IUProfessor

13 minutes ago, dbmhoosier said:

Buyout is only a $1M a year.  That's not a reason to not cut bait.  Dolson actually knew what he was doing with that "raise".

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.

9 minutes ago, DC2345 said:

Glass didn't make the Archie hire and Dolson didn't make the Woodson hire. The AD needs to be given a shot to make his hire. Yes, the Allen extension was stupid. The Woodson raise was smart because of how it impacted his buyout. Woodson's buyout didn't increase because of that raise. 

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.

9 minutes ago, DC2345 said:

People need to let the AD do their job. IU constantly has other people butting into the decisions because they have money or think they need to have an opinion and it just doesn't work out well. 

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.

4 minutes ago, Billingsley99 said:

I believe that there are 3 possible theories here.

 

1. Woodson's seat was never even warm

2. THe seat was hot Dolson has his guy lined up and the BOT or President said no way

3. Woodson has been told that he just needs to step away after the season. He had his vote of confidence which quiets one side of the discussion and IU does not have to fire him. Win win. 

 

 

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.

19 minutes ago, Seeking6 said:

PS on the timing gang. Kids are already hitting portal. It couldn't wait for 12 more days.

Portal isn't open yet...

1 minute ago, KoB2011 said:

Not convinced this is true for starters, but if it is, hope the folks that made this happen are right. If not, they are responsible for the damage it does, and the damage could be significant.

 

Seems odd so many relatively prominent national media folks would report it if it's not true. 

What say Trilly and Rabby?

2 minutes ago, Seeking6 said:

Good deal. The man deserves a chance to fix his mistakes from this year. MM comes back, Malik comes back, add Liam and hit that portal along with a correctly played position in TG and we can get healthy really quick.

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?

7 minutes ago, IUFLA said:

No, I'm arguing that the struggle that Woody and this IU team has experienced this year happens to even the best coaches...Do you agree or disagree with that?

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. 

8 minutes ago, IUFLA said:

Again, not the point of contention...Pearl can struggle just like any other coach...

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%.

3 minutes ago, IUFLA said:

Not "flailing" at all...It was case in point that ALL coaches can and do struggle at times...

Pearl's first 3 years shows that's true in his case as well...In addition look at 2020-21...13-14 and 7-11...So to say we'd can Mike Woodson over this year, and have "sure thing" Bruce Pearl take over is nuts to me...That's the point of debate...

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.

12 minutes ago, IUFLA said:

It was a simple question...Would ANY coach have survived with that record at IU...I think we all know the answer...

You need to watch this video then determine for yourself if Scott Dolson would trade Mike Woodson and Bruce Pearl...

I realize that this video was after Woody's first year, but "sticking with the plan" and "no timetable for success" are kinda the root of Scott Dolson as an AD...He cut his teeth under Knight, and I think he understands that every coach...Every coach, can have a year where things don't go as planned...He was a manager on the 85 team, so it's not like he's never seen IU finish under .500 in Big 10 play...

 

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).

12 minutes ago, IUFLA said:

A little bit more than a double standard based on the results, wouldn't you say? 

No one is denying Pearl can coach...But he's not exactly the moral standard bearer when it comes to college basketball...

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. 

7 minutes ago, IUFLA said:

Crean had to play a lot of kids that had no business playing D1 basketball at a P6 school...Despite what's been said in this thread previously, if you look at what Pearl walked into, he had some talent there...400+ games of D1 basketball experience...Crean had Devan Dumas, Kyle Taber and 12 freshmen (including walkons)...

 

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?

17 minutes ago, Zlinedavid said:

I know I'm legendary for my sarcastic comments, but this actually isn't one of them.  What if she's kinky and into that? Not exactly something you're going to admit to in a police report. 

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.

9 minutes ago, DunkinDipo said:

You don't think Ole Miss did that? 

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.

26 minutes ago, Zlinedavid said:

What has he done wrong that is so offensive? That very same evening, his ex-fiancee was already dropping the charges, saying that she had culpability in the incident as well. The DA even said there was a lack of evidence. 

The two of them are no longer together, and he doesn't have a track record of abuse or issues with alcohol. 

By the facts that are known, it was a really bad argument between a couple that got a little out of hand. 

Or did I miss another story somewhere?

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.

12 minutes ago, DC2345 said:

It’s not ridiculous. He shouldn’t be a candidate 

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.

1 minute ago, DC2345 said:

Dolson's list. It's more of the pecking order. There's names that have been contacted but I don't know for sure who target A, B, C, and D are for sure. Pearl and May are two of them. 

Gotta be Sampson and Painter too...

5 minutes ago, DC2345 said:

I will say this. It was nice to see IU win last night. That said I don't believe that game or any others will have any real impact on a decision. If Dolson can get a proven coach in the bag a move will be made. IU is about to be in recruiting purgatory because of Woodson's contract situation. He would need an extension to help that and that's just not happening. 

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.

9 minutes ago, IUFLA said:

I thought we were better off without 2 bigs on the floor? 

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.

15 minutes ago, IUFLA said:

As I said, you can't keep saying you want something while overlooking the reason schools like Purdue and Wisconsin got where they are...

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.

6 hours ago, DC2345 said:

Here is what I see happening. I still think Woodson is back. He goes to the portal and end up with a roster that looks like this. 
Transfer PG, Transfer SG/CG, Transfer Big/Queen, 2 Transfer bench G/W’s, Transfer big, Cupps, Galloway, Newton, MM, McNeeley, Reneau, and Sparks. 

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.