At first......Sure. I'd bet Cal "sips" that fine Kentucky bourbon a bit more frequently now, opposed to year one.Can the job be done sober?
At first......Sure. I'd bet Cal "sips" that fine Kentucky bourbon a bit more frequently now, opposed to year one.Can the job be done sober?
I get what your thinking, no offense. Using your logic, why isn't UCLA on your top 5 list?It has noting to do with winning/losing. That's just a small part of it. A part that blinds to many people. UK was awful under BCG. Did those two years make UK a bad job? Sutton was a meh, to a somewhat bad hire. So duiring thoe 6 years of meh, make UK a bad job? UNC was awful under Matt. Did that make it a bad job?
There's not any job that offers what IU cannot offer. Its just finding the right coach who can take advantage of those amenities offer. Unfortunately, IU has sucked at doing so.
For the record. Roy Willaims couldn't win a championship at KU and he's won 3 at UNC. Blue blood schools are on different levels.Not defensive. I just think your take is stupid. Several schools to me is much more than UK, Duke, KU or UNC. Not to mention, those jobs not offering a coach anything that IU cannot. For some reason, you are having a hard time understanding this. You act as if Bill Self couldn't win at IU, like he has at Kansas. That is just stupid. Only thing Self couldn't do is win 404 straight conference titles at Indiana. You are suggesting that coaches like Self, Roy, Cal or K, couldn't have the same success at Indiana, as hey have enjoyed at their respective schools. That's just silly, man. Its all about hiring the right guy. IU has failed miserably at this. For years, Indiana had an administration that to be quite blunt, was tired of seeing the basketball program overshadowed the University. The right hire wasn't important. Then they saw the light...But it was too late. So they panicked, and hired Sampson. A great coach. But an atrocious hire. A hire that set the program back another 10 years.
Had IU gotten this right after Knight, this wouldn't even be a topic.
By far, the most stressful job. Not even close.Hard to tell in Lexington. I'm sure Rupp, Hall, Pitino, Smith and Calipari all had their chances.
Because I don't think they offer what UNC, IU, UK, Duke or KU offers. Exposure, fan base, facilities(have you seen Pauley??), money, and to an extent, tradition. As I said, you can't just put all your eggs in one basket, i.e. winning/losing, when defining the prestige of a job. To do so is silly. It would be like me saying that UCLA is the best job because they have 11 titles. Silly, huh?I get what your thinking, no offense. Using your logic, why isn't UCLA on your top 5 list?
Meh, not really. Roy not winning a title at KU isn't b/c UNC was a better situation. Winning a title is hard. It takes some luck. ROy had some damn good teams at KU. Those teams didn't win a title for many of reasons. UNC being a better job was not one of them.For the record. Roy Willaims couldn't win a championship at KU and he's won 3 at UNC. Blue blood schools are on different levels.
I was just giving KU fans shit.Meh, not really. Roy not winning a title at KU isn't b/c UNC was a better situation. Winning a title is hard. It takes some luck. ROy had some damn good teams at KU. Those teams didn't win a title for many of reasons. UNC being a better job was not one of them.
I haven’t suggested anything about Roy, Self, Cal or K.Not defensive. I just think your take is stupid. Several schools to me is much more than UK, Duke, KU or UNC. Not to mention, those jobs not offering a coach anything that IU cannot. For some reason, you are having a hard time understanding this. You act as if Bill Self couldn't win at IU, like he has at Kansas. That is just stupid. Only thing Self couldn't do is win 404 straight conference titles at Indiana. You are suggesting that coaches like Self, Roy, Cal or K, couldn't have the same success at Indiana, as hey have enjoyed at their respective schools. That's just silly, man. Its all about hiring the right guy. IU has failed miserably at this. For years, Indiana had an administration that to be quite blunt, was tired of seeing the basketball program overshadowed the University. The right hire wasn't important. Then they saw the light...But it was too late. So they panicked, and hired Sampson. A great coach. But an atrocious hire. A hire that set the program back another 10 years.
Had IU gotten this right after Knight, this wouldn't even be a topic.
The IU job has definitely lost it's luster. It will take a huge undertaking and many hours of work just to get them back to respectable in the Big 1o.I haven’t suggested anything about Roy, Self, Cal or K.
I’m just saying the Indiana job is a tier below the places they are now.
I just disagree. A ton.The IU job has definitely lost it's luster. It will take a huge undertaking and many hours of work just to get them back to respectable in the Big 1o.
It's great you have a young energetic coach that's willing to do the work. I'm rooting for the younger brother to surpass the older brother. Last thing IU wants is to have Arizona success.I just disagree. A ton.
Fan base? Money? Conference? TV exposure? Facilities? Recruiting grounds?
It's silly if you think UCLA doesn't offer the same as IU.Facilities? Recruiting abilities? Fan support? Tradition?
Is it silly if I don't think UCLA offers the same as IU. It's not close.It's silly if you think UCLA doesn't offer the same as IU.
Agreed on the job losing its appeal. Not sure why that’s so difficult for Borden to comprehend. Miller has the potential to move them back up into the top tier but it’s gonna take a few years assuming all goes well.The IU job has definitely lost it's luster. It will take a huge undertaking and many hours of work just to get them back to respectable in the Big 1o.
Not every coach can put a blue blood back on the map like Calipari and his recruiting.Agreed on the job losing its appeal. Not sure why that’s so difficult for Borden to comprehend. Miller has the potential to move them back up into the top tier but it’s gonna take a few years assuming all goes well.
