The Hoosier Report

Goodbye, Hoosier Report.

2009-03-03T23:39:00.002+03:30

As I mentioned a few days ago, I will be joining the SB Nation blog network as SBN's IU blogger. Today is the day. The Crimson Quarry is now live, and I will be posting there exclusively from this point forward. I hope all of you who stop by here will update your bookmarks/blogrolls and continue the habit and will take advantage of the various tools that make SB Nation blogs a more interactive environment.

Michigan State, take 2.

2009-03-03T05:34:00.005+03:30

Michigan State Spartans

Current record: 23-5 (13-3)

Current RPI: 4

Current Sagarin: 6

Current Pomeroy: 12

2007-08 record: 27-9, 12-6 (lost to Memphis in NCAA Sweet 16)

2007-08 RPI: 13

2007-08 Sagarin: 15

2007-08 Pomeroy: 15

Series: IU leads 65-45

Last Michigan State win: 2/7/2009 (75-47 in East Lansing)

Last IU win: 2/16/2008 (80-61 in Bloomington)

Last MSU win in Bloomington: 2/8/2003 (67-62)

Pomeroy scouting report

TV: 7 pm Tuesday, ESPN

I'm not going to say much about the game. MSU is one of the best teams in the country. IU has clinched 11th place in the conference. The Spartans, with one win in their next two games, can clinch their first outright Big Ten title since 1999 and have already clinched a share of the title. Still, although MSU is the most successful Big Ten program of the last 15 years, the Spartans have struggled in Bloomington. Tom Izzo is only 2-9 in Bloomington and hasn't won at Assembly Hall in six years. The Spartans are highly favored to win the game, but I suppose we can always hope for some senior night magic. MSU, as always, is excellent on the boards on both ends of the court. That's it. IU should lose, but we can hope that the team finds a way to compete in the final home game of the season.

On a side note, if you're getting ready to purchase those season tickets and finding the deadline is quickly approaching, there's now a way to get an almost instant cash advance online. Getting access to your money has never been faster or easier....and just a click away.

Senior night: Kyle Taber.

2009-03-02T20:27:00.002+03:30

A more comprehensive Michigan State preview will follow (as if it matters), probably later tonight. Tonight will be a strange senior night to follow a strange season. Kyle Taber came to IU as a walk-on, spent a redshirt season with a knee injury, and then played not a single significant minute in the next 2.5 seasons. In his redshirt freshman year, 2005-06, Taber played a total of four minutes in three non-conference blowouts and scored a total of four points. In 2006-07, Taber played 10 minutes in 6 games and scored two points. In 2007-08, for the first 20 games, there was a modest uptick in Taber's time on the court: In those first 20 games, he appeared in 9 games for a total of 40 minutes, and scored 5 points. Although a couple of extended garbage time stints padded those numbers, he played a total of two minutes against major conference teams and his scoreless one minute stint against Iowa was his only appearance in IU's first eight Big Ten games. There have been times that I have thought Crean was a little tough on Taber this year, expecting a bit more leadership from his lone senior. While I'm sure he knew it, I think Crean has tended to forget that Taber's transition from career practice player to contributor occurred barely a year ago.

Taber, to everyone's surprise, started against Northwestern on February 3, 2008, and played 24 scoreless minutes with 4 rebounds, a block, and a turnover. From that point forward, Taber played in every game, exceeding 20 minutes four times, and playing at least 10 minutes in 10 of IU's 13 remaining games. Taber was a model of offensive efficiency, shooting only when a basket was certain. He shot 0-1 against NU but then made all nine of his attempts for the rest of the season. He shot 5-6 from the line, pulled down 3 rebounds per game, and turned the ball over only 5 times in 207 minutes. As I noted many times last year, he was a classic do-no-harm player. He played minutes without making a huge positive impact, but with virtually no negative impact.

Unsurprisingly, with a larger role this season, he hasn't been quite as effective, but he has been very solid: in 24 minutes per game, he has shot 50 percent from the field and pulled down 5 rebounds per game. Like nearly all members of this team, more has been asked of Taber than is realistic, yet he has handled it well. Taber has had a front row seat for one of the most turmoil filled periods in IU basketball history: he witnessed the contentious last two years of the Davis era, the entire Sampson era and all that entailed, and the unique first season of Tom Crean. Thanks, Kyle.

Penn State 61, Indiana 58.

2009-03-02T04:33:00.002+03:30

Here's the box score. After the Northwestern game, I figured that IU had played its last competitive game of the season, but IU remained competitive throughout. IU's largest lead was 4, and Penn State's largest lead was 5. IU had a three point lead in the late going, but couldn't hold on and missed a couple of decent three pointers. This was an extraordinarily slow paced game: 55 possessions per side, IU's lowest total of the season. That puts a bit of a damper on enthusiasm about IU's 11 turnovers, but the 20 percent turnover percentage was IU's fifth-best of the season. IU shot reasonably well, rebounded respectably, but Penn State shot a bit better and turned the ball over only 8 times to IU's 11. For the seventh time in 16 Big Ten games, IU was within a single digit margin, but has only one win to show for it. Again, it was nice to see the team complete after what had to be a terribly depressing blowout loss to Northwestern, but it's also difficult to take much solace in a close loss at this point.

Penn State, take II.

2009-02-27T18:43:00.002+03:30

Penn State Nittany Lions
Current record: 19-9 (8-7)
Current RPI: 61
Current Sagarin: 57
Current Pomeroy: 74 (8-7)
2007-08 record: 15-16 (7-11)
2007-08 RPI: 155
2007-08 Sagarin: 115
2007-08 Pomeroy: 108
Series: IU leads 27-5 (25-5 since Penn State joined the Big Ten in 1992-93)
Last Penn State win: 1/17/2009 (65-55 in Bloomington)
Last IU win: 1/20/2008 (81-65 in Bloomington)
Last IU win in University Park: 1/13/2007 (84-74)
Pomeroy scouting report
TV: 6 pm Saturday, BTN

IU has lost to Penn State only five times since the Nittany Lions joined the Big Ten in 1992-93, and I feel comfortable guessing that the Lions have never been so heavily favored against IU as they will be tomorrow night. PSU, like Northwestern, won at Assembly Hall for the first time ever this season, and a win tomorrow night will give PSU its first-ever season sweep of IU. Penn State is firmly in NCAA contention, but the lackluster computer ratings suggest that the Lions still have some work to do. It goes without saying that Penn State can't afford to lose to IU. Penn State concludes its schedule with a home game against Illinois and a road trip to Iowa, and Penn State probably needs two wins to feel relatively comfortable.

Penn State, like so many other Big Ten teams, plays a slow-paced offense (ranked below 300 in possessions per game) and takes good care of the ball. Limiting turnovers, defensive rebounding, three point shooting, and perimeter defense have allowed Penn State to move out of the lower echelon. Penn State completely shut down IU's offense in the last game. Defense and taking care of the ball allowed Penn State to overcome a less than impressive shooting performance.

The previews are getting a bit stale, I realize, but there's not much to say. IU faces a much better team tomorrow, and will need a well-above-average performance to have a chance to win.

Northwestern 75, Indiana 53.

