IU will necessarily have to wait until after the NCAA tournament to have a shot at the best coaches.

Having said that, I hope they have some idea of who they will talk to and will have come up with an offer that will make any of the coaches take a long hard look before turning IU down.

There are several coaches that could be successful at IU in time but to get the program back quickly will require a big name. It will be interesting to see what IU will do.

It is going to be a long spring and wait to find out.

I certainly agree w you about the “big name” coach. To me this means you have a great track record in major wars with national recognition. Hungry guys with national scope who have won recent national awards are Tony Bennett and Jay Wright and since Villinova may not make the NCAA perhaps we talk to Wright early.

I fear we will try to “Gerry Faust” this thing and go with a good guy but one who is not ready.

That sucks.

Indiana probably isn't all the way out of the picture…..he probably just wants to explore options early because he may not like the new coach at IU….just a thought…or maybe somebody has a nice suv waiting for him

Me too………..I find it interesting that Ebanks and Holloway have these out clauses…I never new this could be done but also….what does that say about their 100% confidence in KS was on the straight and narrow? Damn this guy really screwed us and I don't expect him to fight the NCAA at all….

It can't be written into the LOI from what I have read. Could be a verbal agreement between the players and the athletic department.

This is from the National Letter of Intent's Web site:

Is a National Letter of Intent binding if the coach of my sport leaves the institution?

Yes. The National Letter of Intent you signed with an institution is valid if the coach who recruited you leaves the institution with which you signed. When you sign a National Letter of Intent you sign with an institution and not with a coach or a specific team.

I hope that he at least talks to the new coach before making a final decision.

That being said, I find the new poll very interesting. Bruce Pearl did not run a clean program at USI. There may have been no violations, but anyone that went to USI during the time he was there knows what I'm talking about.

The only instance I'm aware of in which a school refused to release a player from a letter of intent happened at IU when RMK refused to release Lawrence Funderburke, causing him to go on a long a winding road to graduation. That was a classless move by RMK, and I don't care to see IU repeat it.

A total classless act by RMK and I remember that. Release him now and if we get a top notch coach who knows. Some boring mid major and no way.

He really did that? Now I know he's a jerk.

We need to look at recent history for this hire. If we consider IU to be on the level historically of UCLA, Kansas, Kentucky and UNC then we should look at the blue print as all of those school have hired new coaches in the last 5-8 years or so, and all have been successful (Jury still out on Gillespe I suppose).

None of those schools went the “young up and coming” route. They all went with a somewhat battle tested coach from a major conference, but not necessarily a major program (Williams from Kansas the exception).

Howland came from Pitt (Big East), Self came from Illinois (Big Ten), Gillespe from A&M (Big 12) and Williams from Kansas (Big 12). You could argue IU already did this with Sampson, but I would say two things. 1) Minus the violations he was being successful on the court. 2) The blueprint seems to work, you just have to actually do your homework and work it correctly.

With all that being said, I would start the search with this list before going the “young unproven route”. I'm sure I'm missing some, so feel free to add.

In no particular order:
Crean (Big East)
Wright (Big East)
Pearl (SEC…Assuming he's clean NCAA wise)
Matta (Big Ten)
Hewitt (ACC)
Barnes (Don't really like him, but he fits the criteria here)

Just my two cents. If we go the young route, I would then go with Miller or Bennett.

How does Anthony Grant get the “up and coming” label and not Sean Miller???

I've got to be honest, I don't get the Anthony Grant thing. He's a second year coach. He plays in what I consider a “second-tier” mid-major. The Colonial isn't exactly CUSA or the Horizon League. I get that he engineered a great tourney victory last year, and almost beat Pitt in the 2nd round. I get that he's been under the tutelage of Billy Donovan. All well and good.

But he's got a guy on his team that doesn't belong in the Colonial. Eric Maynor is REALLY good. And he's not Grant's recruit. So, is it the coaching or is it Jeff Capel's recruiting?

I'm not saying it's one or the other. I'm just saying that's too big of a question for a program like Indiana to attempt to answer.

Who has VCU beaten in Grant's time? You could argue they really haven't beaten anyone they shouldn't have this year. A win over Houston is nice. Their one quality win this year is at Maryland, which is a GREAT win. So, we're hanging our hat on 2 quality wins in 2 years? When the reason for those wins could be a player that could start for a lot of Top 25 teams? When that player wasn't recruited by said coach?

i disagree. i think IU should definitely go the “young up and coming route.” UCLA, Kansas, and Kentucky is a pretty small sample size – and those three weren't nearly in the same shape that IU is right now when they hired their coaches (even Lavin went to five Sweet 16s in a row before a bad 2003 season).

just because Scott Drew, Brad Brownell or Anthony Grant haven't had head coaching experience with a major program doesn't mean they couldn't develop into successful (and more importantly long-time) coaches at Indiana.

Curious comments yours…………….. seeing how none of your examples won anythign except Carmelo, who had 4 other terrific players around him and forced him into team ball. Cuse lost alot early that year directly due to his hogging of the ball. The point is these guys need to sacrifice their game for the team and if not I donot want them.