What does UCLA offer? They were basically a decade program. Noting before Wooden. Nothing really after Wooden. They have no following. Their facilities are outdated. All their games are on at midnight for most of the country.. TV exposure is limitrd outside of the one game they play in the Champions Classic.Is it silly if I don't think UCLA offers the same as IU. It's not close.
I know trolling when I see it. You are trolling.Is it silly if I don't think UCLA offers the same as IU. It's not close.
I've answered this. No, its not silly. UCLA doesn;t offer not only what IU can...But nor can it offer what UK, UNC, Duke or KU can.It's silly if you think UCLA doesn't offer the same as IU.
I turned on my Troll meter, it's going crazy . LolWhat does UCLA offer? They were basically a decade program. Noting before Wooden. Nothing really after Wooden. They have no following. Their facilities are outdated. All their games are on at midnight for most of the country.. TV exposure is limitrd outside of the one game they play in the Champions Classic.
Only thing UCLA really offers that is better is sunshine. A lot of it.
ANd Lexington isn't LA. Do you think UCLA compares to UK? Or UNC? Or Duke? Or Kansas? I don't.I know trolling when I see it. You are trolling.
Last comment, compare IU vs UCLA in NCAA tournament. Having a new shiny weight room doesn't make you a top 5 program. Bloomington isnt LA. If wins, NCAA tournament success doesn't equate to top 5 status, seek help
OK guy. You know trolling when you see it.I know trolling when I see it. You are trolling.
Last comment, compare IU vs UCLA in NCAA tournament. Having a new shiny weight room doesn't make you a top 5 program. Bloomington isnt LA. If wins, NCAA tournament success doesn't equate to top 5 status, seek help
No I don't, but they are above IU. UCLA made noise in the 2000s....2006.2007.2008. IU hasn't been seen since Fresh Prince of Bel Air was on TVANd Lexington isn't LA. Do you think UCLA compares to UK? Or UNC? Or Duke? Or Kansas? I don't.
How would you rate UConn vs IU?No I don't, but they are above IU. UCLA made noise in the 2000s....2006.2007.2008. IU hasn't been seen since Fresh Prince of Bel Air was on TV
Not Close. IU. Nor is Villanova close. I know where you are going, try harder Lurker.How would you rate UConn vs IU?
You think I'm trolling?I turned on my Troll meter, it's going crazy . Lol
Not close. Again. you are doing what Schooner is...Using recent success as THE barometer. If you wanna do that---Then UConn's a better job than UK; 4 titles since 1999. Uk has one.How would you rate UConn vs IU?
Fresh Prince aired in 2002? That's when IU last plated for a title.No I don't, but they are above IU. UCLA made noise in the 2000s....2006.2007.2008. IU hasn't been seen since Fresh Prince of Bel Air was on TV
You think UCLA is above IU when it comes to job status? Really? I don't think UCLA is close to UK, UNC, Duke, KU or IU.No I don't, but they are above IU. UCLA made noise in the 2000s....2006.2007.2008. IU hasn't been seen since Fresh Prince of Bel Air was on TV
Well maybe I'm giving you too much credit for your basketball knowledge.You think I'm trolling?
I was actually trying to poke holes in the notation of johnny come latelies are some how better than long history of success.Not close. Again. you are doing what Schooner is...Using recent success as THE barometer. If you wanna do that---Then UConn's a better job than UK; 4 titles since 1999. Uk has one.
Tubby left Kentucky for Minnesota.
Didn't ruffle my feathers. I can handle someone not agreeing with me. Hell I officiate basketball.......I'm used to that.Well maybe I'm giving you too much credit for your basketball knowledge.
I'm done hijacking a thread over something completely off topic, make a IU thread, I'll join later. I didn't mean to ruffle your feathers
Gotcha brother. Even if I did go back to '96...You still trail UConn.WinkingI was actually trying to poke holes in the notation of johnny come latelies are some how better than long history of success.
...and you could have least went back to '96.
True, but at least we don't trial Maryland since then.Gotcha brother. Even if I did go back to '96...You still trail UConn.Winking
You know,.....When IU took the lead in that game, with 9 minutes to go, I thought we were gonna win. I really did. Then Dixon comes down and drains a 25-footer, and that was that. That was a really good MD team.True, but at least we don't trial Maryland since then.
Couldn't the same be said of IU and Bobby Knight?What does UCLA offer? They were basically a decade program. Noting before Wooden. Nothing really after Wooden. They have no following. Their facilities are outdated. All their games are on at midnight for most of the country.. TV exposure is limitrd outside of the one game they play in the Champions Classic.
Only thing UCLA really offers that is better is sunshine. A lot of it.
They put UK out that year as well.You know,.....When IU took the lead in that game, with 9 minutes to go, I thought we were gonna win. I really did. Then Dixon comes down and drains a 25-footer, and that was that. That was a really good MD team.
No. Branch McCraken, who's in the HOF, won 2 national titles at IU well before the arrival of Knight. Since Knight, IU has meh. Real meh. IMO, IU's success isn't regulated to a 10 year stretch. Plus, when you add all the other aspects, I just think IU's a more attractive job.Couldn't the same be said of IU and Bobby Knight?
Unless Archie is very successful at IU I think there are several jobs that are more appealing in the Big 10 alone so i dont think it is a top 5 job nationally. Indiana just doesn't have the brand they used to because they've been meh for 25-30 years.