ADVERTISEMENT

Kaufman.

Also, keep in mind the precise words you're responding to. It's true that I said that I'd have fired him if I was the AD. And I would have. Honestly, I think most ADs at schools that have high expectations would've done so. You think Kentucky would've retained him with his records? You think they'd have assumed the fetal position in fear of having to hire a better coach after firing one in response to a tepid 3 year run?

But the precise words you're objecting to in that last post is my contention that the results themselves -- ie, absent other considerations (e.g., money, what it communicates to other prospective coaches) -- did not warrant retaining him.

I don't think anybody could object to that -- even if you think, as most here do, that it was the correct decision not to fire him. The results have been, at best, middling -- and, really, that's being generous.

For me, I think the single biggest obstacle our program has is this culturally deep-seated aversion to taking bold and decisive moves. We'd never have fired Matt Doherty or Billy Gillispie when UNC and UK did. And that's why those programs are where they are and we're where we are....cowering about the hidden dangers of having high expectations.
I'll give you Doherty but I'm tired of people using BCG as an example as that was a completely different situation. BCG has a drinking problem and did during that time. He also rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. He went to student bars and hit on coeds. So he was kind of a PR nightmare and a lawsuit waiting to happen.

More importantly, he hadn't signed a contract. A judge eventually ruled against the university and they had to pay him $7M but at the time it looked like UK could get rid of him without having to pay him.

Miller isn't incredibly charismatic but he also doesn't piss a lot of important people off. He's not a lush or a womanizer. He does have a contract with a large buyout. It's quite possible that without that contract he would've been let go by now but there's no way to know since he has it. It is equally impossible to say if UK would've gotten rid of BCG when they did if he had a contract with a large buyout.
 
I'll give you Doherty but I'm tired of people using BCG as an example as that was a completely different situation. BCG has a drinking problem and did during that time. He also rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. He went to student bars and hit on coeds. So he was kind of a PR nightmare and a lawsuit waiting to happen.

More importantly, he hadn't signed a contract. A judge eventually ruled against the university and they had to pay him $7M but at the time it looked like UK could get rid of him without having to pay him.

Miller isn't incredibly charismatic but he also doesn't piss a lot of important people off. He's not a lush or a womanizer. He does have a contract with a large buyout. It's quite possible that without that contract he would've been let go by now but there's no way to know since he has it. It is equally impossible to say if UK would've gotten rid of BCG when they did if he had a contract with a large buyout.

Understood. But keep in mind that I put his name out there in response to the notion that firing a coach "too soon" has a chilling effect on the market -- that is, other coaches would say "Well, if Indiana will fire a coach after just 3 years, then I'm not going to go there!" As a response to this sentiment, I think bringing up Gillispie is fair.

Kentucky had no problem hiring Calipari after firing Gillispie, whatever the circumstances.

I think our program is seemingly stuck in a low gear because, whether we realize or not, we've embraced a culture of caution and over-patience -- mixed with nostalgia for the good ol' days. Most people will look at those values and ask "What's wrong with that?" But look how long both Mike Davis and Tom Crean hung on, despite poor results. In some cases, patience is not a virtue -- at some point in time, it crosses a line into becoming a tolerance for mediocrity.

I firmly believe that we need to have a cultural paradigm shift -- which is more than just a coaching change -- if we're ever to get back to where we all want us to be. And part of that is to stop being so damn tolerant of crappy results.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigMobe
I'll give you Doherty but I'm tired of people using BCG as an example as that was a completely different situation. BCG has a drinking problem and did during that time. He also rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. He went to student bars and hit on coeds. So he was kind of a PR nightmare and a lawsuit waiting to happen.

More importantly, he hadn't signed a contract. A judge eventually ruled against the university and they had to pay him $7M but at the time it looked like UK could get rid of him without having to pay him.

Miller isn't incredibly charismatic but he also doesn't piss a lot of important people off. He's not a lush or a womanizer. He does have a contract with a large buyout. It's quite possible that without that contract he would've been let go by now but there's no way to know since he has it. It is equally impossible to say if UK would've gotten rid of BCG when they did if he had a contract with a large buyout.

One other thing on Gillispie....make no mistake that the results on the floor were the reason he was fired. Or, at least, the reason he was fired when he was. His bizarre off-court behavior was obviously a problem that was going to catch up to him one day or another. But, ultimately, that seemed like more of an excuse to fire him without having to pay a buyout. If he'd have posted 30 win seasons and deep tourney runs, we'd probably never have heard about all that.
 
