Another point just brought up to me...by a professional educator...that when kid earns scholarship in physics, he doesn't pick his school by who has the best football team. Its great for campus life but hardly vital. Yes, the school can have a good image from a successful money sports program but is it crucial, vital, important? Probably not based on all the years I spent at and around IU. There are 10,000 more things going on every day of importance to IU that do not include sports at all. Funding isn't based on it either. Donations are helped...but are dwindled by those endowments given the university over the decades. I love football...but I know its place too. IU will do what is best for IU and fans can come along or not. Hasn't IU made that abundantly clear?
Q for the “IU Lacks Committment” Crowd
- Thread starter MyTeamIsOnTheFloor
- Start date
Sure, he attends and cheers and rubs elbows with the big shot donors. I didn't mean to imply that he ignores sports. It's just that, as you say, he has bigger fish to fry. He has a Vice President that is sposed to run that department, and he lets him. As long as it's not a money sink and doesn't cause problems for the University as a whole, McRobbie is going to let Glass run his department as he sees fit.
Sports does have a role in overall donations generation. Many donors start with the Varsity Club, and then end up becoming much much greater donors to the Foundation. Sports are the foot in the door.
Sorry about that ...must have come on too strong. I like your post and agreed and was really only intending mine as an addendum to yours.
He was at Hoosier Hysteria and Terri Moren the women's coach brought him and his wife out for the WNIT banner raising.
This thread has been really interesting to read. Both sides are making some valid, and probably correct (in some form or another) points, but a lot of it gets lost in the heat of the argument. Kinda like politics! What I'd really like to see is what side of the aisle the opposing posters are...I wouldn't be surprised to see blue arguing with blue and red arguing with red and they don't even know it. 
For my own two cents on Purdue's interest in funding, this is what I know (based on countless conversations, information garnered over the years and of course, some god old fashioned speculation.
Starting back two AD's ago, King. He was a basketball guy. Wanted most of the focus to be there, not FB. Didn't ignore it but it took back seat. Akers was our "big Name" hire. Didn't pan out (although he did get enough interest to have the initial football complex built). Had the opportunity to ask a former Board of Trustees member why he was hired and what happened; his reply; "Fred Akers stopped off in West Lafayette to pick up a check on the way to retirement". Nuff said, it's the risk you run getting a big name at the end of their career.
I won't go into the Coletto hire, but by the time Burke got there everything but the basketball program was in pretty bad shape. Morgan was a Boilermaker, Letterman swimmer, businessman who only planned to be there a few years. He rolled up his sleeves and went to work not just on football but ALL the D1 sports. His focus through his entire tenure was bringing the facilities up to par with the rest of the BT. Tiller was a home run hire that turned into a Grand Slam when a guy named Drew Brees (two scholarship offers, us and Kentucky) stepped on campus. The biggest knock on Morgan was he didn't parlay that success more into just the football program instead of spreading the wealth. Part of that was on him, but part of that was on the admin, the President and the BOT. Purdue was, is and shall always be a conservative school; the AD and the admin at the time wanted to bump up the facilities, but they wanted to do it in the black. Three stories that can be pretty well corroborated:
1. Danny Hope was trying to get more money for his assistants. X amount of dollars were to be allocated for some kind of Fogenheim for the football team. Danny went to Morgan and said "Hey, honestly we can do without this whizbang, that would then open up those dollars" (inferred for the assistants). Morgan said "Thanks Danny, we appreciate that." Whizbang wasn't purchased, but the dollars went to another part of the athletic department.
2. When the BTN dollars started rolling in, the admin (President) went to Morgan and said "Hey, here's a great opportunity for you to give BACK to the rest of the University." And it's not like he had a choice. The amount varied between 1 to 1.5 to over 2 million, but it was still money taken OUT of the athletic budget.
3. The Admin (BOT?) decided to allocate the maintenance and upkeep budget based on a departments overall footprint. Guess which department with a stadium, arena, 36 hole golf course, intramural fields, co-rec and other assorted sports facilities suddenly found themselves paying the lion's share of the bill?