2009-02-26T15:20:00.002+03:30

Here's the box score. IU looked good in the first 10 minutes, but NU dominated the last 30 minutes of the game and won for the first time at Assembly Hall, and the first time in Bloomington since 1968. Lake the Posts has an understandably joyful post on the significance of the win. Among the tidbits I could have lived without knowing: this was Northwestern's most lopsided Big Ten road win since a win over the University of Chicago in 1944. It's also IU's most lopsided loss to Northwestern since a 40-16 loss in 1914, also in Bloomington. It's also only the fourth time that NU has won in Bloomington by a double digit margin (1914, 1916, 1963). As for the game itself, maybe I will check back in when I have more time, but probably not. NU simply dominated that game. IU had difficulty finding good looks and missed some that were open. Devan Dumes and Matt Roth were badly off from three point range. Northwestern converted on nearly all of its opportunities: 6-7 from behind the arc in the second half and 65 percent from the field. IU's 17 turnovers in a 61 possession game weren't the worst output of this season by far (27.8 percent), but NU turned the ball over only 11 times.

Before the Big Ten season, I said that I wanted IU to win two games: the home games against Penn State and Northwestern, because neither team had ever won in Bloomington and I didn't want those streaks to end under these circumstances. Mission not accomplished, but thank god for Iowa.

A phone call?

2009-02-25T15:28:00.002+03:30

Thanks to the tip from Jared from Midwest Sports Fans, and also discussed on Inside the Hall, the Indianapolis Star is reporting that IU self-reported an impermissible phone call. Here's the NCAA self-report form. I tend to agree with ITH, that this isn't a big deal, but the very nature of the violation causes some heartburn. The report provides a bit more detail than the Star article. The report indicates that on October 25, Roshown McLeod made what was the third call of the week to Bawa Muniru. Tom Crean had made a call on that Sunday, and again on Wednedsay. Because of IU's practice schedule, he thought the Sunday call had been made the previous day. IU found the violation on November 21, reported it on December 10, and imposed a sanction of no calls for a week in December. It sounds as if the staff has a good system for preventing these sorts of issues--the head coach and the responsible assistant each make no more than one call a week to a recruit--but it failed in this instance because of a misrecollection by Crean as to the date of the first call. McLeod made what he thought was his one call of the week, but he didn't have it. Expect howling from the usual quarters, but I don 't think this is a major concern, just a major annoyance.

Also, if self-reports of these sorts of violations are front page news, perhaps the Star should recall that the open records statute applies to all publicly supported institutions, and most states have similar laws. The Star says that these things are commonplace, and IU's critics will try to turn this into a big deal. Perhaps the Star should find out what Purdue, Ball State, Indiana State, IUPUI and others are reporting on a regular basis, if anything, or even other Big Ten schools in neighboring states.

The Northwestern game, take 2.

2009-02-25T06:16:00.002+03:30

Northwestern Wildcats
Current record: 14-11 (5-9)
Current RPI: 78
Current Sagarin: 64
Current Pomeroy: 82
2007-08 record: 8-21 (1-17)
2007-08 RPI: 191
2007-08 Sagarin: 190
2007-08 Pomeroy: 158
Series: IU leads 107-44
Last Northwestern win: 1/29/2009 (77-75 in Evanston)
Last IU win: 2/23/2008 (85-82 in Evanston)
Last Northwestern win in Bloomington: 1/13/1968 (86-81)
Pomeroy scouting report
TV: 6:30 Wednesday, BTN

When IU and Northwestern last played, just less than a month ago, the Wildcats were 2-5 in the Big Ten against a brutal schedule, but were sporting bubble-worthy computer rankings in the mid 40s. Now, NU has settled back to earth. IU nearly upset the Wildcats in January, but NU simply gave away home games against Illinois and Purdue, and but for those losses, the Wildcats might be in the bubble discussions today. Instead, Northwestern must win this game to preserve its NIT hopes, considering that the Wildcats still have to travel to Purdue and Ohio State.

In the first game, neither defense excelled, and both teams turned the ball over quite a bit. For IU, that is typical. for Northwestern, it is not. In conference games, NU allows 1.09 points per possessions, just a touch better than IU's 1.10. On offense, NU is marginally better. Both teams are shooting well from three point range during Big Ten games (NU 37 percent, IU 36.8 percent). On the other hand, the teams are the two worst defensively against the three. IU rebounds significantly better on both ends of the court. NU's main advantage, statistically, comes from turnovers. NU is first the conference both in taking care of the ball and in forcing turnovers on the other end. In the first game, both teams turned it over a bunch and both teams shot 12-23 from behind the arc. If IU is to win, the Hoosiers will have to take better care of the ball, do whatever they did to force NU to cough it up, and find a way to stop Kevin Coble, Craig Moore, and Michael Thompson.

Northwestern has never won at Assembly Hall. That was true of Penn State until a few weeks ago, but Penn State has been in the conference only since 1993. Northwestern, a charter member of the Big Ten, is 0-32 in Assembly Hall and hasn't won in Bloomington since 1968, when IU played at what then was known as the "new fieldhouse." In the 101 years since IU and NU first played in basketball, the Wildcats have won in Bloomington on 12 times, and eight of those were before the NCAA Tournament era began in 1939. I'm not sure how, but IU simply has to win this game.

Blogpoll draft ballot, week 3.

2009-02-23T17:00:00.001+03:30

Rank	Team	Delta

1	Pittsburgh	2
2	Connecticut	1
3	Missouri	3
4	Oklahoma
5	North Carolina	3
6	Duke	1
7	Memphis	1
8	Kansas	3
9	Villanova
10	Michigan St.	3
11	Clemson	1
12	Louisville
13	Arizona St.	2
14	Purdue	5
15	Illinois	2
16	Wake Forest	2
17	Washington
18	Marquette	4
19	UCLA	1
20	Gonzaga
21	Xavier	5
22	West Virginia	1
23	Louisiana St.
24	Florida St.
25	Brigham Young
Last week's ballot

Dropped Out: California (#23), Butler (#24), Syracuse (#25).

Here it is. Let me say this. Basketball polls are hard. There are more teams, more games, less uniformity in scheduling, less ability to rely mostly on overall record. I'm not sure how I feel about my ballot.

Purdue 81, Indiana 67.

2009-02-22T07:36:00.004+03:30

Here's the box score. That could have been worse. It wasn't a particularly close game--Purdue expanded its lead to 10 points with 11:32 remaining in the first half, and IU never got closer than six. The Boilers never trailed. On the other hand, other than a brief 14 point lead early in the second half, the game stayed in the 8-12 range until IU started fouling at the end of the game. There are no moral victories, especially against Purdue, but IU played reasonably well under the circumstances: the season, the venue, the 39 hour turnaround. Contrary to earlier reports, Robbie Hummel did play. He didn't start, but played 16 minutes before leaving the game after running into a (clean) Tom Pritchard screen. Earlier in the season, I mocked the IU students for booing the Cornell player who knocked Verdell Jones out cold with a legal screen, so I don't think I'm a complete homer for thinking the Mackey crowd badly overreacted to a legal play.

This wasn't the turnover-fest I expected. In 72 possessions, IU turned the ball over 16 times, 22.2 percent. This is my own math, not Pomeroy's, but if my numbers are correct, this would be one of IU's best 8 or 9 performances of the season in terms of turnovers. If I could have made a single prediction about this game, I would have predicated a minimum of 22 turnovers. It's also a significant improvement over last season's lone game against Purdue, in which IU turned the ball over on 32 percent of its possessions. While IU's offensive numbers were acceptable, even surprisingly good, across the board, Purdue's were significantly better. IU shot 50 percent; Purdue shot 57 percent. Purdue turned the ball over only 14 times, and made 7 three pointers to IU's 3. Neither team shot well from the line, but Purdue had more opportunities (6-13 for IU; 18-33 for Purdue). Rebounding was fairly even.