Understood. But keep in mind that I put his name out there in response to the notion that firing a coach "too soon" has a chilling effect on the market -- that is, other coaches would say "Well, if Indiana will fire a coach after just 3 years, then I'm not going to go there!" As a response to this sentiment, I think bringing up Gillispie is fair.

Kentucky had no problem hiring Calipari after firing Gillispie, whatever the circumstances.

I think our program is seemingly stuck in a low gear because, whether we realize or not, we've embraced a culture of caution and over-patience -- mixed with nostalgia for the good ol' days. Most people will look at those values and ask "What's wrong with that?" But look how long both Mike Davis and Tom Crean hung on, despite poor results. In some cases, patience is not a virtue -- at some point in time, it crosses a line into becoming a tolerance for mediocrity.

I firmly believe that we need to have a cultural paradigm shift -- which is more than just a coaching change -- if we're ever to get back to where we all want us to be. And part of that is to stop being so damn tolerant of crappy results.
And, while I agree completely on the need for a cultural shift, I think the odds of it happening as a predicate to our return to elite status are almost nil. To be candid, I don’t think IU ever had that culture. We had one unbelievably successful coach who made the program elite, but his hiring wasn’t due to our culture, either (It was due to a combination of factors, including misses on other ”candidates” as well as strong leadership from two individuals). We found the right guy and the winning formula, but I don’t believe culture led us to that result. Further, I think it gave many IU fans the erroneous belief that we actually did have a culture of winning, when that wasn’t really the case. It just sounded good and made us think we were something we weren’t. Unfortunately, the true culture has led us to the results we’ve seen for the last two decades, and it’s a culture that isn’t geared toward IU being elite. All in my opinion, of course.
 
One other thing on Gillispie....make no mistake that the results on the floor were the reason he was fired. Or, at least, the reason he was fired when he was. His bizarre off-court behavior was obviously a problem that was going to catch up to him one day or another. But, ultimately, that seemed like more of an excuse to fire him without having to pay a buyout. If he'd have posted 30 win seasons and deep tourney runs, we'd probably never have heard about all that.
I don't dispute that. My point was that it was very easy to fire him. No contract plus no one to fight for him. Someone that isn't winning but is viewed favorably by those in power are still harder to fire than someone who isn't winning but also isn't well liked and has the potential to cause even more headaches and bad PR down the road. And no contract? It's almost a no brainer.

I agree that the reason to not fire Miller, or any other coach, for IU shouldn't be because they wouldn't be able find a good coach. There is still enough of a history and good recruiting base that a talented coach would be willing to come. And lets be honest, coaches at this level think very highly of themselves and their abilities. They would think that they would have more success than the previous coach.
 
Kentucky had no problem hiring Calipari after firing Gillispie, whatever the circumstances.
No - they only had trouble trying to hire Donovan. And were turned down a second time.

Go back to when UK hired Billy Clyde and see what BBN thought of Calipari then. That UK then hired him 2 years later speaks volumes.
 
His three year Big 10 record is 26-32 (9-9, 8-12, 9-11). Further, while I hope we can finally get into the top half of the conference, what leads you to believe we’ll be competing for the title? This seems like the definition of mediocrity but many, including you, seem fine and even defensive of it.

After this coming year let’s revisit these posts and see where we are. I bet you will be wrong and I will right about our upward trajectory. We ARE heading in the right direction as a program and we will be in the top half of not top 4 in the conference. So let’s let these posts go for now and revisit after the season.
 
  • Like
Reactions: travlinhoosier
Also, keep in mind the precise words you're responding to. It's true that I said that I'd have fired him if I was the AD. And I would have. Honestly, I think most ADs at schools that have high expectations would've done so. You think Kentucky would've retained him with his records? You think they'd have assumed the fetal position in fear of having to hire a better coach after firing one in response to a tepid 3 year run?

But the precise words you're objecting to in that last post is my contention that the results themselves -- ie, absent other considerations (e.g., money, what it communicates to other prospective coaches) -- did not warrant retaining him.

I don't think anybody could object to that -- even if you think, as most here do, that it was the correct decision not to fire him. The results have been, at best, middling -- and, really, that's being generous.

