ADVERTISEMENT

Kaufman.

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.
No problem that you’re satisfied with Miller’s job so far and the results he’s produced. As I said, I think he’ll be at IU at least two more years, if not longer, primarily because many are okay with where the program is. Some of us believe he’s drastically underperformed, however . Sub .500 in the Big Ten, back half of the conference standings, people hoping they might be able to more into the top half, a culture of mediocrity. It’s simply a difference of expectations. We’ll see if it improves, but there’s little to suggest it will.
 
  • Like
Reactions: birdforbogey
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?

To me, while I'd liked to have won more across the board, the really disappointing "results" portion of CAM's tenure so far was '18-19 specifically that 10-12 game midseason swoon. I expected with a senior JM as a leader and adding such a talent in Romeo coupled with another year of experience for Justin, Al, Davis and Green, I thought that would be a very solid tournament team. I expected a bit of rebuilding last year in losing JM and Romeo and again I always want to win more, but I thought getting to the tourney last year was acceptable and I think they accomplished that. Archie, while maybe not as dynamic as an RMK or Cal, is very solid as a coach and program leader and isn't going to create problems. This coming year should show continued improvement and I think a top 4-5 conference finish and at least 1 tourney win, but really a S16 I think is due. That's tough with the conference this year, but we haven't exceeded results so far in CAMs tenure for a season, so maybe it's time to do just that and I think he has a squad where that's possible.
 
...we are going to be a top tier of the BIG but I would guess top 4 or 5 in conference.....So you say I am okay with IU being mediocre and that is not true

If your measure of success over 4 years is T6, 9, T10, 4/5, then yeah I'd say you're OK with IU being mediocre. At what point in time did we start settling for these kinds of middling results?

At least it's not 10th (except when it is)!

but I would at least give someone a chance at a coaching job when I have seen improvement each year.

First, he's had a chance. Second, I think somebody has to squint to find "improvement each year." I mean, I'm sure we can point to this or that stat to say there's been improvement. But it can't be all that significant with the finishes we've had in the B1G.

And, yeah, I do agree that we probably would've snuck in the tournament last year as a double-digit seed. But, really, it wasn't all that long ago that such a result was at the low end of our range of expectations. That would've been a down year. Now it's apparently the bar a coach has to clear to continue being one of the 10 or 12 highest paid coaches in the game.

But both you and Blink must think we should have won the NC in his first or second year which is unrealistic view.

Huh? I never implied such a thing, much less said it. All I've been looking for is an unmistakable and undebatable sense that things are moving in the right direction.

I think a fair question would be where I would put the bar after 3 seasons...considering what he inherited (which, BTW, wasn't anywhere near as bad as what Crean inherited). I would think at least one top 4 finish in the conference and a tourney berth at no worse than a 5 or 6 seed.

In Matt Painter's first year in WL, the Boilers finished 11th. In his 3rd year, they finished 2nd and got a 6 seed in the tourney. In his 4th year, they won the conference. That's what improvement looks like.

Archie has gotten the best recruits from Indiana after the prior coach had ruined all relationships in the state.

That does virtually nothing for me. He could get all of his recruits from Hawaii for all I care. It's the results that matter. Recruiting is one of many means feeding into that end.

I'm all for locking down the state (whatever that means) if and when the state is producing top-caliber players that are going to help us reach our goals. But I'm not all for "recruiting inside out" just to be able to say we have. Sometimes the talent level in the state isn't great. And, besides, every kid's situation is unique. It's not like they move in herds.

So Archie has done a decent job of trying build a consistent winner.

No, he hasn't. He's put three mediocre teams on the floor that haven't tangibly improved much over the course of any of those seasons or over the larger arc.

And, as I've said several times, I'd be willing to bet that even he would admit that privately to a trusted friend who wouldn't repeat it. He came pretty close to admitting as much publicly at the Huber event before last season -- a season where we finished T10 in the conference, BTW. The words he used weren't quite as blunt as the words I'm using -- but they conveyed the same basic idea.

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.

I've never hoped for anything other than that. But the results are what they are. And our standards should be kept high enough such that those results would be deemed unsatisfactory.
 
If your measure of success over 4 years is T6, 9, T10, 4/5, then yeah I'd say you're OK with IU being mediocre. At what point in time did we start settling for these kinds of middling results?

At least it's not 10th (except when it is)!



First, he's had a chance. Second, I think somebody has to squint to find "improvement each year." I mean, I'm sure we can point to this or that stat to say there's been improvement. But it can't be all that significant with the finishes we've had in the B1G.

And, yeah, I do agree that we probably would've snuck in the tournament last year as a double-digit seed. But, really, it wasn't all that long ago that such a result was at the low end of our range of expectations. That would've been a down year. Now it's apparently the bar a coach has to clear to continue being one of the 10 or 12 highest paid coaches in the game.



Huh? I never implied such a thing, much less said it. All I've been looking for is an unmistakable and undebatable sense that things are moving in the right direction.

I think a fair question would be where I would put the bar after 3 seasons...considering what he inherited (which, BTW, wasn't anywhere near as bad as what Crean inherited). I would think at least one top 4 finish in the conference and a tourney berth at no worse than a 5 or 6 seed.

In Matt Painter's first year in WL, the Boilers finished 11th. In his 3rd year, they finished 2nd and got a 6 seed in the tourney. In his 4th year, they won the conference. That's what improvement looks like.



