Blind Coaching Resumes

[Zlinedavid]

4 minutes ago, rico said:

So what kind of prize pack do I win?

You win the entire contents of my left pocket.  Which at the moment, is $0.78 in change, a Lowe's receipt and some lint. 

[H00sier]

Well done , those of us born late 60’s early 70’s are so jaded, we happened to be born and raised during a time when Indiana was the “IT” program. It’s hard , sad, really sad - whatever you wanna say - to have had the last 20 years after the first 30-25 years were such a contrast. 

I like Coach Miller and hope he can get us back to being a NCAA lock , IU needs to be in the tourney! 

 

Always 

[rico]

6 minutes ago, Zlinedavid said:

You win the entire contents of my left pocket.  Which at the moment, is $0.78 in change, a Lowe's receipt and some lint. 

You can keep it!!!!!!  I was hoping for a trophy!  LOL

Seriously though Dave I enjoyed that somewhat cryptic game.  You had to have put a lot of effort into it.  Thanks for stimulating my mind.

[Zlinedavid]

11 minutes ago, rico said:

You can keep it!!!!!!  I was hoping for a trophy!  LOL

Seriously though Dave I enjoyed that somewhat cryptic game.  You had to have put a lot of effort into it.  Thanks for stimulating my mind.

Actually, the thought dawned on me when I was reading the article comparing Archie's years at Dayton compared to Marshall's years at the same age.  We always consider what any one coach does, both at their previous and their current jobs.  I've never seen an analysis of what coaches did immediately compared to their predecessor, unless they did really, really good or really, really bad by comparison.  You never really see what the usual result is. 

That and all of this talk about "We should have hired this guy.  Should have hired that guy.  The administration is too cheap.  We should be better. Blah blah blah." is just ridiculous.  It doesn't even come off as whining.  It comes off as entitled, which is exponentially worse. 

So, nothing better than stone cold reality as a reply.  You wanted Marshall? Good for you.  Odds are, we'd be in the exact same place now. 

Edit: And thanks.  Glad you enjoyed it. 

[IU Scott]

19 minutes ago, H00sier said:

Well done , those of us born late 60’s early 70’s are so jaded, we happened to be born and raised during a time when Indiana was the “IT” program. It’s hard , sad, really sad - whatever you wanna say - to have had the last 20 years after the first 30-25 years were such a contrast. 

I like Coach Miller and hope he can get us back to being a NCAA lock , IU needs to be in the tourney! 

 

Always 

I was born in 1970 and agree somewhat what you have said but look back at our history and you won't see the constant domination that what we have seen from Duke or UK of the last 20 years.  Even with RMK we never were championship caliber team every year and we usually built in a 4 year period.  We would have some good team for a couple of years then in years 3 and 4 we would be championship caliber teams.  Besides 75 and 76 and maybe 91-93 we usually did not have back to back years where we were top 5 teams.

[Zlinedavid]

1 hour ago, IU Scott said:

I was born in 1970 and agree somewhat what you have said but look back at our history and you won't see the constant domination that what we have seen from Duke or UK of the last 20 years.  Even with RMK we never were championship caliber team every year and we usually built in a 4 year period.  We would have some good team for a couple of years then in years 3 and 4 we would be championship caliber teams.  Besides 75 and 76 and maybe 91-93 we usually did not have back to back years where we were top 5 teams.

You know, I looked up Knight's record to comment on what a "down" year for him was.  And wow.  I think even we take for granted how damn good he was. 

Never dipped to .500, let alone below it...in 30 years.  Not even K can claim that (Izzo and Roy can). 

[IU Scott]

3 minutes ago, Zlinedavid said:

You know, I looked up Knight's record to comment on what a "down" year for him was.  And wow.  I think even we take for granted how damn good he was. 

Never dipped to .500, let alone below it...in 30 years.  Not even K can claim that (Izzo and Roy can). 

Did not say he ever had a real bad year but also was not as dominate as what we see out of Duke or UK right now.  We have had a 3 or 4 year period 73-76 and 92-93 where we were contenders for a championship but we also had some years where we were not expected to be contenders as well.

[rico]

1 hour ago, IU Scott said:

I was born in 1970 and agree somewhat what you have said but look back at our history and you won't see the constant domination that what we have seen from Duke or UK of the last 20 years.  Even with RMK we never were championship caliber team every year and we usually built in a 4 year period.  We would have some good team for a couple of years then in years 3 and 4 we would be championship caliber teams.  Besides 75 and 76 and maybe 91-93 we usually did not have back to back years where we were top 5 teams.

