Indiana’s Cruel Optimism

“A relation of cruel optimism exists when something you desire is actually an obstacle to your flourishing… These kinds of optimistic relation are not inherently cruel. They become cruel only when the object that draws your attachment actively impedes the aim that brought you to it initially.”

So begins Cruel Optimism, the most well-known and influential text by the late Lauren Berlant, whose writings have replaced those of the French philosophers who used to dominate the field of literary studies.

Though I doubt Berlant ever considered Indiana men’s basketball at any point in their career, I can’t shake the feeling that this text can teach us something about Indiana fandom.

No one single perspective can be said to stand in for the feelings of the generic “Indiana basketball fan,” but calls for Mike Woodson’s job have grown loud enough that the national media is addressing it. How did we get here before three full seasons of the Woodson era?

The simple answer is that the 2023-24 Hoosiers are simply Not Good Enough. When Woodson was hired, his stated intentions were to win titles, of the conference and national variety. This year’s team would be lucky to not play on Wednesday of the Big Ten Tournament.

To be fair to his loudest critics, a lot of this falls squarely on Woodson. The reason that this result was relatively foreseeable is that this roster, built by Mike Woodson, is short on guards. And it was short on guards before Xavier Johnson missed time with an injury.

Is this enough to fire the coach that ended a five-year NCAA tournament drought? I don’t know. But I am skeptical of the idea that Indiana is just one hire away from being where we all want it to be.

Practically speaking, next season will be one of mixed/low expectations, at best. Either Woodson will have to prove his ability to land guards who can impact winning or a new coach will be tasked with a roster rebuild and implementing a new system that the returning players aren’t familiar with.

Having watched this scenario play out three times in the last decade, I have to wonder: is this optimism that the next coaching hire will be our savior the exact thing keeping Indiana from sustained success?

To be clear, I am not blaming the fans for Indiana’s struggles this year. See above for why this season has been a failure. I am, however, questioning the idea that we are one firing/hiring cycle away from glory and all of the fan-led attempts to force the administration’s hand.

One name that’s been popular among Indiana fans has been Bruce Pearl, both for his record as a coach and his obvious respect for and relation to Indiana men’s basketball as an institution.

At Tennessee, he led a team that had been 14-7 the year before he arrived to a 22-8 record and the Round of 32 in the NCAA Tournament. He made the tournament in all six of his seasons there, peaking with an Elite Eight appearance in his penultimate year with the Vols.

He wasn’t able turn things around as quickly at his next stop, Auburn, a team that went from 122 in Kenpom under Tony Barbee to 139 in year one of the Pearl era. In year two, Auburn finished at 189th in the overall efficiency ratings, despite an improved record overall

It took him four years to get the Tigers to the NCAA tournament, but by year five he was in the Final Four. Would Indiana fans have tolerated a rebuild at that pace? Or would people have called for his head after the first three years?

Given the NCAA sanctions and the state Auburn was in when Pearl took over, these may be the wrong questions. He was not set up for linear progression, so the fact that he got to the Final Four at all is quite impressive.

Since that 2018-19 season though, he’s failed to get past the Round of 32. This includes when he got a 2 seed in 2021-2022 and a 9 seed the following year.

Would Indiana fans tolerate losses in the Round of 32 from Pearl better than they do the Round of 32 losses from Woodson? What about a regression between years 8-9 for Pearl at Auburn, when he went from winning the SEC to seventh place?

Nobody can answer these questions for certain, but recent history suggests that the answer is a resounding no. Tom Crean was fired a year after winning the Big Ten, and Mike Woodson finds himself on the chopping block after making the tournament in each of his first two seasons.

The result has been a program that lacks any discernible culture, as Zach Osterman so eloquently put it earlier this year. Osterman isn’t alone in this observation; nearly every broadcast now notes the lack of continuity at Indiana compared to the programs it desperately wants to be.

Firing then hiring another coach will only prolong Indiana’s streak of lacking a team identity. The new coach will get time to bring in players, implement systems, and compete in the Big Ten before we revisit this discussion.

And if that coach isn’t up to fan’s standards? Rinse and repeat, thus ensuring that Indiana never develops the winning culture that it’s lacked for the better part of the last two decades.

That’s where the optimistic thinking that we are just one hire away can come to actually prevent Indiana from returning to greatness. A textbook case of a relation of cruel optimism, as Berlant would have it.

Maybe Woodson can’t turn it around. Maybe Pearl could come in and win Banner six in year one. I don’t know. I do know that we’ve been here before though and that firing a coach was not the magic wand to national relevance.

Maybe we take a deep breath and think twice before hopping back on the coaching carousel.