Jump to content

Interview with Fred....


Recommended Posts

The Ft. Wayne Journal Gazette has been running these on each of the college/universities in the area, and then IU, PU and ND. This is a two-part interview that ran Sunday and Monday. Discusses his views on a variety of topics

 

http://www.journalgazette.net/sports/colleges/iu/20190707/hoosiers-ad-proud-of-improvements-in-tenure

http://www.journalgazette.net/sports/colleges/iu/20190709/ad-remains-believer-in-job-millers-doing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Again, I know some people don't want to hear it, but I think we were in a very serious rebuild when Archie got here, and we're working ourselves out of that. I think he's the kind of guy who's going to be one of our most iconic coaches and have a very long and successful career at Indiana.”

And whose fault would that be Fred?  You started in 2009 and the basketball program has been an absolute train wreck on YOUR watch.  He runs his mouth about impatient fans and I would say that we are currently in the middle of the second big rebuild on his watch.  That is on you buddy.  You did that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fred is closer to the situation than anyone else, so I'd be real curious to hear him expand on his definition of "rebuild". From my perspective as a fan outside of the workings of the program, it's not at all the word I would use, but he's done so now repeatedly. We hired Archie just one year after winning the Big Ten and beating a Kentucky team ranked in the top ten of KenPom to earn a spot in the Sweet Sixteen, getting bounced there by the national runner-up. That doesn't suggest a program that needed to be torn down and built back up. I'd argue the great failure of that 2017 season was not having a point on the roster capable of taking over after Yogi. That speaks to issues with recruiting, and maybe recruiting is of sufficient importance that it's reason enough to make a change, but I would never use the term rebuild to describe any program in that situation.

It's perhaps easier to argue we're in the middle of a rebuild after the fact, given the results on the court. And if someone wants to claim those results stem in part because we're switching from a coach who knew offense and cared little for defense to a coach who does the opposite, I suppose I wouldn't disagree. But that's not a rebuild in progress when Archie got here, that's a rebuild started only after Archie arrived. That's a rebuild by choice, voluntarily elected based on the coach that was brought in and the style of the coach running the program before him. And it was Fred Glass who made that decision.

But the response in that interview I found truly galling was the labeling of trolls anyone who is unhappy with the progress shown in the first two or three years. I'm approaching middle age, and old enough to realize that years are finite. Each season is a chance for us to see the Indiana Basketball program for which we care so deeply find success, and we only have so many chances. Those two or three seasons are not to be flippantly dismissed, they very much count. I don't need Archie to be winning a Big Ten title or getting back to the Sweet Sixteen by year two or three, but I want to see reasons to believe he can get us there in the future.

At least in this interview, the only positive to which Fred could point was our in-state recruiting. I agree it's been much improved. But out-of-state recruiting has been non-existent since Race and Jerome were Archie's first two recruits, two years ago next week. Indiana Basketball has never survived on the state of Indiana alone, whether Isiah Thomas, Daryl Thomas, Dean Garrett, Scott May or Victor Oladipo. So telling me Archie is delivering on his promise to build inside-out isn't a sufficient answer. We complain about the lack of shooting on the roster, and the need for a scoring option on the week, and recruiting has failed to deliver either. If we don't start winning more, it doesn't matter how many Indiana kids we recruit. 

So, if I could interview Fred Glass: I'd ask what specifically it was about the program that needed to be rebuilt before Archie arrived, what does he think Archie has done to address that specific need, and what specifically has he seen from Archie in these first two or three years to support his belief that Archie is going to become an iconic coach with a very long and successful career at Indiana. I'd be very curious to hear these answers, not vague excuses and cheerleading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Maedhros said:

Fred is closer to the situation than anyone else, so I'd be real curious to hear him expand on his definition of "rebuild". From my perspective as a fan outside of the workings of the program, it's not at all the word I would use, but he's done so now repeatedly. We hired Archie just one year after winning the Big Ten and beating a Kentucky team ranked in the top ten of KenPom to earn a spot in the Sweet Sixteen, getting bounced there by the national runner-up. That doesn't suggest a program that needed to be torn down and built back up. I'd argue the great failure of that 2017 season was not having a point on the roster capable of taking over after Yogi. That speaks to issues with recruiting, and maybe recruiting is of sufficient importance that it's reason enough to make a change, but I would never use the term rebuild to describe any program in that situation.

