Bailey: "We have a lot of motivation going into the Big Ten Tournament."
Where was that motivation the last month when IU could have secured a bid? This team has no switch to flip.
I know it's probably happened before, but I feel like any team hanging their hopes on garnering favor with the selection committee by winning some games in their conference tournament has always had a steep hill to climb and are probably not going to accomplish their goal.
Iu needs a reboot - tear down the Hall, build something like a fieldhouse (grainbridge). Put names on the uniforms. These kids, and some of the parents, weren't even around when IU hoops was consistently good. All we have to sell is history, and these kids don't give a rats ass about that stuff - its too old.
Build something that will get kids attention and start some new traditions - Iu cold still keep the candy stripes, the mop lady on the pre game - we will have a Knight statue soon. IMO, a reboot is needed to make IU modern and interesting to players.
How does a new building (that puts you very far into debt and the football upgrades are more needed), names on the jerseys and other new traditions help recruit better players in an era of NIL and transfer portal?
Not sure it would - but what we have been doing the past 25 years isn't working either. All Iu can sell right now is history that most are too young to even care about the history.
We have more than history to sell. We have NIL. We have eyeballs. We have playing time. Those are all important to players. We do NOT have more of those things than the current highest echelon of CBB, however.
@arioznahoosier4554 I don't think IU is a sleeping giant anymore; the "brand" has no caché. Hell, potential recruits have only known IU as a mediocre/subpar program.
I totally agree it is not if it was we would have been able to hire a really good coach by now. Its a below average big ten program that just happens to have a large fan base. I have pretty much accepted that and no longer have unrealistic expectations I think 21-12 is about the ceiling going forward. Making the NCAA 50% of the time would be a success given the last 25 years. That is about what I expect will happen.
This post was modified 2 months ago 2 times by Robert Olson
Its a below average big ten program that just happens to have a large fan base.
I don't think those two things align. There is no reason IU couldn't have a season similar to what Michigan is doing now. It's a lot closer than some of you think. Michigan was really in a crappy spot toward the end of the Juwan Howard tenure.
And you all saw what happens when a team starts winning with IU football the last two years. It wasn't that long ago you literally couldn't give away tickets to IU football games. A good IU Basketball program would have the most invested and rabid fanbase. It potentially could turn around in one season. It's up to whoever is holding the NIL purse strings and DeVries to sell that to recruits. They will always hold that advantage over at least 60-70% of the current Big Ten.
@arioznahoosier4554 I don't think IU is a sleeping giant anymore; the "brand" has no caché. Hell, potential recruits have only known IU as a mediocre/subpar program.
This! why I say tear it all down and reboot! - new arena, new look- something to get kids attention!
plus. most would agree, the hall is a terrible place to watcha game if not in the first 35 rows.
But some fans posted he inherited a good situation at Dayton and hadn't really exceeded the previous guy.
To say he didn't exceed Brian Gregory is laughable. Yes, Dayton has a good history of success in hoops, but Gregory made the tournament 2x in 8 years. Archie made it 4x in 6 years...4 in a row to end his tenure. Archie is arguably the 1st or 2nd most successful coach in Dayton history.
That obviously hasn't translated elsewhere.
Not laughable at all. Which is why Dolson cited it as something Indiana should have been aware of, building the program versus continuing it.
Gregory's last four seasons from oldest to newest: 23 ,25 ,27, 22, wins. Archie Miller's five from oldest to newest: 20 ,17, 26, 27, 25 , fewest losses for both in the span, 8 . Most wins, 27 . Gregory isn't any better of course, he was under .500 at Georgia Tech and South Florida. Schools that seem possible to win at. Archie though took a can't win at job at Rhode Island. But still, fans wanted him gone by early season two.
Archie knows he should've stayed at Dayton I'm sure. They'd probably be building the statue by now. Him havng questions wasn't my take, I heard how he was the basketball rat in the family, so I was optimistic. But apparently his brother had recruiting chops (charisma... not just shady stuff) and Archie is a wet blanket.
,
Conference championships 2 to 1, Miller (in 2 fewer years)
NCAA appearances 4 to 2, Miller
Win % .69% to 65%, narrow edge to Miller
NCAA wins 5 to 1, Miller.
All of that, and Archie's easiest schedule in his 6 years would have been Gregory's 2nd toughest.
By what possible metric that could matter was Archie not markedly better than Gregory?
Its a below average big ten program that just happens to have a large fan base.
I don't think those two things align. There is no reason IU couldn't have a season similar to what Michigan is doing now. It's a lot closer than some of you think. Michigan was really in a crappy spot toward the end of the Juwan Howard tenure.
And you all saw what happens when a team starts winning with IU football the last two years. It wasn't that long ago you literally couldn't give away tickets to IU football games. A good IU Basketball program would have the most invested and rabid fanbase. It potentially could turn around in one season. It's up to whoever is holding the NIL purse strings and DeVries to sell that to recruits. They will always hold that advantage over at least 60-70% of the current Big Ten.
In theory it is possible and yes Michigan had a bad season Howard's last. However if I look back starting in 2010 they have made the sweet sixeteen or better eight times to our two times. They have not been a dumpster fire program the last 15 they have been pretty good most years. We have been below average most years and our brand is just not very good right now.
Iu needs a reboot - tear down the Hall, build something like a fieldhouse (grainbridge). Put names on the uniforms. These kids, and some of the parents, weren't even around when IU hoops was consistently good. All we have to sell is history, and these kids don't give a rats ass about that stuff - its too old.
Build something that will get kids attention and start some new traditions - Iu cold still keep the candy stripes, the mop lady on the pre game - we will have a Knight statue soon. IMO, a reboot is needed to make IU modern and interesting to players.
How does a new building (that puts you very far into debt and the football upgrades are more needed), names on the jerseys and other new traditions help recruit better players in an era of NIL and transfer portal?
Not sure it would - but what we have been doing the past 25 years isn't working either. All Iu can sell right now is history that most are too young to even care about the history.
You'd make a Terry Clapacs level of Athletic Director.
@ge-off I think it's good to be in wait-and-see mode with DeVries. He started this year with an entirely new roster. According to ChatGPT, IU is right there at the top of the Big Ten with NIL money with Michigan. There is a clear path for IU to be a top program again - hopefully we see that play out in year 2/3 for DeVries.
NIL money could/should put IU back in the category of competing with the Dukes, Kansases and other blue bloods for top players.
dude where you been all season. We've all hashed this out six ways to Sunday over the last 6 months. Read some of the threads.
@ge-off I think it's good to be in wait-and-see mode with DeVries. He started this year with an entirely new roster. According to ChatGPT, IU is right there at the top of the Big Ten with NIL money with Michigan. There is a clear path for IU to be a top program again - hopefully we see that play out in year 2/3 for DeVries.
NIL money could/should put IU back in the category of competing with the Dukes, Kansases and other blue bloods for top players.
dude where you been all season. We've all hashed this out six ways to Sunday over the last 6 months. Read some of the threads.
we stand no chance with doorknob at the helm
Probably on facebook that is the exact same thing most of the posters say after every IU loss. They bend over backwards to defend DD and blame all the losses on something else and not him.
Conference championships 2 to 1, Miller (in 2 fewer years)
NCAA appearances 4 to 2, Miller
Win % .69% to 65%, narrow edge to Miller
NCAA wins 5 to 1, Miller.
All of that, and Archie's easiest schedule in his 6 years would have been Gregory's 2nd toughest.
By what possible metric that could matter was Archie not markedly better than Gregory?
The comments, at the time, weren't so much that he wasn't better, but that he didn't build the program. He continued it.
But you have validated the Archie Miller hire... Looks like he did build it. At least some.
Dolson said we should have been looking for more of a program builder. But to me he is making the same mistake with DeVries. Lower level competition makes resumes look gaudy.
Conference championships 2 to 1, Miller (in 2 fewer years)
NCAA appearances 4 to 2, Miller
Win % .69% to 65%, narrow edge to Miller
NCAA wins 5 to 1, Miller.
All of that, and Archie's easiest schedule in his 6 years would have been Gregory's 2nd toughest.
By what possible metric that could matter was Archie not markedly better than Gregory?
The comments, at the time, weren't so much that he wasn't better, but that he didn't build the program. He continued it.
But you have validated the Archie Miller hire... Looks like he did build it. At least some.
Dolson said we should have been looking for more of a program builder. But to me he is making the same mistake with DeVries. Lower level competition makes resumes look gaudy.
That is why I was never that high on Ben McCollum he won alot but it was D2. I know some were convinced he was a sure fire home run hire but there is simply no proof he could win at this level. I think it is far more likely he is the next Fran than the next Tom Izzo.
yep- other than Davis and Woodson, all the others were thought to be can’t miss hires
iu will never be great again- period
Not really any “can’t miss” hires in the bunch.
Sampson was being sanctioned when we hired him. He never should’ve been considered, let alone hired.
Dakich watched a lot of what went on during the Sampson tenure and thankfully never had a chance to get hired as a result.
Crean was slick salesman who got hired by one guy and was the forever crush of his next boss, who wanted him to stay.
Miller was never right for IU, but the same guy who loved Crean locked in on Archie.
Woodson was the favorite of the former players and, in our constant vacuum of poor leadership, he got the gig.
DeVries said “yes”, which set him apart from the other “candidates”.
The one constant? A total lack of leadership above each of them. Put another way, Bill Orwig wasn’t running through that door.
Yeah - "cant miss" was worded wrong - In hindsight, you are correct - but at the time each Crean and Miller were hired, they were very hot candidates. Sampson was met with uncertainty, but was the best of all of them.
I know what you were trying to say and I agree. Neither were hires that most fans could criticize in any meaningful way, but both were flawed in that TC and AM both lacked the qualities that were needed to build and maintain long term success at IU. Flavors of the month rarely stay on the shelf for long periods of time. Even Homer Simpson would be able to understand that, and he’s obviously not followed the program for any length of time.
That is why I was never that high on Ben McCollum he won alot but it was D2. I know some were convinced he was a sure fire home run hire but there is simply no proof he could win at this level. I think it is far more likely he is the next Fran than the next Tom Izzo.
Sure, not sure fire at all. But he lost fewer games in year one at Drake then DeVries lost every year there. Including one McCollum loss being in the final 32 of the NCAA. And McCollum has a personality.
McCollum is the Cignetti and Deboer model. Sure his wins, and theirs, were at lower levels, but winning BIG and winning titles, is not the same as just nice records. Those title winning guys are who you want.
I'm OK with who we got. I just don't understand why we pass on guys who won big, or won championships in basketball, at lower levels. When we have proof from football is you are supposed to find the big winners. I was really only going by the articles on McCollum saying other coaches were very high on him for years and would call him to pick his brain. So I wanted him. I've since watched film I really like. For DeVries all I hear is 'hard working' . I hope he's a big winner though. I like some of our film...