There's also the "seat license" that was implemented for football seats. A friend and I sat down and ran the numbers, the cash those licenses were supposed to generate was almost exactly the same as the higher salary for Hazell and his assistants (over what Hope and co. were making).
What changed ALL of that were new BOT members who were football oriented, and by default their AD hire (Bobinski). Now all the $$ from BT are allocated with the cash cow (football) at the head of the table. No more paying for the rest of the Universities upkeep, either, and they lowered the seat licenses. Over the last 3-4 years, one thing the program can't plead is "poverty".
The path to success is tricky and a lot of things need to fall into place. But if you have an admin that's behind and focused on it, it can be done. I don't think ANY AD or admin staff wants sub par performance from ANY of their sports (and are willing to make them better), that's just human nature. IU is synonymous with Basketball, so even with the best intentions, the light is always going to shine a little brighter on it.
For my own two cents on Purdue's interest in funding, this is what I know (based on countless conversations, information garnered over the years and of course, some god old fashioned speculation.
Starting back two AD's ago, King. He was a basketball guy. Wanted most of the focus to be there, not FB. Didn't ignore it but it took back seat. Akers was our "big Name" hire. Didn't pan out (although he did get enough interest to have the initial football complex built). Had the opportunity to ask a former Board of Trustees member why he was hired and what happened; his reply; "Fred Akers stopped off in West Lafayette to pick up a check on the way to retirement". Nuff said, it's the risk you run getting a big name at the end of their career.
I won't go into the Coletto hire, but by the time Burke got there everything but the basketball program was in pretty bad shape. Morgan was a Boilermaker, Letterman swimmer, businessman who only planned to be there a few years. He rolled up his sleeves and went to work not just on football but ALL the D1 sports. His focus through his entire tenure was bringing the facilities up to par with the rest of the BT. Tiller was a home run hire that turned into a Grand Slam when a guy named Drew Brees (two scholarship offers, us and Kentucky) stepped on campus. The biggest knock on Morgan was he didn't parlay that success more into just the football program instead of spreading the wealth. Part of that was on him, but part of that was on the admin, the President and the BOT. Purdue was, is and shall always be a conservative school; the AD and the admin at the time wanted to bump up the facilities, but they wanted to do it in the black. Three stories that can be pretty well corroborated:
1. Danny Hope was trying to get more money for his assistants. X amount of dollars were to be allocated for some kind of Fogenheim for the football team. Danny went to Morgan and said "Hey, honestly we can do without this whizbang, that would then open up those dollars" (inferred for the assistants). Morgan said "Thanks Danny, we appreciate that." Whizbang wasn't purchased, but the dollars went to another part of the athletic department.
2. When the BTN dollars started rolling in, the admin (President) went to Morgan and said "Hey, here's a great opportunity for you to give BACK to the rest of the University." And it's not like he had a choice. The amount varied between 1 to 1.5 to over 2 million, but it was still money taken OUT of the athletic budget.
3. The Admin (BOT?) decided to allocate the maintenance and upkeep budget based on a departments overall footprint. Guess which department with a stadium, arena, 36 hole golf course, intramural fields, co-rec and other assorted sports facilities suddenly found themselves paying the lion's share of the bill?
There's also the "seat license" that was implemented for football seats. A friend and I sat down and ran the numbers, the cash those licenses were supposed to generate was almost exactly the same as the higher salary for Hazell and his assistants (over what Hope and co. were making).
What changed ALL of that were new BOT members who were football oriented, and by default their AD hire (Bobinski). Now all the $$ from BT are allocated with the cash cow (football) at the head of the table. No more paying for the rest of the Universities upkeep, either, and they lowered the seat licenses. Over the last 3-4 years, one thing the program can't plead is "poverty".
The path to success is tricky and a lot of things need to fall into place. But if you have an admin that's behind and focused on it, it can be done. I don't think ANY AD or admin staff wants sub par performance from ANY of their sports (and are willing to make them better), that's just human nature. IU is synonymous with Basketball, so even with the best intentions, the light is always going to shine a little brighter on it.