For me, I think the single biggest obstacle our program has is this culturally deep-seated aversion to taking bold and decisive moves. We'd never have fired Matt Doherty or Billy Gillispie when UNC and UK did. And that's why those programs are where they are and we're where we are....cowering about the hidden dangers of having high expectations.

You're picking 2 situations in which there was DEEP secondary issues with the coach in question and saying those programs acted boldly to get rid of an underperforming Coach, when in reality in both situations, the underlying problems played a huge role. I don't know as much about BCG's situation, but I don't believe UNC would have fired Doherty when they did just for his oncourt performance. There had been throughout his tenure complaints from players and their families about MD and the other factor was that Roy Williams let it be known that he was ready to come home and take the UNC job. I don't think Doherty would've been fired after his 3rd year without both of those issues converging in concert with their poor results. Archie has none of that extended baggage and, while not at the pace most would like, has the program headed in the right direction. Totally different situations.
 
Last edited:
You're picking 2 situations in which there was DEEP secondary issues with the coach in question and saying those programs acted boldly to get rid of an underperforming Coach, when in reality in both situations, the underlying problems played a huge role. I don't know as much about BCG's situation, but I don't believe UNC would have fired Doherty when they did just for his oncourt performance. There had been throughout his tenure complaints from players and their families about MD and the other factor was that Roy Williams let it be known that he was ready to come home and take the UNC job. I don't think Doherty would've been fired after his 3rd year without both of those issues converging in concert with their poor results.

Maybe. Like you, I wasn’t there either. What I’m saying is that I don’t think our PTBs would’ve cut bait as soon as UNC’s did. How much longer did Davis hang on after he should have? Crean? Of course every situation is unique. I get that.

But I just don’t get the impression that there’s a whole lot of insistence on success from the IU brass. And I also think it’s a worldview that is all too common among our fans and boosters. We seem content to hang on the hope that the near future will be what we hope it will be.

It should be obvious by now that this paradigm hasn’t served us well over the past 20+ years. You’d think at some point we’d adopt a different strategy.
 
After this coming year let’s revisit these posts and see where we are. I bet you will be wrong and I will right about our upward trajectory. We ARE heading in the right direction as a program and we will be in the top half of not top 4 in the conference. So let’s let these posts go for now and revisit after the season.
Happy to do so and hope you’re right. Just don’t think the results and the run up are indicators of what you see coming.
 
After this coming year let’s revisit these posts and see where we are. I bet you will be wrong and I will right about our upward trajectory. We ARE heading in the right direction as a program and we will be in the top half of not top 4 in the conference. So let’s let these posts go for now and revisit after the season.

Well, I'm certainly hopeful the coming season (assuming it happens) will be better than the previous ones. And, as I've said, we're probably handcuffed to Archie through the end of his contract (or close) in '24 whether we like it or not. Money just went from tight to tighter. But will the improvement be enough to demonstrate that he has the capability to get us back into the form of a top program?

I hope so -- but there isn't yet much reason to think so.

I think Dan Dakich had a good tweet today. He was talking about the Colts - but the Knight/Keady reference makes clear that it applies elsewhere:



We need to get past this mentality if we ever want to be a consistently good program again.
 
Well, I'm certainly hopeful the coming season (assuming it happens) will be better than the previous ones. And, as I've said, we're probably handcuffed to Archie through the end of his contract (or close) in '24 whether we like it or not. Money just went from tight to tighter. But will the improvement be enough to demonstrate that he has the capability to get us back into the form of a top program?

I hope so -- but there isn't yet much reason to think so.

I think Dan Dakich had a good tweet today. He was talking about the Colts - but the Knight/Keady reference makes clear that it applies elsewhere:



We need to get past this mentality if we ever want to be a consistently good program again.
Dakich is still bitter he didn't get the IU job.
 
Dakich is still bitter he didn't get the IU job.
Perhaps, but he’s right on the mark with his tweet. Those of us who were around for all of the Knight era know what he means, while those of you who weren’t don’t really understand it.
 
Perhaps, but he’s right on the mark with his tweet. Those of us who were around for all of the Knight era know what he means, while those of you who weren’t don’t really understand it.
I was around, and I understand the ideology.

I also understand you can't "always" label someone a fail/success after pre-determined periods of time. We might wish it would be that easy to do - and we might want better results - but what some believe is fact isn't necessarily reality.
 
I also understand you can't "always" label someone a fail/success after pre-determined periods of time.