It's perhaps easier to argue we're in the middle of a rebuild after the fact, given the results on the court. And if someone wants to claim those results stem in part because we're switching from a coach who knew offense and cared little for defense to a coach who does the opposite, I suppose I wouldn't disagree. But that's not a rebuild in progress when Archie got here, that's a rebuild started only after Archie arrived. That's a rebuild by choice, voluntarily elected based on the coach that was brought in and the style of the coach running the program before him. And it was Fred Glass who made that decision.

But the response in that interview I found truly galling was the labeling of trolls anyone who is unhappy with the progress shown in the first two or three years. I'm approaching middle age, and old enough to realize that years are finite. Each season is a chance for us to see the Indiana Basketball program for which we care so deeply find success, and we only have so many chances. Those two or three seasons are not to be flippantly dismissed, they very much count. I don't need Archie to be winning a Big Ten title or getting back to the Sweet Sixteen by year two or three, but I want to see reasons to believe he can get us there in the future.

At least in this interview, the only positive to which Fred could point was our in-state recruiting. I agree it's been much improved. But out-of-state recruiting has been non-existent since Race and Jerome were Archie's first two recruits, two years ago next week. Indiana Basketball has never survived on the state of Indiana alone, whether Isiah Thomas, Daryl Thomas, Dean Garrett, Scott May or Victor Oladipo. So telling me Archie is delivering on his promise to build inside-out isn't a sufficient answer. We complain about the lack of shooting on the roster, and the need for a scoring option on the week, and recruiting has failed to deliver either. If we don't start winning more, it doesn't matter how many Indiana kids we recruit. 

So, if I could interview Fred Glass: I'd ask what specifically it was about the program that needed to be rebuilt before Archie arrived, what does he think Archie has done to address that specific need, and what specifically has he seen from Archie in these first two or three years to support his belief that Archie is going to become an iconic coach with a very long and successful career at Indiana. I'd be very curious to hear these answers, not vague excuses and cheerleading.

Do you think he is including me as a troll?

I wonder if he was asked about Long Duk Dong if he would say 'yes, he's one of them.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IUCrazy2 said:

"Again, I know some people don't want to hear it, but I think we were in a very serious rebuild when Archie got here, and we're working ourselves out of that. I think he's the kind of guy who's going to be one of our most iconic coaches and have a very long and successful career at Indiana.”

And whose fault would that be Fred?  You started in 2009 and the basketball program has been an absolute train wreck on YOUR watch.  He runs his mouth about impatient fans and I would say that we are currently in the middle of the second big rebuild on his watch.  That is on you buddy.  You did that.

I hear your frustration and there's some validity in what you say.  That being said, and Maedhros alluded to it, this is a little different kind of rebuild, and I personally wouldn't even call it a rebuild.  The first one was a from-the-ashes rebuild where this one is much more of a 180-degree-change-in-style rebuild.  When people ask why IU didn't do what Holtman or Mack did right out of the gate, it seems to me it's because the defensive (or lack thereof) schemes were so vastly different between the two coaches that it simply took longer to teach it properly, with the players having to completely re-learn their roles.  For that matter, the offensive schemes are quite different as well, although I'd argue that we've yet to see real focus on putting in the offensive scheme while the defense was taking most of the early focus.  Mack and Holtman walked into situations where the system wasn't dramatically different than what they wanted to install, so it was more tweaking what was there, rather than almost starting over.