So, what prompted this cri du coeur?
Here are the winning percentages (overall and Big Ten) of IU's coaches since I attended a few games at the Tenth Street Stadium:
Dickens .333 / .243
Pont .380 / .371
Corso .378 / .354
Wyche .273 / .222
Mallory .473 / .376
Cameron .327 / .300
DiNardo .229 / .125
Hoeppner .391 / .250
Lynch .388 / .188
Wilson .321 / .167
Allen .384 / .222
Overall (1887-present) .404 / .302
So, look at all of this, just from Phil Dickens, in 1958. Sixty - 60! - years of futility, with what can charitably be considered one "name" coach, that being Bill Mallory. Only Mallory exceeded both our overall and Big Ten winning percentages and, even at that, he didn't win close to 50% of his Big Ten games. At most places that wouldn't justify a 13-year career. And I'm a big Bill Mallory fan.
So, whether or not IU has ever offered a "big name" coach, at big time money, and whether or not such a coach has ever even considered such an offer is irrelevant. The point is crystal clear: IU has never been even close to being a player in the big pool and, given the evidence of 60 years, likely never will be. We continue to operate with 3-star athletes against 4-and-5-star athletes, coached by 2-and-3-star coaches against 3,4-and-5 star coaches with facilities that I'll leave others to judge as I haven't seen all the others. I'll grant that we've made a significant improvement in this latter area, however.
What IU has done for six decades has, indisputably, not come close to working. Gee, why not attempt something different, a novel approach, as it were? Maybe someone will see that butting your head against a brick wall for six decades is the reason for the headache. Or not. Given our history, the safe bet is: not.
Tom Allen is a good guy but as a head coach he makes a good defensive coordinator. I hope he's successful. God, it'd be good for the soul. But color me skeptical.
I am so sick of the weak argument that I've seen and heard for decades, as follows: "Oh, a big name coach would never come to IU and/or IU would never shell out the money it would take." How. The. Hell. Would. We. Know? The evidence would indicate it's never been tried. But, boy, we're sure doing great with what we've been doing for sixty years.
Break the mold. Trade in the Packard. Throw away the rotary phone.
You know I subscribe to your newsletter so none of this is personal. It's just time to do something different.
I virtually made this same post with stats over a year ago...vbg...and it was blown off. Some don't seem to get it that IU has NEVER won in FB in any consistent way...ever never. Why would any top coach risk his career to come here?? It makes no sense...he could see a successful career tank. Not worth the money we offer or could offer. But its like talking to a wall.
You are one angry poster these days. Maybe a few days away would help you get back to civility?
I am unaware of IU ever approaching the big name coach. It may have happened, but I am not aware.
The big name is a difficult sell to be sure but finding that up and comer has always been a possibility. With respect to the fact that the jury is still out on Allen, it hasn't seemed to have happened.
I have no anger at all except against idiot posts...like yours...you have disrupted this place beyond the pale and you have the balls to say that. What a maroon...lol
My rebuttal to the lack of historical success, which to be sure, we've had very little of, is to look towards Northwestern, Kansas State and Duke.
All of those programs had similar failures BUT they hired the right guy. You could even lump in programs like Iowa, Wisconsin and Purdue because they've all gone decades, literally decades, without fielding successful teams. The only reason they broke the losing culture was by hiring the right guy. I don't know why people have such a hard time understanding this, it's a fairly simple idea.
Bill Mallory was our right guy, he just could not sustain it. Bill would marry himself to a really heavy senior laden class and those guys would do well but then they would graduate and Bill might have a lean year or two. I think that's ultimately what got him, he just couldn't put together another quality, senior laden group that he needed to make a run with.
All of those programs had similar failures BUT they hired the right guy. You could even lump in programs like Iowa, Wisconsin and Purdue because they've all gone decades, literally decades, without fielding successful teams. The only reason they broke the losing culture was by hiring the right guy. I don't know why people have such a hard time understanding this, it's a fairly simple idea.
