IndyTreeFan wrote:Hi everyone. I don't post much because I don't want to be accused of being a fair weather bandwagon poster. So, I just don't post much...But I do enjoy reading. And I don't find WSU fans nearly as offensive as some people do...
I have a question for Evansville fans - is the problem Marty, or the support of the University? I ask this because as you all know, Indiana State sucked for so long, and we blamed the coaches, and always thought the next one would be the cure. But it never was.
Come to find out, every coach since Bill Hodges had been shackled by ISU in terms of the staff he could have, how many scholarships he could give (yes, sometimes it was less than the NCAA limit), and most importantly, where he could recruit from. It's only been since Lansing has been here, and maybe the end of the McKenna regime, that we could recruit all 50 states. We finally got a President and AD that understood the marketing value of D-I athletics, and things changed in terms of support from the University. In light of this, looking back, I'm sure that all the coaches we had at ISU (except Ron Green) could have been successful, given the appropriate backing of the University.
So, and I'm no fan of Marty, is the problem really him, or is it a more systemic issue with the University administration? I mean, if you have $60 for your recruiting budget, good things are NOT going to happen.
I'm curious as to what the E'ville fans' take on this is.
While very few know for sure, it is not hard to fathom that the budget and salary at UE are at the lower end of the valley. I don't think this is the major issue - at least not in my opinion.
I'm ok with the current recruiting and talent that has been coming in, based on recent W-L results. More and bigger wins will only improve the quality. In recent recruiting classes have included all-state players from Indiana and Ohio as well as junior national team contributers. Transfers have come from Big Ten and Big East programs. Juco players have been highly regarded.
The issue is squarely on the sideline before and during the game. Bottom line is you have determine the best route for a win in each situation, with the players availible. Look at Geno in the second half Saturday. He made a drastic change to hold the ball and make one attempt to break down the defender. He shortened the game due his short bench and Marty let him do it.
With the exception of the three wins while Mislav was out (where he went big to start and everyone played extended minutes) he never forces mismatches, only stays the course.
He also has a habit of forgetting guys on the bench, how many times has someone played well in the first half only to sit the second (and the next 4 games - Stafford). The entire bench was in together in the last InSU game and pulled away, only to see token time in the next 3 games.
How many double digit first half leads has he turned into losses in his career?
The bottom line - adapt the game plan to the players, not force the players into the same game plan. Put them in a situation to succeed, not a bad plan and then say they didn't execute.
