Older doesn't mean better.22 wins is a pipe dream with this roster of guys who can't shoot as things stand today. There is no savior coming in next year to help.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Older doesn't mean better.22 wins is a pipe dream with this roster of guys who can't shoot as things stand today. There is no savior coming in next year to help.
Your opinion is disjointed from reality, and just smells of msg board fanboi talk.
It's not the opinion (or even close to it) by anyone that's not brainwashed into thinking there is something special or elite about IUBB.... there hasn't been for 25 years.... and counting.
The common opinion around the country of the job is that it's just "ok".... a decently fertile recruiting ground, but a fanbase with unrealistic expectations. And more or less ZERO recruiting profile nationally. One of things Archie was supposedly surprised by after getting here was how difficult it was to get any traction with national recruits @ IU. Maybe that's just him..... but I doubt it.
If one doesn't like Archie.... just wait to see what kind of hope and a prayer hire the next guy will be.
This team doesn't look any good..... but most IU teams for the last two decades haven't looked any good... so what's new?
Number one rule for any AD is you don't fire someone unless you have a pretty good idea who you are hiring and that they actually make you better. When Crean was fired, there were 3 pretty clear names (Archie, Mack and to a lesser degree Holtmann).
Now who is there? Look what UCLA just went through..... is someone like Cronin (or likely worse) gonna fly around here?
I guess we could just keep swapping out coaches every 3 years until we finally get to the very bottom of the league.... as I feel that's what this kind of emotional reaction will lead to. Let him play out his 4/5 years at a minimum..... if things are still trending flat to downward then you may be forced to move on.... but I don't expect any big change to come from the next guy.... or the 2 or 3 guys after that..... without a stroke of luck. Nobody with any level of proven high major results is taking this job..... so it's always going to the next up and comer from a smaller school.
Best we can hope for is Archie gets his first couple of classes to develop into a decent backcourt when they are upperclassmen (specifically Phin and Franklin).... our current upperclassmen guards are seriously bad... worst guards I can recall watching at IU, other than Crean's first year..... and if you don't have good guards in college BB, you have nothing. In hindsight he probably should have dumped most of the recruits from Crean and taking the ass kicking for the first few years starting from scratch. That's on Archie and he'll have to take the deserved heat for it.
With all due respect, this is a loser's mentality -- and, IMO, the single biggest reason why we seem to have been stuck in a rut for some two decades. Because I think yours has been the prevailing opinion among the Trustees and Administration for all that time. And, really, how's that worked out for us?
Our program is not culturally geared towards winning. As such, it is not surprising that we haven't done much of it -- and certainly not on any kind of consistent basis. We don't simply need a coaching change, we need a paradigm shift.
The basic gist of what you're saying is "We're not the program we used to be and so we have to accept prolonged periods of mediocrity while we build it back into a consistent winner....and we can't do that by only giving a coach 3 years to do no more than make the tournament field. And we can't just have our pick of coaches...lest we end up with Mick Cronin."
One problem with this calculus is that we landed the (arguably) top young prospect in coaching when we hired Archie. If Archie wasn't at the top, he was near it. He was in a position where he could've picked his spot, rather than the other way around. Of course, few would've predicted at the time that he would have such a lack of success by year 3. But that's beside the point -- the point, as it relates to what you're saying, is that we succeeded in getting somebody almost anybody with an opening would've hired. Go back and find commentary from OSU fans around the period that Matta was out, as one example.
A really useful analogy for us, I think, is Alabama football. The program etched its place in college football royalty under Frank Thomas and Bear Bryant, of course. Perkins, Curry, and Stallings were only moderately successful as Bryant's successors. But the program went through a dry spell through the coaching staffs of Dubose, Franchione, and Shula before they finally decided to flex their muscles in hiring Saban. They remembered who they were. And the PTBs knew they were better than the less-than-stellar results they'd been getting for too many years.
Now, they could've said "We've got to stop cycling through coaches! It's only going to put us farther away from where we want to be!" That's essentially what you're saying we should do. But, no, that's wrong. And now, the memories of the down years with Shula etal are increasingly distant. They found their guy -- and they did so because they demanded results.
We, like Alabama, need to remember who we are. We need to upend the culture of a mediocre has-been with some banners and a legendary venue -- because that's the culture we now have. And we're not going to get rid of it by continuously "waiting it out." We need to demand results -- and, if we don't get them, hold the people we've hired to get results accountable.
I'd be more sympathetic to your argument if there were tangible signs that we've moved in the right direction by now -- even if we weren't all the way there. But those signs aren't there. The product Archie has put on the floor -- fully 2.5 years in -- is absolutely lackluster. It's never been anything but lackluster.
And it's getting harder every day for him and his defenders to blame Tom Crean.
Butler seems to be doing fine with their 11-24 record coach who had 1 year experience, just saying.There were blunders made in the aftermath of the Knight firing... but that's ancient history at this point. There is no lack of commitment to the BB program.... no lack of resources..... there isn't going to be any paradigm shift that's going to sprinkle magic fairy dust on Assembly Hall.
No offense, but this idea that if we just announced to the world we are really, really serious THIS TIME about winning and it shall be.... well that is nothing but emotional fan message board bullshit.
Alabama football hired Saban..... someone who already won a freaking national championship. Is IU hiring someone of that stature? If so, absolutely.... let's go for it. But we aren't and won't be... unless some perfect stars align. We'd be hiring the next Archie, at best.... if you notice we are trending downward in coaches with successful histories/ resumes..... Sampson to Crean to Archie.
Next guy will either be a washed up retread or the prior Summit League COTY.
Butler seems to be doing fine with their 11-24 record coach who had 1 year experience, just saying.
With all due respect, this is a loser's mentality -- and, IMO, the single biggest reason why we seem to have been stuck in a rut for some two decades. Because I think yours has been the prevailing opinion among the Trustees and Administration for all that time. And, really, how's that worked out for us?
Our program is not culturally geared towards winning. As such, it is not surprising that we haven't done much of it -- and certainly not on any kind of consistent basis. We don't simply need a coaching change, we need a paradigm shift.
The basic gist of what you're saying is "We're not the program we used to be and so we have to accept prolonged periods of mediocrity while we build it back into a consistent winner....and we can't do that by only giving a coach 3 years to do no more than make the tournament field. And we can't just have our pick of coaches...lest we end up with Mick Cronin."
One problem with this calculus is that we landed the (arguably) top young prospect in coaching when we hired Archie. If Archie wasn't at the top, he was near it. He was in a position where he could've picked his spot, rather than the other way around. Of course, few would've predicted at the time that he would have such a lack of success by year 3. But that's beside the point -- the point, as it relates to what you're saying, is that we succeeded in getting somebody almost anybody with an opening would've hired. Go back and find commentary from OSU fans around the period that Matta was out, as one example.
A really useful analogy for us, I think, is Alabama football. The program etched its place in college football royalty under Frank Thomas and Bear Bryant, of course. Perkins, Curry, and Stallings were only moderately successful as Bryant's successors. But the program went through a dry spell through the coaching staffs of Dubose, Franchione, and Shula before they finally decided to flex their muscles in hiring Saban. They remembered who they were. And the PTBs knew they were better than the less-than-stellar results they'd been getting for too many years.
Now, they could've said "We've got to stop cycling through coaches! It's only going to put us farther away from where we want to be!" That's essentially what you're saying we should do. But, no, that's wrong. And now, the memories of the down years with Shula etal are increasingly distant. They found their guy -- and they did so because they demanded results.
We, like Alabama, need to remember who we are. We need to upend the culture of a mediocre has-been with some banners and a legendary venue -- because that's the culture we now have. And we're not going to get rid of it by continuously "waiting it out." We need to demand results -- and, if we don't get them, hold the people we've hired to get results accountable.
I'd be more sympathetic to your argument if there were tangible signs that we've moved in the right direction by now -- even if we weren't all the way there. But those signs aren't there. The product Archie has put on the floor -- fully 2.5 years in -- is absolutely lackluster. It's never been anything but lackluster.
And it's getting harder every day for him and his defenders to blame Tom Crean.
There were blunders made in the aftermath of the Knight firing... but that's ancient history at this point. There is no lack of commitment to the BB program.... no lack of resources..... there isn't going to be any paradigm shift that's going to sprinkle magic fairy dust on Assembly Hall.
No offense, but this idea that if we just announced to the world we are really, really serious THIS TIME about winning and it shall be.... well that is nothing but emotional fan message board bullshit.
Alabama football hired Saban..... someone who already won a freaking national championship. Is IU hiring someone of that stature? If so, absolutely.... let's go for it. But we aren't and won't be... unless some perfect stars align. We'd be hiring the next Archie, at best.... if you notice we are trending downward in coaches with successful histories/ resumes..... Sampson to Crean to Archie.
Next guy will either be a washed up retread or the prior Summit League COTY.
Your Saban example is spot on. I just don't see Saban's "equal" in the college basketball universe. There's going to be a huge change in the next couple of years. Among those retiring/moving on will include Krzyzewski, Roy Williams and Self. The feeding frenzy on who ends where will be intense. Outside of Butler's/Boston's wonder boy, who can be our Saban? Duke, UNC and Kansas will spare no expense.
Better to grab someone now. I just wish someone could tell me who that guy might be. I doubt there's any amount of money I can imagine that would knock Stevens on his ass. And, if there were, IU ain't going to pay it.
So, IU will continue to roll the dice. Mark Few, Calipari and Jay Wright aren't going to move. IU is not going to shoot for the moon. I'd like to think they might .... but they won't. So, I'll just crack open the Woodford early today and salute the banners we have ........
And I hate that this is to what we've been reduced.
The key in my analogy, though, isn't so much Saban. It's Alabama.
One of twenty's basic contentions is that we can't expect to get back on track without a long slog of crap years (as if we haven't already had enough of them) because it's been so long since we were "Indiana". As such, he thinks the wrong thing for us to do -- because it's "emotional fanboi stuff", or whatever he said -- is to cycle through coaches without giving them at least 4 or 5 years to prove themselves, no matter how things go in years 1-3.
But I don't see it that way. He and I are looking at this two different ways. I'm not just talking about a coaching change. I think it goes deeper than that. I do think a coaching change is almost certainly going to have to be part of it. But not for it's own sake.
I think we need a wholesale shift in attitude and approach -- what I keep referring to as culture. Some people might hear that and think "So you want us to start playing fast and loose with the rules, is that it?" No, it's not. The biggest thing I think we're lacking right now is a climate of accountability. This is not only evident in the way the administration approaches the program -- have you ever heard Glass utter even a single word of displeasure in Archie's results? -- it bleeds right down to how the coaches approach the players.
You want a good example? When it became clear that Romeo was a poor outside shooter, what came of it? Well, he kept shooting 3's -- at a clip of roughly 4 a game, despite connecting on just north of 25% of them. In a climate of accountability, he'd have either seen his attempts go down to around 1 or so...or else he'd have seen his minutes or touches declined.
But it didn't take a genius to see that the coaches weren't running Romeo so much as the other way around. Because he kept launching them up, clanging rims all around the country, and seeing pretty much nothing in the way of consequences for it.
I don't know who the right "guy" is. That's not my point. My point is that I don't think we've actually diagnosed the problem correctly yet. I don't think we realize that we need something more than a coaching change. Once we determine that we do, hiring the right coach to do it will flow from that understanding.
So you're saying we should hire part of the "Knight" family like Alford.Jordan was part of the Butler family.... both as a player and an assistant.... they have an identity as a program which has resulted in sustained success over the last couple decades, regardless who they seem to bring in to coach.
With the grad transfer rules now a day, 3 years should be adequate time to build a team. What we have at IU is insanity, playing the same players over and over expecting different results. It is SO frustrating watching the same players not give a flying rip and playing with no urgency what so ever. That is coaching.
UHHHHHHHH North Carolina fired Matt Doherty and two years later won a Title.Yup, grad transfers ALWAYS work as intended. Just ask Fitz. ANY transfer or recruit is a crap shoot. 5*'s less of one. Outside of Brunk (who Crean didn't recruit), every 3rd+ year player on this team is Crean's). Do you think IU fan's would be any happier had we kicked Crean's players off, started over. and willingly taken at least one APR post season ban? This revisionist history of what Archie took over is ridiculous. Personally, I'm happy he worried about upgrading the post and PG first. The two freshmen have been awesome. The players he has brought in have all contributed, and we do have shooters coming in next year. It takes time and a plan to do a full rebuild (and Morgan, Johnson, and Davis were the only B10 ready pieces he had when taking over...then Davis picked up more injuries). Again, the only Jr or Sr on the team Archie recruited was Brunk. I'll admit it wasn't as bad as the situation Crean took over, for obvious reasons, but you can't build a program without time AND the right recruits. Stop comparing to coaches who took over complete or almost complete programs/rosters. There is no comparison there. There is a comparison to what Beilein took over at UM (including record). It took him 4 years to make that program competitive. He took over a better put together roster, with maybe slightly less talent. Then again, firing coaches every 3 years has a massive track record of success at every level, doesn't it? Just post the program records to prove your opinion.
The key in my analogy, though, isn't so much Saban. It's Alabama.
One of twenty's basic contentions is that we can't expect to get back on track without a long slog of crap years (as if we haven't already had enough of them) because it's been so long since we were "Indiana". As such, he thinks the wrong thing for us to do -- because it's "emotional fanboi stuff", or whatever he said -- is to cycle through coaches without giving them at least 4 or 5 years to prove themselves, no matter how things go in years 1-3.
But I don't see it that way. He and I are looking at this two different ways. I'm not just talking about a coaching change. I think it goes deeper than that. I do think a coaching change is almost certainly going to have to be part of it. But not for it's own sake.
I think we need a wholesale shift in attitude and approach -- what I keep referring to as culture. Some people might hear that and think "So you want us to start playing fast and loose with the rules, is that it?" No, it's not. The biggest thing I think we're lacking right now is a climate of accountability. This is not only evident in the way the administration approaches the program -- have you ever heard Glass utter even a single word of displeasure in Archie's results? -- it bleeds right down to how the coaches approach the players.
You want a good example? When it became clear that Romeo was a poor outside shooter, what came of it? Well, he kept shooting 3's -- at a clip of roughly 4 a game, despite connecting on just north of 25% of them. In a climate of accountability, he'd have either seen his attempts go down to around 1 or so...or else he'd have seen his minutes or touches declined.
But it didn't take a genius to see that the coaches weren't running Romeo so much as the other way around. Because he kept launching them up, clanging rims all around the country, and seeing pretty much nothing in the way of consequences for it.
I don't know who the right "guy" is. That's not my point. My point is that I don't think we've actually diagnosed the problem correctly yet. I don't think we realize that we need something more than a coaching change. Once we determine that we do, hiring the right coach to do it will flow from that understanding.
It's also worth remembering that Bama didn't just "go out and hired Saban". They stumbled with the likes of Mike Dubose, Dennis Franchione, and Mike Shula before hitting on Saban. Yes, the key is they got him, but they struggled with coaching hires for almost 20 years after Bear Bryant. I don't think we're prepared to drop the cash for our Saban, but it doesn't mean IU can't or won't be successful again.
With all due respect, this is a loser's mentality -- and, IMO, the single biggest reason why we seem to have been stuck in a rut for some two decades. Because I think yours has been the prevailing opinion among the Trustees and Administration for all that time. And, really, how's that worked out for us?
Our program is not culturally geared towards winning. As such, it is not surprising that we haven't done much of it -- and certainly not on any kind of consistent basis. We don't simply need a coaching change, we need a paradigm shift.
The basic gist of what you're saying is "We're not the program we used to be and so we have to accept prolonged periods of mediocrity while we build it back into a consistent winner....and we can't do that by only giving a coach 3 years to do no more than make the tournament field. And we can't just have our pick of coaches...lest we end up with Mick Cronin."
One problem with this calculus is that we landed the (arguably) top young prospect in coaching when we hired Archie. If Archie wasn't at the top, he was near it. He was in a position where he could've picked his spot, rather than the other way around. Of course, few would've predicted at the time that he would have such a lack of success by year 3. But that's beside the point -- the point, as it relates to what you're saying, is that we succeeded in getting somebody almost anybody with an opening would've hired. Go back and find commentary from OSU fans around the period that Matta was out, as one example.