Bill Mallory was our right guy, he just could not sustain it. Bill would marry himself to a really heavy senior laden class and those guys would do well but then they would graduate and Bill might have a lean year or two. I think that's ultimately what got him, he just couldn't put together another quality, senior laden group that he needed to make a run with.
I agree with this completely. But where I differ with many on this board is that I think finding that "right guy" is a lot more difficult than a lot want to believe. And based on different circumstances, it can take the right guy more time at some places than others.
I don't know if it's a crap shoot, but I do look around and see that some "can't miss" guys miss big (including guys who were successful head coaches at other places), and some guys nobody ever heard of become enormously successful (even obscure coordinators). I don't believe there is a blueprint that the guys doing the hiring can or should follow.
The resumes of Darrell Hazell and Jeff Brohm were not that different when each was hired at Purdue. One was a miserable failure, the other a resounding success (thus far). And while Brohm has flourished, a previously very successful PJ Fleck has struggled mightily in his new gig.
I also think it takes a little luck (or the avoidance of bad luck). We'll never know if Terry Hoepner could have turned our fortunes quickly but there is some evidence to suggest that he had us in a much better direction. I would also argue that the realignment of the B1G that left us in a killer division and gave us one less non-con game to get to the coveted bowl eligibility has really stunted our progress.
A friend of mine who was a long-time high school basketball coach had a reputation for turning around historically bad programs. He always said the first step was managing the schedule - getting teams on you knew you could beat and getting teams off you couldn't. He also manipulated the timing of games to maximize upset chances and avoid losing streaks. He was adamant that teams had to see positive results on the scoreboard before they could believe they were good enough to compete against better competition. Unfortunately, football coaches at IU have little ability to control the schedule.
The kicker in all of this is trying to figure out if it is better to give a coach at a program like ours time to struggle in order to build, or if it is more prudent to cut bait and move to a new person if the progress isn't apparent quickly. I wish I had a definitive answer to that problem. Right now, I see better athletes in the freshman and sophomore class that give me optimism our fortunes might change in the next two years. At the same time I see maddening examples of self-destruction that keep turning potential wins into losses.
I wish I were as confident as some here that we could make the next hire the magic one that would turn our fortunes quickly, ala our rivals to the north. But I know I don't want to go through the kind of turmoil that we've seen before where we burn the program to the ground only to watch the Phoenix take his sweet-ass time just getting us back to where we were with the previous guy. I don't know if I have the fan patience for another rebuild that starts with a 1-11 season and takes five years to get to a minor bowl.
Last edited:
You're out of control. How about a little civility?
And you don't look very bright when you challenge another poster's intelligence by calling him a "maroon." (It's "moron"). Vbg.
I do agree with you that it is hard to find the right guy. In hindsight though I think that what has many on the board disappointed is that the last few hires have been suspect, and when you combine that with why CKW was let go after IU had some success I can see what other posters are talking about. Consider the coaching situation since 2005... you get a guy who was highly respected (CKW talked about how much Hep influenced him at Miami OH and has a lot of respect for him) and then he unfortunately passes away. Now you’re stuck with an interim who may or may not be over his head coaching at the Big ten level. It was a good story that he finished what Hep started and played 13’, but his teams weren’t really big ten caliber teams. Then you move on to a coach who had issues before he even arrived and many question the vetting process there. You end up with a guy in CKW who could’ve realistically been fired before he started. You end up with a coach who improved recruiting, and the culture, but underachieved given the amount of time he was given (and the talent he was able to attract with the new facilities). CKW brought some good and bad, but a fair argument is that the learning curve of being a first time head coach slowed IU’s growing process, and he was likely maxed out at 6-6. Then when you do decide to move on from that guy (which makes little since because he was the same guy when you hired him and showed no signs of changing) you decide to replace him with another guy with no major head coaching experience because he turned the defense around for ONE year and the players seemed to like him. I haven’t given up on CTA, but dang... in hindsight there could’ve been a better vetting process and they could’ve at least entertained other options.