UCLA, Memphis, Tenn, Duke, UNC, Kansas , UCONN, Georgetown, Xavier, Texas all need a one and done to be in the hunt this year ? How many did Fla have last 2 years ?

Think again with facts this time

Er, by “they” (in the third paragraph) I meant “Miami”.

Of course there's something waiting for him. Big A said that Memphis is the frontrunner.

I think Horford, Noah and possibly Brewer all thought they would be one and done, but really liked college. Hard to dislike it when you're in Florida I suppose.

So what you disagree with is ” I want to win now”.?………or is it that Bennett, Wright and Miller are too PROVEN ? We want it to take longer ? Mark Few is too experienced ?

I think I said your boys are good just not ready NOW

SOrry SOcks but I think you made the wrong case here ( good players but no championships )for a good coach.

You need to try his success w Siena in the NCAA as your argument then you have something

Two things, the CAA is pretty much in league with the MVC. Of the “mid-majors” (cleans foul taste out of mouth), the CAA is tops with the Missouri Valley. You have to look at the strength of the entire league, and not just the top team in the league (as with Memphis and Butler in the C-USA and Horizon, respectively). The CAA will probably field two teams this year in the tournament, which is a bad year for the CAA. They have recently been counted on four three to four teams with a few others sitting on the bubble (remember, George Mason and UNC-Wilmington are CAA schools). The Horizon gets two schools in only if Wright State upsets Butler.

Second…beating Maryland at Maryland isn't that great a deal this year. American did it. Why aren't we talking about Jeff Jones. Ohio also won there this year. Virginia Tech did it, and they're firmly on a very tenuous bubble for the NCAA.

What's Bill Self done at Kansas? Lost to Bucknell in the first round. Hasn't advanced far since. He can recruit, but what does he do with those recruits?

Roy Williams won, but with Matt Doherty's players. If he doesn't go to the Final Four again this year, there might be some grumblings coming from Chapel Hill.

Gillespie has guided Kentucky to a very tenuous bubble position for the NCAA.

The only one out of there that has done really well has been Howland. And like Coveydale said, Lavin had already put a pretty solid core there (bunch of Sweet 16s in a row). So don't think because a guy has been able to do well briefly makes him the best solution for Indiana long term.

Marquette has been grossly overrated in Crean's time there, Pearl is excelling in an SEC that features Vanderbilt and a rebuilding LSU, Florida and Kentucky squads, Matta isn't going anywhere, Hewitt is a colossal underachiever at Ga Tech (seriously? Matt Causey?) and Rick Barnes is an even greater choke job in Texas.

Of the “established” coaches you've listed, only Wright or Matta would make the cut, as far as I'm concerned.

I think he's garnered a lot of respect nationally for being able to handle the constant turnover at Xavier and then go out and do so well with the talent he has. Granted, they lost last night, but losing at St. Joe's isn't like losing at, say, Northwestern.

i didn't say that Drew, Brownell or Grant are better than any of those guys above (except Crean who is awful). im just saying that immediately disqualifying your “guys that aren't ready” from the coaching search because they aren't PROVEN is ridiculous.

let's face it, regardless of who comes in, IU is going to have to rebuild for 1-2 seasons (at least). it's not like Wright or Miller is going to suddenly take the 2008-09 IU team to a Elite 8/Final 4 and someone like Grant or Brownell would automatically take them to the NIT.

IU should be willing to give the young “unproven” guys that don't already coach big-time programs a chance to come in and continue the promise they've already shown with their schools (Grant: VCU, Brownell: UNCW, wright state and Drew: baylor, valpo). those guys have all had a lot of success and are great recruiters – it's not like i'm advacating hiring dane fife here.

So, let's look at the last 10 national champions:
Billy Donovan
Billy Donovan
Roy Williams
Jim Calhoun
Jim Boeheim
Gary Williams
Coach K
Tom Izzo
Jim Calhoun
Tubby Smith

Those are pretty household names. Who out of these guys were “up and comers”?

Answer: none. They had paid their dues, for the most part, at their respective schools.

Just trying to make the point that this thing won't happen over-night, so hopefully WHOEVER coaches next year gets a very big grace period.

You need to ask yourself, then, do you want to be highly ranked or do you want to be winning championships.

You need to look past the rankings. UNC is terribly flawed and will most likely not be number 1 next week. How many championships did Roy Williams win at Kansas again? Memphis is in a league of also rans, at best. Tennessee looked oh so impressive at Florida, a team that probably won't make the tournament this year, but is still living high off the bounce of beating a horribly overrated Memphis team. Duke

Matta, good coach. Gillespie? Eh, the jury's still out. Hewitt's run to the final game was a fluke. Just how good is Ga Tech this year in a down ACC? Are they even over .500? Yeah, they played IU tough and Kansas tough, but to say that Paul Hewitt is the answer to anything other than “Who coached the team that lost to Connecticutt the second time” is delusional, at best.