Not defending Fred here, but this feels more like a re-tool than a rebuild.  In a rebuild, the factory has burned to the ground.  In a re-tool, the factory is still standing, but needs a lot of changes to manufacture refrigerators instead of minivans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Long Duk Dong said:

Do you think he is including me as a troll?

I wonder if he was asked about Long Duk Dong if he would say 'yes, he's one of them.'

I don't know about Fred but if you asked everyone on here they would definitely call you a troll

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FKIM01 said:

I hear your frustration and there's some validity in what you say.  That being said, and Maedhros alluded to it, this is a little different kind of rebuild, and I personally wouldn't even call it a rebuild.  The first one was a from-the-ashes rebuild where this one is much more of a 180-degree-change-in-style rebuild.  When people ask why IU didn't do what Holtman or Mack did right out of the gate, it seems to me it's because the defensive (or lack thereof) schemes were so vastly different between the two coaches that it simply took longer to teach it properly, with the players having to completely re-learn their roles.  For that matter, the offensive schemes are quite different as well, although I'd argue that we've yet to see real focus on putting in the offensive scheme while the defense was taking most of the early focus.  Mack and Holtman walked into situations where the system wasn't dramatically different than what they wanted to install, so it was more tweaking what was there, rather than almost starting over.

Not defending Fred here, but this feels more like a re-tool than a rebuild.  In a rebuild, the factory has burned to the ground.  In a re-tool, the factory is still standing, but needs a lot of changes to manufacture refrigerators instead of minivans.

Agree with a lot of what you say, and I think the better word than 'rebuild' is that IU is a program in 'transition'. 

One point though, I think blaming the struggles the last two years simply on the system change doesn't paint the total picture. Archie took over a bad team. Many people don't want to give Archie this point, but the roster he took over was significantly worse than what Holtman and Mack took over. I don't care where the media projected OSU two years ago, the media was flat wrong, Holtman had a lot of talent. 

Archie's best returning player in terms of accomplishments was Robert Johnson. He took over a roster that had lost its three best players and had Freddie McSwain and Tim Priller on scholarship, with the best ball handlers being Josh Newkirk and Devonte Green. People complain about how Tom Crean's recruiting had fallen off, but then at the same time say Archie had plenty of talent? It can't be both ways. 

IU did have a talent upgrade last year, though the team was really young and inexperienced, but the other aspect is that if Jerome Hunter is healthy, Phinisee doesn't miss 3 weeks with a concussion and Langford doesn't hurt his thumb this is all moot, because IU absolutely would have made the tournament. 

But the point is, while the system change is a real thing and you're right with that, Archie also took over a mediocre roster at best. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, FKIM01 said:

I hear your frustration and there's some validity in what you say.  That being said, and Maedhros alluded to it, this is a little different kind of rebuild, and I personally wouldn't even call it a rebuild.  The first one was a from-the-ashes rebuild where this one is much more of a 180-degree-change-in-style rebuild.  When people ask why IU didn't do what Holtman or Mack did right out of the gate, it seems to me it's because the defensive (or lack thereof) schemes were so vastly different between the two coaches that it simply took longer to teach it properly, with the players having to completely re-learn their roles.  For that matter, the offensive schemes are quite different as well, although I'd argue that we've yet to see real focus on putting in the offensive scheme while the defense was taking most of the early focus.  Mack and Holtman walked into situations where the system wasn't dramatically different than what they wanted to install, so it was more tweaking what was there, rather than almost starting over.

Not defending Fred here, but this feels more like a re-tool than a rebuild.  In a rebuild, the factory has burned to the ground.  In a re-tool, the factory is still standing, but needs a lot of changes to manufacture refrigerators instead of minivans.

That is all valid.  I am just not happy with the ship he has been the captain of, mainly with regard to the 2 revenue sports.  This upcoming season for both sports would go a long way to shut me up or solidify my opinion that we need a new A.D.  Allen and Miller are his guys.  They really need to start producing on the field and court this season.  I think that is particularly true of Allen.  Wilson was supposedly a PITA to deal with, but he had been the most successful coach since Mallory and Fred let him go and took a huge gamble on who he replaced him with.  We are in year 10 of the Glass regime, time for his decisions to bear fruit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, BDB said:

Let it go.  You make it no better following the donger around with the attacks.

