@arioznahoosier4554 Well, we haven't had a coach that's had many years in a row of 21-12, and making the NCAAs, since RMK... so we really don't know. 4 years isn't a "long time" either... Obviously I get the sentiment, but I don't think it jives with how Dolson has operated, and/or will likely operate. Firing a coach after 1 year isn't reality... Billy Gillespie got 2 years at Kentucky, for Pete's sake... But I don't think 4 years is any sort of minimum time frame that Dolson will operate by, if CDD continues to miss the NCAA tournament. Pretty much any coach that's missed multiple NCAA tournaments in a row, or even at all, has been fired for it, at IU. Tom Crean got fired 1 year removed from a B10 title, and a Sweet 16, because he missed NCAA tournaments a few years prior, and that made his leash incredibly short. Dolson wanted to move on Woodson, if the consensus accounts are to be believed, after missing 1 NCAA tournament, following 2 years of making it. He fired Archie 1 year after getting the AD job, after Archie missed the NCAAs.
In short...if CDD doesn't make an NCAA tournament, he isn't getting 4 years. He might not even if he does make an NCAA tournament. Woodson made 2 of them, and Dolson would have moved on him after his first missed tournament, if Woodson hadn't been protected.
In reality if you are a decent program making the tourney really should not be that hard. Michigan State has gone 28 years in a row now. If we miss next year I think he should be fired but who do you hire? The problem is we move on but we never seem to make a good hire so at some point you hav to ask yourself what is point anymore. In 25 years we have hired one good coach but he was too shady to keep the job.
Scott will do those things, as you say IUNorth. If his own leash is long enough due to Cig cover, that he's still in charge by then. 🤣
@openwheel Cig hire has him as a made man. Cignetti will stroll in to the BOT meeting and say "AD stays, I stay, AD goes, I go..." and the meeting will be over.
@arioznahoosier4554 Well, we haven't had a coach that's had many years in a row of 21-12, and making the NCAAs, since RMK... so we really don't know. 4 years isn't a "long time" either... Obviously I get the sentiment, but I don't think it jives with how Dolson has operated, and/or will likely operate. Firing a coach after 1 year isn't reality... Billy Gillespie got 2 years at Kentucky, for Pete's sake... But I don't think 4 years is any sort of minimum time frame that Dolson will operate by, if CDD continues to miss the NCAA tournament. Pretty much any coach that's missed multiple NCAA tournaments in a row, or even at all, has been fired for it, at IU. Tom Crean got fired 1 year removed from a B10 title, and a Sweet 16, because he missed NCAA tournaments a few years prior, and that made his leash incredibly short. Dolson wanted to move on Woodson, if the consensus accounts are to be believed, after missing 1 NCAA tournament, following 2 years of making it. He fired Archie 1 year after getting the AD job, after Archie missed the NCAAs.
In short...if CDD doesn't make an NCAA tournament, he isn't getting 4 years. He might not even if he does make an NCAA tournament. Woodson made 2 of them, and Dolson would have moved on him after his first missed tournament, if Woodson hadn't been protected.
In reality if you are a decent program making the tourney really should not be that hard. Michigan State has gone 28 years in a row now. If we miss next year I think he should be fired but who do you hire? The problem is we move on but we never seem to make a good hire so at some point you hav to ask yourself what is point anymore. In 25 years we have hired one good coach but he was too shady to keep the job.
There have been good coaches available with every hire we have made. Our administration just always chooses the wrong one. I advocated for McCollum, Wade, and Bucky last year. All 3 are in their first season like DeVries but unlike DeVries all 3 will make the tournament with a lower NIL budget than us.
Again, we just hire the wrong coaches. The Cleveland Browns are probably better at drafting QBs than we are at hiring basketball coaches.
@arioznahoosier4554 I agree. And I think, for the most part, the IU admin has agreed with you. But you're correct, they just haven't found the right guy since RMK. Its been an astonishingly bad streak of hires. And CDD isn't off to a great start with the last one. I think that probably increases the chances that Dolson moves more quickly on him than 4 years, if he doesn't turn it around soon. But you do bring up a very important point... who do you hire when/if you move on CDD? I think that's one of the reasons we haven't found THE guy since RMK. We haven't forced the timing to work out, on a couple occasions, when a pretty obvious candidate could likely have happened. If CDD doesn't turn it around big time this next year, I hope Dolson, and the other decision makers, are much more ready and willing to act if an obvious right guy is out there and a possibility. Like a Matta, Stevens, Pearl maybe, May...type guy.
@arioznahoosier4554 Well, we haven't had a coach that's had many years in a row of 21-12, and making the NCAAs, since RMK... so we really don't know. 4 years isn't a "long time" either... Obviously I get the sentiment, but I don't think it jives with how Dolson has operated, and/or will likely operate. Firing a coach after 1 year isn't reality... Billy Gillespie got 2 years at Kentucky, for Pete's sake... But I don't think 4 years is any sort of minimum time frame that Dolson will operate by, if CDD continues to miss the NCAA tournament. Pretty much any coach that's missed multiple NCAA tournaments in a row, or even at all, has been fired for it, at IU. Tom Crean got fired 1 year removed from a B10 title, and a Sweet 16, because he missed NCAA tournaments a few years prior, and that made his leash incredibly short. Dolson wanted to move on Woodson, if the consensus accounts are to be believed, after missing 1 NCAA tournament, following 2 years of making it. He fired Archie 1 year after getting the AD job, after Archie missed the NCAAs.
In short...if CDD doesn't make an NCAA tournament, he isn't getting 4 years. He might not even if he does make an NCAA tournament. Woodson made 2 of them, and Dolson would have moved on him after his first missed tournament, if Woodson hadn't been protected.
In reality if you are a decent program making the tourney really should not be that hard. Michigan State has gone 28 years in a row now. If we miss next year I think he should be fired but who do you hire? The problem is we move on but we never seem to make a good hire so at some point you hav to ask yourself what is point anymore. In 25 years we have hired one good coach but he was too shady to keep the job.
There have been good coaches available with every hire we have made. Our administration just always chooses the wrong one. I advocated for McCollum, Wade, and Bucky last year. All 3 are in their first season like DeVries but unlike DeVries all 3 will make the tournament with a lower NIL budget than us.
Again, we just hire the wrong coaches. The Cleveland Browns are probably better at drafting QBs than we are at hiring basketball coaches.
Yep the only hire I was ever excited about was sampson because I knew he could coach. I hoped he would behave but he did not. Every other hire to me was a huge buzz kill. It is almost like we go out of our way to make the bad hire. I also wanted Wade but was blasted saying he is too shady for IU. Remember we are pure as the driven snow at IU so we only hire saints even if it means losing.
@arioznahoosier4554 Completely different dynamic this year, than last. We have 7 current guys we could return (Dorn, Miles, Drake, Harris, Sisley, Ristic, and Amicovic). I don't think anyone knows who will come back, that'll be a very interesting early dynamic to see play out, but I think its safe to assume at least 3-4 of them will. And then we have 3 incoming freshmen. So we have 6-7 guys, probably at a minimum, already established. And overall, I'd say they're probably on the "cheaper" side in terms of NIL spend. Obviously none of them are free, so we have money tied up for those 6-7 guys, but it isn't a big stretch, or reach, or overly optimistic, to say we'll have a fair bit more money available this time around, to target 3-4 higher end guys, and a few rotation level guys.
3-4 upper half of the B10 starters, a couple rotation level guys, then add back in guys like Dorn, Sisley, any of the freshmen that can contribute...
Its not a reach, at all, that we'll have a better roster this year than we did last year.
And there is a hidden value to returning 3-4 guys with them helping in the locker room with the newcomers. Last year we had 0 players that had put on an IU uniform, practiced in Cook Hall, etc... Little things like having a few guys that have had those experiences, can, and usually do, help teams mesh and gel earlier.
Why should we have "a fair bit more money available" when we have to pay these duds to hang around?
As far as the hidden value of experience, 4 are experienced with laying about all year and being useless. The other 3 are experienced in getting their asses kicked on the road and choking away big leads at home. Durwood should, but probably won't, think long and hard about which of those 7 are worth keeping around.
@mushroomgod First question answer is... math. Answers after that... could be... but having 4 ish guys returning that know the lingo, the drills, where to eat, the best party spots... All of these things bring value to the team, and can help. If nothing else, it changes the dynamic a little bit versus having all 13 guys being new to Bloomington. Per usual, you're focusing solely on the potential bad things, and none of the potential positive things.
Everyone assumes we will have a better roster and maybe we will but so will alot of other big ten teams. People act like we will be better but nobody else will improve at all . Minnesota will healthy next year. Oregon will be healthy.Maryland, Michigan, and Michigan State all have top ten recruiting classes. So yes we may improve but so will other teams.
Same. I was optimistic about a couple.Yep the only hire I was ever excited about was sampson because I knew he could coach. ...
But for Sampson I was very excited. Now I can't stand the man. 🤣
Same. I was optimistic about a couple.Yep the only hire I was ever excited about was sampson because I knew he could coach. ...
But for Sampson I was very excited. Now I can't stand the man. 🤣
I know many were super high on archie but I was never really that high on the hire. And when they leaked the woodson hire I thought it was an april fools joke.
@mushroomgod First question answer is... math. Answers after that... could be... but having 4 ish guys returning that know the lingo, the drills, where to eat, the best party spots... All of these things bring value to the team, and can help. If nothing else, it changes the dynamic a little bit versus having all 13 guys being new to Bloomington. Per usual, you're focusing solely on the potential bad things, and none of the potential positive things.
How is it math if we keep the 7 duds and pay them the same as this year. Now, if you're suggesting that we slash their payments and see what happens, that's something I could support. I doubt the that the market value of any of the 7 has increased.
Or, are you assuming a generous benefactor is going to up his game this time around, because Doorknob has shown that what he was given to spend this year was insufficient given his ability? Could be, but kind of counter-intuitive, no?
I was stupid enough to say 'Hey maybe Woodson's recruiting chops will be incredible with his strong NBA connections'.I know many were super high on archie but I was never really that high on the hire. And when they leaked the woodson hire I thought it was an april fools joke.
Durp...
Although I did see it as a swing for the fences on recruiting, with strikeout likely. And was mad we still had the stupid 'Indiana/Bob Knight guy' mentality. Needed 'Indiana guy' mentality in throwing a bag at Dusty May I guess. But somebody was in the seat.
@mushroomgod First question answer is... math. Answers after that... could be... but having 4 ish guys returning that know the lingo, the drills, where to eat, the best party spots... All of these things bring value to the team, and can help. If nothing else, it changes the dynamic a little bit versus having all 13 guys being new to Bloomington. Per usual, you're focusing solely on the potential bad things, and none of the potential positive things.
How is it math if we keep the 7 duds and pay them the same as this year. Now, if you're suggesting that we slash their payments and see what happens, that's something I could support. I doubt the that the market value of any of the 7 has increased.
Or, are you assuming a generous benefactor is going to up his game this time around, because Doorknob has shown that what he was given to spend this year was insufficient given his ability? Could be, but kind of counter-intuitive, no?
It is pretty clear after this year DD just like woodson needs major money to compete he cannot compete on his coaching skills for top five big ten. I am not really sure how the dynamic changes keeping 7 guys who did not even play. It leads me to believe most of them are not very good. I guess you gotta hope some take a pay cut because he is going to need to spend 12-14 million just on starters to field a decent team. The only question is are people willing to fork over that kind of money to him?
Well, when you have a strong team, some really good players just won't be able to crack the lineup.
,