I think a lot of people forget that Knight didn't come into a bad situation.  We were 17-7 the year before he arrived and climbed as high as #11 in the polls.  In RMK's first 6 years the Hoosiers at some point in time were ranked #5 or higher.

[Zlinedavid]

19 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

Did not say he ever had a real bad year but also was not as dominate as what we see out of Duke or UK right now.  We have had a 3 or 4 year period 73-76 and 92-93 where we were contenders for a championship but we also had some years where we were not expected to be contenders as well.

Still, you look at a year like '87-88, 19-10, 5th in the B10, tournament first round.  That's pretty solid for a "down" year. 

[Zlinedavid]

16 minutes ago, rico said:

I think a lot of people forget that Knight didn't come into a bad situation.  We were 17-7 the year before he arrived and climbed as high as #11 in the polls.

That's an extremely fair point.  Looking back at the "Blind Resume" coaches, the state the team is in when a coach takes over is a huge factor in that coach's initial success.

[FKIM01]

3 hours ago, Zlinedavid said:

- The whole "But Archie didn't inherit a Crean-level rebuild.  The cupboard wasn't bare." excuse doesn't wash.  None of the above coaches did either. And these are the "great" coaches that everyone thinks we should have hired.  Only one out of 10 inherited an NCAA tournament team, and not coincidentally, that was the only coach to make the NCAAs in his first year.  In fact, every coach listed above mirrored their team's output from the prior year.  The NCAA tournament team made the NCAA tournament.  The NIT team made the NIT again.  And teams that didn't go to the postseason, still didn't go to the postseason. 

Everyone that is so down on Archie needs a reality check.  If you think that Gregg Marshall, Jay Wright, Tony Bennett or Rick Barnes would have miraculously had us in the Final Four this year, the above shows that odds are....you're wrong.  Why? Because they, and 5 other pretty good to "elite" coaches didn't come anywhere close.  Making the tournament in a coach's second season (provided they didn't inherit a tournament team) is a pretty good accomplishment, given the fact that only 2 out of the above 8 did it (I'm excluding Krystowiak, and Smart inherited a tournament team). Virginia Tech and Tennessee are overnight sensations? Nope.  Took their coaches 3 seasons to become an overnight sensation. 

These aren't examples that I'm just pulling because they statistically support my argument.  These are the EXACT coaches that everyone is saying we should have hired.  It has absolutely nothing to do with being too cheap.  Those same coaches that we were too "cheap" to hire produced nearly identical results to Archie.  In fact, look at Utah.  We could be paying more and getting worse results.

And I can already hear the arguments against this: "Indiana has better facilities, tradition, etc etc etc".  Valid point.  Michigan, Arizona and Texas aren't exactly small-time programs though.  Arizona and Michigan have won a national championship more recently than Indiana, and Texas' athletic department's budget rivals the GDP of some small countries.  And it still took Beilein and Miller 2 years to make the tournament, and neither made it the following season.  The fact that Miller went to the Elite 8 is by far the exception out of any of these situations. 

The point I'm trying to make is that the only thing that will give you what you want is time.  None of the realistic alternatives to Archie would have produced miraculously better results.  And Archie's results are on par with what those same alternatives have done in the same situation they'd be in here.  So relax.  We're only on the threshold of when any coach would start to have a program turned around. 

Man, am I glad you came back and joined HSN 3.0.

Can't like this and agree with this enough.  The last year of the previous coach and first three of the new coach actually crossed my mind...should have pursued that angle further, but I wanted to answer without researching records so I would give an honest appraisal based strictly on records.  You threw me by throwing in the previous coach's last year, but the main point of frustration I was trying to make still stands.  For some of our fans, the grass is almost always greener on the other side of the fence and most of these coaches that were on fan wish lists would have faced the same criticism and calls to be fired had they been hired at IU.

Knight was a blessing and a curse in that regard...everyone hired after him will be measured by the same impossible yardstick, but it was so telling for me that Knight, unsolicited, made this comment about Archie's hire:

“Patience is not something a lot of fans have,” Knight said. “But this kid (Miller) is going to do a good job. Why? Because he can coach. Most of the coaches I’ve known, can’t coach. You folks are going to appreciate him, but it ain’t gonna happen in a year.”

...and yes, I realize that I and others have repeated this quote numerous times, but some days, it feels like it can't be repeated enough.  Knight has never publicly endorsed a successor at IU.  It's huge that he did here.  He certainly didn't have to and I certainly didn't expect him to.  That he did, speaks volumes to me.

Thanks again for the interesting topic...and a strong argument for more patience than IU fans usually have.

[rico]

37 minutes ago, Zlinedavid said:

That's an extremely fair point.  Looking back at the "Blind Resume" coaches, the state the team is in when a coach takes over is a huge factor in that coach's initial success.

