Jump to content

Just to stir some discussion


Recommended Posts

I never paid much attention to Mike Roberts as a player or a coach.  However, I was impressed when I listened to him on AJ Guyton's podcast that I will link below in case you hadn't seen/heard it.  The podcast left me with a couple of overriding questions.

  1. What does Yasir Rosemond bring to the table that Mike Roberts didn't?
  2. Does Coach Woodson loose a little cache for replacing an IU through and through guy with a guy with a less than squeaky clean background?  
  3.  A lot has been said about bridging the gap between old IU and today's IU, and brining back the standards of old.  Is it hypocritical of Woodson to kick a former player to the curb?

Anyway, here's the link.  What say you?

Mike Roberts His Indiana Days Playing and Coaches | House of Hoosier - YouTube

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, BGleas said:

I've only heard snippets of the interview, but I'll take a swing on your questions. 

1. Rosemond brings a more national recruiting footprint with more/deeper ties to the recruiting underbelly scene (an no, that doesn't bother me in the least). For IU to compete recruiting-wise where it seems Woodson wants to be, they need some guys like Rosemond. 

2. Absolutely not. Woodson's job is too win, not placate the "IU guy" portion of the fanbase. It seems to me he's trying to build an NBA-style organization within a college program, and Mike Roberts probably doesn't fit that. 

3. Similar answer to above. Woodson's job is to win, and he brought in another, more established assistant that is a former player in Fife. So, he actually upgraded our "former player assistant" position. 

I'll add to this, he did give him a job and Roberts chose to leave for a job he liked better. Can't blame either party, but Roberts certainly wasn't kicked to the curb.

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

I'll add to this, he did give him a job and Roberts chose to leave for a job he liked better. Can't blame either party, but Roberts certainly wasn't kicked to the curb.

Good point! I believe the only reason he left was because his former boss from UNCG (or was it Wilmington?) got the Cincinnati job and offered him a job. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Muddy River said:

Does Coach Woodson loose a little cache for replacing an IU through and through guy with a guy with a less than squeaky clean background?  

If I was Coach Woodson this is something that would be so low on my list of concerns that it wouldn't even register with me. If I can replace an IU guy with someone that is better I do it without hesitation.

1 hour ago, Muddy River said:

Is it hypocritical of Woodson to kick a former player to the curb?

Did he kick him to the curb or did Roberts voluntarily leave?

Edited by Hoosier51
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, KoB2011 said:

I'll add to this, he did give him a job and Roberts chose to leave for a job he liked better. Can't blame either party, but Roberts certainly wasn't kicked to the curb.

This is a little murky to me.  He stated several times in the interview that his goal is to become a head coach.  He stated he was appreciative of the position created for him, but clearly didn't think it lined up with his goal.  He also stated several times that he would've stayed at IU forever.  Anyway, just some observations from the podcast. 

 

9 hours ago, BGleas said:

I've only heard snippets of the interview, but I'll take a swing on your questions. 

2. Absolutely not. Woodson's job is too win, not placate the "IU guy" portion of the fanbase.

Surely you see the irony here.  The "IU guy" portion of the fanbase got him the job.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think 2 things worked against Roberts:

1.  What type of recruits was he getting relationships with and bringing in under Miller.

And 

2.  How has our big man development (particularly TJD) gone since he was here?

Fair or not for both of those questions, the answers are not really pretty for Mike IMO.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think @BGleashit on the important factor in his third point.  Fife fills the role of Roberts in multiple ways, but has not only more experience, but more experience in the Big Ten.  Roberts becomes redundant and, as unfortunate as it may be, he's not as well known at IU or nationally as others.  If it was Calbert Cheaney or Keith Smart, I would expect that Woodson would have done things differently.  

As far as Rosemond, and potential skeletons.  Yes, that bothers me.  But, I'm somewhat becoming numb to it all.  As much as I would like to think otherwise, there probably is not a top flight recruiter in the country that doesn't either cross that line or twist it in a lot of different shapes.  That's the reality of college athletics, and one of the reasons why I don't follow college basketball as a whole nearly as much as I used to.  I still love my Hoosiers, but no longer make time to watch games where they are not involved.  

 

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Muddy River said:

Surely you see the irony here.  The "IU guy" portion of the fanbase got him the job.  

No, don't see much irony in it. It's pretty rare for a new coach to come in and keep the previous staff, and Woodson kept Hunter because he was more valuable and experienced at the highest levels than Roberts. 

He then brought in a more valuable and experienced "IU guy" in Fife, as well as bringing back some former IU people in other roles (I believe he brought back a former academic support role person?).

His job is to win. Period. I understand it was probably really disappointing for Roberts, but to me criticizing Woodson or saying he lost cache with the "IU guy" people for this is just searching for things to be critical about. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, BGleas said:

I've only heard snippets of the interview, but I'll take a swing on your questions. 

1. Rosemond brings a more national recruiting footprint with more/deeper ties to the recruiting underbelly scene (an no, that doesn't bother me in the least). For IU to compete recruiting-wise where it seems Woodson wants to be, they need some guys like Rosemond. 

2. Absolutely not. Woodson's job is too win, not placate the "IU guy" portion of the fanbase. It seems to me he's trying to build an NBA-style organization within a college program, and Mike Roberts probably doesn't fit that. 

3. Similar answer to above. Woodson's job is to win, and he brought in another, more established assistant that is a former player in Fife. So, he actually upgraded our "former player assistant" position. 

This. Agree with every word. And I think Roberts had a chance to stay on in some sort of administrative role, but wanted to keep coaching. Great topic starter for general discussion!!! 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 5fouls said:

As far as Rosemond, and potential skeletons.  Yes, that bothers me.  But, I'm somewhat becoming numb to it all.  As much as I would like to think otherwise, there probably is not a top flight recruiter in the country that doesn't either cross that line or twist it in a lot of different shapes.  That's the reality of college athletics, and one of the reasons why I don't follow college basketball as a whole nearly as much as I used to. 

Unfortunately you are right, this is what college athletics is anymore. If someone wants to continue following college sports it is something they have to accept. The NCAA is pretty incompetent and doesn't care about anything that is shady or in the grey area. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Hoosier51 said:

Unfortunately you are right, this is what college athletics is anymore. If someone wants to continue following college sports it is something they have to accept. The NCAA is pretty incompetent and doesn't care about anything that is shady or in the grey area. 

But it does really bring up an interesting discussion about how we should even use words like "shady" with regards to college sports. PSU, MSU, Louisville.... now that's SHADY! UK paying players? Maybe we should pick a new word 🤷‍♂️

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

But it does really bring up an interesting discussion about how we should even use words like "shady" with regards to college sports. PSU, MSU, Louisville.... now that's SHADY! UK paying players? Maybe we should pick a new word 🤷‍♂️

I would say that PSU, MSU, Louisville and now Michigan under BO is probably quite a bit beyond shady lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert’s stated that he wanted to become a head coach, yet also said he would stay at IU forever.

Surely he could see that the chances for him becoming a HC in Bloomington were less than likely. 

Regardless of the feelings of some of the fans, in the long run this was probably the best career move Roberts could hope for 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, BGleas said:

 I understand it was probably really disappointing for Roberts, but to me criticizing Woodson or saying he lost cache with the "IU guy" people for this is just searching for things to be critical about. 

To be fair, it has been difficult to find anything to be critical about, so, yes, I did have to search. :coffee:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...