Eh, I don't think this is the contention. I think the contention is over just how long is long enough to know that it's time to cut bait -- not whether or not that time is pre-determined. I mean...if we keep limping as we have been through year 4, don't the same points used to justify a fourth year get redeployed to defend a fifth?

My general belief is that IU's brass has made several bad coaching hires since Knight's and then compounded the error by waiting too long to undo them. The only situation where they didn't wait too long was with Sampson, and that didn't have to do with poor performance. The other two (now three, IMO) were situations where -- whether due to money concerns or something else -- they just waited too long to do what had so obviously needed to be done.

And that gives the impression that, like Dakich said, winning just isn't all that important to the people in charge.

We might wish it would be that easy to do - and we might want better results - but what some believe is fact isn't necessarily reality.

What you said right here kinda drives home Dakich's point, doesn't it? "We might want better results." Well, yes, we do. At least, I know that I do. And that implies (correctly) that the results we've gotten have been....not good. But what are we willing to do in order to get them? Not much, it turns out -- especially if it involves some unpleasantness or risk.
 
I was around, and I understand the ideology.

I also understand you can't "always" label someone a fail/success after pre-determined periods of time. We might wish it would be that easy to do - and we might want better results - but what some believe is fact isn't necessarily reality.
I’m not sure anyone has labeled Miller a failure (not yet, anyway) and, while not calling him a “success“ just yet, I think a number of people are quite pleased with the results to date.

None of that, however, is really responsive to the comments made by Dakich, which those of us who were around for all of the Knight years find so obvious. No one ‘wished’ we were better during those years or that we “might“ be better. It wasn’t a part of the mentality.

Programs that win have several shared attributes, with one of them being that the stakeholders (and that includes fans) value winning above all else. That doesn’t mean they want to cheat to get there but, as Vince Lombardi said, “Winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing.” That’s not part of the current IU basketball culture, and most fans seem fine with that. But it’s part of elite programs in any sport, and that was the point of Dakich’s Colts tweet.
 
Well, I'm certainly hopeful the coming season (assuming it happens) will be better than the previous ones. And, as I've said, we're probably handcuffed to Archie through the end of his contract (or close) in '24 whether we like it or not. Money just went from tight to tighter. But will the improvement be enough to demonstrate that he has the capability to get us back into the form of a top program?

I hope so -- but there isn't yet much reason to think so.

I think Dan Dakich had a good tweet today. He was talking about the Colts - but the Knight/Keady reference makes clear that it applies elsewhere:



We need to get past this mentality if we ever want to be a consistently good program again.
People didn't like Dungy? I thought everybody liked him.
 
Eh, I don't think this is the contention. I think the contention is over just how long is long enough to know that it's time to cut bait -- not whether or not that time is pre-determined. I mean...if we keep limping as we have been through year 4, don't the same points used to justify a fourth year get redeployed to defend a fifth?

My general belief is that IU's brass has made several bad coaching hires since Knight's and then compounded the error by waiting too long to undo them. The only situation where they didn't wait too long was with Sampson, and that didn't have to do with poor performance. The other two (now three, IMO) were situations where -- whether due to money concerns or something else -- they just waited too long to do what had so obviously needed to be done.

And that gives the impression that, like Dakich said, winning just isn't all that important to the people in charge.



What you said right here kinda drives home Dakich's point, doesn't it? "We might want better results." Well, yes, we do. At least, I know that I do. And that implies (correctly) that the results we've gotten have been....not good. But what are we willing to do in order to get them? Not much, it turns out -- especially if it involves some unpleasantness or risk.
Definitely agree on the bad hires - really, to be honest, the IU Administration has poorly mismanaged the basketball program for the last 2 decades.

Could you say Archie should be let go based on the results of t he last 3 years? Yeah, I guess you could. Certainly, the results aren't near where anyone should want or expect.

But, again, this program has been badly mismanaged since 2000 (hell, you could say really since Brand came on board in 1994-95, but that's another story for another day). AT SOME POINT you have to (In my opinion) build a foundation for long-term success.

Although the results haven't been near what most of us want, Miller has been (again, IMO) building that foundation. To be brutally honest, his teams haven't been all that talented - and most of the talent has been young. It takes time to develop your system (and Miller, IMO, is a system guy). When you're having to start a guy like Durham it says a lot about where you're overall talent level is at.