Knight and K are prime examples of this.

[BADGERVOL]

I made the list as one of the anonymous posters!!!! I’m proud!

[Zlinedavid]

56 minutes ago, BADGERVOL said:

I made the list as one of the anonymous posters!!!! I’m proud!

I wasn't going to call anyone out by name, but if the owners of the quotes I used want to claim them, by all means....

[BADGERVOL]

16 minutes ago, Zlinedavid said:

I wasn't going to call anyone out by name, but if the owners of the quotes I used want to claim them, by all means....

With all honesty your posts have been extremely insightful so thank you for taking the time to put it all together.

[Billingsley99]

No wonder I couldn't get any of them right, I could not think of 1 blind coach let alone 10 of them. 

[Zlinedavid]

7 minutes ago, Billingsley99 said:

No wonder I couldn't get any of them right, I could not think of 1 blind coach let alone 10 of them. 

Rick Pitino is blind.

Oh, wait.  That's only when strippers are involved.  Carry on. 

[5fouls]

You left off Norman Dale.  Those are the results I want/expect. 

[BobSaccamanno]

This is interesting and thanks for the effort.  You could, however, run this data for countless coaches who started poorly, were poor in the middle, and ended poorly.  All it proves is that a guy can get off to a rocky start and still do well in the end.  That's hardly a newsflash.

Picking outliers who struggled and then did well does not in any way support the notion that a guy who struggles at the beginning will end up doing better.  

5 hours ago, Zlinedavid said:

Actually, the thought dawned on me when I was reading the article comparing Archie's years at Dayton compared to Marshall's years at the same age.  We always consider what any one coach does, both at their previous and their current jobs.  I've never seen an analysis of what coaches did immediately compared to their predecessor, unless they did really, really good or really, really bad by comparison.  You never really see what the usual result is. 

That and all of this talk about "We should have hired this guy.  Should have hired that guy.  The administration is too cheap.  We should be better. Blah blah blah." is just ridiculous.  It doesn't even come off as whining.  It comes off as entitled, which is exponentially worse. 

So, nothing better than stone cold reality as a reply.  You wanted Marshall? Good for you.  Odds are, we'd be in the exact same place now. 

Edit: And thanks.  Glad you enjoyed it. 

This type of soap box lecturing is not needed unless you want to escalate matters.  You have a knack for taking imaginary speculation and running with it like its fact.  I don't know how old you are, but I am going to guess pretty young based on the petulance.

[BADGERVOL]

46 minutes ago, BobSaccamanno said:

This is interesting and thanks for the effort.  You could, however, run this data for countless coaches who started poorly, were poor in the middle, and ended poorly.  All it proves is that a guy can get off to a rocky start and still do well in the end.  That's hardly a newsflash.

Picking outliers who struggled and then did well does not in any way support the notion that a guy who struggles at the beginning will end up doing better.  

This type of soap box lecturing is not needed unless you want to escalate matters.  You have a knack for taking imaginary speculation and running with it like its fact.  I don't know how old you are, but I am going to guess pretty young based on the petulance.

Petulance is a big word. You’re old.

seriously tho valid point you made

[Zlinedavid]

22 minutes ago, BobSaccamanno said:

This is interesting and thanks for the effort.  You could, however, run this data for countless coaches who started poorly, were poor in the middle, and ended poorly.  All it proves is that a guy can get off to a rocky start and still do well in the end.  That's hardly a newsflash.

Picking outliers who struggled and then did well does not in any way support the notion that a guy who struggles at the beginning will end up doing better.  

This type of soap box lecturing is not needed unless you want to escalate matters.  You have a knack for taking imaginary speculation and running with it like its fact.  I don't know how old you are, but I am going to guess pretty young based on the petulance.

I'm happy to escalate matters.  I can hold a civil, back and forth debate for as long as both parties are interested, and walk away with no emotions involved.  Escalate away. 

I've been alive for 2 of IU's national championships, you do the math on how old I am. 

As for talking about "outliers", I stated that these coaches weren't picked because of their records to serve as an example.  Bennett, Barnes, Marshall, Wright and Williams were picked specifically because they had been mentioned as alternatives to Archie. Beilein was selected because he's been mentioned as a model for what people would like to see.  Krystowiak was included only because it blew me away that he's currently in the same salary bracket as Archie.  Miller, I selected because he's Archie's brother.  Smart and Howland were included because they were big name coaches that I could think of off the top of my head that had recently changed/taken new positions, and I wanted to have 10 to fill out the "game". 

