and gave him 10 million to spend on NIL next year, would we have been better off instead of paying him to leave? at basically half million a starter I bet he could have put together a very competitive roster
what if you went to Tom Allen
- Thread starter kurt cloverdales
- Start date
you're too sober to make any sense
I won't even begin to speculate on where the locker room might've been emotionally after the Purdue game ended but what you're asking is the key point in all of this. In the end, IU administration shouldn't have looked to do that this year.....they should've found a way to scrape those resources 2-3 years ago when he had the locker room. This team could've continued that upward trajectory. But yes, I certainly get what you're saying.....
Yep! And and only one letter to change his tagline to pay each other
#PEO ...
#PEO ...
correct but they found 15 million privately to pay him off.
Which only means that those that pledged the 15 mill wanted him gone and would not give it if they kept him.
Regardless of how much Allen could have paid his players he was still going to be the last guy in the room to realize that his coaching staff sucked. Unfortunately it would have been throwing more good money after bad.
If that money had been given to Allen it would not have changed his calling a timeout as his team lined up for the first play of the game, a timeout after MSU had called a timeout to ice the kicker, the missed tackles, terrible clock management, same penalties game after game, and play calls that defied all logic. How many thinks 2-10, 4-8, and 3-9 would have been markedly different. Good person and almost all of us including me wish him well but his failure was his own.
That was pretty damn funny 😆
I think you could give Allen, Michigan’s squad, and he would underachieve at probably 8 wins.
You guys that want to keep blaming everything on NIL funding actually watched our terribly coached team this year, right? Talent level didn't lose the games against purdue, louisville, michigan state, and rutgers this year.
I heard that Allen agreed to take a reduced buyout because he was given two options:
1) stay one more year as a lame duck and make 12.5 mil (7.5mil buyout plus 5 mil salary)
2) Leave now and they will pay him 15.5 mil in two payments.
He chose the money and decided to leave now.
1) stay one more year as a lame duck and make 12.5 mil (7.5mil buyout plus 5 mil salary)
2) Leave now and they will pay him 15.5 mil in two payments.
He chose the money and decided to leave now.
I thought the logic was tied into the fact that we offered to pay him in just 2 installments vs. merely paying him his annual salary that could drag on a few more years. In doing so, he is then able to get another job sooner without his new school's contract hindering what IU owed him. I could be wrong but that seemed to be the picture that was painted when I last looked.
That could certainly be true as well and made public as the rationale behind why he took the lower payout.
Yep. Clean break and he gets a reduced total but future earnings won't count against it.
I think the point is why can we round up so much donor money to fire a coach but not to fund an actual competitive team?
I'm sure that was brought up, too, and those same donors said they would contribute more after that. Wasn't it reported that IU will have at least $3 million for NIL? I think it will happen, but they don't want to waste that money on a coach that can't succeed with the extra talent.
They cannot directly. They can indirectly.
It is like when Sabin says “I have not talked with Alabama”. That is true. But his agent has.
That would be a huge NCAA violation either way. Athletic departments at public universities are routinely audited. How well do you trust the NCAA not to bring the hammer down on IU if it was determined that financial discrepencies had occurred. Historically, we are not one of those schools for whom the NCAA looks the other way. Sadly, we are not in the category of "too big to fail" like OSU, Kansas, UNC, Penn St., etc.
Because you still have the coaching deficiency no matter how much money you throw at it.
As somebody mentioned above, it’s just throwing good money after bad. And dumping more money into a failed investment.
I think the point of all of it was that no matter how much money they could fund Allen with, whether that’s getting better players, etc. He was going to always have underachieving teams because of his coaching, irregardless of the funds available.
I'm still waiting to see what school they go after for Bill $elf's infractions.
Name we one advantage Tom Allen had roster wise, fan support wise, tradition wise. Athletic support wise over.
Illinois Michigan st or Purdue, the last 3 games were all one score games or went into overtime. that was following a win over Wisconsin who has perennially literally beaten the shit out of us. I was seeing progress we were also at such a disadvantage playing in the east, which people also need to factor in. maybe starting over is the answer time will tell.
There was no advantage. The point is that those were 50/50 games (we were actually favored against MSU - they were in disarray with an interim coach just like Nebraska last year when we played them). And, apparently the big money donors saw what others of us did: the coaching in those games was a liability.