Make no mistake: Year 4 is when Miller needs to show what he has been building is going to be sustainable over the long haul. Leadership should no longer be an issue; you have guys in their 3rd/4th year that should provide the stability needed. You have built depth; you've go the best array of talent since you've been in Bloomington.

If Archie doesn't get this team (if they play) in the top 5 of the conference, any talk of replacing him is most certainly warranted. I just hope we get to see it one way or another.
 
Although the results haven't been near what most of us want, Miller has been (again, IMO) building that foundation.

But, again, if that's the basic argument -- that he's building a foundation and doing so takes time -- then why is this the year it has to finally bear fruit? Couldn't that very same argument be made next year, assuming this year is another letdown?

Really, all of this should go without saying. Very few people were calling for his head after his first mediocre year. A few were doing so after his second mediocre year. And yet more after the third mediocre year -- which is where I joined the chorus.

I think just about everybody is on board with allowing new coaches time. But where there's disagreement is (a) how much time, (b) what constitutes "success", (c) what kinds of measurables can we look for along the way. Personally, what tipped the scales for me was how little improvement I saw -- both the kind we'd want to see in the course of a particular season and the kind we'd want to see season-to-season. I realize that he was given a building job to do. But I don't think that gets him off the hook for the flat slopes of our improvement in these two metrics.
 
But, again, if that's the basic argument -- that he's building a foundation and doing so takes time -- then why is this the year it has to finally bear fruit? Couldn't that very same argument be made next year, assuming this year is another letdown?

Really, all of this should go without saying. Very few people were calling for his head after his first mediocre year. A few were doing so after his second mediocre year. And yet more after the third mediocre year -- which is where I joined the chorus.

I think just about everybody is on board with allowing new coaches time. But where there's disagreement is (a) how much time, (b) what constitutes "success", (c) what kinds of measurables can we look for along the way. Personally, what tipped the scales for me was how little improvement I saw -- both the kind we'd want to see in the course of a particular season and the kind we'd want to see season-to-season. I realize that he was given a building job to do. But I don't think that gets him off the hook for the flat slopes of our improvement in these two metrics.

I don't understand, nor do I think it's reasonable to think any coach anywhere is getting fired in his third year for making the tournament, after missing the first 2 and starting where CAM did with our roster. And while yes, I'm aware there was no tournament, I do believe, and virtually every expert agreed, at 20 wins we were in. Do I think we should have won a couple more games last year? Yes. The underperformance to me was in his 2nd year. I think that was a pretty good roster with a Senior Morgan and incoming freshman star Langford... that team should've been in the tournament too and that mid season swoon cost us.

Doherty's last 2 teams went 8-20 and 19-16 at UNC and went to the NIT, on top of all the complaints about him from players and families and a virtual mutiny from players threatening to leave, AND with their fair-haired son waiting in the wings to take over. No one was getting rid of Archie after results that would have allowed us to make the tourney last year (and yes, I'm counting that as making it, even though it didn't happen).
 
But, again, if that's the basic argument -- that he's building a foundation and doing so takes time -- then why is this the year it has to finally bear fruit? Couldn't that very same argument be made next year, assuming this year is another letdown?

In my opinion, no.

There have been a lot of things working against Miller since he arrived at Indiana:
  1. His first year (2017-18) he inherited little from Crean. Guard play was horrible; Morgan provided decent play with little help. Davis made it 1/2 a season before blowing out his Achilles (an injury he never really fully recovered from).
  2. Year two he brought in Romeo and expectations were raised. But were those expectations realistic? Yeah, Romeo was highly-regarded - but still a freshman. And he started alongside another freshman (Phinisee). The biggest problem (and was again this past season) was leadership. Miller got NOTHING from his veterans by way of leadership. That - along with the insane amount of injuries - led to the losing 12 of 13 as much as anything.
  3. Again, not a lot of talent in year 3 - and what you did have was fairly young. Smith was a better version of himself than his sophomore year, but still never developed into the role that was clearly available for him - 10-12 point scorer from the wing. Lacking that guy allowed team to pack it in on us; it's why we had so many (too many) games where the offense stalled.
As I mentioned before, I believe Miller to be a system guy: he HAS to have the pieces in place for what he wants to do to work. Honestly, I'm not completely sold on the packline - it's a difficult concept for a lot of players, especially those who have never had to focus on defense (ie: a lot of the players he inherited from Crean). IMHO, I believe Archie tried to work with Smith as long as he did because he's the ideal kind of athlete to have if you're gonna play the packine (DeAndre Hunter played a similar role for Virginia on their National Champion team).