Well if they were not here just to troll then it would be fine but that is the only reason they come here.  I left Rivals because of these posters  and others like them  and don't like to see them bringing that mentality to this fine board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FKIM01 said:

I hear your frustration and there's some validity in what you say.  That being said, and Maedhros alluded to it, this is a little different kind of rebuild, and I personally wouldn't even call it a rebuild.  The first one was a from-the-ashes rebuild where this one is much more of a 180-degree-change-in-style rebuild.  When people ask why IU didn't do what Holtman or Mack did right out of the gate, it seems to me it's because the defensive (or lack thereof) schemes were so vastly different between the two coaches that it simply took longer to teach it properly, with the players having to completely re-learn their roles.  For that matter, the offensive schemes are quite different as well, although I'd argue that we've yet to see real focus on putting in the offensive scheme while the defense was taking most of the early focus.  Mack and Holtman walked into situations where the system wasn't dramatically different than what they wanted to install, so it was more tweaking what was there, rather than almost starting over.

Not defending Fred here, but this feels more like a re-tool than a rebuild.  In a rebuild, the factory has burned to the ground.  In a re-tool, the factory is still standing, but needs a lot of changes to manufacture refrigerators instead of minivans.

This post and BGleas's follow-up are about as good of a description as I've seen concerning the last decade of IU basketball. Thanks to both...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll have to listen to later but when I hear the word rebuild in the summer before beginning of year 3 being used it actually makes me ticked. Fred selling this now tells me he's just trying to keep his job security in hand. I didn't hear rebuild once when Archie was hired.

My feelings or comments have nothing to do with Archie. He will and is going to get his fair time to take over a roster he inherited that wasn't top 5 in the league. I get it. My anger is more about Fred. He's the one that extended Crean early and kept him around longer. He can't keep blaming the past since he's primarily responsible for it.

For all of our sakes. We need to make the tourney this year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, IUCrazy2 said:

"Again, I know some people don't want to hear it, but I think we were in a very serious rebuild when Archie got here, and we're working ourselves out of that. I think he's the kind of guy who's going to be one of our most iconic coaches and have a very long and successful career at Indiana.”

And whose fault would that be Fred?  You started in 2009 and the basketball program has been an absolute train wreck on YOUR watch.  He runs his mouth about impatient fans and I would say that we are currently in the middle of the second big rebuild on his watch.  That is on you buddy.  You did that.

Fred probably couldn't tell you what he had for breakfast this morning.  He's the most incompetent AD I've ever seen.  Of course we're in a rebuild and it's entirely his fault.  Crean was a dead man walking after year 7 and should've canned then.  Holding onto a coach after they've become a lame duck is exactly how you get recruiting classes full of guys like Clifton Moore, Curtis Jones, Devonte Green, Al Durham, etc.  This is 100% on Fred and his massive ego.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dbmhoosier said:

Fred probably couldn't tell you what he had for breakfast this morning.  He's the most incompetent AD I've ever seen.  Of course we're in a rebuild and it's entirely his fault.  Crean was a dead man walking after year 7 and should've canned then.  Holding onto a coach after they've become a lame duck is exactly how you get recruiting classes full of guys like Clifton Moore, Curtis Jones, Devonte Green, Al Durham, etc.  This is 100% on Fred and his massive ego.

