BankShot

9 minutes ago, Zlinedavid said:

To be fair, Teflon John was crafting perennial tournament disappointments before NIL.  

True.

Whatever happened to “Worldwide Wes” ? I forgot all about him.

Did Kentucky start having a fall off around the time he became less engaged? Just asking… I don’t know, I haven’t followed it.

I$ it ju$t me, or doe$ there $eem to be a $egment of coache$ that aren’t doing a$ well in the NIL era, maybe $ince the playing field wa$ leveled and their previou$ advantage wa$ removed? Maybe guy$ like Calipari, $elf, $ean Miller, etc.

Didn’t we already have April fools?

10 minutes ago, hoopsta007 said:

Or a driving exam!

Or a parole hearing…

12 minutes ago, 5fouls said:

In the grad scheme of life, it's really not that important.  Why on earth would I make exceptions to my moral compass just so a team I root for could be better than it is? 

Do I want my kids looking back and thinking...

• 'Dad was against cheating unless it was IU basketball."  "
• "Dad believed in working hard to get good grades in school, unless it was an IU basketball player."
• "Dad wants us to stay away from drugs, but doesn't think IU players should be punished for it'"
• 'Why did dad talk to us about violence, but turn a blind eye when a IU player sucker punched an opponent or beat up his girlfriend.

If those things meet your definition of 'holier than thou', then I plead guilty and I'm proud of it. 

 

Agree!

41 minutes ago, jojo123 said:

The skid marks go down! 

Ha ha! literally lol'd at "skid marks".

Frankly, I'd rather see Purpoo win the whole BTT, exhaust themselves as much as possible, and go into the NCAA as overconfident as possible. The BTT is a meaningless waste of time IMO anyway.

Attention PhD candidates...need a thesis topic or a gold medal case study in failed leadership, organizational management disasters, or how to ruin a good organization through malignant ineptitude? Take a look at Indiana University's senior leadership failures and fiascos.

(sorry its come to this, and I'm a two-time alum, but Good Lord our administration looks fatally and crippingly incompetent, again. Or is it "still"?) 

1 minute ago, btownqb said:

Thinking Crean was a disaster is just... wild. Absolutely wild. We've seen disasters, but that wasn't one of them. 

Agree.

I don't think Crean was the right long-term guy, but he wasn't a disaster, and he was actually a much better bridge to the next coach than Mike Woodson is proving to be.

We are in a disaster zone now.

I look at the "can't fire a legend or you'll look bad" very differently I guess.

If Duke hired Grant Hill, or North Carolina hired Sam Perkins, etc., then fired them later for genuinely poor performance (or like NC did with Dougherty), I wouldn't say "Oh, look how crazy and unreasonable they are, they fired one of their own". 

I would be like, "look how serious they are about being good and not tolerating mediocrity, he sucked and they moved on".

I think IU is WAY over-sensitive about this. If the coach isn't getting it done, move on!

Ready, Fire, Aim!

7 minutes ago, IndyResident16 said:

Hubert Davis has been groomed for this job for the better part of a decade. People act like they picked him up off the street and threw him into a situation that he no input in. I guarantee you towards the end, Hubert Davis was recruiting and game planning just as much as Roy Williams. Same thing can be said with Jon Scheyer. 

Agree. Apple and orange comparison to Woodson, IMO. 

Davis has several years as a college asst. coach.

8 hours ago, Maedhros said:

It never was. Even in Bob Knight's 29 years at Indiana:

• We finished the year unranked entirely 11 times. Six of those seasons started out ranked in the top 12.
• We finished outside the top three in the Big Ten 8 times. 
• We made only 14 Sweet Sixteens, just less than half the time. We made 8 Elite Eights.

In a 29 year stint, only 13 seasons met all three of the measurable criteria you provided. And that's with a HOF coach, one of the five or so best ever to do it. 

I often see charges of "accepting mediocrity" thrown around on this board, but some fans need to adjust their thinking of the good old days. There were some amazing highs in there, no doubt, but there were lows as well. If we stop inflating the past, maybe we'll provide a better environment for someone to build a program in the present.

Completely agree that we should accurately remember the past and that there were both highs and lows and not look solely through rose colored glasses.

But I would still offer that, yes, those were the minimally acceptable goals/standards (but 'goals' would have been a better word choice than 'requirements').

I'm pretty sure that Coach Knight himself (more than once) stressed that competing annually for the Big Ten Championship was a program goal of his. In order to do that you had to be within striking distance of being in the top two (or three at worst) in the conference (before the conference tourney came to be.)

And, if you were top 2-3 in conference, chances are good statistically that you would be top 20 to top 10 in the country, and garner a good NCAA seed.

And, if you were top 2-3 in the BIG at that time, and top 20 to 10 in the nation, not winning at least two NCAA games would amount to not going as far as you should have expected to go. I.e., below minimal expectations.

I'm not saying that those goals had/have to be met each and every year without fail, just that the program goals were significantly higher back then.

IMO, program goals and expectations have been slowly eroding to the point that now we're lauding just making the tournament as some great achievement. It just isn't. Being in the 'top 68' so to speak, should be an annual occurrence for a program striving be elite. 

I believe we're also to the point that if we beat Northwestern on our own court on Sunday it would be considered an upset.

1 hour ago, 5fouls said:

We had 15 assists.  Purdue only had 12.

For our Purdue guests, that's the equivalent of touting that Helms trophy.

 

That’s the best post I’ve seen in a while. Bravo.

- Consistently having a successful strategy/approach to the game, fundamentals, execution, and talent to be nationally competitive. 

- Being consistently ranked in the top 20 to top 10 in the nation.

- Finishing in the top 2 or 3 in the Big Ten.

- Winning at least two to three games in the NCAA tournament, annually.

Those used to be the minimally acceptable requirements for Indiana basketball.

Used to be.

1 hour ago, BobSaccamanno said:

I don’t agree that our talent is good enough.  Our 1-3 positions collectively are subpar.  We have 3 five-star recruits but it’s imbalanced.   We lack team quickness and shooting.  Don’t get me wrong, it’s on the staff and there are alot of issues with the adjustments but I am not buying the talent issue.  

Next year I’d like to see three capable guards added to the mix, a big guy and maybe another 2/3 to go with McNeely.  That’s assuming we don’t lose someone good that is unexpected.  

If you assume Woody doesn’t walk away and that Dusty doesn’t make another final four run, then Woody would be back but you’d have to look hard at the staff, with assistants but all those bodies hovering around the bench.   

I tend to agree on the talent assessment of the current team, and I understand the perspective of wanting to be patient enough and not rash.

But this get well plan is basically identical to what already needed to happen a year or more ago and it did not.

Combined with what is being said, and the responses from the coach, I do not have the confidence any longer in this coach or staff to get it done.

I’m very doubtful that this coaching staff is going to get it done even with a serious talent upgrade. Just not seeing it.

5 hours ago, Victobmyboy said:

87 team says hello. 3 indiana kids and only one played(Alford). You take the best and if it’s Indiana kids then cool. Indiana isn’t the hotbed it once was. You do get some players that have something to prove after getting snubbed. 

Agree that the ‘87 team was less Indiana centric, but it still fits the model of “Indiana kids that know how to play….and can shoot” plus “Mix in highly rated, talented out of state kids that fit in.”

And actually, I don’t care too much about where they are actually from, but Indiana historically has produced those tough, smart, solid players in spades.
 

My thought was more about focusing more heavily on fundamentally sound, and skilled players, (even if they’re not from Indiana) rather than being too in love with “high star” ratings. Something I feel IU has gotten away from and needs to return more to.

Good discussion.

6 hours ago, kyhoosier29 said:

Get the Indiana kids that know how to play, know what IU is about, and can shoot. Mix in highly rated, talented out of state kids that fit in. I know we all just want the kids that best fit our roster/style regardless of location, but I think we’ve found out over the years that those kids are usually sitting in our backyard. We don’t solely need kids with a lot of stars next to their names. 

This!

This is the recruiting approach that Knight used to fuel three championships (along with GOAT coaching skills), and IMO, we began to drift away from it almost immediately after he left, and haven't ever really returned to it.

We got somewhat enamored with "stars" and "better athletes" and drifted away the formula that had been so successful. You definitely need talent, but it doesn't have to be 80% "5 star" talent.

Good job Hoosiers!

Credit where it’s due. Looked much better tonight on both ends, and essentially without Reneau.

I don’t have a good understanding or explanation yet for what happened in the first part of the second half, but we looked much better the rest of the game. Especially in the first half.

What I find so very disappointing and infuriating and just largely unacceptable, is that virtually everything that is being discussed right now as things that need to be done and addressed as we move forward, are things that were already known and needed to be done a year ago (or more).

Improved outside shooting, better guards/guard play, rebounding, better fundamentals (free throws, blocking out, etc.), better implementation of a modern college offense, better three point defense, etc.

ALL of this was already known but has not been adequately addressed. This is why I now have such a tremendously reduced confidence in this staff. It's like we've lost a year (or more), gotten worse, and there have not been signs of making the right changes or adjustments.

I just don't trust these guys to do what is needed.

Sorry, its not just the wins/losses or the roster. 

This coach's/staff's overall approach to the game is not going to get it done.

Rebounding: D+, free throws: F, shot selection (from the scheme): D-, overall offensive scheme: C-, defense: D+. And some of these issues have been present and noticeable for all 3 years are are NOT being adequately addressed.

It's NOT just a talent problem. This isn't working and "better guards" isn't going to fix the structural issues.

Hate to say it but Woodson is failing. 

Conclusion: there is enough evidence to conclude that this is not going to work as is and there has been no visible or tangible demonstration to date that needed adjustments are going to be made.