Jump to content

Alford fired....Hoiberg to UCLA?


KDB

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 260
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Reinforcing the "He shoulda never left New Mexico mantra".....

Regardless of winning two B1G tournaments, Steve had a .589 winning percentage.  And missed post season play two of the years he was with Iowa.

While... at New Mexico... Steve had a .789 winning percentage, and got the Lobos in post season play every year he was there. 

Furthermore....should have taken a page out of Mark Few's playbook.... by not messing up a good thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CauseThatsMyDJ said:

Yes, a losing record. That’s not good. It’s not average. It’s bad. 

And IU had one B1G title compared to his 0 during his tenure. The conference championship that actually matters. 

Whatever.....so be it.  We have had, now listen to this, 5 coaches that never won the BTT.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, rico said:

I am gonna call 'em like I see 'em.

Steve was successful at Manchester, SW Missouri St., Iowa, New Mexico, and UCLA.  I don't care what anybody says, he has been a successful HC at every stop.

Now is he an elite coach?  No.  His he a good coach?  Yes.  

I don't care about personality issues, but as a HC Steve has made 2 huge mistakes.  The way he handled the Pierce issue at Iowa and taking the UCLA job.

Alford will be fine, his record speaks for itself.  Who knows where his next landing stop will be but I bet there will be schools clamoring over him.  And just not mid-majors.  Let us see what coaching changes happen in the power conferences and when there is an opening, Steve's name will come up.  

Dan is that you? 😀

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, 5fouls said:

I actually prefer the Big Ten drop the tournament all together.  It's not necessary in the grand scheme of things.

Conference tournaments only benefit teams that wouldn't get an at-large bid. No reason to have them. Rutgers could be the "Big Ten Champ" after winning one reg season conference game. They usually have very little impact on seeding.

Especially bad in the one-bid leagues. Too often the reg season conference champ gets upset and goes to the NIT, while some fluke team with a losing record gets to be cannon fodder for Duke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 5fouls said:

I actually prefer the Big Ten drop the tournament all together.  It's not necessary in the grand scheme of things.

And it's relatively recent. It's just a conference tourney. Conference tourneys can be important in that the winner gets an auto-bid to the NCAA tourney, but other than that, with a regular season conference title already determined, it doesn't hold importance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, rico said:

I am gonna call 'em like I see 'em.

Steve was successful at Manchester, SW Missouri St., Iowa, New Mexico, and UCLA.  I don't care what anybody says, he has been a successful HC at every stop.

Now is he an elite coach?  No.  His he a good coach?  Yes.  

I don't care about personality issues, but as a HC Steve has made 2 huge mistakes.  The way he handled the Pierce issue at Iowa and taking the UCLA job.

Alford will be fine, his record speaks for itself.  Who knows where his next landing stop will be but I bet there will be schools clamoring over him.  And just not mid-majors.  Let us see what coaching changes happen in the power conferences and when there is an opening, Steve's name will come up.  

I'm gonna call 'em like I see em too.  Steve is an Indiana legend which has helped his recruiting efforts, especially earlier in his career.  As time has passed, that legend status has faded, especially among the kids he's recruiting today who weren't even alive when he played.  The ability to recruit above his neighborhood has hidden his lack of coaching acumen.  His father Sam was a legendary coach and when Steve had Sam on his bench, that also camouflaged Steve's lack of coaching acumen.  Losing Sam likely hurt Steve's ability to coach and develop the recruits he was able to land.  I don't know why Steve thought throwing his players under the bus was a good idea, but instead of motivating them to do better, they simply checked out and quit playing for him.  The audience of one quote was just bizarre (and I consider myself a very imperfect follower of Christ).  It just reminds me that Steve was grasping for words and his vocabulary failed him.  That quote just screams "I don't owe any of you anything and I'm not worried about pleasing any of you."  Not a good look for a man ostensibly trying to save his job.