Just stop with all of this non sense you spew on here.  Glass has been a good AD and your hatred to him is plain creepy because there is no need for it.  If you look at the athletic department as a whole it has been very successful and he has made many great hires.  When we hired Archie everybody locally and nationally talked about how great of a hire it was so we need to give the coach time to turn it around. Giving a coach only two years before you make a judgment is just idiotic or you just have an agenda when you come on here.  Also  in Crean's last 6 years you had two big ten championships and 3 sweet 16's so it was not like the whole program was in disarray.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

Just stop with all of this non sense you spew on here.  Glass has been a good AD and your hatred to him is plain creepy because there is no need for it.  If you look at the athletic department as a whole it has been very successful and he has made many great hires.  When we hired Archie everybody locally and nationally talked about how great of a hire it was so we need to give the coach time to turn it around. Giving a coach only two years before you make a judgment is just idiotic or you just have an agenda when you come on here.  Also  in Crean's last 6 years you had two big ten championships and 3 sweet 16's so it was not like the whole program was in disarray.

When your top 2 revenue programs have missed (meaningful) post season play for more than 50% of your tenure, no, you are not a good AD.

Doing good at all of those other sports is all well and good but donations and revenue revolve around football and basketball.  If you are not doing those right as an AD at a P5 school, you are a bad AD.  Period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, IUCrazy2 said:

When your top 2 revenue programs have missed (meaningful) post season play for more than 50% of your tenure, no, you are not a good AD.

Doing good at all of those other sports is all well and good but donations and revenue revolve around football and basketball.  If you are not doing those right as an AD at a P5 school, you are a bad AD.  Period.

Well we will know in the next couple of years if the basketball and football were good hires but right now e don't have a clue one way or the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

Well we will know in the next couple of years if the basketball and football were good hires but right now e don't have a clue one way or the other.

This statement always cracks me up.  If Archie had come in, won the Big Ten, and went on a tournament run within his first two years, the entire fanbase would be crowing about how he’s the next legendary coach at IU.  But because he’s come in and had two bad years, everyone wants to say “we don’t have a clue one way or the other.”  It’s still too early to draw a final conclusion, but two years is more than enough time to “get a clue.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IU Scott said:

Well we will know in the next couple of years if the basketball and football were good hires but right now e don't have a clue one way or the other.

He is in year #10 of his tenure.  He hired Kevin Wilson and then fired him.  He gave Crean the extension early in his tenure, kept him around longer than he should, and then had to replace him (he did not do the initial hire though so that is not on him).

This is not just about Allen and Miller, it is about the 10 years he has been given to fumble around in his position before (maybe/hopefully) finally figuring stuff out after a decade.  And keep in mind that with incentives we are paying him $1 million a year.  So he has made $5 to $10 million (base salary is $500k) while football and basketball have been mired in mediocrity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, FW_Hoosier said:

This statement always cracks me up.  If Archie had come in, won the Big Ten, and went on a tournament run within his first two years, the entire fanbase would be crowing about how he’s the next legendary coach at IU.  But because he’s come in and had two bad years, everyone wants to say “we don’t have a clue one way or the other.”  It’s still too early to draw a final conclusion, but two years is more than enough time to “get a clue.”

Pushing back a little here. This horse has been flogged to death. Curb stomped. Burned. And then the ashes kicked around the driveway.

Year 2 of a new coach, who was coaching the prior, fired coach's players, is not enough time, generally. Then there's the again flogged to death point that we were at 12-2 before the rails came off -- with multiple injuries and absences of key players, and a pretty well documented locker room chemistry problem.

It generally takes a few years, including to allow the new coach to bring in his players and implement his system. Jury's out, as it should be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Hoosierhoopster said:

Pushing back a little here. This horse has been flogged to death. Curb stomped. Burned. And then the ashes kicked around the driveway.

Year 2 of a new coach, who was coaching the prior, fired coach's players, is not enough time, generally. Then there's the again flogged to death point that we were at 12-2 before the rails came off -- with multiple injuries and absences of key players, and a pretty well documented locker room chemistry problem.

It generally takes a few years, including to allow the new coach to bring in his players and implement his system. Jury's out, as it should be.