Year 4, everything SHOULD come together. The promising young players (TJD, Phin, Franklin, Race) have had time within the system to develop. You have good depth at most positions, which should create a competitive environment at practices. You have a talented frosh in Lander who doesn't HAVE to be the best player for the team to succeed - he can fit in around others, whereas Romeo had to be the man from day one with little help and a ligament injury from the Duke game on.

If you look at the last 3 years with that mindset, you can somewhat understand WHY things happened as they did. Again, no one is happy with those results, not should they be. The hope is that all the pain & suffering, all the weeping and gnashing of teeth of living through all of that will pay off in season 4 with the start of sustained success.

That not a guarantee we WILL. But it's reasonable to expect we SHOULD - and if that doesn't materialize then discussion about moving on can - and will - begin.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jimmygoiu
I don't understand, nor do I think it's reasonable to think any coach anywhere is getting fired in his third year for making the tournament, after missing the first 2 and starting where CAM did with our roster. And while yes, I'm aware there was no tournament, I do believe, and virtually every expert agreed, at 20 wins we were in. Do I think we should have won a couple more games last year? Yes. The underperformance to me was in his 2nd year. I think that was a pretty good roster with a Senior Morgan and incoming freshman star Langford... that team should've been in the tournament too and that mid season swoon cost us.

Doherty's last 2 teams went 8-20 and 19-16 at UNC and went to the NIT, on top of all the complaints about him from players and families and a virtual mutiny from players threatening to leave, AND with their fair-haired son waiting in the wings to take over. No one was getting rid of Archie after results that would have allowed us to make the tourney last year (and yes, I'm counting that as making it, even though it didn't happen).

I might respond more later. But I would question the assertion that finally limping into the tournament, after 2 years of missing it under his leadership, represents the proper place to put up our goalpost.

I mean, I get that this is probably where it was. But is that where it ought to have been?
 
In my opinion, no.

There have been a lot of things working against Miller since he arrived at Indiana:
  1. His first year (2017-18) he inherited little from Crean. Guard play was horrible; Morgan provided decent play with little help. Davis made it 1/2 a season before blowing out his Achilles (an injury he never really fully recovered from).
  2. Year two he brought in Romeo and expectations were raised. But were those expectations realistic? Yeah, Romeo was highly-regarded - but still a freshman. And he started alongside another freshman (Phinisee). The biggest problem (and was again this past season) was leadership. Miller got NOTHING from his veterans by way of leadership. That - along with the insane amount of injuries - led to the losing 12 of 13 as much as anything.
  3. Again, not a lot of talent in year 3 - and what you did have was fairly young. Smith was a better version of himself than his sophomore year, but still never developed into the role that was clearly available for him - 10-12 point scorer from the wing. Lacking that guy allowed team to pack it in on us; it's why we had so many (too many) games where the offense stalled.
As I mentioned before, I believe Miller to be a system guy: he HAS to have the pieces in place for what he wants to do to work. Honestly, I'm not completely sold on the packline - it's a difficult concept for a lot of players, especially those who have never had to focus on defense (ie: a lot of the players he inherited from Crean). IMHO, I believe Archie tried to work with Smith as long as he did because he's the ideal kind of athlete to have if you're gonna play the packine (DeAndre Hunter played a similar role for Virginia on their National Champion team).

Year 4, everything SHOULD come together. The promising young players (TJD, Phin, Franklin, Race) have had time within the system to develop. You have good depth at most positions, which should create a competitive environment at practices. You have a talented frosh in Lander who doesn't HAVE to be the best player for the team to succeed - he can fit in around others, whereas Romeo had to be the man from day one with little help and a ligament injury from the Duke game on.

If you look at the last 3 years with that mindset, you can somewhat understand WHY things happened as they did. Again, no one is happy with those results, not should they be. The hope is that all the pain & suffering, all the weeping and gnashing of teeth of living through all of that will pay off in season 4 with the start of sustained success.

That not a guarantee we WILL. But it's reasonable to expect we SHOULD - and if that doesn't materialize then discussion about moving on can - and will - begin.

The discussion about moving on has already begun - here and everywhere else the topic of IU basketball is discussed. Just because you’re on one particular side of that discussion — and it happens to be on the same side as those charged with making such decisions — doesn’t mean the discussion isn’t happening or is somehow illegitimate.