As for the individuals:

Verdell Jones has played well in the last two games. He scored 16 points on 7-12 from the field. He had 4 turnovers but 5 assists.
Tom Pritchard had his best game in a while. He scored 12 points (first time in double digits since January 25 against Minnesota) on 6-11 from the field and had 8 rebounds.
Kyle Taber was 5-7 from the field and finished with 10 points, although he fouled out.
Devan Dumes continues to struggle a bit: he scored 7 points on 2-7 from the field and turned the ball over four times.

Frankly, I'm just relieved that the game is over. I dreaded this one more than any game on the schedule. As I said above, no moral victories, but I imagined it would be much worse, and I'm sure most Purdue fans did, too. Next year, the teams will return to the traditional home-and-home matchups, and if Jim Delany has an ounce of grey matter, this will be the last time that IU and Purdue play only once in the regular season. Protected rivalries work for football, and they would work for basketball as well. Historically, this is the most notable rivalry in the Big Ten, and now both schools have young, impressive coaches who seem likely to be at their respective schools for decades, literally. If both program go where they are capable of going, is Jim Delany really going to let this home and home rotate off the schedule again in 7 or 8 years? I hope not.

For the Boiler perspective, here is Hammer and Rails.

Hummel out?

2009-02-21T17:28:00.002+03:30

The media and the Purdue sports information office seem to be at odds on this issue, but Jeff Washburn of the Lafayette Courier Journal reports on his blog that Hummel "almost certainly will not play against Indiana" and may miss the rest of the season because of a fracture of one of the vertebrae in his lower back. This, of course, will almost certainly have no impact on who wins or loses today's game, but is of interest and does contradict my earlier assumption that Hummel would be healthy and available for today's game.

The Purdue game.

2009-02-21T01:21:00.003+03:30

Purdue Boilermakers
Current record: 20-6 (9-4)
Current RPI: 20
Current Sagarin: 10
Current Pomeroy: 12
2007-08 record: 24-7 (15-3) (lost to Xavier in second round of NCAA Tournament)
2007-08 RPI: 42
2007-08 Sagarin: 27
2007-08 Pomeroy: 23
Series: Purdue leads 107-84
Last IU win: 2/19/2008 (77-68 in Bloomington)
Last Purdue win: 2/15/2007 (81-68 in West Lafayette)
Last IU win in West Lafayette: 3/1/2006 (70-59)
Pomeroy scouting report
TV: 2 pm Saturday, BTN

As I said, I don't have much time today, and this game probably doesn't warrant it. Purdue is much better than IU, apparently has a healthy Robbie Hummel, is playing at home, it's a rivalry game in which there is no chance that Purdue will mail it in, the game will tip off less than 39 hours after the end of the Wisconsin game.

Purdue is reasonably proficient on offense, but the Boilers are in the Big Ten title hunt and the high-seed discussion because they have one of the best defenses in the country in nearly every sense imaginable. Purdue is #2 in adjusted defensive efficiency (and raw efficiency, for that matter), and they allow only .86 points per possession. Purdue forces lots of turnovers (23.6 percent of possessions), plays excellent field goal defense, you name it. In offensive rebounding, Purdue is merely above average, ranking #134 in D-I. To make matter worse, Purdue has two players, JaJuan Johnson and Hummel, who really are unguardable by any current Hoosier. This could be every bit as ugly as the Bucket game.

Travis at Hammer and Rails has a much more detailed look at things than I do. H&R is the new Purdue blog on SB Nation, replacing Travis's personal blog Off the Tracks. SB Nation is making a push to fill out its college coverage, and Wisconsin and Illinois blogs either are now or soon will be live. I'll provide more details later, but I will be joining SB Nation as its IU blogger in the near future. I don't have a firm start date yet, but I'll keep you posted.

Wisconsin 68, Indiana 51.

2009-02-21T01:07:00.002+03:30

Here's the box score. I admit that I held out some hope that the Hoosiers could win this one, and they played well in the first half, but the Badgers simply overpowered and outsmarted the Hoosiers defense and completely shut down the Hoosier offense in the second half. This was IU's fist true home blowout of the Big Ten season. Here's the box score. I have about as much time to write this post and my Purdue preview as Tom Crean and his staff have had to put together a game plan in the 18 hours between the final buzzer last night and the bus ride to West Lafayette (thanks, Delany--couldn't it at least have been a Saturday night game? Or 6 pm? Come on). So, in bullet point form:

This was IU's slowest paced game of the season, 57 percentages, so the 15 turnovers weren't any better than usual.
The game stats don't really tell the story in this one: IU shot 50 percent in the first half and only 27.8 percent in the second half.
The free throw shooting was better: 15-19. That sort of shooting would have won a couple of more games for IU if done in close games.
IU rebounded reasonably well at the defensive end, not so well at the offensive end.
Verdell Jones was reasonably effective driving to the basket, scoring 16 points on 7-14 from the field. Still, 2 assists to 4 turnovers.
Devan Dumes was a bit rusty, shooting 1-6 from the field on his return from a two game suspension.
Malik Story scored 11 points on 5-8 from the field.
Tom Pritchard continues to struggle: only 4 points on 2-5 shooting in 24 minutes of play, and 5 rebounds.

Not much to take from this one. Wisconsin, while not as good as in the last two seasons, made it look easy last night.

The Mike Davis of Deadspin.

2009-02-18T04:49:00.007+03:30

I didn't mention it yesterday because the Inside the Hall guys had it surrounded, but a couple of bloggers chose the occasion of IU's school-record 18th loss of the season to announce the permanent irrelevance of Indiana basketball. One of the blogs was too dumb to matter, but the other was the venerable Deadspin. Of course, Deadspin founder Will Leitch has departed, which leaves a variety of guys, including someone named Rick Chandler, to try to carry on.

Yesterday's Chandler post, as the ITH guys note, was a gem. Chandler contended:

Bob Knight would have suspended Dumes before the season (even though the conduct for which Dumes was suspended began in the Northwestern game);
"the system's not designed for sleepy backwaters like Bloomington, Indiana, to have powerhouse teams" (I wonder if Chandler has ever been to Lawrence, Kansas, the home of the 2008 NCAA Champs, a town that is very similar to Bloomington in size, character, and proximity to a semi-major city);
"Tom Crean — even though he hasn't really had a chance to prove what he can do with his own players — isn't the answer."
"Have you been to Bloomington? What multi-talented player is going to go there to play for Tom Crean?"

After he was savaged by his own commenters and in various other places, Chandler came back for more today, pronouncing himself "guilty...with an explanation." He began with a pithy explanation of his devotion to Bob Knight, a mid-1980s interview with the coach, and so on. It turns out that Chandler, despite no ties to Indiana or to IU, is a hardcore Knight fan, which is fine. He made something of a pilgrimage to Bloomington in 1987 and caught an IU game and continued to make the trip regularly. And then, because he made a trip once a year for less than a decade, tells us: "But be aware that you're in my wheelhouse on this one. I've been watching the situation for more than 20 years. And I've been taking notes."

Wow, thanks, Rick! I've lived in Indiana for nearly all of my life, but you used to show up for a few days a year, and you took notes! Please, educate me about my home state and my alma mater. Unfortunately, Chandler's mea culpa contains nearly as much bullshit as the first:

First, and perhaps a minor quibble, but I think it shows the lack of care that Chandler has given to his work: he claims to have watched Damon Bailey play on his home court in something called the "semifinals of the state playoffs." First, as anyone from Indiana knows, there is the sectional, the regional, the semistate, and the state finals. Which was it? "Semifinals of the state playoffs" has no meaning to anyone who actually follows Indiana high school basketball. Really, it doesn't matter what round it was, because as this site shows, Bedford-North Lawrence didn't play any state tournament games on its home court in 1987 or in any other year of Bailey's career. All sectional and regional games were at Seymour; the semistates were at Evansville and Terre Haute, and the state finals in Indianapolis. In other words, all of the wax-poetic bullshit about "Bedford's gym" just doesn't hold up. (There must have been some nacho cheese on that page of Rick's notes).
"No, that magical, John Feinsteinian year of 1987 is gone forever." The "season on the brink" was 1985-86 and Feinstein's book was published in 1986.
"Yeah, he had blue chippers, but the bulk of his rosters were always populated by JC transfers (Keith Smart, Dean Garrett) and local kids (Bailey, Joe Hillman, Alford) which he took and beat the likes of Syracuse and Shaquille O'Neal's LSU in the Big Dance." Ah, where to start. First, Smart and Garrett were the first juco transfers that Knight ever took [this isn't quite right--Andre Harris was there the year before, and Courtney Witte a couple of years earlier]. His excellent 1991-93 teams had no juco transfers. So, the 1987 team was the only of Knight's excellent teams that was populated to any degree by Juco transfers. Joe Hillman was from California. I'm not sure what definition of blue chippers Chandler is using, but Bailey and Alford were elite recruits who would have been welcome anywhere. The team that beat Shaq in the 1992 tournament included three NBA first rounders (Alan Henderson, Calbert Cheaney, and Greg Graham). Isiah Thomas was an elite recruit from Illinois. Scott May and Quinn Buckner were from Ohio and Illinois, respectively. Kent Benson, while local, was an elite recruit who could have played anywhere. There's certainly no disagreement that Knight was an excellent coach who got the most out of his players, but come on. He wasn't doing it with smoke and mirrors.
He then tries to backpedal on the "backwater" comments: "what I mean by basketball backwater is that the Hoosiers will always take a back seat to Duke and North Carolina and UCLA and even Wake Forest and UConn." Come on, Rick. If you are going to strike an apologetic pose, stop bullshitting us! By backwater, you meant that you think Bloomington, because it's a small, somewhat out-of-the-way town, would be a tough place to attract blue chip talent. That's why you said, "Have you been to Bloomington? What multi-talented player is going to go there to play for Tom Crean?" I would respect you more if you had the courage of your convictions, Rick. I think it's a stupid point (explain to me what makes Lawrence and Storrs and Chapel Hill and Durham and Winston-Salem and East Lansing so much more inherently attractive), but we know exactly what you meant, and respect you less for not admitting it.

I realize that some of these points are nit-picky, but if some non-resident doofus is going to lecture us about Indiana (both state-of and IU) basketball, his "wheelhouse," he better as hell have his facts straight. Rick Chandler doesn't. He also won't stand by the assertions that he made in his sloppy initial post, crafting a dishonest dodge about what he meant by "backwater." No one actually knows what the next two or five or twenty years hold for IU basketball, but it's an odd argument indeed that the tradition and fan support that arise from Bob Knight's excellence are some sort of disadvantage. I do know that whenever it happens, Rick Chandler will say, "well, I didn't mean that Indiana would never get back to the Elite Eight."

The Wisconsin game.

2009-02-17T19:33:00.004+03:30

Wisconsin Badgers
Current record: 16-9 (7-6)
Current RPI: 30
Current Sagarin: 30
Current Pomeroy: 32
2007-08 record: 31-5 (16-2, Big Ten champion/Big Ten Tournament champion; lost to Davidson in NCAA Sweet 16)
2007-08 RPI: 10
2007-08 Sagarin: 5
2007-08 Pomeroy: 5
Series: IU leads 94-57
Last IU win: 1/31/2007 (71-66 in Bloomington)
Last Wisconsin win: 2/13/2008 (68-66 in Bloomington)
Pomeroy scouting report
TV: 9 pm Thursday, ESPN

(I thought the game was tomorrow, but it's Thursday. Here's the preview anyway).

After two excellent seasons, the Badgers have settled back to Earth this season, and the Badgers cannot afford to lose to IU, even on the road. Wisconsin has rallied admirably from a six game losing streak, and has won four in a row, including home wins against Illinois and Ohio State and a road win at Penn State. Not long ago, Wisconsin was a Big Ten laughingstock and went 46 seasons (from 1947 to 1994) without a single NCAA Tournament appearance. Now, Wisconsin has been to the tournament ten consecutive years and 11 of the last 12. Only Michigan State has a longer current tournament streak among Big Ten programs. Of the Badgers' five remaining games, two are against IU, but the Badgers still have to travel to Michigan State and Minnesota.

The main tempo free difference between this year's Badgers and the excellent teams of 2007 and 20008 is on the defensive side. UW's usually dominant defense is merely above average. Wisconsin's field goal defense and defensive turnover and steal percentages are pedestrian or worse, although they remain among the nation's leaders in defensive rebounding. On the offensive side, the Badgers continue to excel at taking care of the ball. As always, the Badgers play at a very slow pace, only 60 possessions per game (#331 of 344 teams).

The ageless Marcus Landry leads the Badgers at 12.9 points per game, and is shooting 50 percent from the field and 37 percent from behind the arc. Virtually all of Wisconsin's top 7 scorers are legitimate threats to shoot three pointers. Jon Leuer, who is 6-10, is shooting only 28 percent from behind the arc, but still takes 1.6 from there per game, and could present a matchup problem, as could Landry if he drags seemingly exhausted Tom Pritchard out to the perimeter. I wouldn't be surprised to see some novel defensive looks for Crean in this game.

Blogpoll draft ballot, week 2.

2009-02-16T19:44:00.002+03:30

Rank	Team	Delta

1	Connecticut
2	North Carolina	2
3	Pittsburgh	1
4	Oklahoma	1
5	Duke	2
6	Missouri	6
7	Michigan St.	2
8	Memphis	2
9	Villanova	2
10	Clemson	3
11	Kansas	2
12	Louisville	6
13	Illinois	2
14	Wake Forest	6
15	Arizona St.	7
16	Xavier	3
17	Washington	1
18	UCLA	4
19	Purdue	2
20	Gonzaga	4
21	West Virginia
22	Marquette	5
23	California
24	Butler	8
25	Syracuse
Last week's ballot

Dropped Out: Ohio St. (#20), Florida St. (#23).

There it is, done hastily. I did an average of RPI, Sagarin, and Pomeroy ratings, developed the top 25 from that, and adjusted as I saw fit. What I didn't do was pay attention to last week's ballot or to the media/coaches polls. If something is obviously stupid, please let me know.

Illinois 65, Indiana 52.

2009-02-16T16:34:00.002+03:30

Here's the box score. Illinois played an excellent first half on both sides of the ball and built enough of a cushion to withstand an IU rally. The Illini shot 63 percent in the first half and held IU to 27 percent shooting in that half. In the first half, IU had an equal number of turnovers and field goals (6). In the second half, thanks to a triangle-and-two defense lauded by the CBS announcers, IU stymied the Illinois offense a bit and managed to pull within 6 with a Malik Story layup at 6:27. After a missed three pointer by Verdell Jones, Illinois's Chester Frazier, typically not a three point shooter, hit an open three pointer, and IU never really challenged after that.

IU's turnover numbers were modestly better. They turned the ball over 13 times in a 59 possession game. The slow pace exaggerates it a bit, but the 22 percent figure still makes it one of IU's better performances of the season in that regard. On the downside, the rebounding stats, one of the few bright spots of IU's trip to Illinois, were almost completely reversed in this game. The Hoosiers pulled down only 25 percent of their own misses (second worst performance of the season) and Illinois ended up with 40 percent of its misses, IU's fourth worst performance of the season. Most disappointing was the 11-24 performance from the free throw line. Illinois committed 20 fouls to IU's 14, but IU could have made the game much more competitive by making a respectable number of free throws.

Mike Davis and Mike Tisdale led the way for Illinois, each scoring 16 points on 12 shots. Trent Meacham and Dominique Keller led the way during the road loss in Champaign, but didn't play huge roles today. Illinois's balanced offense could help the Illini in March. There was plenty of strutting and posing in the first half, which led to some sort of discussion/staredown between Tom Crean and Davis. I haven't read anything about it in the media, and Crean deflected a question about taunting during his press conference. In the second half, Calvin Brock got a technical for what appeared to be an inadvertent collision with Kyle Taber while dancing after a made basket. It was a tough call, but I'll take it as payback for the officials' refusal to T up Chester Frazier in Champaign last year.

As for IU's individuals:

Tom Prtichard again wasn't much of a factor. He scored 7 points on 6 attempts and had 4 rebounds in 36 minutes.
Kyle Taber, although chewed out by Crean late in the first half, had a game more reminiscent of his performances last season, when he wasn't asked to shoulder as much of a burden. He scored 5 points on 2-3 from the field, had 7 rebounds, and didn't turn the ball over. Do no harm.
Matt Roth was IU's leading scorer, scoring 13 points on 4-7 from the field, 3-6 from behind the arc.
Verdell Jones had a couple of nice plays, but 5 of IU's 13 turnovers.
Devan Dumes sat out his second consecutive game as part of his indefinite suspension for elbows against Northwestern and Michigan State. I won't quote it, because it appears only as part of Peegs's premium content (i.e., the IU Pravda site didn't reproduce the whole press conference transcript), but there's at least a suggestion that IU is getting pressure from Jim Delany not to bring Dumes back quite yet. Figures.

It's hard to believe, but the season is winding down. Only six regular season games remain. IU hosts Wisconsin on Wednesday night, travels to Purdue on Saturday, and hosts Northwestern a week from Wednesday. The Badgers have rebounded nicely from their six game losing streak, but aren't as strong as in recent years. Northwestern , now 4-8 in the conference, seems to have firmly pissed away its best chance ever for a NCAA bid with gut-wrenching home losses to Illinois and Michigan. These next two home games, plus the possibility of catching the 6 seed napping in the Big Ten Tournament, probably are IU's only real opportunities to win again this season. The Purdue game, while nearly a certain loss, will be an opportunity for the Hoosiers to try to stay close to a better team that will be looking to humiliate them.

The Illinois game, take 2.

2009-02-14T23:30:00.002+03:30

Illinois fighting Illini
Current record: 20-5 (8-4)
Current RPI: 13
Current Sagarin: 13
Current Pomeroy: 22
2007-08 record: 16-19 (5-13)
2007-08 RPI: 99
2007-08 Sagarin: 73
2007-08 Pomeroy: 40
Series: IU leads 82-79
Last IU win: 2/7/2008 (83-79 in Champaign, double OT)
Last Illinois win: 1/10/2009 (76-45 in Champaign)
Last Illinois win in Bloomington: 2/3/2004 (51-49)
Pomeroy scouting report
TV: 1pm Saturday, CBS

After a horrific 2007-08 season, Illinois is in the best position of the three four loss Big Ten teams (Purdue and Ohio State are the others) to mae a run at 2-loss Michigan State. As sadly goes without saying this year, Illinois cannot afford to lose to IU. While the Hoosiers have been competitive in all but two of their conference games this season, the trip to Champaign was the least competitive of the bunch, and like the trip to Kentucky, the game at Illinois was effectively over by the first TV timeout. IU has been competitive at home, losing by no more than 12 points, but Illinois probably is the best team IU has faced at home.

Illinois has been excellent defensively. The Illini currently rank #7 in the nation in defensive efficiency and are the best in the Big Ten in that category in league games. The Illini force opponents to turn the ball over on 22 percent of possessions and rank #5 in the nation in three point defense. Illinois does not stand out as a rebounding team. The Illini rank #7 in offensive rebounding in league games and #8 on the defensive side. IU is ahead of the Illini on both sides of the ball. Offensively, Illinois has been respectable but not great from behind the arc, shooting 35 percent, but the Illini made 13 three pointers in the blowout in Champaign. Withstanding the Illinois defense and finding a way to stop Trent Meacham, who went 7-9 from behind the arc against IU, will be key. Meacham and Dominique Keller, who made 4-4 against IU, both shoot over 40 percent from behind the arc.

The trip to Illinois was IU's third worst turnover performance of the conference season, second worst in terms of offensive efficiency, and second worst in defensive efficiency. On the other hand, IU's offensive and defensive rebound percentages were IU's second best of the season. If IU can continue that trend but do a better job containing Illinois's three point shooters and find some looks for their own, is it crazy to think IU can compete? I do think IU can and will compete. That has not been the problem this season. I expect a game decided by a single digit margin, but Illinois is deservedly favored.

Minnesota 62, Indiana 54.

2009-02-12T04:56:00.003+03:30

Playing without Devin Dumes and despite 26 turnovers, IU managed to make a game of this one and even led briefly during the second half. The main distinguishing characteristic of Tubby's first two Minnesota games has been the ability to ugly things up. Of course, this year, the problem is exacerbated, because Minnesota's defensive strengths play into IU's offensive weaknesses. But don't forget last year's win at the Barn. Despite having a much more talented team, IU still managed to turn the ball over (drumroll) 26 times. In last year's game, IU turned the ball over on 35.4 percent of its possession. In the last two seasons, only last night's game (38.6) and the Northeastern loss (36.1) have been worse than the 2008 trip to Minnesota. As painful as it was to watch that spectacle last night, this may become the usual pattern in Minneapolis.

Neither offense looked very good, but the Gophers' shooting was even worse than IU's. The difference is that because of a +7 turnover differential and tremendous offensive rebounding by Minnesota (48.5 percent of their own misses), the Gophers attempted 55 field goals to IU's 37.

Verdell Jones, despite 5 turnovers, was very effective. He scored 18 points on 8 attempts, thanks to 8-8 from the line. Nick Williams scored 15 points on 7 shots because of 5-6 from the line. IU began the game 1-6 from the line but made 15 of its final 16 free throw attempts. Malik Story was fine offensively (9 points on 8 shots, but 5 turnovers). Most significantly, he played 24 minutes, in a road game no less, and committed only one foul. That's progress.

On the downside, Tom Pritchard may be hitting the wall. He hasn't scored in double figures in the last five games. Last night, he didn't score and fouled out in 27 minutes. Ditto Daniel Moore. Again, all of these guys are bearing more burden than any freshman typically has to bear. Still, 5 turnovers and 4 fouls in 13 minutes isn't a good output for a guy who doesn't shoot.

IU plays at home against Illinois on Sunday. It will be the Illini's first trip to Bloomington since last year's game in Champaign, and it will be interesting to see how the crowd greets Bruce Weber and Chester Frazier.

The Daily Gopher's take is here.

IU and UVa agree to home-and-home.

2009-02-10T17:13:00.004+03:30

A few weeks ago, South Florida opted out of its scheduled 2009 trip to Bloomington, and now Virginia has become the final piece of the football scheduling puzzle. IU heads to Charlottesville this season, and the Cavaliers come to Bloomington in 2010. No date was announced, and UVa's ACC games all are listed with dates to be determined, but the best guess seems to be that the game will be on October 10.

IU's schedule will be a bit tougher this season. IU still plays Division I-AA Eastern Kentucky, Akron (it's not clear if this game will be at home or on the road), and Western Michigan, but the addition of a BCS conference road game at least will keep us off the "worst schedule" lists. Also, IU drops Michigan State and Minnesota in favor of Michigan and Ohio State.

As for Virginia, former Jets coach Al Groh now is entering his ninth season in Charlottesville. Groh has won 56 percent of his games there, although he hasn't been quite as successful as his predecessor, the underrated George Welsh. Groh has led the Cavaliers to five minor bowl bids in his eight season there. After a Gator Bowl bid in 2007-08, UVa fell back to 5-7 last season. Groh is 2-2 against Big Ten schools, with a bowl win over Minnesota, a home win against Penn State, and road losses to Penn State and Wisconsin.

I have mixed feelings about this game. If IU, at this stage in the program's development, really wanted to play a BCS conference school, I would prefer a team in the Washington State or Iowa State mold. Still, if IU is a legitimate bowl contender, this is a winnable game. If it's not a winnable game, then IU probably isn't going anywhere anyway. Still, if IU is sitting a 5-7 with a 3 point loss at Charlottesville, there may be some second-guessing.

The Minnesota game, take 2.

2009-02-10T16:20:00.003+03:30

Minnesota Golden Gophers
Current record: 18-5 (6-5)
Current RPI: 25
Current Sagarin: 32
Current Pomeroy: 48
2007-08 record: 20-14 (8-10), lost to Maryland in first round of NIT
2007-08 RPI: 98
2007-08 Sagarin: 78
2007-08 Pomeroy: 61
Series: IU leads 88-65
Last Minnesota win: 1/25/2009 (67-63 in Bloomington)
Last IU win: 3/5/2008 (69-55 in Bloomington)
Last IU win in Minneapolis: 1/17/2008 (65-60)
Pomeroy scouting report
TV: 9 p.m. tonight, BTN

IU's home loss to Minnesota was one of the most disappointing of the season. Certainly, the Gophers were justifiably favored, but IU was in the game for the duration, but poor judgment in late game possessions and poor free throw shooting doomed the Hoosiers. Minnesota is 6-5 in the Big Ten and remains in the hunt for the NCAA Tournament thanks to a tough schedule and a nice non-conference win against Louisville. Minnesota is on track to get a bid, but certainly doesn't have much margin for error. And losing this game would be an error. Fortunately for the Gophers, the Barn has been a house of horrors for IU. Since IU's last outright Big Ten title in 1993, IU has won at the Barn only three times, including last season. That makes it among the worst road venues for IU in that time frame, behind Michigan State (0 wins since 1991) and tied with Illinois and Wisconsin. The difference, of course, is that those three schools have been very good during most of that period. In other words, better IU teams have lost to worse Minnesota teams up there.

As I noted before the last game, the Gophers present particular problems for IU because their strength's match IU's weaknesses. Minnesota leads the nation in blocked shot percentage, is #9 in steal percentage, and #44 in defensive turnover percentage. In conference play, Minnesota ranks second to Northwestern in turnover percentage and is the by-far leader in block percentage (over 11 percent of attempts, compared to about 3 percent by IU). The Gophers rank #3 in conference games in effective field goal percentage allowed. The Gophers have struggled a bit offensively in conference, shooting only 41.4 percent from the field (#10 in the conference, one spot behind IU) and only 32.5 percent from behind the arc (IU ranks #2 in the conference at 39 percent). Even Blake Hoffarber hasn't been immune. The Gophers have struggled with turnovers, surrendering the ball on 22.6 percent of their possessions, almost as bad as IU's 25 percent.

It's hard to be optimistic about this game. Minnesota is at home, needs a win, and should be able to disrupt IU's offense. And IU will be playing without Devan Dumes, sitting out the first game of his indefinite suspension for throwing some elbows against MSU and in earlier games.

For the Minnesota side, be sure to check out the Daily Gopher. From the Barn has a preview up , and advocates treating it as an exhibition game, essentially. With Dumes out, Minnesota probably could get away with it, but that seems like an odd perspective considering that the game in Bloomington was within a one point margin with 29 seconds remaining.

Inaugural CBS Sports basketball Blogpoll draft ballot.

2009-02-09T07:18:00.002+03:30

Here's my draft ballot for the first basketball version of the Blogpoll. I'll revisit later in the week. This is a draft ballot, and therefore comments are welcome and will be considered. My methodology was to rank the teams based on an aggregate of Pomeroy/Sagarin/RPI and adjust as I saw fit.

Rank	Team

1	Connecticut
2	Pittsburgh
3	Duke
4	North Carolina
5	Oklahoma
6	Louisville
7	Clemson
8	Wake Forest
9	Michigan St.
10	Memphis
11	Villanova
12	Missouri
13	Kansas
14	UCLA
15	Illinois
16	Butler
17	Marquette
18	Washington
19	Xavier
20	Ohio St.
21	Purdue
22	Arizona St.
23	Florida St.
24	Gonzaga
25	Syracuse

Michigan State 75, Indiana 47.

2009-02-09T04:51:00.003+03:30

After a surprisingly competitive first 22 minutes, Michigan State exploded in the second half, and the final score was much as expected. Here's the box score. Of course, the various issues involving Devan Dumes have dominated postgame coverage. My thoughts, now mute thanks to Tom Crean's decision to suspend Dumes indefinitely, were that sitting him down for a game would be warranted. Some commenters on Inside the Hall and in other places were suggesting anything from a five game suspension to dismissal from the team. I think there's a bit of shellshock among the IU fan base and a tendency to overreact. I don't excuse Dumes's actions, but that would be harsh, and I'm guessing that the indefinite suspension (under which Dumes will continue practicing and traveling with the team) will be in the nature of a game or two.