That is fine, but his point is spot on too.  Nobody would be saying that we need to wait a few years and see how Miller does when the program is full of his players if he was winning 25 games and making deep tournament wins in year 1 and 2.  The reality is that sometimes it takes time and sometimes it does not.  Sometimes early success comes when you have the prior guys players and falls off when you get your players in the program (Mike Davis) and sometimes the opposite is true.

The reality is that you can make an argument either way.  No point in litigating year 1 and 2 anymore anyway.  Someone said it already, win now.  That is what matters.  Miller needs to start winning now.  Most of the coaches that get brought up as needing time to get going started to see results in year 3.  So now is put up or shut up time.

 

Going back to Glass, the football team is 41-69 (.372) since he took over with 2 Bowl appearances and zero winning seasons.  And oh yeah, he fired the coach who was the only coach since Mallory to take us to multiple bowl games.

Basketball was better than football but that has been the norm.  We have gone 195-141 (.580) in his tenure with 4 NCAA appearances, 2 Big Ten titles, and 3 Sweet 16 appearances.  We have been feast or famine under his watch though as we do pretty good on the years where we make the tournament but we have missed it 60% of the time Fred has been in charge.  That for a program that historically has been much more consistent than that, even after Knight left. (Mike Davis made tournament 4 out of 6 years, Kelvin Sampson made it both of his years).  The Crean hire was a bad decision that does not fall on Glass.  Giving him an undeserved extension with a stupidly high buy out does.  Jury is out on Miller.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glass is one of the strangest birds you will ever see. There’s something in his thought process that’s very bizarre.  It’s some combination of narcissism and lack of self awareness. It’s not just his eccentric style of speech.  In the dictionary, under bloviating there’s undoubtedly a photo of Glass.  The word fits him perfectly. 

Remember he’s the guy who seems to be pulling in $1 M but publicly bragged how it was a substantial pay cut from his Baker and Daniels draw.  It might be true but it’s a strange thing to brag about as a public employee and where the typical fan is working his or her ass off for  under six figures.  

He’s the guy that’s removed the names from the football jerseys.  Not from Michigan or Penn State.  But from a school working to stimulate fan interest.  This isn’t like basketball where the fans recognize the players, their moms and and their dogs.  It was idiotic. 

He is the guy who turned down a home NIT game.  I have no idea how the revenue was worked out but it’s kind of an unprecedented move.  

The Kevin Wilson thing was very serious.  First, he hired him to begin with.  Then,  he had received information on Wilson’s pattern of abuse and, unbelievably, extended him anyway despite the heads up.  Then he fired him for doing exactly what he had been doing before.  It wasn’t a new pattern.  This is fairly incompetent leadership.  He ran a 20 minute search and hired Tom Allen.  

There were charges of systemic abuse and poor procedures by trainers across other sports as outlined by an ESPN Outside the Lines report.  This indicates a top down problem. 

In his narcissism, he claims credit for building facilities. Well, two things were in play there.  One, IUs facilities were in bad shape.  It didn’t take any particular insight to work on capital projects.  Second, the B1G money came pouring in to pay for facilities.  That money would be there whether Fred Glass had ever been born or not.  Literally, anybody in that position could have achieved the building projects. Talk about being handed something on a silver platter.  

He is happy to take credit for baseball, women’s b-ball and Lily King. If you do that, you have to take heat for the main revenue sports being mired in slumps.  

As is well documented, Fred was in charge of the basketball situation that led to what he dubs as a rebuild.  He gave Crean a mystifyingly fast extension with a bad buyout situation. Essentially you can look at Glass as creating the situation that led to the rebuild.   

And I agree with the comments above about his passive aggressive attitude toward Indiana fans. 

I think IU athletics will get on track after Glass, McRobbie and much of the Board is gone.  There is way too much elitism and arrogance in their thought processes.  Meanwhile, Michigan State, Purdue, etc are happy with our situation.   In the meantime, I will support the coaches and players and hope for the best as I always do.  But let’s not pretend there’s anything in our administration that’s helping.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...