Sorry...despite his numbers, I don't see him as any more than a mediocre coach.  He's an average coach with a fading ability to recruit enough talent to make him appear to be a better than average coach.  He's not the first college superstar to fail to excel in the coaching ranks.  Nor is he the first college coach to struggle to transfer what he has learned over the years to his players.  He gives me the impression of being both lazy and arrogant.  Maybe he wasn't always lazy, but I think he's gotten that way.  With Ed Schilling on staff and recruiting for a storied program in sunny California a stones throw from Hollywood, I don't think Steve had to work all that hard to get talent.  As others have said, that program almost recruits itself.  Steve has excelled at lower levels of college ball where his Indiana celebrity was sufficient to get above-average talent, but both times he stepped up to the power five level, he no longer stood out and his recruiting edge diminished, especially at Iowa.  I just don't think Steve was willing to work hard enough to regain his edge.

Maybe getting kicked to the curb restarts Steve's ambition and he hits the ground running wherever he lands.  I hope he proves me wrong.  It just seems like so much has come so easy for Steve that he's fallen into a habit of coasting and the bright lights of LA will quickly expose a coach not willing to work.  At any rate, until he proves me wrong, he's going to remain Stevie Mediocre for now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, FKIM01 said:

I'm gonna call 'em like I see em too.  Steve is an Indiana legend which has helped his recruiting efforts, especially earlier in his career.  As time has passed, that legend status has faded, especially among the kids he's recruiting today who weren't even alive when he played.  The ability to recruit above his neighborhood has hidden his lack of coaching acumen.  His father Sam was a legendary coach and when Steve had Sam on his bench, that also camouflaged Steve's lack of coaching acumen.  Losing Sam likely hurt Steve's ability to coach and develop the recruits he was able to land.  I don't know why Steve thought throwing his players under the bus was a good idea, but instead of motivating them to do better, they simply checked out and quit playing for him.  The audience of one quote was just bizarre (and I consider myself a very imperfect follower of Christ).  It just reminds me that Steve was grasping for words and his vocabulary failed him.  That quote just screams "I don't owe any of you anything and I'm not worried about pleasing any of you."  Not a good look for a man ostensibly trying to save his job.

Sorry...despite his numbers, I don't see him as any more than a mediocre coach.  He's an average coach with a fading ability to recruit enough talent to make him appear to be a better than average coach.  He's not the first college superstar to fail to excel in the coaching ranks.  Nor is he the first college coach to struggle to transfer what he has learned over the years to his players.  He gives me the impression of being both lazy and arrogant.  Maybe he wasn't always lazy, but I think he's gotten that way.  With Ed Schilling on staff and recruiting for a storied program in sunny California a stones throw from Hollywood, I don't think Steve had to work all that hard to get talent.  As others have said, that program almost recruits itself.  Steve has excelled at lower levels of college ball where his Indiana celebrity was sufficient to get above-average talent, but both times he stepped up to the power five level, he no longer stood out and his recruiting edge diminished, especially at Iowa.  I just don't think Steve was willing to work hard enough to regain his edge.

Maybe getting kicked to the curb restarts Steve's ambition and he hits the ground running wherever he lands.  I hope he proves me wrong.  It just seems like so much has come so easy for Steve that he's fallen into a habit of coasting and the bright lights of LA will quickly expose a coach not willing to work.  At any rate, until he proves me wrong, he's going to remain Stevie Mediocre for now.

You forgot one thing.  UCLA is never happy.  Everything is measured against Wooden.  Steve should never taken that job.  You want to call him mediocre.  Fine.  But that job will chew anybody up even if they have success.  It is never enough.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, rico said:

You forgot one thing.  UCLA is never happy.  Everything is measured against Wooden.  Steve should never taken that job.  You want to call him mediocre.  Fine.  But that job will chew anybody up even if they have success.  It is never enough.  

UCLA is not unlike IU under Bob Knight's shadow.  Someone will eventually leave that shadow behind, but it will take a very good coach to do that and I agree Steve should have never taken the job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, FKIM01 said:

UCLA is not unlike IU under Bob Knight's shadow.  Someone will eventually leave that shadow behind, but it will take a very good coach to do that and I agree Steve should have never taken the job.