That does virtually nothing for me. He could get all of his recruits from Hawaii for all I care. It's the results that matter. Recruiting is one of many means feeding into that end.

I'm all for locking down the state (whatever that means) if and when the state is producing top-caliber players that are going to help us reach our goals. But I'm not all for "recruiting inside out" just to be able to say we have. Sometimes the talent level in the state isn't great. And, besides, every kid's situation is unique. It's not like they move in herds.



No, he hasn't. He's put three mediocre teams on the floor that haven't tangibly improved much over the course of any of those seasons or over the larger arc.

And, as I've said several times, I'd be willing to bet that even he would admit that privately to a trusted friend who wouldn't repeat it. He came pretty close to admitting as much publicly at the Huber event before last season -- a season where we finished T10 in the conference, BTW. The words he used weren't quite as blunt as the words I'm using -- but they conveyed the same basic idea.



I've never hoped for anything other than that. But the results are what they are. And our standards should be kept high enough such that those results would be deemed unsatisfactory.

I guess then we agree to disagree.
 
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.

The problem with this is that you're comparing Indiana to Virginia.

Now, granted, I've been saying for longer than I care to admit that, if we were ever in the ranks of the bluebloods, we've long since fallen from them. We're.....Nebraska football. I think that's the result of a series of awful decisions by the IU brass that, IMO, continue to this day -- most of which share a common thread of diminished expectations. But, whatever the cause, I'm under no illusion that our program as it exists in 2020 is anywhere near the college basketball elite.

But, that said, we do still have a much stronger historical pedigree than Virginia does -- their recent success and our recent futility notwithstanding. So, obviously, it stands to reason that they'd be more tolerant of some poor years than we would be.

It's all relative.
 
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.

Let me give you the passage of the book and maybe it will clear things up (again, if you love basketball like I think you do PLEASE get you a copy and read it; I HIGHLY recommend it).

To set things up: Butters, after prodding by Steve Vacendak (a staffer under Butters who played at Duke), after discussing coaching candidates w/ Knight (that part of the book is priceless) and after interviewing Coach K THREE times, finally hires him. Krzyzewski goes 38-47 over his first 3 years with the Blue Devils, including a 109-66 loss to Virginia in the ACC Tournament when Duke only scored 16 points in the second half after trailing 59-50 at intermission.

The Iron Dukes (Duke Varsity Club) wanted him fired then, but Butters stayed with him. Duke got off to a 11-1 start in 1983-84, then lost 4 straight conference games (the last in infamous NC State "pizza" game at home).

Duke was sitting at 14-5, but 1-4 in the league. The wheels were starting to come off; everyone was stressed.

Butters went to Krzyzewski's office the following morning after the NC State loss to talk to him, but Krzyzewski came in late that morning due to watching game film late. He left word with Krzyzewski's secretary for him to come see Butters when he got in.

The following is the passage from the book:

"When Krzyzewski sat down, Butters told him he'd been thinking about what was going on with the basketball team a good deal.

"Me too," Krzyzewski said, forcing a smile.

"I've got three problems right now," Butters said. "First, I've got an alumni base that doesn't think I've got the right coach in place. Second, I've got a lot of media who want to believe I don't have the right coach and are going to keep saying and writing it until you prove them wrong once and for all."

He paused. "I can handle all of that. But here's my biggest problem. I've got a coach who doesn't know how good he is and he's doubting himself. So, there's really only one thing I can do about it."

With that, he pushed something across the desk in Krzyzewski's direction. Krzyzewski picked it up and looked at it. It was a new contract - a five-year extension.

"I don't want you or anyone else thinking there's any chance you aren't going to coaching here for a long time," Butters said. "So let's lay that question to rest once and for all."


It was an incredible show of faith by Butters. It would have been easy for him to pull the plug to appease the Iron Dukes - but his gut told him he had his man. And so he kept faith, and was rewarded.

Really, read the book. There are SO many parallels to what Duke went through with Krzyzewski that you see with IU and Miller. Now, don't interpret me saying that to mean Archie is going to be the next Coach K. Krzyzewski (in my book) is the best coach of all time.

But, again, YOU HAVE TO BUILD A FOUNDATION at some point.

Is it hard? Yeah.

Has the last 3 years been brutal at times? Without question.

But if we don't give Archie an opportunity to get his system fully in place, then what's the answer? Go UK and become a 1-and-done factory? As much as I can't stand UK, you've got to give Calipari credit for getting talented kids to play together as well as his teams have. But (as I have maintained) if you're turning over your roster every year that inexperience come back to bite you.

Screw Archie becoming the next Coach K (Hey, great if he does!! 😁) - if he can establish a system where we get consistent results (like Michigan St, Villanova or Virginia), won't all the pain of waiting be worth it?

We've screwed the pooch th last 20 years. I say let's see this thru and actually try to develop a program that is sustainable over the long haul.
 
To me, while I'd liked to have won more across the board, the really disappointing "results" portion of CAM's tenure so far was '18-19 specifically that 10-12 game midseason swoon. I expected with a senior JM as a leader and adding such a talent in Romeo coupled with another year of experience for Justin, Al, Davis and Green, I thought that would be a very solid tournament team. I expected a bit of rebuilding last year in losing JM and Romeo and again I always want to win more, but I thought getting to the tourney last year was acceptable and I think they accomplished that. Archie, while maybe not as dynamic as an RMK or Cal, is very solid as a coach and program leader and isn't going to create problems. This coming year should show continued improvement and I think a top 4-5 conference finish and at least 1 tourney win, but really a S16 I think is due. That's tough with the conference this year, but we haven't exceeded results so far in CAMs tenure for a season, so maybe it's time to do just that and I think he has a squad where that's possible.