A really useful analogy for us, I think, is Alabama football. The program etched its place in college football royalty under Frank Thomas and Bear Bryant, of course. Perkins, Curry, and Stallings were only moderately successful as Bryant's successors. But the program went through a dry spell through the coaching staffs of Dubose, Franchione, and Shula before they finally decided to flex their muscles in hiring Saban. They remembered who they were. And the PTBs knew they were better than the less-than-stellar results they'd been getting for too many years.
Now, they could've said "We've got to stop cycling through coaches! It's only going to put us farther away from where we want to be!" That's essentially what you're saying we should do. But, no, that's wrong. And now, the memories of the down years with Shula etal are increasingly distant. They found their guy -- and they did so because they demanded results.
We, like Alabama, need to remember who we are. We need to upend the culture of a mediocre has-been with some banners and a legendary venue -- because that's the culture we now have. And we're not going to get rid of it by continuously "waiting it out." We need to demand results -- and, if we don't get them, hold the people we've hired to get results accountable.
I'd be more sympathetic to your argument if there were tangible signs that we've moved in the right direction by now -- even if we weren't all the way there. But those signs aren't there. The product Archie has put on the floor -- fully 2.5 years in -- is absolutely lackluster. It's never been anything but lackluster.
And it's getting harder every day for him and his defenders to blame Tom Crean.
I didn't say there was a lack of commitment to the program. What I've said -- and is irrefutably true -- is that there is (a) a culture that is centered around something other than winning, and (b) a lack of accountability that is largely the result of (a).
You want to see what I think is a good example of somebody laser-focused on success and the accountability necessary to achieve it? Go watch Chris Ballard's recent press conference about the Colts disappointing season. He didn't sugarcoat anything. He was unusually blunt about Brissett's status, he made it clear that Ebron wouldn't be returning, he discussed Vinatieri's troubles and their decision to stick with him, other positions where they have issues.
And who did he keep coming back to as being responsible for all this? Himself. He owned it looking backward, and he owned it looking forward. And he made it absolutely clear that the results weren't satisfactory and that changes would be made until they were.
Compare that to what we see and hear from IU. There's rarely any evident dissatisfaction, from Miller, Glass or anybody else. There's nobody shown to prolonged periods on the bench by the coaches. There's nobody called out and put on the spot. That absolutely screams "cultural problem." Well, either Archie is the guy who's going to change a culture that desperately needs to be changed, or else he's assumed the role of guardian of it.
I don't think we need to go out and hire Billy Donovan, BTW. I also don't think we need to double the money.
The first thing that needs to be done is decide whether or not we're absolutely committed to restoring a winning culture. Because I honestly don't think that's been done. How else to describe a situation where coaches are not only held onto past it becoming evident they weren't up to the task? That's been obviously true of 2 recent coaches -- and I think we're in the process of seeing it a third time.
Once we decide we're absolutely committed to returning to prominence, then the matters they deal with on a daily basis will be looked at in a different light. For instance, how does the program deal with a player who isn't holding up their end of the bargain in achieving our goals? Are we going to keep playing players who keep making the same mistakes and not correcting them? Or are they going to find a spot on the bench until they do? Because, to date, it seems like there aren't any consequences for lack of discipline and development. And nobody can deny that.
And if these benched players get disgruntled and leave, then they'll have done us a favor. Not only will their poor attitudes will become somebody else's problem, they'll have freed up a space for somebody who absolutely is committed to excellence.
Now, I'm not saying that I want us to hire him. But it's easy to name somebody who operates in this kind of manner and has the results to show it. Bruce Pearl. I watched him up close here at USI. His success at places he's gone since, and now Auburn, has not surprised me. He's an energetic guy who absolutely demands similar energy and results from his players. If he doesn't get it from somebody, there are consequences. And that player probably won't be with the program long.
You think he inherited a better situation there than Archie did here? Hell no, in all sorts of ways. His teams have consistently gotten better since he's been there and now are among the nation's best.
It can be done. It is being done. Just not here. And it's not because we haven't given it enough time. It's because what needs to be changed hasn't been changed, despite Archie having nearly 3 years to change it -- which is reason enough to presume that a year 4 (let alone 5) aren't going to see it changed either.
