash where he was allowed to do whatever he wanted for eternity. IU acted and moved quickly. They just took way to big of a gamble hiring Sampson.
Again, regarding Crean, firing him after 3 years wouldn't have been right. I agree they ended up keeping him a year or two too long, but his situation far differs from Billy Gillespie. And again, you're talking about Kentucky, the pinnacle of college basketball.
I know. It was his 12 years as Jud Heathcotte's assistant -- a good 5 or 6 of which he was the heir apparent.
I will and I am.
What the hell does that matter? I was on the right side of the question, even if it wasn't the popular side. In fact, a big part of what I'm decrying is that so many of us were OK with hiring somebody who couldn't have gotten any other major job in the business. It's a big part of our problem -- akin to sentimentality.
I think I've been clear that the university has made a series of bad decisions over many, many years. Hiring Davis full-time is one of them. But not the only one. These aren't mutually exclusive things.
My only rub is bitching about recruiting.
One because no one knows how these kids will play together.
Two because I have a hard time understanding anyone who enjoyed the Knight era really freaking out over stars.
Think about it...one of his greatest classes on paper was the Patterson, Reed, Miller, Hogston, Hermon class.
And it was basically the class that got him fired.
Patterson, Reed, Recker and Collier were the highest rated players we got in the 90's. Guyton and Haston were some of the lowest.
If you ever listen to the Hoosier Hysterics podcasts where they interview ex players, most say one of the big keys to Knight's success was he knew the kind of player he needed and they weren't all five stars. Actually he had some of his most trouble with five stars (Delray, Flowers, Funderburke, Patterson, Reed, Collier, Recker....and I don't like putting Patterson and Delray as they were great kids but didn't fit with Knight's style).
Instead of 5 star James Blackmon he got 4 star Steve Alford.
Instead of 5 star Funderburke he got zero star Cheaney.
Anyway yes, Knight got some great players in his heyday but he also has a record of solid four and three star soldiers who became great that weren't five stars with demands and a clown posse attached to them like Kitchell, Wittman, Jim Thomas, Alford, Cheaney, Evans, Guyton, Haston, etc.
Five years ago, after the nonsense of the Johnson brothers, Painter told Dakich on his show that he needed to stop prioritizing HS rankings and go get guys that really fit his brand...which the fanbase isn't going to like and he'd have to manage but he needed more 'Purdue guys' vs going down a list.
He's done pretty well since I'd say.
One because no one knows how these kids will play together.
Two because I have a hard time understanding anyone who enjoyed the Knight era really freaking out over stars.
Think about it...one of his greatest classes on paper was the Patterson, Reed, Miller, Hogston, Hermon class.
And it was basically the class that got him fired.
Patterson, Reed, Recker and Collier were the highest rated players we got in the 90's. Guyton and Haston were some of the lowest.
If you ever listen to the Hoosier Hysterics podcasts where they interview ex players, most say one of the big keys to Knight's success was he knew the kind of player he needed and they weren't all five stars. Actually he had some of his most trouble with five stars (Delray, Flowers, Funderburke, Patterson, Reed, Collier, Recker....and I don't like putting Patterson and Delray as they were great kids but didn't fit with Knight's style).
Instead of 5 star James Blackmon he got 4 star Steve Alford.
Instead of 5 star Funderburke he got zero star Cheaney.
Anyway yes, Knight got some great players in his heyday but he also has a record of solid four and three star soldiers who became great that weren't five stars with demands and a clown posse attached to them like Kitchell, Wittman, Jim Thomas, Alford, Cheaney, Evans, Guyton, Haston, etc.
Five years ago, after the nonsense of the Johnson brothers, Painter told Dakich on his show that he needed to stop prioritizing HS rankings and go get guys that really fit his brand...which the fanbase isn't going to like and he'd have to manage but he needed more 'Purdue guys' vs going down a list.
He's done pretty well since I'd say.
Firing Crean after three years is tough but right when he's just come off his third last place finish (I think he was second to last his second year to be technical) and you have a 30 some year coach whoes favorite team growing up was IU and just took Horizon league Butler to back to back title games.
You make that move.
In Archie's case...this isn't year three of last place finishes (we missed the tournament by 1 game) and there is no Brad Stevens out there other than Beard, who is a Texas fan, not IU.
We can only speculate as to whether or not BCG would've survived but for his boozing. Personally, I think they'd have fired him with or without it. Hell, they fired Tubby Smith -- who never failed to make the tournament and won a NC -- after a pair of 22-win seasons (and a .760 career winning percentage in Lexington).
Point is...they did it. So did UNC with Doherty. Programs that are committed to winning act swiftly and make no apologies for demanding great results.
Meanwhile, we've had a couple good teams here and there in the past 25 years and pride ourselves on giving coaches a fair shot.