For Dumes, this game included three incidents, any one of which might have been excused, but which taken as a whole (and perhaps with the elbow to the head of Northwestern's Craig Moore a couple of weeks ago) seem to be a pattern that Crean needed to get under control. Elbow number one against MSU was fairly innocuous. Absent the rest of the game, it would have been forgotten. Later in the game, Dumes clearly elbowed Michigan State's Goran Suton in the crotch. KJ of Spartans Weblog had an in-person view of the play and is incredulous that Ed Hightower didn't toss Dumes out of the game after the video review. Eh. While I don't think there's much doubt that Dumes threw the elbow intentionally (i.e., it wasn't part of his running motion), my best guess is that Hightower concluded that he wasn't sure if Dumes intentionally elbowed Suton where he did or if he was just trying (illegally) to get ahead of Suton. Whatever. I didn't see the final elbow of the game, but ultimately, the totality earned a suspension for Dumes, and hopefully he will learn his lesson.

As for the game, IU played its least efficient offensive game since Maui, scoring only .68 points per possession. IU turned the ball over quite a bit, and although the Hoosiers rebounded respectably on the defensive end, MSU took much better care of the ball (only 10 turnovers to IU's 21) and made six three pointers. MSU shot only 42 percent from the field, but IU shot 31 percent. It was a decent enough defensive performance from IU, but was overwhelmed by the Spartan defense.

No Hoosiers stood out much on offense. Verdell Jones scored 13 points on 8 shots thanks to 8-10 from the line. Matt Roth scored 10 points on 8 shots despite only 2-8 from the field.

Overall, this one was unsurprising. Now, IU heads to Minnesota without its leading scorer and then hosts Illinois on Sunday.

The Michigan State game.

2009-02-06T20:09:00.004+03:30

Michigan State Spartans
Current record: 18-4 (8-2)
Current RPI: 4
Current Sagarin: 7
Current Pomeroy: 14
2007-08 record: 27-9, 12-6 (lost to Memphis in NCAA Sweet 16)
2007-08 RPI: 13
2007-08 Sagarin: 15
2007-08 Pomeroy: 15
Series: IU leads 65-44
Last Michigan State win: 3/2/2008 (103-74 in East Lansing)
Last IU win: 2/16/2008 (80-61 in Bloomington)
Last IU win in East Lansing: 2/28/1991 (62-56)
Pomeroy scouting report
TV: 4 pm, ESPN

While conventional wisdom suggests that the Big Ten does not have a great team this season, but absent an inexplicable home losses to Northwestern and Penn State a couple of weeks ago, the Spartans would be in control of the Big Ten race and in the thick of the one-seed discussion. Of course, Penn State and Northwestern are much better than usual, but it would be interesting to know the highest in the Big Ten standings a team has finished in a season in which it lost at home to both Penn State and Northwestern.

I digress because I don't have much to say about this game. It appears to be IU's second most hopeless remaining game, ahead only of the trip to Mackey in a couple of weeks. This team is yet another example of the classic Izzo formula: good shooting plus excellent offensive rebounding equals an incredibly efficient, if not pretty, offense. On the defensive side, the Spartans excel only at rebounding, but that's enough to make MSU's defense very effective. Unlike matchups against the likes of Michigan, Iowa, Northwestern, and even Ohio State and Illinois, MSU seems likely to manhandle the Hoosiers. Currently, the Spartans rank #3 nationally in offensive rebounding, coming up with 42.2 percent of their own misses, and #8 in defensive rebounding percentage, limiting opponents to 27 percent of their misses. MSU doesn't take all that many three pointers, but they choose carefully, ranking #44 nationally with 37.8 percent shooting from behind the arc, and thanks presumably in large part to second chance points, the Spartans shoot over 50 percent from inside the arc. MSU doesn't take particularly good care of the ball and doesn't force many turnovers, but the Spartans play solid field goal defense and rarely allow or miss out on a second chance.

Of course, the subtext in this game is the first conference game between Izzo and his protege, Tom Crean. They previously met in the first round of the NCAA Tournament in 2007, and MSU defeated Marquette. Many IU fans will be wondering if they are watching a preview of future IU teams? To some degree, that seems likely. The one thread that runs through Crean's good and mediocre Marquette teams is excellent offensive rebounding. Marquette under Crean never really excelled on the defensive boards the way Izzo's teams do, but Crean's teams also tended to be more perimeter oriented, with more three point shooting, and also look a bit better on turnovers on both sides of the ball.

The only positive for tomorrow is that Raymar Morgan, MSU's #2 scorer and #2 rebounder, will miss his second consecutive game because of walking pneumonia. Still, the Spartans, with Kalin Lucas, Goran Suton, and a host of others, even a competitive loss by IU would be a surprise.

For the Spartan side of things, be sure to check out this preview from Spartans Weblog, one of the finest basketball-focused blogs around. As KJ notes, IU may be starting to show the Izzo-Crean influence already. In conference games, IU ranks #3 in offensive rebounding percentage and #2 in defensive rebounding percentage, and #3 in three point percentage (41 percent, thanks in large part to great games from Matt Roth and Devan Dumes in the last week.

Cut down the nets! Indiana 68, Iowa 60.

2009-02-05T06:31:00.004+03:30

Here's the box score, in all its glory. Going 1-17 won't be any treat, if it happens, but at least the Hoosiers won't enter next season 0-for-2009 or with a losing streak in excess of 20 games. As it was, IU tied, but did not break, the school record losing streak, and can't break the record this season. That's what we'll take as success this season.

As with everything else in 2008-09, this was not easy. IU had a 20 point lead (49-29) with 11:58 remaining, but with a 31-10 run, Iowa pulled to within 3 points with 44 seconds remaining. Fortunately, the Hawkeyes turned the ball over twice in the last 24 seconds, and IU finally made some free throws and preserved the win.

If my math is correct, this was roughly a 59 possession game, so IU's 11 turnover performance isn't as good as it might appear (around 18 percent, still pretty good for this team). Still, after 5 turnovers in the first 4:08, IU turned the ball over only 6 times in the final 36 minutes of the game. IU's failure to make free throws in the second half gave Iowa a chance to win the game, but the Hawkeyes didn't, and I'll take whatever IU gets this season.

As for the individuals:

Devan Dumes was perhaps even better than Matt Roth was against OSU. Dumes scored 27 points on 8-9 from the field (including 5-5 from behind the arc) and 6-8 from the line.
Nick Williams scored 14 points on 9 attempts, thanks to 6-6 from the line. He also had 9 rebounds.
Malik Story scored 9 points on 8 attempts. Unfortunately, Story committed 3 fouls in 15 minutes, which limited his play. Story is averaging a foul every 7.6 minutes, every 6.8 minutes in Big Ten play. Story has quite a bit of potential, but has to find a way to stay on the court.
Tom Prtichard is struggling a bit. He scored only 2 points and fouled out.
Fortunately, Kyle Taber picked up the slack with one of his best games as a Hoosier. Seven points on six shots, 8 rebounds, 2 blocks.

Well, that's a relief. We'll leave the 0-fers to Northwestern. IU goes to Michigan State on Saturday, where the Hoosiers haven't won since 1991. Let's worry about that one tomorrow.

Signing day link.

2009-02-04T18:10:00.002+03:30

IU is updating the official site as letters come in. So far, as of 9:38, IU has received 14 of its 18 expected letters of intent. No surprises either way so far.

UPDATE: As the link now reflects, this was an uneventful signing day by modern standards. All eighteen commits signed: no additions, no subtractions.

Iowa, take II.