It would be weird for a program with our (alleged) standards not to be having that discussion after T6, 9, T10 conference finishes — whatever excuses anybody might offer for why we’ve been so underwhelming.
 
I might respond more later. But I would question the assertion that finally limping into the tournament, after 2 years of missing it under his leadership, represents the proper place to put up our goalpost.

I mean, I get that this is probably where it was. But is that where it ought to have been?

I never said that, and said something earlier to the effect of "though not to most people's liking or desire for our program"... I don't think it's at all where we want to be or where our goals or expectations should be, I'm strictly making the point that it's not to the point he should be fired over it, and no program would with the conditions as they were. Your argument cited 2 coaches who were in VASTLY different situations both in terms of results and stuff going on within and around the program.
 
For me, I think the single biggest obstacle our program has is this culturally deep-seated aversion to taking bold and decisive moves. We'd never have fired Matt Doherty or Billy Gillispie when UNC and UK did. And that's why those programs are where they are and we're where we are....cowering about the hidden dangers of having high expectations.

Coach K's ACC record in his first 3 years at Duke was 13-29. Was Duke more of UNC/UK, or more of an IU?
 
  • Like
Reactions: jimmygoiu
Coach K's ACC record in his first 3 years at Duke was 13-29. Was Duke more of UNC/UK, or more of an IU?

First, Duke very nearly did fire Coach K. One of the reasons they didn’t was RMK personally appealing to the AD to give him another year.

Second, Duke c. 1980 wasn’t Duke c. 2020.

Archie’s conference record through 3 years is 26-42. The preceding 3 years, we were 31-23.
 
Last edited:
First, Duke very nearly did fire Coach K. One of the reasons they didn’t was RMK personally appealing to the AD to give him another year.

Second, Duke c. 1978 wasn’t Duke c. 2020. Their preceding 3 years’ ACC record was 8-28.

Archie’s conference record through 3 years is 26-42. The preceding 3 years, we were 31-23.
26-34, including the Big 10 tournament.
 
First, Duke very nearly did fire Coach K. One of the reasons they didn’t was RMK personally appealing to the AD to give him another year.

Wrong.

For the complete story on that, read John Feinstein's The Legend's Club. Great book.

Second, Duke c. 1980 wasn’t Duke c. 2020.

Duke in the 3 years before Coach K arrived: 8-4 ACC, NCAA Runner-Up; 9-3 ACC, NCAA; 7-7 ACC, Elite 8. That was a helluva lot better than what IU was prior to Miller.

Archie’s conference record through 3 years is 26-42. The preceding 3 years, we were 31-23.

Those preceding 3 years:

2014-15: 9-9
2015-16: 15-3
2016-17: 7-11

Those were after having SIX years to build the program "his" way. And we're not counting 2013-14, where Crean missed the tournament with Multiple 5 star / McDonald All-Americans, either.
 
Last edited:
Get ready for the JF is a worthless POS posts.

Well, not from me. I think Feinstein's a great writer -- and I've never had any reason to question his facts.

FWIW, I've heard for years that Knight appealed to Butters when he was considering firing Coach K and that this was effective. If that's not true, then I've been misinformed.

That said, whether that happened or not (or happened, but didn't matter), it doesn't really have a whole lot of impact on where I'm at on our present situation. While I'm obviously dissatisfied with the W-L records of CAM's 3 years here, I'm every bit as put off by the lack -- or, at least, slight degree -- of improvement in his teams' play...throughout the course of individual seasons and over the entire 3 year run. That can't be blamed on inheriting Crean's recruits.

Lastly on this, I sincerely hope that Archie feeds me and others who think we should've cut bait after last year a huge helping of crow. We're likely now going to be handcuffed to him for at least a couple more seasons...and I support IU no matter who the coach is and what I think of him.

I've never wanted him to be anything but successful. But the reality is that he simply hasn't been.
 
You assume to much. I was alive for all of Knights championships. My sister dated a player. Sheesh you like to argue for argument sake. I mean are you a fan? Of course UVA is a better job. He also rejected IU because of our athletic departments treatment of his sister.
IIRC Bennett himself shot down the theory that IU's treatment of his sister was a factor for him--he just didn't want to coach in the "fishbowl" atmosphere that comes with a coaching job like IU's.

