Hasn't IU been doing just that for the past 20 years? Defining a desired culture then picking a coach whom they think fits the templet? You know....after all..."It's Indiana". Reverse the order of things....Get the right coach. Culture will fall in line.
My current take on Woody...version 173 or so...
- Thread starter IUNorth
- Start date
If they have, they're having an identity crisis...
Their 5 coaches since RMK couldn't possibly be more different from each other, in just about every way. Its almost like in every hire, they've whiplashed back and chosen someone that's as different as possible from the one they fired before them.
We are saying the same thing.
IMO, by hiring Sampson we were trying to be Oklahoma. (So, you need to hire a coach that will bring a culture that you want).
I think, for whatever reason, "fit" means more at IU than most other schools.
Sampson is an incredible college basketball coach, that was apparent in his time at IU...he skirted the rules though, and that was never going to fly at IU. It was incredibly stupid to bring him in back then. Nowadays, with the rules line being about as blurry as its ever been, he might have worked out better. Hell, lets go get him!!! To your point, winning would cure it all, right? Well, he'd win. And since there aren't many rules any more, doubt he'd break any at IU?.....Obviously not a great idea, because he isn't a good fit.
Crean won 2 Big 10 titles, he had IU very, very close to being back to the mountain top for a year or so. He was a very good recruiter. But he was a quirky, weird, fellow who's teams played a very inconsistent style. Its hard for me to say this...but I think of all the coaches we've had since RMK, he's the one I'd sign back up and take back, right now, if we HAD to take one of them for the next 10 years. But...to my point...he didn't end up surviving because he wasn't a good fit.
Archie, quite obviously, didn't "fit" at IU either. I think it was a combination of mediocre wins/losses and then his personality. His teams were actually "solid" overall, from a style and metrics standpoint. They just couldn't "get over the hump", to take a recent famous phrase. But it was evident very early on, that Archie wasn't going to be a long term guy at IU due to his constant sour personality.
Woodson should have been a natural "fit" at IU. Former Knight player, legend. But as I questioned when the hire was made, he had zero college experience, and his NBA record was mixed, at best.
I want to follow a team that's always going to be fun to watch. I'd take Shaka Smart, as an example, for that reason. Despite his relative struggles at Texas. He's a solid dude, his teams play a style that I think IU fans would love to follow. On the flip side of that...I wouldn't be all that excited if we hired Tony Bennett. I'd give each of those guys probably an equal chance of being good, long term coaches, at IU. I think both of their personalities would fit well at IU. And they'd both produce good, solid, winning teams. But man, I wouldn't choose to sign up for the type of basketball Bennett wins with. AND...I think in this day and age, the margin for error is A LOT thinner for Bennett/Gard type coaches. You're just not going to attract as many high level players with that style.
Long winded way of saying...I do think Dolson needs to think long and hard about what he wants IU basketball to be. Obviously winning should be at the top of that list. But this day and age, I think style of play, personality of the coach, all those things...are more important than they've ever been.
Just so I’m clear, culture is about more than winning.
Look at these programs;
U-Conn
Wisconsin
Kansas
UNC
PU
KY
Gonzaga
Now, some have won more than others, forget that for a second. Assume going forward they are all equally successful. Do they all seem like the same type of program?
I see big differences
Imho, teams often reflect the personality of their coach.
Crean has been called a spaz. He was all over the place, and his teams were like watching a roller coaster.
Miller, lack of charisma. Same for his teams. Losing 12 of 13? Seems to fit his sullen demeanor.
Etc.
I see three schools (UNC, UK, KU) that skirt the rules and basically have gotten by with it. The others seems to follow the rules.
I see different styles of play.
Most of all, I see most of them have been winning pretty big in the last few years.
What do you see?
Similar to you. Also, differences in roster construction (a program like KY relying on one and dones versus how a program like Wisconsin or PU build their rosters). Some programs are more mercenary in their approach.
Bill Clyde out in two years, Cal in.
Doherty out in three years, Roy in.
We did move faster recently with Archie and Allen (football). TBD here.
He will not change. He had Thad, fife and seems that he did not want their advice. He is inherently flawed as a coach. Perhaps for the reasons mentioned. We need to move on. He is also just not very passionate about winning. Too big of any ego to admit his shortcomings
Ha I looked up an old story on Gillispie's dismissal. Sounds kinda familiar....
Even as the program suffered embarrassing losses to schools like Gardner-Webb and VMI, Gillispie stubbornly refused to change his coaching strategy. ... It's unclear which players will stick around for another rebuilding effort. ... The Wildcats also have a number of options at coach, so long as they're not set on Florida coach Billy Donovan.
He also was a drunk, locked a player in a bathroom stall, and allegedly slept with a player’s girlfriend. That’s why I don’t want Beard (another alcoholic) at UK.
EGO! Why Dolson let him get rid of Fife and Matta is on him. Now your letting a kid run the candy store. I guarantee Fife was on the players assses and held them accountable something Woodson doesn't do.
Similar threads