I’m loving the calendar creep in your posts. First it was “in year three,” then it was “fully 2.5 years” followed by “nearly 3 years.” For the record it’s less that 2.5 seasons and he won’t have been at IU for 3 years until March. Carry on though. It’s all interesting, but Miller won’t be fired this year and will Coach next year. Doubtful he’ll be fired after that, but at least it won’t be pissing into the wind if the rest of this season and next season really do suck. If they do, and I still don’t think they will, I’ll join you in the pissing, but it’ll be downwind for me.I didn't say there was a lack of commitment to the program. What I've said -- and is irrefutably true -- is that there is (a) a culture that is centered around something other than winning, and (b) a lack of accountability that is largely the result of (a).
You want to see what I think is a good example of somebody laser-focused on success and the accountability necessary to achieve it? Go watch Chris Ballard's recent press conference about the Colts disappointing season. He didn't sugarcoat anything. He was unusually blunt about Brissett's status, he made it clear that Ebron wouldn't be returning, he discussed Vinatieri's troubles and their decision to stick with him, other positions where they have issues.
And who did he keep coming back to as being responsible for all this? Himself. He owned it looking backward, and he owned it looking forward. And he made it absolutely clear that the results weren't satisfactory and that changes would be made until they were.
Compare that to what we see and hear from IU. There's rarely any evident dissatisfaction, from Miller, Glass or anybody else. There's nobody shown to prolonged periods on the bench by the coaches. There's nobody called out and put on the spot. That absolutely screams "cultural problem." Well, either Archie is the guy who's going to change a culture that desperately needs to be changed, or else he's assumed the role of guardian of it.
I don't think we need to go out and hire Billy Donovan, BTW. I also don't think we need to double the money.
The first thing that needs to be done is decide whether or not we're absolutely committed to restoring a winning culture. Because I honestly don't think that's been done. How else to describe a situation where coaches are not only held onto past it becoming evident they weren't up to the task? That's been obviously true of 2 recent coaches -- and I think we're in the process of seeing it a third time.
Once we decide we're absolutely committed to returning to prominence, then the matters they deal with on a daily basis will be looked at in a different light. For instance, how does the program deal with a player who isn't holding up their end of the bargain in achieving our goals? Are we going to keep playing players who keep making the same mistakes and not correcting them? Or are they going to find a spot on the bench until they do? Because, to date, it seems like there aren't any consequences for lack of discipline and development. And nobody can deny that.
And if these benched players get disgruntled and leave, then they'll have done us a favor. Not only will their poor attitudes will become somebody else's problem, they'll have freed up a space for somebody who absolutely is committed to excellence.
Now, I'm not saying that I want us to hire him. But it's easy to name somebody who operates in this kind of manner and has the results to show it. Bruce Pearl. I watched him up close here at USI. His success at places he's gone since, and now Auburn, has not surprised me. He's an energetic guy who absolutely demands similar energy and results from his players. If he doesn't get it from somebody, there are consequences. And that player probably won't be with the program long.
You think he inherited a better situation there than Archie did here? Hell no, in all sorts of ways. His teams have consistently gotten better since he's been there and now are among the nation's best.
It can be done. It is being done. Just not here. And it's not because we haven't given it enough time. It's because what needs to be changed hasn't been changed, despite Archie having nearly 3 years to change it -- which is reason enough to presume that a year 4 (let alone 5) aren't going to see it changed either.
I’m loving the calendar creep in your posts. First it was “in year three,” then it was “fully 2.5 years” followed by “nearly 3 years.” For the record it’s less that 2.5 seasons and he won’t have been at IU for 3 years until March. Carry on though. It’s all interesting, but Miller won’t be fired this year and will Coach next year. Doubtful he’ll be fired after that, but at least it won’t be pissing into the wind if the rest of this season and next season really do suck. If they do, and I still don’t think they will, I’ll join you in the pissing, but it’ll be downwind for me.
I don't know what's damning about a fictional conversation, but I don't necessarily disagree with the rest of your post.Well hopefully he gets on track THIS year and it all becomes a moot issue. The Sterling fictional conversation between Knight and MIller is pretty damning. If this season ends poorly I think the noise will get loud enough he won't want to come back. "Help is hardly on the way." I truly believe just squeaking into the tournament this year will give him another chance to recruit and another year without the mob banging down his door.