Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

2020-21 Indiana Athletics thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • That begs a couple of questions:
    Was IU so "all in" that they fired Archie clearing the path to IU fully expecting they would have enough money that Stevens couldn't refuse?
    Was there ever a plan B or was it always: 'Open the position and go get Stevens'?

    And how did Stevens refuse that???

    He must either have no interest in IU (or college?), or some faith and a guarantee from Ainge.

    He was REALLY wanted by IU. It would've been a tiny section of fans indeed that didn't want him. A long honeymoon awaited him.
    And a Brinks truck...

    If that report is true, is does make you wonder about some things. Including, where the IU job really sits these days. I know some of us think the tradition, banners, fanbase, and in theory 'facilities' still carry some weight and most any high level coach could make a go of it at IU.... But with Stevens turning down 70 million... And weeks after firing Miller, Mike Woodson was the hire, has me wondering.

    I'm having a hard time seeing Woodson's name being 2nd on the list after Stevens to begin with. His path to #1 on the list is probably an interesting story we'll never truly hear. Obviously, 1 domino was Stevens rejecting the job, but I suspect there were more dominos between that and Woodson putting his name on the contract
    Was he one of a short list of candidates that WANTED the job? And one that had some fanbase name recognition to give him a chance vs the next "Archie Miller" (mid-major getting a chance?)?
    Last edited by Bball; 04-18-2021, 12:01 AM.
    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

    -John Wooden

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Bball View Post
      That begs a couple of questions:
      Was IU so "all in" that they fired Archie clearing the path to IU fully expecting they would have enough money that Stevens couldn't refuse?
      Was there ever a plan B or was it always: 'Open the position and go get Stevens'?

      And how did Stevens refuse that???

      He must either have no interest in IU (or college?), or some faith and a guarantee from Ainge.

      He was REALLY wanted by IU. It would've been a tiny section of fans indeed that didn't want him. A long honeymoon awaited him.
      And a Brinks truck...

      If that report is true, is does make you wonder about some things. Including, where the IU job really sits these days. I know some of us think the tradition, banners, fanbase, and in theory 'facilities' still carry some weight and most any high level coach could make a go of it at IU.... But with Stevens turning down 70 million... And weeks after firing Miller, Mike Woodson was the hire, has me wondering.

      I'm having a hard time seeing Woodson's name being 2nd on the list after Stevens to begin with. His path to #1 on the list is probably an interesting story we'll never truly hear. Obviously, 1 domino was Stevens rejecting the job, but I suspect there were more dominos between that and Woodson putting his name on the contract
      Was he one of a short list of candidates that WANTED the job? And one that had some fanbase name recognition to give him a chance vs the next "Archie Miller" (mid-major getting a chance?)?
      my guess is Stevens is happy where he's at and he gets along fine with Ainge. it could also be he doesn't want to do the recruiting grind anymore which is understandable. regardless of where Woodson ranked on their list, they got him and as far as I see so far, he's doing a solid job getting things together.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Bball View Post
        That begs a couple of questions:
        Was IU so "all in" that they fired Archie clearing the path to IU fully expecting they would have enough money that Stevens couldn't refuse?
        Was there ever a plan B or was it always: 'Open the position and go get Stevens'?

        And how did Stevens refuse that???

        He must either have no interest in IU (or college?), or some faith and a guarantee from Ainge.

        He was REALLY wanted by IU. It would've been a tiny section of fans indeed that didn't want him. A long honeymoon awaited him.
        And a Brinks truck...

        If that report is true, is does make you wonder about some things. Including, where the IU job really sits these days. I know some of us think the tradition, banners, fanbase, and in theory 'facilities' still carry some weight and most any high level coach could make a go of it at IU.... But with Stevens turning down 70 million... And weeks after firing Miller, Mike Woodson was the hire, has me wondering.

        I'm having a hard time seeing Woodson's name being 2nd on the list after Stevens to begin with. His path to #1 on the list is probably an interesting story we'll never truly hear. Obviously, 1 domino was Stevens rejecting the job, but I suspect there were more dominos between that and Woodson putting his name on the contract
        Was he one of a short list of candidates that WANTED the job? And one that had some fanbase name recognition to give him a chance vs the next "Archie Miller" (mid-major getting a chance?)?
        The 7 years, $70 million offer Stevens turned down reminds me of what Pat McAfee said a while back. "Money gets you freedom; it doesn't get you happiness."