My point is that IU May have gone about the hiring process in an incompetent way for over a decade now. You’ve essentially seen 2 interim coaches who may not be suited for this level, and another guy who wasn’t exactly a great fit before he ever coached a game. If the hunt for a more seasoned coach at any of these points would’ve occurred, it’s possible that IU could be in better shape. In some ways CTA and CKW are the best hires IU has made since Mallory... but that was as a defensive coordinator and essentially an offensive coordinator respectively... you wouldn’t necessarily want either to be the face of a program (although I’m still willing to give CTA time). So while I agree that good coaches don’t magically fall from trees, IU doesn’t even seem to have given itself a chance to get a decent coach with head coaching experience. And if you were going to commit to Wilson for 5 years, and if he was the same the whole time, firing him and starting over again doesn’t make a ton of sense. So I can see how that’d alienate some fans. Of course, I put a lot of it on the players, but it’d be interesting to see what could happen if IU did select a seasoned guy.
Respectfully, is this really an argument? Wouldn’t posting articles or win/loss brackets of $3mm coaches having good seasons be the offset? I’m sure you aren’t making the argument that all coaches making $3mm are having losing seasons?
You must find the right guy I agree. But having a bigger pool of money allows you to fish a better stocked pond. I don’t understand why that is even questioned. Coaches will fail for different reasons. But much like recruiting, you MIGHT make the B10 Championship with a bunch of 2* and 3* kids once in 4 years after they have developed, but the OSU’s, UM’s, and PSU’s, WILL contend every year because they fish a better stocked pond of recruits in the 4* and 5* arenas AND fish a better stocked pond for coaches.
We should check that box because it is within our control. When have we done that?
How much money would be required to lure an established coaching staff without IU connections given that IU has virtually no chance of ever winning the east division? What about the likelihood of being fired is far greater than the likelihood of finishing in the top three in the division.
This is not hyperbole.
This is not hyperbole.
Probably 5-6 million per year...just a guess. That would cover a nice salary for the head coach and should be enough for a competent staff.
When Wilson was hired I read the NW Rivals forum about him, as he had been an OC for NW........I expected to see a lot of praise and talk about what a great hire he was. Well.....the discussion was rather mixed, at best. There were more than a few comments to the effect that he was a dick.....enough that I wondered right away whether it was a blunder. I have to think that there were all kinds of red flags out there that should have been spotted with a competent search.
Break it down.
Where will that coach/staff come from?
Will you accept a coach/staff who leaves a currently-losing Power 5 program?
Can they recruit immediately to beat Iowa and Michigan State immediately or even in the first 3 seasons?
Will you accept a coach who has been out of the game a while (i.e. a Neuheisel or a Miles)? Can they recruit that quick?
Will this hypothetical coach/staff leave a Big Ten winning program to come to IU?
Will they leave another winning Power 5 program?
AAC? (UCF? Temple? Cincy? Good enough? Quick enough?)
CUSA? (A Davis or a Kiffin? A Litrell?)
MAC? (A Solich or a Bowden?)
Can they recruit it immediately?
How about NFL guys? Hire the Ryan’s? An OC ala Wyche?
Who wants to come back and recruit? Work harder for more travel and less money?
In the end, IU has chosen from the guys willing to come.
The best available “under the reality of the moment”
We got a great MAC “football guy” in Mallory
We dumped him for a Wonder Boy offensive genius after his “Florida Speed” didn’t/couldn’t enroll
We took DiNardo when The West Coast Wonder wouldn’t come.
We got Hep from the MAC.
We acted like decent people and let Lynch earn it.
We hired a MAC/Big Ten/Big 12 alleged offensive whiz who was an asshole.
We hired a good man defensive guru when Wilson played out.
The common theme?
It’s a building process, not a quick fix.
The quick fixers aren’t interested
I’m sticking with my eyes again.
