indiana used to be a go to basketball place for recruits. Is that era over or just the Big10 is just a super conference this year
Indiana basketball has been largely irrelevant for the past 30+ years. The only people who don't realize this are delusional Indiana fans. They have been the 4th best program in their own state for the better part of this century.indiana used to be a go to basketball place for recruits. Is that era over or just the Big10 is just a super conference this year
Indiana basketball has been largely irrelevant for the past 30+ years. The only people who don't realize this are delusional Indiana fans. They have been the 4th best program in their own state for the better part of this century.
As the way it stands they no longer are a Blue Blood but more of the next group. There was a time where for over 30 years the Final 4 always included at minimum one of UCLA, Kentucky, Kansas, North Carolina, Indiana, and Duke. You can remove Indiana from that equation in the last 15 years and add Michigan State. They no longer are even the most high profile Big Ten team (MSU) or arguably perhaps could be left out of the top 3 (Michigan, OSU, Wisconsin have better recent success and one could argue are better programs).That's a little harsh. They played in the national championship game in 2002 and in the Sweet 16 in 2012, 2013 and 2016. They need to settle on the right coach and I think they can consistently be a tournament team with a deep run every few years. They will likely never dominate the conference again unless they find their own Beilein or Izzo.
Archie Miller is a good coach. He took a mediocre Dayton program to the tournament a few times. He should have recruiting success at Indiana and be a perennial tournament team. They should be mid to high level Big Ten over time. Much like NU. We are on similar trajectories, though it is easier to recruit at Indiana. Our recruiting should pick up the next few years. Collins, et al, are doing a good job, though the fruits may not really show for a couple more years. Glad to have the new arena and Allstate behind us! We are getting looks from some very talented recruits. We will start closing our share of good recruits and it will show in the win column. We are getting there. We just had a pause.
indiana used to be a go to basketball place for recruits. Is that era over or just the Big10 is just a super conference this year
Conference much harder to dominate now than it wasThat's a little harsh. They played in the national championship game in 2002 and in the Sweet 16 in 2012, 2013 and 2016. They need to settle on the right coach and I think they can consistently be a tournament team with a deep run every few years. They will likely never dominate the conference again unless they find their own Beilein or Izzo.
they have a 5 star center coming in and in the running for multiple other 5-star kids. as miller gets his program going they will get top level kids again
If you think Blue Blood it is more the coach than the program. Program will get you good. Coach will get you Blue Blood great. Coach K has been been at Duke and while they were good before he got there, he got them to great. Others include MSU and now Mich. Gonzaga, Kansas and I am not sure who else (I am sure there are a couple I am forgetting) . Just saying while they can be a pretty good program regardless of coach, it takes that coach to be a Blue Blood and when they go, there will likely be a drop off and they will leave the Blue Blood (great ) program ranks and other new top coaches will put other programs and put them in their place. Think UCLAAs the way it stands they no longer are a Blue Blood but more of the next group. There was a time where for over 30 years the Final 4 always included at minimum one of UCLA, Kentucky, Kansas, North Carolina, Indiana, and Duke. You can remove Indiana from that equation in the last 15 years and add Michigan State. They no longer are even the most high profile Big Ten team (MSU) or arguably perhaps could be left out of the top 3 (Michigan, OSU, Wisconsin have better recent success and one could argue are better programs).
They don't seem to be that destination school anymore and when you think of their heyday they were a Bob Knight program team and not a bunch of future NBA lottery picks. They need to decide what they want to be - a stop on the way to the NBA or a program that grows with 3 to 4 year players. Until they figure that out they will be up and down. A side note I think Archie Miller although a good coach just seems not to be the best fit for that school and state.
If you think Blue Blood it is more the coach than the program. Program will get you good. Coach will get you Blue Blood great. Coach K has been been at Duke and while they were good before he got there, he got them to great. Others include MSU and now Mich. Gonzaga, Kansas and I am not sure who else (I am sure there are a couple I am forgetting) . Just saying while they can be a pretty good program regardless of coach, it takes that coach to be a Blue Blood and when they go, there will likely be a drop off and they will leave the Blue Blood (great ) program ranks and other new top coaches will put other programs and put them in their place. Think UCLA
Sorry but I put that mainly in the coaches box. Each of the ones you mentioned, coaches demonstrated that they were pretty good before they went to"Blue Blood" program. As you say,UCLA was considered Blue Blood program but would you consider it as such now? At this point, is Kansas successful because it is Kansas of because it is Kansas with Self? I would put it as the later. Again, they have the resources to get the best but if they miss, which many have while they remain good, greatness slips away. For a while OSU was there and then they slipped. Florida was there and coach left for the pros. Just saying that I think that top coaches are more important. That while the top programs can remain good because of institutional support etc, the top coaches are what puts them over the top. Caretaker can sustain things for a couple years but after that the coach better deliverWhile I agree with you that the coach is intregral there are some programs that recruit themselves and the coach really becomes a caretaker and those who dont keep it elite are shown the door rather quickly:
Kansas: Won with Larry Brown, won with Roy Williams, winning with Self. Kentucky: Won with Rupp, won with Hall, won with Pitino, won then slipped with Tubby Smith, winning with Calipari. N. Carolina: won before Dean Smith, won with Dean Smith, won with Gurthidge for the few years he was the head coach, winning with Roy Williams.
UCLA has been to multiple Final Fours since John Wooden but the patience is not there with the expectations. Duke has been all Coach K taking them to new heights. And Duke is not the Duke of his early years either, will be interesting to see if they maintain their level when he is no longer in charge.
None of those coaches built those programs. You put a good coach into that situation they will succeed. The Kansas brand gets Self into the door with the top players. He is a top coach but there is no evidence he is having that kind of sustained success elsewhere. Ben Howland won like crazy at UCLA but didnt win it all so they launched him and he is a great coach but he is in a tough spot now,Sorry but I put that mainly in the coaches box. Each of the ones you mentioned, coaches demonstrated that they were pretty good before they went to"Blue Blood" program. As you say,UCLA was considered Blue Blood program but would you consider it as such now? At this point, is Kansas successful because it is Kansas of because it is Kansas with Self? I would put it as the later. Again, they have the resources to get the best but if they miss, which many have while they remain good, greatness slips away. For a while OSU was there and then they slipped. Florida was there and coach left for the pros. Just saying that I think that top coaches are more important. That while the top programs can remain good because of institutional support etc, the top coaches are what puts them over the top. Caretaker can sustain things for a couple years but after that the coach better deliver
Bill Self coached both Tulsa and Illinois to the Elite 8 in back to back seasons. Illinois finished 1st in the conference in two of his 3 years there and second in the other. He recruited most of the guys that led Illinois to the championship game under Weber two years after he left (when they went 37-2). He's a really good coach. There's a reason Kansas jumped on him when Williams left for North Carolina. You put Self at Indiana after Knight left instead of Mike Davis, Kelvin Sampson, Dan Dakich and Tom Crean, and I am guessing IU is up there with Wisconsin, Michigan State and Michigan.None of those coaches built those programs. You put a good coach into that situation they will succeed. The Kansas brand gets Self into the door with the top players. He is a top coach but there is no evidence he is having that kind of sustained success elsewhere. Ben Howland won like crazy at UCLA but didnt win it all so they launched him and he is a great coach but he is in a tough spot now,