        I think Stevens first option is to coach in the NBA. Back when the IU job opened up, the Celtics were struggling, and it's certainly possible that Stevens thought his job wasn't secure. I still think he was interested in the IU job if he was going to be let go by the Celtics. He went to Danny Ainge and Celtics ownership and asked them what his job security was, and if he was going to be let go that he would rather it happen now so he could take the IU job. Ainge and Celtics ownership told him his job was secure, and he turned IU down.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Bball View Post
          That begs a couple of questions:
          Was IU so "all in" that they fired Archie clearing the path to IU fully expecting they would have enough money that Stevens couldn't refuse?
          Was there ever a plan B or was it always: 'Open the position and go get Stevens'?

          And how did Stevens refuse that???

          He must either have no interest in IU (or college?), or some faith and a guarantee from Ainge.

          He was REALLY wanted by IU. It would've been a tiny section of fans indeed that didn't want him. A long honeymoon awaited him.
          And a Brinks truck...

          If that report is true, is does make you wonder about some things. Including, where the IU job really sits these days. I know some of us think the tradition, banners, fanbase, and in theory 'facilities' still carry some weight and most any high level coach could make a go of it at IU.... But with Stevens turning down 70 million... And weeks after firing Miller, Mike Woodson was the hire, has me wondering.

          I'm having a hard time seeing Woodson's name being 2nd on the list after Stevens to begin with. His path to #1 on the list is probably an interesting story we'll never truly hear. Obviously, 1 domino was Stevens rejecting the job, but I suspect there were more dominos between that and Woodson putting his name on the contract
          Was he one of a short list of candidates that WANTED the job? And one that had some fanbase name recognition to give him a chance vs the next "Archie Miller" (mid-major getting a chance?)?
          Dunno why you have a hard time seeing Woodson as the 2nd choice.

          Who after Brad has Indiana connections and better NBA experience along with a modern offensive reputation? Plus Woody was rumored as being interested in 2017.

          IU deeply wanted someone with NBA pull, that was as important as the IU/Indiana connection.


          Comment


          • IU landed a 4 star recruit ranked top 60 in the country today. 6'5" Shooting guard Tamar Bates. He was originally committed to Texas but then when Shaka left he was let out of his commitment and will now be at IU in the fall. He has star potential.

            Woody just continues to kill it. Any doubt at this point in his ability to recruit or relate to players should be completely removed.


            Comment


            • The thing is, Woodson doesn’t have to be Wooden on X’s and O’s to be a success: just be strong on recruiting and halfway decent on the X’s and O’s and it will be a massive improvement over what we were seeing. Archie had some big recruits, but the in game product was shockingly abysmal year after year.

              It shouldn’t be THAT hard to make IU respectful on the court. I think Woodson can absolutely make it happen. The hire continues to grow on me by the day. Like I said, it’s IU basketball so I’ve learned my lessons about keeping expectations in check, but I’m feeling good about the future right now.

              Comment


              • It shouldn’t be THAT hard to make IU respectful on the court... Like I said, it’s IU basketball so I’ve learned my lessons about keeping expectations in check

                I used to agree with #1, but I definitely agree with your #2, and considering where we are in this discussion and long downward spiral, I'm having trouble believing in #1 any longer.

                I don't see Woodson as a top hire. I just see him as a hire that placates some older IU fans, and can be spun to newer fans... with some potential there that he can take his passion for IU, and NBA experience, and a willingness to surround himself with people that should be able to help guide him, to do something with it that is good and sustainable. And if not, Fife would appear to be in line for the next hire.

                But I'm not going to be surprised if a 65 year old college coach with his first college coaching gig, stumbles out of the gate. And whether he can correct, or keep stumbling... I don't know.

                Or maybe he knocks it out of the park.

                There's literally nothing to really say how he'll do in the college game until the games start. We'll all be seeing Woodson's first game as a college coach, AND IU's coach, at the same time Woodson sees it.



                Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                ------

                "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                -John Wooden

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Bball View Post
                  It shouldn’t be THAT hard to make IU respectful on the court... Like I said, it’s IU basketball so I’ve learned my lessons about keeping expectations in check

                  I used to agree with #1, but I definitely agree with your #2, and considering where we are in this discussion and long downward spiral, I'm having trouble believing in #1 any longer.

                  I don't see Woodson as a top hire. I just see him as a hire that placates some older IU fans, and can be spun to newer fans... with some potential there that he can take his passion for IU, and NBA experience, and a willingness to surround himself with people that should be able to help guide him, to do something with it that is good and sustainable. And if not, Fife would appear to be in line for the next hire.

                  But I'm not going to be surprised if a 65 year old college coach with his first college coaching gig, stumbles out of the gate. And whether he can correct, or keep stumbling... I don't know.

                  Or maybe he knocks it out of the park.

                  There's literally nothing to really say how he'll do in the college game until the games start. We'll all be seeing Woodson's first game as a college coach, AND IU's coach, at the same time Woodson sees it.


                  No offense BBall, but it seems you keep moving the goal posts for Woody, now we need to see if he knows how to coach basketball? Come on man I get being cautious but the dude has coached basketball for most of his adult life. The only question really was could he get guys to buy into his history and bring them into IU, so far he's been able to while also being supported by a fantastic stafff.


                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Bball View Post
                    It shouldn’t be THAT hard to make IU respectful on the court... Like I said, it’s IU basketball so I’ve learned my lessons about keeping expectations in check

                    I used to agree with #1, but I definitely agree with your #2, and considering where we are in this discussion and long downward spiral, I'm having trouble believing in #1 any longer.

                    I don't see Woodson as a top hire. I just see him as a hire that placates some older IU fans, and can be spun to newer fans... with some potential there that he can take his passion for IU, and NBA experience, and a willingness to surround himself with people that should be able to help guide him, to do something with it that is good and sustainable. And if not, Fife would appear to be in line for the next hire.

                    But I'm not going to be surprised if a 65 year old college coach with his first college coaching gig, stumbles out of the gate. And whether he can correct, or keep stumbling... I don't know.

                    Or maybe he knocks it out of the park.

                    There's literally nothing to really say how he'll do in the college game until the games start. We'll all be seeing Woodson's first game as a college coach, AND IU's coach, at the same time Woodson sees it.



                    Stevens was the only guy in the realm of possiblity who would be considred a "top hire". There just isn't some long laundry list of "top hire" type of coaches who are looking to make a move. I mean look at UNC - that's easily a top 3 overall program in the country, yet they simply promoted Hubert Davis. He has no head coaching experience. Maybe all the years spent as an assistant will translate into big successes for him. However, I think if any school (aside from UK and Duke) could snag a top hire, it would be UNC. But they didn't go that route.

                    There are too many coaches out there who are just fine in their comfortable positions and don't feel the need to jump ship to a "blue blood" with added pressure.

                    There was one guy out there in Stevens who could objectively be considered a "top hire" that we apparently offered the moon to. It wasn't enough, but all the credit in the world goes to IU for taking a stab at it. There was obviously nothing they could do to get him in the end. Outside of Stevens, there just wasn't some crop of high tier coaches that we had a chance at. So what are the options? Snag someone from a mid-major and repeat the Archie Miller era? Meh. I can see why they went the route they did. They're basically trying to form a team with Woodson and Matta. Clearly it looks like that has a great chance of working out nicely in the recruiting department. So that just leaves the in-game coaching. Well after the last four yeras, ANYTHING should be an improvement over that.....I would hope.

                    Like I said, I'm not going to get ahead of myself and start predicting multiple Big 10 titles and deep tournament runs. As an IU fan, I certainly know better than to get overly hyped. But I think they made a very very very solid hire given the circumstances AFTER their swinging for the fences simply didn't work.
                    Last edited by Sollozzo; 04-20-2021, 03:32 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post


                      Stevens was the only guy in the realm of possiblity who would be considred a "top hire". There just isn't some long laundry list of "top hire" type of coaches who are looking to make a move. I mean look at UNC - that's easily a top 3 overall program in the country, yet they simply promoted Hubert Davis. He has no head coaching experience. Maybe all the years spent as an assistant will translate into big successes for him. However, I think if any school (aside from UK and Duke) could snag a top hire, it would be UNC. But they didn't go that route.

