by Kent Sterling
There are alums who are a little grumpy over the three years Tom Crean has run the Indiana basketball program. Some of them comment here, and they believe three years is long enough.
The students – the early adapters who have no intense ties to glory days of the past, and weren’t born when the fifth championship banner was hung in 1987 – are 100% behind Crean and the direction of the program. Here’s a video of the kids to whom I spoke and some of the hysteria in Assembly Hall last night:
I tried to find dissenters. I asked questions that would lead students to give me a less optimistic take on IU’s progress during their time in Bloomington. None stepped forward, and many took offense.
Twenty-eight wins in three years is not the stuff of IU legend, but the students remain firmly confident. I assumed that the crowd would be 50/50. Students tend to think adults are addle-pated boobs, and I thought some would feel that toward Crean. Not quite.
Whether they are a prescient group of young adults who see something that a healthy portion of the adults do not, I don’t know, but their enthusiasm is one of the best things IU has going for it as they battle to end their five-game losing streak this weekend.
The adults might be a little jaded by the apathy that surrounded Bob Knight’s last three years, the ignorance of the entire Mike Davis era, and the corruption of Kelvin Sampson’s reign. That’s nearly 15 years of un-indiana-esque play and direction, and while the students are still happily chanting and singing after three years, the adults want something to change, and they want it now.
Whether you believe IU is headed toward glory or more mediocrity, you need to trust your own eyes, but at the same time allow yourself to be at least partially informed by these students if for no other reason, it’s simply more fun.
IU students aren’t very smart. Keep drinking the kool aid. Now u can finish 12 next year with the additionnof nebraska.
With the way this season has turned out, IU fans should be heating up Crean’s seat just a little. Talent should not be an excuse next year because if Zeller is as good as he is being labeled, then this team should make the tourney.
I would say that it’s difficult to gauge the feeling of the student population for the basketball coach by interviewing those standing in line hours prior to the basketball game. It’s akin to polling how people feel about Sarah Palin at a Tea Party rally.
The common message that the students make and is also repeated ad nauseum online is that future recruits will save the program. No doubt you can’t win without talented & motivated players, but what is the mental impact on the current roster preparing for Northwestern that all hope lies with recruits preparing prom? I’d be interested in where IU’s CURRENT roster stacks up with other teams in the Big Ten when it comes to their recruit rating. Maybe there isn’t the experience of Purdue, OSU, & MSU, but what about the Michigan, Northwestern, Iowa, Penn State, & Minnesota?
After several Purdue games, players that had had off nights often repeated the same line, ‘We’re told that even if our shot isn’t falling, we can always rebound and defend.’ I’ve never heard anyone on this IU roster really take to heart that belief and last night we lost not because of offense, but because of defense.
Indiana is barely older than Michigan in terms of juniors and seniors getting minutes. Those two schools are by far the youngest in the Big Ten. As of a couple of weeks ago, IU’s juniors and seniors accounted for 31% of the average minutes. Michigan was right around 30.5%. Michigan State is the oldest at 75%.
Obviously, the sample was not scientifically chosen, but if I want to talk to IU fans, where am I going to go, the Video Saloon?
No question the focus on defense was not complete last night, but the offense was screwy as well. Way too many open shot passed up only to settle for contested ones later in the possession. There are issues that have the players out of their comfort zone, but excuses like that are for losers.
How about the student union? I’m not trying to be antagonistic. I suppose if you want to poll the people who are invested in IU Hoops, outside the Hall would be as good as any. But if you were looking for a dissenting view from people that are still affiliated with IU, what are the chances you were going to find it by yelling out for it in a group such as that? Peer pressure alone would be enough to keep anyone from chiming up.
Michigan is an interesting comparison because, like IU, their entire 2007 class is not with the team and both coaches began at the same time. Now you can say that Michigan’s current players benefited from Manny Harris and DeShawn Sims guidance whereas Crean started from scratch, but the current Hoosiers also benefitted from more playing time early on in their careers.
If we did a blind look at the two teams in terms of the perceived talent level of recruits coming into their programs, you’d have one with 4 3-star upperclassmen and 7 underclassmen with 3.4-stars (avg). The other would have 2 3-star upperclassmen and 7 underclassmen with 3.3 stars. (I’m using Rivals, but who cares? I’m also not considering guys no longer with the teams, walk-ons, and unrated players)
All of this is to say, Michigan and Indiana have rosters with guys that were regarded about equally out of high school and a similar mix of upperclass/underclass. I just don’t think we can say that the missing ingrediant in IU Hoops is talented players that the ‘Help is on the way!’ crowd is insisting upon. Sure they help, but there’s as much talent (if not more) on the roster as Michigan’s, maybe even more experience for IU’s crew, but that hasn’t translated into success on the court.
Michigan has also played a far more difficult schedule (14th nationally vs 50th).
I think the thing is all about timing, and the timing for IU hasn’t been great. It took Crean some time to cement meaningful relationships with the in-state coaches, and the first really good class – as good as the class Painter took advantage of in 2007 – is 2012. If Gary Harris picks IU, help will be on the way and IU will get better quickly. Even as it is, IU’s haul in 2012 is superb.
Neither Indiana nor Purdue can succeed without dominating Indiana recruiting. IU is back in a position to do that. Michigan is a better national recruiting team that seems enamored with second generation players.
I’ll add that our juniors/seniors that do play are very limited in their abilities. Jones is the only one that really has any offensive ability whatsoever, and we all know his other limitations. Pritchard, Roth and Rivers each have 1 thing they are decent at, and about 5 they are terrible at. Bottom line, the only true big ten players we have are our freshman and sophmores.
Great job Kent — now that‘s investigative journalism at its best! And it’s also starting to sound a little like this. Also here’s a picture I took of the alumni present at a recent meeting with Tom Crean — for your collection.
I wish more cranky IU fans would go multimedia in their comments.
Great perspective and idea Kent. Understandably so, the students worship him and are quick to praise him. He has brought passion to this campus and the students enjoy his enthusiasm. Let’s just hope it translates into wins over the next few years.
Just discovered your site a few days ago. You have clearly lost all perspective about Indiana basketball. 3-15 in the Big Ten is a clear improvement from 4-14. The victories in the emasculated pre-conference schedule don’t count. Keep pouring the grape kool-aid for the Hoosier faithful to lap up. Crean is not solving any problem, he IS the problem.
I don’t think so. Your angst is understandable, and it’s not acceptable. This group has underachieved, but I don’t believe it will in a year or two, and once the ball starts rolling downhill – that will be the rule, and not the exception. It’s not the kool-aid, and some misguided loyalty or belief in Crean. That’s just the way it appears to me. I could be wrong, but that almost never happens.