You hang your hat in defense as a coach and your team goes out and completely looks unprepared in each game, that’s coaching and has nothing to do with NIL, our history, fans watching it.
It was all coaching.
Let me turn that around. Name an advantage roster wise that those teams had vs IU. Add to that Rutgers and Maryland. Three years in a row, CTA's teams lost to all the teams that could be classified as IU'peers.
BTW. Wisconsin blew by the time they played here. Their offense was decimated. Starting QB, best RB, and best WR dud not play in that game. I was there and glad we won. That didn't stop me from recognizing it for what it was.
I was a person that defended Tom Allen but I did say that if they finished less than 3-1 in the last 4 games he should be gone. They finished 1-3 and so he is rightly gone. However i continue to see things on here that I don't believe to be accurate.
1. I do not believe that he lost the locker room at any time. The kids played hard until the very end.
2. Many insist that the Akron game should be considered a loss, because the Akron kicker missed a chip shot. By that logic then the Illinois game should be a tie as is the Michigan State game as we missed 2 very makeable field goals. The Louisville game should also be a tie since we should have gotten the ball into the end zone and gone into overtime with us having completely outplayed them in the second half.
3. The poor tackling was very frustrating but part of that is the amount of young kids forced to play late in the year because of injuries and even Aaron Casey played injured in the last game. Not excusing a lack of execution on the defense part because as I always tell young kids in our program age is not an excuse you are a varsity football player and expected to make plays.
1. I do not believe that he lost the locker room at any time. The kids played hard until the very end.
2. Many insist that the Akron game should be considered a loss, because the Akron kicker missed a chip shot. By that logic then the Illinois game should be a tie as is the Michigan State game as we missed 2 very makeable field goals. The Louisville game should also be a tie since we should have gotten the ball into the end zone and gone into overtime with us having completely outplayed them in the second half.
3. The poor tackling was very frustrating but part of that is the amount of young kids forced to play late in the year because of injuries and even Aaron Casey played injured in the last game. Not excusing a lack of execution on the defense part because as I always tell young kids in our program age is not an excuse you are a varsity football player and expected to make plays.
I was with you most of the way. The tackling though. I've been watching Sanguenetti for a few years now. He showed zero improvement over his IU career.
I can still conjure up a visual image of that Illinois game. It was such a a rarity for the first contact to bring down a ball carrier. I recall Millen, who was doing that Illinois game saying that IU's tackling may be the worst he's ever seen.
Allen said he was at a loss of words for what went on during the bucket game. What went on in that game looked very much like what happened in the Louisville game.
Blown coverages, man don't even get me started down that road.
I was seriously hoping that this was going to be a redemption season for Tom Allen. I was still in his corner until the Rutgers and Maryland games.
You cannot simply look that disorganized in year 7 of your tenure.
For me, the final straw was getting ass whipped up here in Indy by Brohm (yet again) where his team came out and looked like they didn’t know that a Jeff Brohm team would throw the ball? That was just awful. When you lose to your rival time and again and these are 50/50 games, you have a major coaching problem. Nobody survives those results, even at IU.
When Purdue lost 4 straight to IU from 2013-2016, there was no “well, let’s give Hazell some more time.” No, they canned his ass mid-season in 2016.
2019 and 2020 were great and then we went out and s&@) the bed in both bowls.
The antics grew old. The mannerisms on the sidelines (jumping into a staff’s arms in a 4OT win against Akron at home).
Just too much.
Year 7. I think that says it all. But Allen's the past coach cig's the future. Let's get this thing rolling
I mentioned the Rutgers game and that was awful. The Maryland game though. What was it? I think the third play of the game and a score on a blown coverage. Next drive wasn't it the first play? Ditto their third drive.
I said before that nobody aside from Hep loved being the head coach at IU like CTA. He's an Indiana guy and he had his dream job. You really want that to work out
The question was OPs, not mine, but you have the correct answer. People who have resources overwhelmingly get there by investing wisely, ie in entities that grow over time. Allen was never maximizing any kind of investment.
I completely agree with you regarding absence of trust/fairness with the ncaa. They have proven that time and time again.
But with NIL lawyers are involved. They have a different bar for right wrong fair unfair and they are bright people that will figure a way.
Based on his choice of assistant coaches, it would have been mediocre. His teams played worse than their parts anyway.