                      There are too many coaches out there who are just fine in their comfortable positions and don't feel the need to jump ship to a "blue blood" with added pressure.

                      There was one guy out there in Stevens who could objectively be considered a "top hire" who we apparently offered the moon to. It wasn't enough, but all the credit in the world goes to IU for taking a stab at it. There was obviously nothing they could do to get him in the end. Outside of Stevens, there just wasn't some crop of high tier coaches that we had a chance at. So what are the options? Snag someone from a mid-major and repeat the Archie Miller era? Meh. I can see why they went the route they did. They're basically trying to form a team with Woodson and Matta. Clearly it looks like that has a great chance of working out nicely in the recruiting department. So that just leaves the in-game coaching. Well after the last four yeras, ANYTHING should be an improvement over that.....I would hope.

                      Like I said, I'm not going to get ahead of myself and start predicting multiple Big 10 titles and deep tournament runs. As an IU fan, I certainly know better than to get overly hyped. But I think they made a very very very solid hire given the circumstances AFTER their swinging for the fences simply didn't work.
                      To get Chris Beard or Mussleman or Nate Oats to leave their current programs, you'd basically have to offer them a contract that starts to look very similar to the one you offered Brad Stevens. Think how silly that really sounds once you sit there and think about it and don't just go "Well we gotta get a top college guy!"

                      None of those 3 have had the kind of success Brad actually had or have a connection to the state where they could have walked in and been literally basketball God, but they would have commanded similar money just because of what they were already making. Beard was already one of the 5 highest paid coaches in the entire country. Is Chris Beard worth Brad Stevens money? Hell no. Maybe to Texas he was because he's a Texas alum, but again that changes the equation some.

                      Instead we played it smart, we got Woody on a nice deal, paid Thad and still had a ton of money left over to build a killer staff. I bet Kenya Hunter got a raise and I am sure Dane Fife is probably one of the highest paid assistants in the country if not the highest paid. I sincerely doubt Hunter would have stayed or Dane Fife would have come in almost any other scenario and right now Hunter is maybe the best recruiting assistant in the country and Fife is one of the best all around assistants. You definitely don't get Matta in a Beard/Muss/Oats scenario and that feels like a major loss too.

                      This is essentially the same conundrum that IU has now presented for any blue blood that might want to approach Tom Allen in the future. He already makes $5 million a year, how much more do you have to beat that by to get him to leave IU where he's comfortable and already beloved?


                      Comment


                      • https://www.espn.com/mens-college-ba...TotjwYx3xRVc0E

                        Mike Woodson is an absolute animal.


                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post

                          No offense BBall, but it seems you keep moving the goal posts for Woody, now we need to see if he knows how to coach basketball? Come on man I get being cautious but the dude has coached basketball for most of his adult life. The only question really was could he get guys to buy into his history and bring them into IU, so far he's been able to while also being supported by a fantastic stafff.
                          I could make the same arguments for Archie Miller and his hire.

                          I'm not totally down on Woodson. The potential is there. And I like how he's surrounded himself with a solid support staff. But he's still not coached a college game or shown he can handle college athletes versus pros.
                          I'm just not over the moon with it.
                          It's like this (to me):
                          IU's bad swing and miss with Miller ruined the idea of plucking some up and comer from a mid-major after Archie's dismal failure. Had IU picked another mid-major, there would've been a lot of "that's what they said about Miller, and we saw how that worked out".
                          But you'd have to think Miller was really an outlier. Looked good on paper, but somehow missed the mark when the basketball hit the court. But now burned once, people wanted something more this time.

                          Truthfully, Mike Woodson's resume is just different, but comes with all the same unknowns as a mid-major coach. The one real difference is, he's "Mike Woodson". IU star. Bob Knight player. And he has an NBA resume.

                          Bring any other coach in with Woodson's resume, but remove the Bob Knight connection, let alone remove the IU connection, and this honeymoon and optimism would look far different.

                          Sollozzo mentioned UNC. Put Woodson at the podium accepting that job, and I bet the UNC fans wouldn't be rejoicing and professing newfound hope for UNC. They probably would look at it much like I am... Cautiously optimistic at best. Ready to be disappointed because the unknowns are there and they aren't going away until the games start and we see not only what he's doing... but what he's trying to do.