And I didn't cherry pick years out of careers.  Each example is set up the same way: last year of the outgoing coach, first 3 years of the new coach.  And the reason I went with that model....because Archie Miller will be entering his third season next year.  Nothing more scientific than that. 

I didn't plan on this, but in 9 out of the 10 cases, the outgoing coach's record was somewhere between below average and pretty good.  Johnson at VT was the only one in single digit wins, but I kept Willams in because of his recent success. Short of a team going through some type of scandal or sanctions (I didn't verify, but I don't recall any), the incoming coach was left with at least a halfway viable roster.  Not stacked, not stripped, but somewhere in the middle. 

And this wasn't intended to forecast results beyond the new coach's 3 year period, or to gauge long-term success.  I made no claims that because a coach's record was A within this period, it will lead to X or won't lead to Y.  I called out counts of occurrences, I pointed out sequences, but didn't make any claims long or short term.  Only that Archie Miller's record at Indiana is pretty comparable after two years to the same two-year stretch of the same coaches some are suggesting as replacements. 

If there are points that I have left out regarding the structure of this model, please, call me out on them.  I'm not perfect.  There may have things I unintentionally overlooked.  Also, if you have comparable examples that show a totally opposite trend, please, post them.  I don't know if there are or not.  I didn't do a comprehensive search on all coaching changes.  I picked 6 because conversation was happening specifically about them, one that I was amazed at the salary, Archie's brother, and 2 because they were big name coaching hires/changes that I happened to remember.  If I'm totally out of the water and happened to pick the only 10 examples that would position this idea in this fashion, please, counterpoint me. 

[BobSaccamanno]

You are a smart guy and I’ve enjoyed your posting for years, Dave. 

However, this particular paragraph is taking a cheap shot and I wouldn’t consider it civil. 

“That and all of this talk about "We should have hired this guy.  Should have hired that guy.  The administration is too cheap.  We should be better. Blah blah blah." is just ridiculous.  It doesn't even come off as whining.  It comes off as entitled, which is exponentially worse.”

It doesn’t sound like something personal you’d write.  It is a twisted representation of what was discussed yesterday and calling out people “entitled”is less than civil and hardly your best moment  

Regarding your list, you’ve cherry picked by and large, top, or at least well known, programs or coaches thereof.  As I said, I appreciate the effort since it’s a fun game.  But, Archie hasn’t proven he can develop along those lines.  I’d like to see the data on ten mediocre coaches/programs and I would suspect it would diminish any “Coach K improved, so Archie will too” narratives. 

[Zlinedavid]

5 minutes ago, BobSaccamanno said:

“That and all of this talk about "We should have hired this guy.  Should have hired that guy.  The administration is too cheap.  We should be better. Blah blah blah." is just ridiculous.  It doesn't even come off as whining.  It comes off as entitled, which is exponentially worse.”

It doesn’t sound like something personal you’d write.  It is a twisted representation of what was discussed yesterday and calling out people “entitled”is less than civil and hardly your best moment 

I didn't say those people were entitled.  I said that "it", meaning their statements, came off as reflecting entitlement.  I referenced a statement, not the unconditional character of a person.

And in my opinion, such statements do come off as reflecting entitlement.  This is my opinion that you or anyone else is welcome to disagree with.   That said, I'm also not afraid to state my opinion on this. 

11 minutes ago, BobSaccamanno said:

Regarding your list, you’ve cherry picked by and large, top, or at least well known, programs or coaches thereof. 

I "cherry" picked the coaches that were being thrown around as coaches we should have hired instead of Archie, so that their records after two years could be compared to Archie's after two years.  I never once claimed that Archie's development would follow a similar track beyond that.  This wasn't about development.  This was about showing that the results that Archie has achieved after two years are comparable to the group of coaches that others were suggesting were better hires.  Translation: We'd be sitting in approximately the same spot right now whether we hired Archie or *insert suggested coach here*. 

The fact that those coaches are well known or from well known programs is somewhat inherent.  A) That's who was being mentioned in comparison.  B) Those are the kinds of coaches/programs that would be compared to Indiana. 

Again, this isn't even about how a coach develops or what their future projection will be.  This is about comparing the results of comparable coaches/programs and their results after 2-3 years. 

If you have a coach or an example in mind that would counterpoint this, say it.  I'll even do the research and post it.  I don't care if it supports or refutes my model. 

[FKIM01]

Better throw in Billy Donovan since most of the forum (me included) was giddy with the thought of him house shopping in Bloomington.

[rico]

17 minutes ago, FKIM01 said:

Better throw in Billy Donovan since most of the forum (me included) was giddy with the thought of him house shopping in Bloomington.

1.  12-16 Lon Kruger

2. 13-17

3.  14-15

4.  22-9  SS