I see promise in this staff and roster
Got some holes to fill.
But they have not hit thier ceiling.
But I don’t see the big name thing ever working to REBUILD us.
The money may attract the name after we get good, but not yet.
Now, if - IF for some reason we had to make a hire, my first call would be to AAC and CUSA AD’s. Those guys are hungry and have a chip on their shoulder. But that is just another 3-5 year process.
It's why I keep coming back to patience and the possibility we have to "grow" our coach. That's means living with losing until he gets it right...which he will....I hope.
Maybe it's just my obsession with botany...
It's why I keep coming back to patience and the possibility we have to "grow" our coach. That's means living with losing until he gets it right...which he will....I hope.
Maybe it's just my obsession with botany...
There are young guys out there in Group of 5 or Independents that could get it done here. Guys that would leave WITH THEIR STAFF that could turn IU into a reasonable winner. They do more with less.
Jeff Monken took an Army program that was a laughing stock and turned them into a winner with very limited recruiting. He was a winner at Georgia Southern and then had Army with 8 wins in his 3rd year.
How about Bill Clark at UAB? That guy took a program that was literally cancelled for 2 years. It’s basically a startup program.
Guys that can coach don’t look for the young players and injury excuses. They just take what they got and elevate.
Bingo! It's pretty much a consensus thought here that Brohm will be leaving any day now for greener pastures than Purdue. Maybe that's just wishful thinking. I'm old enough to remember our university president (Tom "Mr Bowtie" Ehrlich?) coming out with a statement that IU was going to push IU for academic excellence over athletic prowess. This was about the time Knight was canned or shortly thereafter (coincidence?). Perhaps that philosophy still resonates through the portals of subsequent IU administrations.
It's still a crap-shoot. For every lower level coach who continues success at a higher lever there are 5 coaches who fall victim to the Peter Principle, ie. Faust at ND, "Hazellnut" at PU, et.al.
The stepping stone argument just makes no sense to me. There are maybe a little over a handful of programs in the country that are not stepping stones (Alabama, Clemson, Notre Dame, O$U, Michigan maybe Penn State a few others) Most of the teams in the Big Ten are stepping stones if Alabama or Clemson call. If IU becomes a stepping stone then we have had success. Now, put the right administration in place and a few really successful seasons and you can build on that and be less of a stepping stone in the future (i.e the number of "better" jobs decreases). Do nothing and the worst case is you have had one or a few good years. How's that compare to the present?
It was hardly a secret if you followed college football, and it’s been supported by several in this thread. You’re 0-5 in your IU sports knowledge in the last week. Not good. By the way, are you going to post a decoder guide for the numbers you keep posting (instead of responding with intelligent content)?
Last edited:
None of those guys would win 5 games total at IU in the first 2 years. In year 2 this board would be full of “fire the guy” posts and - if we obeyed the Illuminati and fired em - we’d still be 3-5 years away from a team that could compete in the Big Ten East. And in Year 3, they'd still be where Allen is now - nice skill players and getting shoved around by lines built by the Historical Haves and/or the coaches who have been there a while.
Dino Babers was on local radio this morning because they are next in line to pummel Louisville. He was asked how he went from 4-8 and 4-8 to 7-2. He said (paraphrase) "the first couple of years, these guys have 2 coaches and 2 systems in their heads. They remember both. Its not until they can completely forget the prior system - and can only remember the current one - that things really start to come together."
Whether we like it or not, it takes time after a coaching change to get it together again.
Fans think just having the same players (or a lot of them) oughta produce the same or better results, and see the drop from 6-6 to 5-7 as a "statement." It's not. It the norm.
Whether we like it or not, Wilson failed. His offense was fun. But he was the wrong "person."
Should we have "gone national" and cast aside his building blocks, or kept what we could? Glass took Door No. 2.
I can't really argue with it. It isn't any worse than prior changes here.