That was the biggest part of the problem. Morgan WASN'T a leader. Nor was anyone else.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lucy01 and BigMobe
"Culture of mediocrity" - perfectly describes someone's posting history around here. Hint: has had some 20 user names in half as many years.

Could work as an epitaph as well. Hurry the day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aloha Hoosier
I guess then we agree to disagree.

I feel confident in saying that all IU fans, boosters, alums, current and former players, administrators, etal want the absolute best for the program. I believe that about you and the other Archie defenders here, I'm sure you believe it about me.

But I think Dakich was onto something the other day with that Tweet I posted about having (and enforcing) expectations. It can be a hard thing to do, especially when you're fond of the people you're putting them on.

I don't know if you've ever hired and (more relevantly) fired people. I do it regularly -- and it's my least favorite part of what I do. I often have to terminate people who I genuinely like on a personal level. I've gotten accustomed to it, but I'll never really get comfortable with it.

But this is why it's so important to clearly communicate what is expected of people you hire -- so that they know exactly what they're shooting for...on the ideal end, on the minimum end. If they know the expectations, it'll be far easier on both of you if they aren't met and you have to part ways -- and you don't have to worry so much about personal feelings.
 
Let me give you the passage of the book and maybe it will clear things up (again, if you love basketball like I think you do PLEASE get you a copy and read it; I HIGHLY recommend it).

To set things up: Butters, after prodding by Steve Vacendak (a staffer under Butters who played at Duke), after discussing coaching candidates w/ Knight (that part of the book is priceless) and after interviewing Coach K THREE times, finally hires him. Krzyzewski goes 38-47 over his first 3 years with the Blue Devils, including a 109-66 loss to Virginia in the ACC Tournament when Duke only scored 16 points in the second half after trailing 59-50 at intermission.

The Iron Dukes (Duke Varsity Club) wanted him fired then, but Butters stayed with him. Duke got off to a 11-1 start in 1983-84, then lost 4 straight conference games (the last in infamous NC State "pizza" game at home).

Duke was sitting at 14-5, but 1-4 in the league. The wheels were starting to come off; everyone was stressed.

Butters went to Krzyzewski's office the following morning after the NC State loss to talk to him, but Krzyzewski came in late that morning due to watching game film late. He left word with Krzyzewski's secretary for him to come see Butters when he got in.

The following is the passage from the book:

"When Krzyzewski sat down, Butters told him he'd been thinking about what was going on with the basketball team a good deal.

"Me too," Krzyzewski said, forcing a smile.

"I've got three problems right now," Butters said. "First, I've got an alumni base that doesn't think I've got the right coach in place. Second, I've got a lot of media who want to believe I don't have the right coach and are going to keep saying and writing it until you prove them wrong once and for all."

He paused. "I can handle all of that. But here's my biggest problem. I've got a coach who doesn't know how good he is and he's doubting himself. So, there's really only one thing I can do about it."

With that, he pushed something across the desk in Krzyzewski's direction. Krzyzewski picked it up and looked at it. It was a new contract - a five-year extension.

"I don't want you or anyone else thinking there's any chance you aren't going to coaching here for a long time," Butters said. "So let's lay that question to rest once and for all."


It was an incredible show of faith by Butters. It would have been easy for him to pull the plug to appease the Iron Dukes - but his gut told him he had his man. And so he kept faith, and was rewarded.

Really, read the book. There are SO many parallels to what Duke went through with Krzyzewski that you see with IU and Miller. Now, don't interpret me saying that to mean Archie is going to be the next Coach K. Krzyzewski (in my book) is the best coach of all time.

But, again, YOU HAVE TO BUILD A FOUNDATION at some point.

Is it hard? Yeah.

Has the last 3 years been brutal at times? Without question.

But if we don't give Archie an opportunity to get his system fully in place, then what's the answer? Go UK and become a 1-and-done factory? As much as I can't stand UK, you've got to give Calipari credit for getting talented kids to play together as well as his teams have. But (as I have maintained) if you're turning over your roster every year that inexperience come back to bite you.

Screw Archie becoming the next Coach K (Hey, great if he does!! 😁) - if he can establish a system where we get consistent results (like Michigan St, Villanova or Virginia), won't all the pain of waiting be worth it?

We've screwed the pooch th last 20 years. I say let's see this thru and actually try to develop a program that is sustainable over the long haul.
One major distinction, however, is that Butters brought his considerable background as a college player and coach to his job at Duke, and it likely was the difference in knowing how to feather the throttle with K, while IU has determined that AD leadership doesn’t require experience in that regard (Glass never played or coached at the college level, and Dolson’s experience was as a hoops manager). I think the results have shown IU’s disregard for that type of experience has been damaging, and little hope exists that it can be overcome by other characteristics, and would submit that Butters brought far more to the leadership structure and coach selection and stewardship process than IU’s AD’s have.
 
"Culture of mediocrity" - perfectly describes someone's posting history around here. Hint: has had some 20 user names in half as many years.

Could work as an epitaph as well. Hurry the day.
Please take your self reflection to the neurosis forum. You offer nothing of substance when the topic is basketball.
 
Let me give you the passage of the book and maybe it will clear things up (again, if you love basketball like I think you do PLEASE get you a copy and read it; I HIGHLY recommend it).

To set things up: Butters, after prodding by Steve Vacendak (a staffer under Butters who played at Duke), after discussing coaching candidates w/ Knight (that part of the book is priceless) and after interviewing Coach K THREE times, finally hires him. Krzyzewski goes 38-47 over his first 3 years with the Blue Devils, including a 109-66 loss to Virginia in the ACC Tournament when Duke only scored 16 points in the second half after trailing 59-50 at intermission.

The Iron Dukes (Duke Varsity Club) wanted him fired then, but Butters stayed with him. Duke got off to a 11-1 start in 1983-84, then lost 4 straight conference games (the last in infamous NC State "pizza" game at home).

Duke was sitting at 14-5, but 1-4 in the league. The wheels were starting to come off; everyone was stressed.

Butters went to Krzyzewski's office the following morning after the NC State loss to talk to him, but Krzyzewski came in late that morning due to watching game film late. He left word with Krzyzewski's secretary for him to come see Butters when he got in.

The following is the passage from the book:

"When Krzyzewski sat down, Butters told him he'd been thinking about what was going on with the basketball team a good deal.

"Me too," Krzyzewski said, forcing a smile.

"I've got three problems right now," Butters said. "First, I've got an alumni base that doesn't think I've got the right coach in place. Second, I've got a lot of media who want to believe I don't have the right coach and are going to keep saying and writing it until you prove them wrong once and for all."

He paused. "I can handle all of that. But here's my biggest problem. I've got a coach who doesn't know how good he is and he's doubting himself. So, there's really only one thing I can do about it."

With that, he pushed something across the desk in Krzyzewski's direction. Krzyzewski picked it up and looked at it. It was a new contract - a five-year extension.

"I don't want you or anyone else thinking there's any chance you aren't going to coaching here for a long time," Butters said. "So let's lay that question to rest once and for all."


It was an incredible show of faith by Butters. It would have been easy for him to pull the plug to appease the Iron Dukes - but his gut told him he had his man. And so he kept faith, and was rewarded.

Really, read the book. There are SO many parallels to what Duke went through with Krzyzewski that you see with IU and Miller. Now, don't interpret me saying that to mean Archie is going to be the next Coach K. Krzyzewski (in my book) is the best coach of all time.

But, again, YOU HAVE TO BUILD A FOUNDATION at some point.

Is it hard? Yeah.

Has the last 3 years been brutal at times? Without question.

But if we don't give Archie an opportunity to get his system fully in place, then what's the answer? Go UK and become a 1-and-done factory? As much as I can't stand UK, you've got to give Calipari credit for getting talented kids to play together as well as his teams have. But (as I have maintained) if you're turning over your roster every year that inexperience come back to bite you.

Screw Archie becoming the next Coach K (Hey, great if he does!! 😁) - if he can establish a system where we get consistent results (like Michigan St, Villanova or Virginia), won't all the pain of waiting be worth it?

We've screwed the pooch th last 20 years. I say let's see this thru and actually try to develop a program that is sustainable over the long haul.

Thanks for posting that. I had never heard that story. But I doubt that Scott Dolan is going to be offering Archie an unsolicited 5 year extension out of the blue -- or, at least, I hope not.

That said, it's not that I have Steinbrenner's view of cycling through managers like weekly loads of dry cleaning. I think it's awesome that the Pittsburgh Steelers have had 3 head coaches in the last 51 years. And I also don't think it's a coincidence that no team has more Super Bowl victories than the Steelers do.

There's something to be said for sticking it out and seeing it through. Chuck Noll, Bill Cowher, and Mike Tomlin all had their share of good seasons and not-so-good seasons. But they've each won at least 1 Super Bowl, too. And most of their teams were at least competitive, if not upper tier.

But there's also something to be said for having, and confidently standing by, expectations. Giving somebody time to "build a foundation" is not mutually exclusive from insisting upon tangible signs of improvement. Yes, I know that his defenders swear we've improved. I'm not going to get into that debate -- because it always devolves into statistical minutiae. When I say "improvement", I'm talking about being significantly harder to beat later in the season than earlier. I'm talking about the kind of march up the standings I referenced above about Painter's first few years. Nobody has to have a debate about whether going from 11th to 4th to 2nd to 2nd to 1st is or isn't improvement.

And I think we have to be really careful about distinguishing between being patient enough to allow time to "have a foundation built" and simply using this as an excuse for scant improvement over a reasonable amount of time and allowing that to become accepted in the form of diminished standards.

As I asked somebody else above, if this reasoning is good enough after 3 mediocre seasons to warrant a 4th, then why wouldn't it also be good enough after 4 mediocre seasons to warrant a 5th....and so on?
 
One major distinction, however, is that Butters brought his considerable background as a college player and coach to his job at Duke, and it likely was the difference in knowing how to feather the throttle with K, while IU has determined that AD leadership doesn’t require experience in that regard (Glass never played or coached at the college level, and Dolson’s experience was as a hoops manager). I think the results have shown IU’s disregard for that type of experience has been damaging, and little hope exists that it can be overcome by other characteristics, and would submit that Butters brought far more to the leadership structure and coach selection and stewardship process than IU’s AD’s have.
Butters was a baseball player (was in the Pirates farm system before an accident ended his career), but I get where you're coming from.

Two things stand out to me about Archie: 1) the vote of confidence from Knight. Say what you want about the man, but he knows the game. He said “So you folks give him a good introduction, you get behind him, and I think you’re going to enjoy some good basketball.” 2)The 2014-15 Dayton season. Lots of people point to the Elite 8 run by the Flyers as proof of Miller's ability, but the following year is more impressive to me. He replaced 3 starters and 4 seniors, had a roster with only six scholarship players and no one taller than 6-6 and STILL made the
NCAA Tournament. Make any comments about "it was the A-10", etc . . . but to do that you have to be able to coach, no matter what league.

You also have to have good leadership and everyone on the same page. By his fault or not, that hasn't been the case at Indiana the past two years. Leadership HAS to come from the players - and Miller's upperclassmen have been woefully short in that regard.

Hey - I might end up being wrong about Miller. But I see enough good things to stay the course for now.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Bulk VanderHuge
As I asked somebody else above, if this reasoning is good enough after 3 mediocre seasons to warrant a 4th, then why wouldn't it also be good enough after 4 mediocre seasons to warrant a 5th....and so on?
In my view, one of Miller's biggest issues has been not everyone being on the same page.

Was that his fault for not getting thru to the players - or resentment from the upperclassmen who are being asked to adapt to a style they weren't recruited for? Again, there are parallels in the book on K's early years and going thru those difficulties.

Year 4 is when Duke turned the corner - they had guys grow within the system. The same should be true for Miller this year - should be. We'll see . . .

And read the damn book. Believe me, you'll love it.
 
In my view, one of Miller's biggest issues has been not everyone being on the same page.

Was that his fault for not getting thru to the players - or resentment from the upperclassmen who are being asked to adapt to a style they weren't recruited for? Again, there are parallels in the book on K's early years and going thru those difficulties.

Year 4 is when Duke turned the corner - they had guys grow within the system. The same should be true for Miller this year - should be. We'll see . . .

And read the damn book. Believe me, you'll love it.

Well, I certainly hope you're right. But I can't say I'm hopeful you will be.

I do, at least, expect we'll do better than last year's T10. But our sights need to be set quite a bit higher than that. In all likelihood, Archie's going to get at least a couple more years just because of buyout and the new post-Covid financial reality. So he's going to have plenty more time to prove himself.

But I think he's already had enough and has come up short.
 
Thanks for posting that. I had never heard that story. But I doubt that Scott Dolan is going to be offering Archie an unsolicited 5 year extension out of the blue -- or, at least, I hope not.

That said, it's not that I have Steinbrenner's view of cycling through managers like weekly loads of dry cleaning. I think it's awesome that the Pittsburgh Steelers have had 3 head coaches in the last 51 years. And I also don't think it's a coincidence that no team has more Super Bowl victories than the Steelers do.

There's something to be said for sticking it out and seeing it through. Chuck Noll, Bill Cowher, and Mike Tomlin all had their share of good seasons and not-so-good seasons. But they've each won at least 1 Super Bowl, too. And most of their teams were at least competitive, if not upper tier.

But there's also something to be said for having, and confidently standing by, expectations. Giving somebody time to "build a foundation" is not mutually exclusive from insisting upon tangible signs of improvement. Yes, I know that his defenders swear we've improved. I'm not going to get into that debate -- because it always devolves into statistical minutiae. When I say "improvement", I'm talking about being significantly harder to beat later in the season than earlier. I'm talking about the kind of march up the standings I referenced above about Painter's first few years. Nobody has to have a debate about whether going from 11th to 4th to 2nd to 2nd to 1st is or isn't improvement.

And I think we have to be really careful about distinguishing between being patient enough to allow time to "have a foundation built" and simply using this as an excuse for scant improvement over a reasonable amount of time and allowing that to become accepted in the form of diminished standards.

As I asked somebody else above, if this reasoning is good enough after 3 mediocre seasons to warrant a 4th, then why wouldn't it also be good enough after 4 mediocre seasons to warrant a 5th....and so on?
In regards to Painter's first couple of years, it's important to note that Matt got a year as Associate Head Coach prior to taking over - that allowed him to really focus on recruiting (which, along with Davis' issues at IU, allowed him to net the class of Hummel, Moore, et al . .). That was big in establishing himself there. Then the year he took over, several players left the program and starters Carl Landry and David Teague missed the year with injuries.
In other words, it's not always an apple-to-apple comparison. I know it probably sounds like I'm trying to make excuse for Miller. Again, the comparison with Coach K's first 3-4 years has a lot of similarities.
 
Butters was a baseball player (was in the Pirates farm system before an accident ended his career), but I get where you're coming from.

Two things stand out to me about Archie: 1) the vote of confidence from Knight. Say what you want about the man, but he knows the game. He said “So you folks give him a good introduction, you get behind him, and I think you’re going to enjoy some good basketball.” 2)The 2014-15 Dayton season. Lots of people point to the Elite 8 run by the Flyers as proof of Miller's ability, but the following year is more impressive to me. He replaced 3 starters and 4 seniors, had a roster with only six scholarship players and no one taller than 6-6 and STILL made the
NCAA Tournament. Make any comments about "it was the A-10", etc . . . but to do that you have to be able to coach, no matter what league.

You also have to have good leadership and everyone on the same page. By his fault or not, that hasn't been the case at Indiana the past two years. Leadership HAS to come from the players - and Miller's upperclassmen have been woefully short in that regard.

Hey - I might end up being wrong about Miller. But I see enough good things to stay the course for now.
Yes, Butters played baseball, which I neglected to specify. The point, which I think you appreciate, is that former players and coaches seem to have a much better grasp of the qualities in coaches and their programs that are predictive of success. Butters could rely on his experience as a player and coach to give him perspective on what K needed to excel at Duke, even when things looked dire. I think IU’s AD leadership simply hasn’t had that experience, so they don’t bring those oversight capabilities to the job.

As for Archie, I hope the example of his work at UD carries over to IU. To date, however, it doesn’t seem to have been in evidence to any great degree. And, while I agree that players must show leadership, I think the coach sets the tone for that through his leadership of them. Knight‘s teams were typically embodiments of him. Tough, hard nosed, resilient. I can’t say Archie’s teams possess those qualities, which are often associated with him. Much of this is moot as I think at least two more years of Miller as coach is a virtual certainty, regardless of results (unless they fall off a cliff). But I don’t see the greening grass of Spring that you and some others do, while I do see a degree of acceptance and even apathy among some in the fane base. People whine about “IU Sucks!” chants instead of complaining about the fact that they’ve owned us on the court during Archie’s tenure. Losing to them used to be intolerable for IU fans. I’m not sure it is anymore.
 
In regards to Painter's first couple of years, it's important to note that Matt got a year as Associate Head Coach prior to taking over - that allowed him to really focus on recruiting (which, along with Davis' issues at IU, allowed him to net the class of Hummel, Moore, et al . .). That was big in establishing himself there. Then the year he took over, several players left the program and starters Carl Landry and David Teague missed the year with injuries.
In other words, it's not always an apple-to-apple comparison. I know it probably sounds like I'm trying to make excuse for Miller. Again, the comparison with Coach K's first 3-4 years has a lot of similarities.

You know, not that it would necessarily make me come down in a different place on his performance, but I do have to say that it would be nice to hear a bit more validation from him than we do.

Some coaches are almost eager to stand up and acknowledge shortcomings and assume responsibility for them. Others seem fearful to even allow a hint that things aren't going well, let alone that they bear any responsibility for it. In 3 years that even his staunchest defenders admit have been lackluster, I can only point to one public comment he's made that not only demonstrates a recognition of the poor results, but assumes some measure of accountability for them.

I prefer the other style of coach, myself. If things aren't up to snuff, at least let us all know you realize it...and own it.
 
You know, not that it would necessarily make me come down in a different place on his performance, but I do have to say that it would be nice to hear a bit more validation from him than we do.

Some coaches are almost eager to stand up and acknowledge shortcomings and assume responsibility for them. Others seem fearful to even allow a hint that things aren't going well, let alone that they bear any responsibility for it. In 3 years that even his staunchest defenders admit have been lackluster, I can only point to one public comment he's made that not only demonstrates a recognition of the poor results, but assumes some measure of accountability for them.

I prefer the other style of coach, myself. If things aren't up to snuff, at least let us all know you realize it...and own it.
Will agree with that. Would like Archie to show more emotion at times, and to get into a player's ass when they need it (ie: Smith).

Ultimately, a guy has to be himself. Just hope we start to see from Miller what I think we've got.
 
Will agree with that. Would like Archie to show more emotion at times, and to get into a player's ass when they need it (ie: Smith).

Ultimately, a guy has to be himself. Just hope we start to see from Miller what I think we've got.
I heard from several people relatively close to the program comment that Archie was “forced” to curb his public comments regarding Romeo, not because he couldn’t take the coaching but rather because Father Tim was a rather constant “contributor” to AM’s coaching and preparation of his son. Not sure how accurate that was, but there were whispers that dad was very much a little league parent.
 
Please take your self reflection to the neurosis forum. You offer nothing of substance when the topic is basketball.

How did you know I was speaking about you? Busted.

There is no substance in virtual space - it's why this board is so attractive to you and why you can't/won't stay away despite being banned so many times. Your exalted opinion of self-worth notwithstanding, part of you is so dense it's surprising you don't have your own event horizon.
 
I heard from several people relatively close to the program comment that Archie was “forced” to curb his public comments regarding Romeo, not because he couldn’t take the coaching but rather because Father Tim was a rather constant “contributor” to AM’s coaching and preparation of his son. Not sure how accurate that was, but there were whispers that dad was very much a little league parent.

I rarely put any stock in these kinds of things. That's no offense to you or those you heard it from. It's just that I know how things can have a kernel of truth and then take on a life of their own.

One question I'd ask is, if this is true, who's keeping Archie from calling out underperforming players other than Romeo? It's not like he's been publicly hard on others, but reserved on RL.

In any event, while I wouldn't mind seeing him call out players who aren't playing to their potential, I was actually more thinking about simply acknowledging that the results need to be better than they have been and that it ultimately falls on him to get that done. He did basically say that at Huber's, which is better than nothing. It stood out as much as it did because it's the one and only time he's ever given any indication that things weren't where we should all expect them to be.
 
How did you know I was speaking about you? Busted.

There is no substance in virtual space - it's why this board is so attractive to you and why you can't/won't stay away despite being banned so many times. Your exalted opinion of self-worth notwithstanding, part of you is so dense it's surprising you don't have your own event horizon.
Because it’s perfectly consistent with your inauthentic self. Rather than engage genuinely, you’re a practitioner of ankle biting. It’s how you roll, and it’s why you’re not viewed seriously. Please take your need for attention elsewhere.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lucy01
I rarely put any stock in these kinds of things. That's no offense to you or those you heard it from. It's just that I know how things can have a kernel of truth and then take on a life of their own.

One question I'd ask is, if this is true, who's keeping Archie from calling out underperforming players other than Romeo? It's not like he's been publicly hard on others, but reserved on RL.

In any event, while I wouldn't mind seeing him call out players who aren't playing to their potential, I was actually more thinking about simply acknowledging that the results need to be better than they have been and that it ultimately falls on him to get that done. He did basically say that at Huber's, which is better than nothing. It stood out as much as it did because it's the one and only time he's ever given any indication that things weren't where we should all expect them to be.
I think grains of salt the size of boulders are often necessary with rumors like that, but it came from a couple of people who had no connection to each other but who did have a fair amount of in-close perspective on the program. For what it’s worth, no one ever had a bad thing to say about Romeo, who was routinely referred to as a great kid. The dad, on the other hand, wasn’t viewed so favorably. And I agree re: Miller’s demeanor with the rest of the team. I’ve heard the alleged APR issue as the key factor in why he didn’t clean house but, given the remote likelihood of being an NCAA tournament team anyway, did that really matter?
 
  • Like
Reactions: birdforbogey
Because it’s perfectly consistent with your inauthentic self. Rather than engage genuinely, you’re a practitioner of ankle biting. It’s how you roll, and it’s why you’re not viewed seriously.

Tag of "inauthentic" is pretty rich coming from someone who won't own up to having had more screen names than the number of people posting here most days. But then charging others with one's own failings is the classic projection of denial, just like "ankle biting" - as your posting history attests, you never start threads, only jump in to tell others how very wrong they are. Can't mask the lack of creativity and wit, but as those attributes are alien to you, you're stuck operating in the vacuum of your own space.

This is where you recycle your unimaginative rejoinders, but as I've exceeded by quota of troll food for the month, I'll defer. Anyway, heard it all before ad nauseam, so won't think any less of you. Simply not possible.
 
Tag of "inauthentic" is pretty rich coming from someone who won't own up to having had more screen names than the number of people posting here most days. But then charging others with one's own failings is the classic projection of denial, just like "ankle biting" - as your posting history attests, you never start threads, only jump in to tell others how very wrong they are. Can't mask the lack of creativity and wit, but as those attributes are alien to you, you're stuck operating in the vacuum of your own space.

This is where you recycle your unimaginative rejoinders, but as I've exceeded by quota of troll food for the month, I'll defer. Anyway, heard it all before ad nauseam, so won't think any less of you. Simply not possible.
Blah, blah, blah. Empty allegations from an empty poster. Come back if you’re interested in talking basketball. If not, stalk someone else.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lucy01
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.
Okay, let's get this thread back to an interesting subject: UK basketball. Even though IU fans love to claim it, it isn't true that BBN thought Cal was a crooked coach. We looked at his history and saw that he had coached at two schools that had final four appearances vacated, although he was not personally implicated in any violations at either school. So, when Gillispie became available, we thought he would be the better candidate, not knowing he was about as stable as a three-legged table. When Cal was still available after Gillispie's collapse, we jumped at him, and the rest is history. It can truthfully be said we were hesitant, dubious, even suspicious of Cal, but that we thought he was crooked, that isn't true.

Cal was a high risk, high reward hire, and his one and done recruiting strategy is equally high risk, high reward, with each season being the equivalent of going all in on a poker hand. But, you can play it safe and reside in the valleys, or play high stakes and live on the peaks. We made our choice and you made yours.
 
Okay, let's get this thread back to an interesting subject: UK basketball. Even though IU fans love to claim it, it isn't true that BBN thought Cal was a crooked coach. We looked at his history and saw that he had coached at two schools that had final four appearances vacated, although he was not personally implicated in any violations at either school. So, when Gillispie became available, we thought he would be the better candidate, not knowing he was about as stable as a three-legged table. When Cal was still available after Gillispie's collapse, we jumped at him, and the rest is history. It can truthfully be said we were hesitant, dubious, even suspicious of Cal, but that we thought he was crooked, that isn't true.

Cal was a high risk, high reward hire, and his one and done recruiting strategy is equally high risk, high reward, with each season being the equivalent of going all in on a poker hand. But, you can play it safe and reside in the valleys, or play high stakes and live on the peaks. We made our choice and you made yours.
Get my chest waders this shit is deep
 
Okay, let's get this thread back to an interesting subject: UK basketball. Even though IU fans love to claim it, it isn't true that BBN thought Cal was a crooked coach. We looked at his history and saw that he had coached at two schools that had final four appearances vacated, although he was not personally implicated in any violations at either school. So, when Gillispie became available, we thought he would be the better candidate, not knowing he was about as stable as a three-legged table. When Cal was still available after Gillispie's collapse, we jumped at him, and the rest is history. It can truthfully be said we were hesitant, dubious, even suspicious of Cal, but that we thought he was crooked, that isn't true.

Cal was a high risk, high reward hire, and his one and done recruiting strategy is equally high risk, high reward, with each season being the equivalent of going all in on a poker hand. But, you can play it safe and reside in the valleys, or play high stakes and live on the peaks. We made our choice and you made yours.
Glad to see you elected yourself spokesperson for all of BBN :rolleyes:
 
Okay, let's get this thread back to an interesting subject: UK basketball. Even though IU fans love to claim it, it isn't true that BBN thought Cal was a crooked coach. We looked at his history and saw that he had coached at two schools that had final four appearances vacated, although he was not personally implicated in any violations at either school. So, when Gillispie became available, we thought he would be the better candidate, not knowing he was about as stable as a three-legged table. When Cal was still available after Gillispie's collapse, we jumped at him, and the rest is history. It can truthfully be said we were hesitant, dubious, even suspicious of Cal, but that we thought he was crooked, that isn't true.

Cal was a high risk, high reward hire, and his one and done recruiting strategy is equally high risk, high reward, with each season being the equivalent of going all in on a poker hand. But, you can play it safe and reside in the valleys, or play high stakes and live on the peaks. We made our choice and you made yours.
WGAFF? STFU.
 
No problem that you’re satisfied with Miller’s job so far and the results he’s produced. As I said, I think he’ll be at IU at least two more years, if not longer, primarily because many are okay with where the program is. Some of us believe he’s drastically underperformed, however . Sub .500 in the Big Ten, back half of the conference standings, people hoping they might be able to more into the top half, a culture of mediocrity. It’s simply a difference of expectations. We’ll see if it improves, but there’s little to suggest it will.

We will just agree to disagree. I stated my points when you talked about Archie and Bennett. And you go to other conversations that I didn’t talk about or say. But of course maybe UVA should have fired TB after his first 3 years. Right. Or Duke should have fired Coach K after his 38-47 first 3 years. But I am not going to change my mind that Archie is the right coach and we will be fine from now on. And of course we can agree to disagree.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Birnk403
Okay, let's get this thread back to an interesting subject: UK basketball. Even though IU fans love to claim it, it isn't true that BBN thought Cal was a crooked coach. We looked at his history and saw that he had coached at two schools that had final four appearances vacated, although he was not personally implicated in any violations at either school. So, when Gillispie became available, we thought he would be the better candidate, not knowing he was about as stable as a three-legged table. When Cal was still available after Gillispie's collapse, we jumped at him, and the rest is history. It can truthfully be said we were hesitant, dubious, even suspicious of Cal, but that we thought he was crooked, that isn't true.

Cal was a high risk, high reward hire, and his one and done recruiting strategy is equally high risk, high reward, with each season being the equivalent of going all in on a poker hand. But, you can play it safe and reside in the valleys, or play high stakes and live on the peaks. We made our choice and you made yours.
Sorry, 1toothfeller - we talked about this a long time ago . . .

And here's a link on the second story; old one in my post gone bad:

Billy Gillispie era at Kentucky - an oral history

This says it all about Kentucky's attitude in 2007 - when they thought they were gonna get Billy Donovan:

"We are not going to hire somebody like John Calipari. We don’t have to hire somebody like John Calipari.” We all know what that means. He had a vacated Final Four (UMass) and had lots of smoke around him on the way to having another vacated Final Four (Memphis). We can argue semantics all you want, but the truth is John had a reputation and they didn’t think they needed to hire somebody with that reputation. They were Kentucky; they didn’t have to stoop to that level, and they weren’t going to. "


But then Billy Clyde flamed out - and they went after Donovan again. And AGAIN were turned down.

Izzo was still coaching MSU in the tournament, which made getting him harder - assuming he would even want the fishbowl that is UK Basketball.

And so they turned to Cal - who was more than willing to leave Memphis ahead of the NCAA posse.

Yeah, 1toothfeller, that is the TRUTH. For a guy who has that as part of their username, you seem to have a lot of issues with what the truth actually is . . .
 
I feel confident in saying that all IU fans, boosters, alums, current and former players, administrators, etal want the absolute best for the program. I believe that about you and the other Archie defenders here, I'm sure you believe it about me.

But I think Dakich was onto something the other day with that Tweet I posted about having (and enforcing) expectations. It can be a hard thing to do, especially when you're fond of the people you're putting them on.

I don't know if you've ever hired and (more relevantly) fired people. I do it regularly -- and it's my least favorite part of what I do. I often have to terminate people who I genuinely like on a personal level. I've gotten accustomed to it, but I'll never really get comfortable with it.

But this is why it's so important to clearly communicate what is expected of people you hire -- so that they know exactly what they're shooting for...on the ideal end, on the minimum end. If they know the expectations, it'll be far easier on both of you if they aren't met and you have to part ways -- and you don't have to worry so much about personal feelings.
Coming off a would be tourney appearance in year 3 along with at least 20 wins, and looks to have his best team this year (in terms of depth and talent). Yet you want him fired. Some just refuse to give a coach time to build before they classify them good or bad. With your mentality we’d be hiring and firing one coach after another.

While I admit that this is a big year for Archie I would advise you to take a look at the list of legendary coaches that struggled early in their tenure. (hint: it’s not short)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aloha Hoosier
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT