IUProfessor

True, but if we're seriously exploring Pearl, someone is going to have to pony up serious cash to buy him out, pay him ~$7 million per year, etc.

I agree wholeheartedly. Just saying I can understand why the deep pockets expect a bit of input when they've been called upon so frequently of late.

I agree 100% in general. In this particular instance, though, as much as I agree that a leadership change for the program is needed, I can also understand why the deep pockets are reluctant to buy out another HC so soon, just 3 years removed from Archie and less than 4 months after Allen. Especially when the current AD -- justifiably or not -- extended Allen and recently gave Woodson a raise, jacking up the cost of the buyouts.

Simplest explanations are usually the best. McNeeley either saw IU with Woodson as a sinking ship. Or he got wind Mbgako is back at the 3 next year.

Would like to believe it's #3, but yesterday's news seems too definitive for that. I think there would have been other ways to give a vote of confidence that were less definitive if that was the purpose.

Portal isn't open yet...

Seems odd so many relatively prominent national media folks would report it if it's not true. What say Trilly and Rabby?

What if none of those guys come back?

If it were confirmed Reneau, Mgbako, and Galloway are all leaving (along with Ware) should Woodson be retained, would any of the Woodson defenders still give him another year?

Depends on how you define it. If you are just looking at W/L record absent all other context, sure. But I don't think that you could find many examples of coaches with no long-term track record of success who appear to have lost all recruiting momentum, as well as the confidence of much of the fan base, and underperformed so starkly on the court given the existing talent base, but yet were able to rebound quickly to achieve the goals that Woodson himself set (B1G and National championships). And if you could find one, they probably wouldn't have been talking as stubbornly, or running as antiquated a scheme, as Woodson is. So the context matters. Which, again, is why the analogy of Pearl's first three years at Auburn is apples to oranges.

You are arguing that it would be a double standard on IU's part. So that is, apparently, the point of contention. Now if you are shifting to an argument about how sure a thing Pearl is, then again, reasonable minds can disagree. I would agree that given the state of the roster, recruiting class, and impending departures, it's entirely possible Pearl would under perform the first year. But to suggest that because his Auburn stint featured a slow build that the same would be true here again overlooks a variety of relevant factors (the historic state of the programs, the circumstances under which he would be assuming the two respective jobs, the advent of the portal and NIL, recruiting base, etc.). So I think any objective observer would have to agree that the odds that Pearl's first 3 years at IU would mirror his first 3 at Auburn (as conveniently opposed to his tenure at USI, UW-Milwaukee, or Tennessee) are slim at best -- probably under 5-10%.

That's fair (although I disagree given Pearl's overall track record, and the weirdness of that COVID year for any number of programs). But again, that's different than arguing that Auburn gave Pearl a 4th year but IU "wouldn't have" -- which is irrelevant, and factually not necessarily correct for the reasons pointed out above -- and therefore on that basis that IU shouldn't fire Woodson to hire Pearl. That latter argument doesn't make any sense.

I respect your opinion, but it just feels like you are flailing on this one. Again, who cares whether IU would have made the same decision as AU? You are basically arguing that because IU's top replacement for Woodson received a 4th year under different circumstances, IU shouldn't hire him now. Respectfully, that doesn't really make any sense. Now if you think Woodson deserves a 4th year, that's fine, argue that on its merits. Pearl's record after 3 years is irrelevant to Woodson's case, though, unless you're saying Pearl is not as good a coach as Woody based on his first three years at AU (which I don't think is what you're arguing).

Again, those are two different arguments. First of all, I don't think the fact that AU gave Pearl a 4th year has any bearing on what IU ought to do. The situations are totally different in terms of program history, the state of the programs when Pearl/Woodson took over, the coaches' respective track records, and the recruiting momentum or lack thereof. For instance, if Woodson had signed Boogie Fland and Derik Queen, along with McNeeley, for next season, then I think he'd be facing much less pressure here (although not zero, given how poorly his team has performed this year). As for the moral issue, I don't think anyone is contending that Pearl is squeaky clean. But the things he's been penalized for were either ludicrous violations at the time (hosting a recruit at a BBQ), or allegations of conduct that is now perfectly legal under the rules (Person stuff), and which most major schools were already allegedly facilitating themselves at the time (including IU, at least according to some). If you think the moral issues are disqualifying, then so be it, reasonable minds can certainly disagree on that. But I really don't understand what relevance Pearl's record his first three years at AU have on IU and Woodson. It's completely apples to oranges.

I guess I'm confused...are you arguing Pearl isn't a good coach? Or that IU would be applying a double standard by not giving Woodson a 4th year? Or something else entirely?

I actually think you would, if you are trying to clear the good name of your significant other after he was "falsely" arrested for domestic violence. If this incident was, say, 10 years old and he'd been clean as a whistle since then, maybe the calculus would be different. But this is all way too fresh to risk taking a chance on it. Especially when other equally -- and, perhaps, more -- qualified options are out there. And yes, I know some will think that's unfair, but life's unfair sometimes. I really think some of you would be singing a different tune if this had been your daughter/sister/etc.

I think their standards are different. I don't think that means IU coming to a different conclusion means IU isn't serious about winning. It just means IU has higher standards than Ole Miss.

This wasn't just a he-said, she-said situation. The police report documented that she had a bite mark on her arm. Her refusal to cooperate with prosecutors may have made trying the case untenable, but any school looking to hire him would need to make its own assessment of the situation, not just move forward because the alleged victim changed her story.

Agreed. There is more than one coach out there who is capable of winning a national title at IU. Setting aside the rumors that his background was problematic before the alleged DV incident, that incident alone makes him too risky to hire from an administrator's perspective. If you hire him, and he has another similar allegation made against him here, you (the administrator) are toast.

Gotta be Sampson and Painter too...

Any sense of how they are thinking about "proven"? Pearl is obviously proven, May is more debatable IMO.

I don't have the time to dig it up / confirm it now, but I've read somewhere that Tennessee had more returning backcourt talent than we did, yet still managed to land Knecht. Remember, Mgbako signed relatively late in the spring, so there was plenty of time to add a difference maker at the 2/3 before that. Edit: So, put differently, I don't buy that we couldn't land a talented wing due simply to X and Galloway returning. We still had starters minutes available at the 2/3 until Mgbako signed up.

What makes you think we won't play 2 bigs? Rabby is reporting a rim protector 5 to pair with Reneau is a top portal priority for the current staff. Look, I agree that if the stars align, and everyone stays but Ware, Woodson may be able to put a decent team on the floor next year. But I don't think the odds are great that Woodson will be able to get the additions he needs to make that happen, or use those pieces schematically in a way that will significantly improve the product on the floor. And even if he does, you're still back in the same position a year from now. No top '25 HS players are signing on to play here in the fall signing period given the uncertainty. We'd have to scramble for a massive talent infusion after Mgbako, Galloway, presumably Reneau, potentially McNeeley all leave. Better to start fresh, IMO.

Those schools implemented sustainable programs tailored to the B1G and college game. They recruit 4 year guys that fit the program. That's not what Woodson has done. He's implemented a 90s style two low post offense, and has failed to develop any multi-year guards, the backbone of any successful college program. Yes, he got them back to the NCAAs, but at a program like Indiana that should be a minimal expectation, not a reason for a raise. He failed to get past the first weekend both years, and there is no particular reason to think that would change in year 4 (or beyond). And yes, he beat Purdue twice last year. But I'm not sure that you'll find a lot of support for the notion that a .500 career record vs. Purdue is the new standard of success. The problem for Woodson is that even if he gets a 4th year, it's going to be next to impossible to rebuild the necessary recruiting momentum he'd need to turn this around. He'll be viewed as a dead man walking. What top HS recruit in the '25 class would commit? For that matter, how many top portal guys are going to sign up for this given what they've seen of his scheme, and his tendency to throw his players under the bus? The danger with hiring Woodson was always that if a change needed to be made, it was going to be painful. But IU is at a point where pain is coming either way...it can either be firing a program legend after 3 years, or bringing said legend back for year 4 with little likelihood of turning it around given the recruitment challenges and schematic problems that would involve. In my opinion, the first option will sting, but not nearly as badly as the second in the long run.

Oof, that's a lot of transfers. I know we all kind of know that already, but looking at it laid out like that, and given the recent track record for guards in the portal, that could go really badly way more easily than it could break right, IMO. The only reason you should be in that position entering year 4 is if you'd set the roster up for a monster year 3 and needed to replace a lot of experience. Needless to say, that wasn't the case here.