If we had hired a national search candidate, would we have won more than 5 last year? 5 or more this year? I can't say for sure - no way to know. But I'd bet against it. History says our new coaches don't win much in Year 1 and Year 2. Mallory won 4 in his first 2 years. Year 3 and 4 were great. Cam won 6 in 2 years. DiNardo 5. Hep won 4, then he and Lynch won 5 the next year. Lynch split those 5 then won 7. (Hardy and Lewis were Goooood.) Wilson won 1, then 4.
What's the counter-argument here? "But look at Brohm! What a play caller! Turned it around Year 1!"
Last year they won with defense. Nobody at the Hickory Barber Shop really noticed that. Purdue scored 31 twice - against us late and Minnesota early. In the other league games they scored 10, 9, 12, 24, 29, 13. But to read this board, you'd have thought Brohm was averaging a 50 point ass-whipping every week.
Holt is the best coach at Purdue, (crazy - but good), but nobody at the Barber Shop thanks Bobby Petrino for leaving him at Western Kentucky so he could help Brohm. Nope. It's all offense - all the time. (So long as its a passing offense. Run it and its FIRE THE COACH!)
Year 2 Brohm has a much better offense. He finally picked the right QB, and the kid from Trinity really is a weapon. But Brohm is no reason for us to jettison Allen.
We have really good RB's.
4 years of Penix.
Good receviers.
Fix the OL (easy to say - hard to do) and Allen can match most other offenses in the league.
On defense, we have - IMO - regressed a little, but we expected it. We lost a lot.
The DL has 3 guys I like a lot.
That's not enough.
The LB's lack quality depth after Jones and Roof.
Some newbies show promise at both LB and Husky.
The secondary is solid and only loses Crawford.
I wanna win 6.
We shoulda beat Minnesota and a loss to Maryland might kill me.
But its ain't over til the fat Boilermaker co-ed sings.
Beat Maryland see what happens.
With NW, KSU, and Duke is was the right guy and TIME. And with NW, was the right guys (plural) and time.
Barnett, Walker, Snyder, and Cutcliffe all could have been fired in year 3 or 4, and the consensus would likely been that doing so was the reasonable decision.
This post won't be popular among a few here, but it makes sense and is easy to dance to.
I strongly, emphatically, enthusiastically, 2nd all of the above post (by My Team Is On The Floor)!
Last edited:
I agree with pretty much everything you said in your post. I think Allen has the overall coaching toolkit to do well here at Indiana. I'd be ecstatic if we can consistently be a Northwestern or Iowa, with a few glimpses of better than that - and there's no reason to think he can't. He probably still has a learning curve with the nuances of being a head coach in the B1G, but his players play hard for him, they tackle well in every game he has been over the defense except maybe 2 games, and he's recruiting well. I know Flooded Timber will laugh at me for this, but he reminds me some of Mallory (sans the catch phrases).
The Minnesota game was a soul-crusher, and it did temper my enthusiasm some. But I see a lot of things I like, and I think we are really close to turning the corner. This job isn't easy, and not for the faint of heart. Neither is being a fan of this team. But be patient a little longer...good things are coming finally.
I would not laugh at such a comparison. I might not see it or agree with it, but I would not laugh. Just can't see Mal going public with LEO. In the locker room maybe discussed, but not as a team motto. I respect your opinion and most others on the board. I have less confidence than others, but hope I am wrong. The defensive players have been in this program for three years. True, the offense is a year behind. My concern is in attitude and individual player progress. The "play hard" is not enough. When you are where we have been, you have to play hard and have something of an attitude that this crap won't do anymore. Not sure that is there. I have seen more stagnation or regression in player development than progression, but I admit that is subjective and others are free to disagree. Regardless, we are where we are for at least a couple more years, even if things don't improve. So, hope for good things and be prepared to ride it out if they don't come.
And yet, here they stand at the top of the heap. Some teams (cough, cough) never recover from their mistakes.
This year anyway....not long ago he was on the hot seat there too! they have certainly had their ups and downs, but they are ND! they should be better than average each and every year. not a great comparison.