I suspect he felt, on the other hand, that a job like UVA gave him the best of both worlds--excellent academic school in an outstanding basketball conference without the kind of pressure he would have faced at IU--or at UNC or Duke, for that matter.
 
The story of how K was hired - and retained - by Tom Butters is very entertaining. And a lesson in not having a knee-jerk reaction where adversity hits.

Mmm, I don't think a decision to fire a coach after 3 disappointing seasons could fairly be characterized (if this was your intent) as "a knee-jerk reaction where adversity hits." Firing a coach after a particularly bad game -- say, the game at Minnesota in 2019 -- would be a knee-jerk reaction. Or maybe even doing so after dropping 12 of 13 conference games.

I don't think there's anything magical about 3 years, or 4 years, or whatever time frame. In fact, I think that's the wrong way to evaluate coaches. Just as there's always something to be said about being patient and deliberate when circumstances warrant, there's also something to be said for being too slow to act when circumstances warrant.

Which side of that question has IU generally erred on WRT our basketball program over the past 20 years?
 
Last edited:
Actually, I'd say you do. You just have yourself convinced that's not what you're doing.

There is absolutely no defense of Archie's tenure here on the merits. And, once again, I honestly think that even he would admit that behind closed doors. He came close to admitting it at Huber's -- and that was before last season's T-10 finish in the B10.

You can explain Archie's mediocre records, you can excuse them, you can justify them. But you can't deny them.
As I said to Blink let’s revisit these posts after this season and you will see that we are going to be a top tier of the BIG but I would guess top 4 or 5 in conference. We also have a team that can win the conference. So you say I am okay with IU being mediocre and that is not true but I would at least give someone a chance at a coaching job when I have seen improvement each year. But both you and Blink must think we should have won the NC in his first or second year which is unrealistic view. Archie has gotten the best recruits from Indiana after the prior coach had ruined all relationships in the state. So Archie has done a decent job of trying build a consistent winner. But as I said let’s revisit these posts after this year and I bet you will be ready to keep Archie for a long time. And if it doesn’t get any better then I will admit that. Will you?
Perhaps, but he’s right on the mark with his tweet. Those of us who were around for all of the Knight era know what he means, while those of you who weren’t don’t really understand it.

I was there for all the knight years in fact I was 10/11 when we were 63-1 and I still believe Archie is the guy for us. He has gotten the state guys we want. He went out and got 2 great replacement head coaches when he had to. Initially he hasn’t had the success that people want on an instant basis. I must say that Creans players in his later years were soft. He had a few good to Better players but they were not defensive minded. The culture of keeping Tom Crean for so long wasn’t going to be changes overnight. Not everyone is a Bobby Knight but from the coaches I see out there Archie is young he is learning and he is changing is to a better overall team and we will see the results from now on.
And this is where we disagree. I see nothing that suggests IU is on that sort of trajectory or that Miller is building that sort of a program. When we get into the top half of the Big 10, which they might be able to do this year, when were over .500 in the conference, and when we’re a perennial NCAA tournament team, then there will be evidence that this is headed in a consistently upward direction. Until then, I think it’s wishful. But I do think he’ll be at IU at least through five years, if only because most IU fans today are okay with where the program is. No real problem with that, by the way. It’s a rent free culture now, full of people who never attended IU (if you don’t know the difference between “their”, “there“ and “they’re“, you’re pretending).
 
  • Like
Reactions: travlinhoosier
Maybe there’s more to Miller, but he hasn’t achieved nor is he regarded at a level that’s even close to Bennett. Three years and still below .500 in the Big 10 is an inconvenient truth.

In Bennett’s first 3 years at UVA he was 19-27 in conference play. Archie 26-32 so let’s get things straight if you are comparing coaches let’s compare at the same level and same number of years. You can’t put today’s Bennett 8 years past his first 3 years which he lost a worse % in conference games in his first 3 years at UVA Now sure Bennett has made marked improvement since those first 3 seasons and I also believe Archie will too. So let’s compare fairly and not compare a TB that’s had 8 more years at his job than Archie and isn’t it a good thing that TB was kept by UVA and it worked for them. Maybe we just give Archie a chance I bet a lot of UVA people wanted TB gone after those 3 years but they stuck with the good young coach and it paid off.. But the haters will always want him fired even when he wins. I have just stated an inconvenient truth to my comparison of the two coaches. But you go ahead and believe what you believe to be the inconvenient truth and I will believe mine.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT