Exile on Waveland

I want to change my arrogant/delusional fan base vote. I don't agree that my post was arrogant or delusional. If it is, I didn't mean it to be. This may be in part because I didn't do a good job expressing myself and you are misconstruing it. Most programs probably care about class and ethics. Playing the right way? Maybe I should've typed "what Indiana people consider the right way." Perhaps that's arrogance on our part that their is a "right way" or "Indiana way." I'd be willing to bet you won't find a program that cares more about recruiting its in-state players. In this, Indiana fans are arrogant: we like our state's players the best. I don't mean to say Indiana is a better job than most. It is a different animal, however. Coach Knight made it so. Indiana fans expect more than just winning; perhaps that's delusional. I wasn't commenting on it, just stating it. All jobs aren't the same. That's why Illinois fans have been saying Scott Skiles would be perfect for IU. Edit: Nevermind the fact that I wasn't the one to bring this up. I was simply commenting on Derwood's "sociology of Indiana basketball." There's a lot of truth to that.

no, but to say that graduating players is more important than winning is usually a rationalization for having a mediocre but clean program Just as "winning is all that matters; everyone cheats"* is a rationalization for having a great but dirty program. *At some level, everyone does cheat. There are so many rules that violations unwittingly happen all the time. I mean knowingly violation bright-line rules.

you'd trade graduating kids every year for a run of Final Four's. A lot of Indiana fans wouldn't. If I had a choice of a program who had 2 national championships, 2 other final 4 appearances, and in the tournament every time in a 10 year period but was run like Cincinnati was run in the 90's, or if I could have a program with 0 titles, 1 Final 4, and 8 tournament appearances in 10 years with a clean program, I'd very gladly take the latter. I wouldn't hesitate. You could decrease the numbers of the latter scenario and I still wouldn't hesitate. I wouldn't get much, if any, joy from rooting for a team like that.

Completely agree. They were already behind the Suns, Spurs and Lakers in terms of championship contenders before the deal and they still are after the deal. I can't blame the Mavs for going all-in. They're certainly close to the Finals. But I'd still take the three teams you listed before them (assuming somewhat healthy Shaq) and I really like Devin Harris. This is a gamble.

Disagree. IU fans can be happy.* The coach does have to do things the right way, even the Indiana way. It's a different job than other top positions -- here, we care very deeply about class, ethics, playing the right way and recruiting our state. The position requires intangibles that others don't, but that doesn't mean it can't be filled correctly. As a fan, we've been hamstrung by a coach that couldn't do any of that (Davis) and a coach that sure isn't ethical (Sampson). Both those coaches were generally accepted early, but both squandered that support. *Sure, there are some that will never get over Coach Knight. I'll never get over his dismissal; however, I have moved on and desire to even more with the right coach. I think most are in this boat. i think people SAY they want things done the right way, but if a Sampson-esque coach won them a NC, they'd look the other way Sure, some would. First, he was hired. Second, his name was chanted, albeit faintly, after the Michigan State win. So our fanbase isn't immune to the win-at-all-costs mentality. But it's nowhere near as prevalent here as other places. The majority of our fans care very deeply about doing things the right way. Sampson's been booed and reviled in town recently -- for phone calls. He's going to be dismissed for phone calls. That should be a pretty good indication. (And, yes, I understand his dismissal also includes some bureaucratical self-preservation by the administration.)

Disagree. IU fans can be happy.* The coach does have to do things the right way, even the Indiana way. It's a different job than other top positions -- here, we care very deeply about class, ethics, playing the right way and recruiting our state. The position requires intangibles that others don't, but that doesn't mean it can't be filled correctly. As a fan, we've been hamstrung by a coach that couldn't do any of that (Davis) and a coach that sure isn't ethical (Sampson). Both those coaches were generally accepted early, but both squandered that support. *Sure, there are some that will never get over Coach Knight. I'll never get over his dismissal; however, I have moved on and desire to even more with the right coach. I think most are in this boat.

He only averaged 16 wins per season in his final 3 years, that is what did him in. Including a two year stretch of 29-29 where IU missed the NCAA tourney for the first time since 1985. Those mediocre seasons combined with sticking his foot in his mouth at every available opportunity was the main thing. Yes, I know. I was just pointing out that he nearly did average 20 wins a year during his tenure. His last three and a half years of 13-13, 14-15, 15-14 and 19-12 were unacceptable, of course. It wasn't simply wins that cost Davis his job. Davis got stuck w/ being the guy replacing Knight and, therefore, "not being Knight." However, he could have eased this problem by paying attention to Indiana basketball as a whole. He pissed off high school coaches and consistently looked outside the state to recruit. Consequently he distanced himself from the concept of Indiana basketball as a social phenomenon of the state and that only made the public see differences between him and someone who "gets" Indiana basketball that much more rigid. The moment his teams started turning in poor performances on the court created the slippery slope that his way was never going to take IU basketball anywhere in the eyes of its fans. Given the disciplinary issues surrounding IU, you plug in Skiles who is accurately seen as a taskmaster and someone who instills hustle and fundamentals. Furthermore, you connect his status as a local boy that people in basketball circles still recognize as one of their own (he got his number retired last year, I believe, at Plymouth). The household name effect gives him access to high school coaches and their players. Add any benefit of his ties to the NBA and how he can construct an argument to a recruit that he knows what it takes to succeed on the next level, then you have a hell of a coaching prospect in my mind. This post is basically perfect. I didn't feel like getting into Davis's issues again, as it leads me to violent thoughts. You did it immaculately. I also agree regarding Skiles. Thanks. I was a junior there when Knight was fired, and you could feel the tension - both sides - surrounding Davis as a long-term replacement for all the reasons I listed. I actually saw Skiles grocery shopping at the place near University Commons. Not sure he's open to coaching on collegiate level, but considering the situation any one would have to consider the possibility. I was a (sophomore)*. I hated the Davis hiring; still do. Skiles was living in Bloomington when Coach Knight was fired, not sure about now. I don't know if he would be interested but he should be. *I might be the dumbest third-year law student in the country. I was a junior, not a sophomore when Coach Knight was fired. I can remember the exact date (September 10, 200) but not what class I was? I guess I was just thinking I had two years of Coach Knight and two years of Davis as a student and two=sophomore. Whatever, moronic.

That's just crazy. You should've given up much sooner. I don't have much faith in IU's administration and fear they'll botch the next hire (assuming they actually do dismiss Sampson). But IU obviously could do much better than Dakich. I like Dakich, but c'mon.

He only averaged 16 wins per season in his final 3 years, that is what did him in. Including a two year stretch of 29-29 where IU missed the NCAA tourney for the first time since 1985. Those mediocre seasons combined with sticking his foot in his mouth at every available opportunity was the main thing. Yes, I know. I was just pointing out that he nearly did average 20 wins a year during his tenure. His last three and a half years of 13-13, 14-15, 15-14 and 19-12 were unacceptable, of course. It wasn't simply wins that cost Davis his job. Davis got stuck w/ being the guy replacing Knight and, therefore, "not being Knight." However, he could have eased this problem by paying attention to Indiana basketball as a whole. He pissed off high school coaches and consistently looked outside the state to recruit. Consequently he distanced himself from the concept of Indiana basketball as a social phenomenon of the state and that only made the public see differences between him and someone who "gets" Indiana basketball that much more rigid. The moment his teams started turning in poor performances on the court created the slippery slope that his way was never going to take IU basketball anywhere in the eyes of its fans. Given the disciplinary issues surrounding IU, you plug in Skiles who is accurately seen as a taskmaster and someone who instills hustle and fundamentals. Furthermore, you connect his status as a local boy that people in basketball circles still recognize as one of their own (he got his number retired last year, I believe, at Plymouth). The household name effect gives him access to high school coaches and their players. Add any benefit of his ties to the NBA and how he can construct an argument to a recruit that he knows what it takes to succeed on the next level, then you have a hell of a coaching prospect in my mind. This post is basically perfect. I didn't feel like getting into Davis's issues again, as it leads me to violent thoughts. You did it immaculately. I also agree regarding Skiles.

You have every right to dislike Alford; if I were you, I would too. However, I think Iowa fans would come to dislike him even more if he got the IU job. Methinks Alford would be very successful at Indiana.

I don't agree with that. Redasses can still recruit top players; especially former NBA redass coaches. Some would immediately rule out a Skiles-coached team, others wouldn't. However, even if you're right, I don't much care. IU can win without one-year, five-star players. Recruit the four-star guys from Indiana and I'll be quite happy. I doubt Skiles happens though.

Skiles hasn't been successful? I don't agree with that at all. In Phoenix he went 40-22, 51-31 then 25-26. They were 27-23 the year before he was hired and 13-7 when he was hired. After he was fired they went 11-20, 44-38 and 29-53. Chicago had been awful for five and a half years before he got there. He went 19-47, then 47-35, 41-41 and 49-33 before this year's poor 9-16 start that got him fired. Both coaching stops he promptly improved the team, and in Phoenix the team dipped after he left (before, of course, the Steve Nash signing). Chicago is 12-15 by my count post-Skiles. It seems he wears out his welcome quickly. That, however, is not surprising for any NBA coach, much less a hard-nose like Skiles. It's also less of a concern in college, where players are only there for a few years and they're not millionaires. Exactly. Skiles biggest downfall in the NBA is that NBA stars dont like his hard ass style. His teams have alwasy been known for busting their ass, and playing great defense. That style will work with college age kids, but NBA egomaniac prima donas dont like it. I know as a Illini fan, i really hope this isnt true, because I dont look forward to having to play a Skiles team who busts their ass, and plays great d. Hard-ass is the best way to describe him. I used hard-nosed because I wasn't sure about using "ass" on the board. Skiles is so perfect for IU (thought so two years ago), I can only hope the administration isn't too myopic. Don't worry though, they will be. Skiles being a hard-ass is good for the program or good for IU fans? big difference. Agree it's a big difference, but I think the answer to your question is both. Davis's tenure was mired by lack of discipline on the court; while Sampson's tenure has been mired by lack of discipline off the court. We have no idea if Skiles would be a stickler for rules, though I think he would be. Discipline, and hard-assness, is needed for this program on and off the court.

Skiles hasn't been successful? I don't agree with that at all. In Phoenix he went 40-22, 51-31 then 25-26. They were 27-23 the year before he was hired and 13-7 when he was hired. After he was fired they went 11-20, 44-38 and 29-53. Chicago had been awful for five and a half years before he got there. He went 19-47, then 47-35, 41-41 and 49-33 before this year's poor 9-16 start that got him fired. Both coaching stops he promptly improved the team, and in Phoenix the team dipped after he left (before, of course, the Steve Nash signing). Chicago is 12-15 by my count post-Skiles. It seems he wears out his welcome quickly. That, however, is not surprising for any NBA coach, much less a hard-nose like Skiles. It's also less of a concern in college, where players are only there for a few years and they're not millionaires. Exactly. Skiles biggest downfall in the NBA is that NBA stars dont like his hard ass style. His teams have alwasy been known for busting their ass, and playing great defense. That style will work with college age kids, but NBA egomaniac prima donas dont like it. I know as a Illini fan, i really hope this isnt true, because I dont look forward to having to play a Skiles team who busts their ass, and plays great d. Hard-ass is the best way to describe him. I used hard-nosed because I wasn't sure about using "ass" on the board. Skiles is so perfect for IU (thought so two years ago), I can only hope the administration isn't too myopic. Don't worry though, they will be.

Thats not true at all. He took over a pathetic Bulls team and helped lead them to a playoff series win last year. Skiles will be a great hire for IU Skiles is perfect for college, by the time he wears thin on his players they will be ready to graduate. That has always been his problem. He does well for awhile, then his players get sick of his in your face style. College will eliminate a lot of that. but can he recruit? that's not given, regardless of his ties to Indiana I would think the combination of IU and the fact he coached in the NBA(like Cal at Memphis) would be enough to recruit. It is perhaps a gamble, but, for the reasons you gave, a good gamble in my estimation. IU is a pretty easy place to recruit for basketball, much less when being led by an Indiana-born coach with NBA head coaching experience. Honestly, recruiting is down the list of things I'd look for in IU's next coach.

Skiles hasn't been successful? I don't agree with that at all. In Phoenix he went 40-22, 51-31 then 25-26. They were 27-23 the year before he was hired and 13-7 when he was hired. After he was fired they went 11-20, 44-38 and 29-53. Chicago had been awful for five and a half years before he got there. He went 19-47, then 47-35, 41-41 and 49-33 before this year's poor 9-16 start that got him fired. Both coaching stops he promptly improved the team, and in Phoenix the team dipped after he left (before, of course, the Steve Nash signing). Chicago is 12-15 by my count post-Skiles. It seems he wears out his welcome quickly. That, however, is not surprising for any NBA coach, much less a hard-nose like Skiles. It's also less of a concern in college, where players are only there for a few years and they're not millionaires.

He only averaged 16 wins per season in his final 3 years, that is what did him in. Including a two year stretch of 29-29 where IU missed the NCAA tourney for the first time since 1985. Those mediocre seasons combined with sticking his foot in his mouth at every available opportunity was the main thing. Yes, I know. I was just pointing out that he nearly did average 20 wins a year during his tenure. His last three and a half years of 13-13, 14-15, 15-14 and 19-12 were unacceptable, of course. It wasn't simply wins that cost Davis his job.

I always thought he'd make for a good college coach as well, but he's going to be immediately thrown in the fire if this is true. Not quite sure if this guy is going to be ready to do that. Well, having never recruited, IU's compliance department would again be called on to do its job. Hopefully better this time. But I can pretty much assure you that Skiles doesn't give two craps about the fire. That's why he's perfect.

that is all sorts of awesome. Skiles? SCOTT SKILES? Skiles would be a great hire. due to what? He's a very good X & O guy. He's got deep ties to the Midwest. He's coming off a successful stint for one of the NBA's marquee jobs. He's from Indiana and won a state championship. His NBA pedigree would get him respect among recruits, his Indiana background would get him respect among HS coaches. He lives/lived in Bloomington. As a hard-nosed, disciplinarian, Skiles was meant to coach college. I seriously doubt this happens as it would require creativity and foresight, both of which IU's administration has lacked. i think "hard-nosed, coaches the right way" is as overrated in college coaches as it is in short stops, but that's just me Well, you can certainly be successful many different ways. However, it is much harder to be successful in the NBA with that style; that was my point. Regardless, IU's fan base has been begging for a "hard-nosed, coaches the right way" leader for eight years. i think IU fans just want a winner. if Mike Davis had won 20 games a year he'd still be there Davis averaged over 19 wins a year. He was still disliked by a gross majority of the fan base, and one more win a year wouldn't have changed that. Winning is but one fact, especially for Indiana fans after 29 years of Coach Knight. Sampson is winning but most want him gone. Davis's problems ran much deeper than wins-losses (though he had issues there, too).

Exactly. Scott Skiles is absolutely perfect for Bloomington and the IU job. I wanted him two years ago (I know he was employed, but he's a college coach waiting to get out).

that is all sorts of awesome. Skiles? SCOTT SKILES? Skiles would be a great hire. due to what? He's a very good X & O guy. He's got deep ties to the Midwest. He's coming off a successful stint for one of the NBA's marquee jobs. He's from Indiana and won a state championship. His NBA pedigree would get him respect among recruits, his Indiana background would get him respect among HS coaches. He lives/lived in Bloomington. As a hard-nosed, disciplinarian, Skiles was meant to coach college. I seriously doubt this happens as it would require creativity and foresight, both of which IU's administration has lacked. i think "hard-nosed, coaches the right way" is as overrated in college coaches as it is in short stops, but that's just me Well, you can certainly be successful many different ways. However, it is much harder to be successful in the NBA with that style; that was my point. Regardless, IU's fan base has been begging for a "hard-nosed, coaches the right way" leader for eight years.

that is all sorts of awesome. Skiles? SCOTT SKILES? Skiles would be a great hire. due to what? He's a very good X & O guy. He's got deep ties to the Midwest. He's coming off a successful stint for one of the NBA's marquee jobs. He's from Indiana and won a state championship. His NBA pedigree would get him respect among recruits, his Indiana background would get him respect among HS coaches. He lives/lived in Bloomington. As a hard-nosed, disciplinarian, Skiles was meant to coach college. I seriously doubt this happens as it would require creativity and foresight, both of which IU's administration has lacked.

that is all sorts of awesome. Skiles? SCOTT SKILES? Skiles would be a great hire.

I said that a long time ago, it's in this thread. I probably prefer Bayless to Mayo. Plus Love, Harden, Hummel, etc. Wonderful freshman class.

why does one or the other have to be better? they're different players. ? They both are point guards that can also score. if you don't recognize that they're different players, you haven't see one or the other of them play. Why don't you come down and break down the differences between the two players for us, because obviously I don't watch basketball. i didn't say you didn't watch basketball, just that you haven't seen one or the other of them play and you tend to make assumptions based on anecdotal evidence and highlights from the booyaa network. you definitely possibly could maybe watch some basketball, but your assessments are mainly uptight bedwetting garbage--as evidenced by your most recent temper tantrum over a fairly beign observation and statement that i had made--. Actually garbage would be your hyperbolic post earlier(Ali vs. a Diet Coke). While their styles of play may differ a bit, you can most certainly make comparisons between the two players as their value as an NBA point guard. He was talking about baseball v. basketball, not Williams v. Paul. thank you, and it was more of a joke to illustrate a point than anything. maybe poorly worded, but that's not my fault, i ripped it off of the simpsons. Well, it made me chuckle. For what that's worth.

why does one or the other have to be better? they're different players. ? They both are point guards that can also score. if you don't recognize that they're different players, you haven't see one or the other of them play. Why don't you come down and break down the differences between the two players for us, because obviously I don't watch basketball. i didn't say you didn't watch basketball, just that you haven't seen one or the other of them play and you tend to make assumptions based on anecdotal evidence and highlights from the booyaa network. you definitely possibly could maybe watch some basketball, but your assessments are mainly uptight bedwetting garbage--as evidenced by your most recent temper tantrum over a fairly beign observation and statement that i had made--. Actually garbage would be your hyperbolic post earlier(Ali vs. a Diet Coke). While their styles of play may differ a bit, you can most certainly make comparisons between the two players as their value as an NBA point guard. He was talking about baseball v. basketball, not Williams v. Paul.