Measuring people to Wooden is even more absurd than Knight. Wooden never had real success until Uncle Sam started buying players. So do they just need another guy who plays dumb and looks the other way? Why not go after Cal. Even if UCLA cheats there is so much parity now in talent your not going to win the number of titles like they used to. They can have success again but the days of Wooden are gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Hoosierhoopster said:

And it's relatively recent. It's just a conference tourney. Conference tourneys can be important in that the winner gets an auto-bid to the NCAA tourney, but other than that, with a regular season conference title already determined, it doesn't hold importance.

Say what?  It doesn't hold importance?  I bet the selection committee would beg to differ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, rico said:

Say what?  It doesn't hold importance?  I bet the selection committee would beg to differ.

i kind of agree with HH. At least in regards to the power conferences. In the one bid leagues, yes the conference tourneys can have a great impact. That is one of the flaws of the conference tournaments--as has been discussed previously here. With the power conferences, unless a team comes out of nowhere to win it--a team that otherwise would not have made the tournament--the conference tournaments don't do much other than to move seeds a little. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Steubenhoosier said:

i kind of agree with HH. At least in regards to the power conferences. In the one bid leagues, yes the conference tourneys can have a great impact. That is one of the flaws of the conference tournaments--as has been discussed previously here. With the power conferences, unless a team comes out of nowhere to win it--a team that otherwise would not have made the tournament--the conference tournaments don't do much other than to move seeds a little. 

There have been bubble teams from power conferences that have played their way in with a good conference tourney run.  And IU upped their seeding once with a good run.  The fact is the NCAA selection gurus are keeping their eyes on the CTs.  Don't get me wrong, I don't like them either but we got them.  And yes, they count.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/2/2019 at 1:49 PM, rico said:

The point is Alford won 2 BTT titles....say what you want about the meaning of them.  But he won two.....and we have none.

So if Alford’s tenure at Iowa is s success is that because it is Iowa?? I mean if Archie coaches like 8 seasons and achieves the same thing is he going to be considered a success...are you going to want him to return for season 9. I would say Iowa was a push...ups and downs but nothing to hang your coaching hat on. UCLA is not a success because the expectations are higher and he achieved not even half what his predecessor accomplished with no F4s. New Mexico I count a definite success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO, conference tourney games should count against regular season conference record and the Power Conferences should have 2 auto bids.  One for the tourney winner and one for the  regular season winner based on winning .pct.  If a team wins both then the regular season and tourney then the runnerup gets the 2nd bid. It could some extra intrigue to the tournament.  Of course if a team dominates the regualr season standings then they drop the 1st game and may still have the best .pct. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, dgambill said:

So if Alford’s tenure at Iowa is s success is that because it is Iowa?? I mean if Archie coaches like 8 seasons and achieves the same thing is he going to be considered a success...are you going to want him to return for season 9. I would say Iowa was a push...ups and downs but nothing to hang your coaching hat on. UCLA is not a success because the expectations are higher and he achieved not even half what his predecessor accomplished with no F4s. New Mexico I count a definite success.

First off, it seems that a lot of people forget the success that Steve had at SW Missouri St.  Iowa is a funny one from a program perspective.  They haven't been to a FF since '80.  And since then have made the EE once under Tom Davis.  Davis was not retained after going 20-10 and a SS appearance.  So what does Iowa want?  All I am saying is he won two BTT's at Iowa.  

I would say Iowa's expectations are different than reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, rico said:

First off, it seems that a lot of people forget the success that Steve had at SW Missouri St.  Iowa is a funny one from a program perspective.  They haven't been to a FF since '80.  And since then have made the EE once under Tom Davis.  Davis was not retained after going 20-10 and a SS appearance.  So what does Iowa want?  All I am saying is he won two BTT's at Iowa.  

I would say Iowa's expectations are different than reality.

If I'm Iowa I want an occasional run in the B1G and maybe win one but to stay in the top half and not miss a NCAA tournament. To me it's about winning the games you should (or where you are ranked higher) and getting as far in the tourney as you can....a couple S16s be nice. I don't think as an AD I could expect much more....and keep your program clean....and that might be just as much the issue as was anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...