                          None of this means Woodson won't work. In fact, he could be great. But so could some other mid-major coaches that we could barely name without a cheat sheet. But Miller was the bad apple that spoiled the barrel.
                          In fact, it might be worth the gamble just because it buys IU and Woodson a honeymoon that nobody else with his resume, or a similarly thin major college coaching resume, could get. And if he does have good ideas, listens to the right voices, we might end up wondering why he was overlooked for the last 20 years in the first place.
                          Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                          ------

                          "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                          -John Wooden

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Bball View Post

                            I could make the same arguments for Archie Miller and his hire.

                            I'm not totally down on Woodson. The potential is there. And I like how he's surrounded himself with a solid support staff. But he's still not coached a college game or shown he can handle college athletes versus pros.
                            I'm just not over the moon with it.
                            It's like this (to me):
                            IU's bad swing and miss with Miller ruined the idea of plucking some up and comer from a mid-major after Archie's dismal failure. Had IU picked another mid-major, there would've been a lot of "that's what they said about Miller, and we saw how that worked out".
                            But you'd have to think Miller was really an outlier. Looked good on paper, but somehow missed the mark when the basketball hit the court. But now burned once, people wanted something more this time.

                            Truthfully, Mike Woodson's resume is just different, but comes with all the same unknowns as a mid-major coach. The one real difference is, he's "Mike Woodson". IU star. Bob Knight player. And he has an NBA resume.

                            Bring any other coach in with Woodson's resume, but remove the Bob Knight connection, let alone remove the IU connection, and this honeymoon and optimism would look far different.

                            Sollozzo mentioned UNC. Put Woodson at the podium accepting that job, and I bet the UNC fans wouldn't be rejoicing and professing newfound hope for UNC. They probably would look at it much like I am... Cautiously optimistic at best. Ready to be disappointed because the unknowns are there and they aren't going away until the games start and we see not only what he's doing... but what he's trying to do.

                            None of this means Woodson won't work. In fact, he could be great. But so could some other mid-major coaches that we could barely name without a cheat sheet. But Miller was the bad apple that spoiled the barrel.
                            In fact, it might be worth the gamble just because it buys IU and Woodson a honeymoon that nobody else with his resume, or a similarly thin major college coaching resume, could get. And if he does have good ideas, listens to the right voices, we might end up wondering why he was overlooked for the last 20 years in the first place.
                            I mean I think you're just saying hiring a college coach is somewhat of an inexact science which I agree with, but I think when it comes to Woodson he has continued to answer each question we have.

                            I don't think it's like Archie at all where most people just assumed he'd do great because he was young, had a basketball background and won at Dayton, but the thing is not every mid major is created equal. Dayton is a program that for the most part everyone seems to be able to make competitive.

                            From a just coaching basketball standpoint. Woodson's resume and history is far more impressive than Archie.

                            I also think you're overrating Woodson's IU connection for how the fans feel. I think it's much more important in terms of what we've seen with like bringing Fife home.

                            I honestly have no idea how UNC fans feel about Hubert Davis, but it's not a lie to say that Woodson has a better resume than him as well IMO.


                            Comment


                            • Wow... Tom Crean getting some love in Georgia... Oh wait... I mean NOT getting some love in GA. Sounds like they have soured on him faster than Indiana fans (and players and potential players) did. But GA didn't have the built in excuse for a few years for the program to really be 'down' like IU did under Crean. More was expected of him quicker.
                              Tom Crean has an uncanny ability to do less with more...
                              https://ugawire.usatoday.com/2021/04...MdKuoINXx_7lik
                              Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                              ------

                              "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                              -John Wooden

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Bball View Post
                                Wow... Tom Crean getting some love in Georgia... Oh wait... I mean NOT getting some love in GA. Sounds like they have soured on him faster than Indiana fans (and players and potential players) did. But GA didn't have the built in excuse for a few years for the program to really be 'down' like IU did under Crean. More was expected of him quicker.
                                Tom Crean has an uncanny ability to do less with more...
                                https://ugawire.usatoday.com/2021/04...MdKuoINXx_7lik
                                I don't know what Georgia fans expect though either to be honest.


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X