2009-02-04T05:57:00.003+03:30

Iowa Hawkeyes
Current record: 12-10 (2-7)
Current RPI: 88
Current Sagarin: 75
Current Pomeroy: 84
2007-08 record: 13-19 (6-12)
2007-08 RPI: 188
2007-08 Sagarin: 149
2007-08 Pomeroy: 116
Series: IU leads 93-69
Last Iowa win: 1/3/2009 (65-60 in Iowa City)
Last IU win: 1/23/2008 (65-43 in Bloomington)
Last Iowa win in Bloomington: 2/11/2006 (70-67)
Pomeroy scouting report
TV: 6:30 pm, BTN

The Hawkeyes are in a much different place than when these two teams met a month ago in IU's Big Ten opener. At the time, Iowa was 10-4 with computer rankings squarely in bubble range. Today, Iowa is 2-7 (with home wins over IU and struggling Wisconsin) and probably is more realistically concerned with making the NIT. As for the Hoosiers, IU simply has to win this game. Has to has to has to. In the last game, IU and Iowa were fairly evenly matched, but Iowa's Cyrus Tate had a huge game, not unlike Ralph Sampson, and just about every big man who sees the chance.

Pomeroy says that this is IU's best remaining chance to win, a whopping 25 percent chance. I could spend lots of time breaking down the matchups, but this season is beyond that right now. It's just a must-win.

Signing day eve.

2009-02-03T18:48:00.003+03:30

Those who have read this blog for a while know that I'm not much of a recruiting follower. For basketball, I can keep track to some degree, but for football, the sheer number of players recruited as well as the greater difficulty in evaluating football players makes it a mind-numbing exercise for me. That said, Wednesday's signing day looks to be IU's best in years. I've been quite critical of Bill Lynch and the performance of the 2008 Hoosiers, so it's only fair to note that despite the on-field downturn, Lynch managed to hold together a solid recruiting class. While IU did not land any of the highly coveted four star or five star recruits, 15 of IU's 18 recruits are three star recruits, according to Rivals.com. This doesn't put IU in the upper echelon (IU's class currently ranks #58 nationally and ninth in the big Ten, ahead of Iowa and Purdue), but is a dramatic improvement over IU's recent classes. Since 2002 (as far back as the Rivals ratings go,) IU's best haul previously was 7 three star recruits in 2003. In every other season, the number has been between three and five. IU fans often joke that the best way for a three star recruit to turn into a two star is to commit to Indiana, so it is to this staff's credit that this class looks so good on paper.

Also, there is no doubt that IU is employing a close to home philosophy. Of IU's 18 commits, 17 are from Indiana, Ohio, Illinois, or Michigan. The 18th is from Pennsylvania, within the Big Ten footprint. It will be interesting to see how IU under Lynch and Purdue, under new coach Danny Hope, compete both on the field and on the recruiting trail. From the looks of Purdue's class, they may not be moving in the same circles. Of Purdue's recruits, 13 are from Florida, none from Indiana, and a single recruit from Kentucky is the only Boiler commit who is from a state that is even contiguous to Indiana.

I don't mean to take this post in a "whose class is better" direction. IU's class is better in terms of star rankings, but there is such a glut of talent in places like Florida, Georgia, and Texas that many talented players are under the radar, and obviously Hope hopes that he has found those types of players. Still, I think Purdue's philosophy is good for IU. One of IU's great disadvantages has been being the #3 football school in a relatively small state. If Purdue simply declines to compete for Indiana kids, leaving IU as the first caller for good players who aren't quite good enough to get offers from Notre Dame, Michigan, Ohio State, etc., that's good. Again, that's not to say that one philosophy or the other is better. But it's long been conventional wisdom that it's tough for IU and Purdue to be good at the same time. In the last 25 years, Purdue was mostly horrible during the Mallory era, and IU was mostly horrible during the Tiller era. If Purdue is going to focus so heavily on outside recruits, that makes it more likely in my mind that both teams could be good at the same time.

Ohio State 93, Indiana 81.

2009-02-02T02:34:00.003+03:30

Despite one of the great individual shooting performances in IU history, 9 three pointers by freshman Matt Roth, IU couldn't outscore the Buckeyes, who shot 63 percent for the game and 73 percent in the second half. Here's the box score. The IU offense was very effective. IU's 1.15 points per possession is the best IU has done against Division I competition this season. The turnover percentage of 18.1 was IU's lowest of the Big Ten season. Unfortunately, IU's defensive performance was the worst of the season across the board. Really, Roth's shooting masked a 37% shooting percentage for the team, but kept the Hoosiers in the game for about 30 of its 40 minutes.

There's not much more to say about this game. I'm happy to have seen Roth show his excellent shooting ability, and there's no doubt in my mind, as I have said before, that once IU's overall talent level increases, Roth will be a key contributor. Next, IU faces Iowa, the Hoosiers' best remaining chance for a win. We shall see.

Ohio State, Round II.

2009-01-31T18:24:00.003+03:30

Ohio State Buckeyes

Current record: 14-5 (4-4)

Current RPI: 22

Current Sagarin: 28

Current Pomeroy: 48

2007-08 record: 24-13 (10-8) (won NIT)

2007-08 RPI: 46

2007-08 Sagarin: 21
2007-08 Pomeroy: 29

Series: IU leads 101-72

Last Ohio State win: 1/13/2009 (77-53 in Columbus)

Last IU win: 2/26/2008 (72-69 in Bloomington)

Last OSU win in Bloomington: 2/21/2004 (59-56)

Pomeroy scouting report

TV: 4 pm, ESPN2

IU plays its first repeat customer of the Big Ten season this afternoon. IU's loss in Columbus, along with the loss at Illinois, was one of IU's two completely non-competitive games of the seven Big Ten losses. After a strong nonconference season, OSU has gone 4-4 in the Big Ten, with a 1-3 road record and a home loss to Michigan State. Pomeroy projects OSU to finish 9-9 in the conference, so a loss today could lead to some uneasiness in Columbus about the Buckeyes' NCAA prospects. In the first IU-OSU game of the season, the Buckeyes, especially Jon Diebler, ended the game early by making 11 three pointers in the first half.

The Buckeye defense, a strength of the team early in the season, has fallen back to the pack a bit, particularly in Big Ten road games. Although OSU still ranks #34 nationally in adjusted defensive efficiency, the Buckeyes' 1.02 points per possession allowed in conference games is middle-of the-pack (IU, of course, is comfortably worst in both offensive and defensive efficiency. Still, this promises to be a struggle.

See Eleven Warriors for the OSU perspective.

Northwestern 77, Indiana 75.

2009-01-30T21:57:00.004+03:30

For all of this team’s flaws, the Hoosiers have been competitive in five of seven Big Ten games, but still don’t have a win to show for it. Wednesday night’s loss in Evanston didn’t have the sting of the blown 20 point lead against Michigan, but would have been much easier to take if IU had at least been able to take a potential tying or winning shot instead of committing the 22nd turnover of the night. Here’s the box score. This was a 69 possession game, practically frenetic for Northwestern, but the two teams combined for 41 turnovers, which shortened quite a few possessions for each team. That is a positive. As I noted in the preview, NU takes care of the ball very well, so it is to IU's credit that the Wildcats struggled to take care of the ball. NU's turnover percentage of 27.7% was its worst of the Big Ten season. Unfortunately, IU's 32% was its worst of the Big Ten season. Ultimately, it was a very evenly matched game. Both teams shot 12-23 from behind the arc. NU made three more field goals than IU. IU turned the ball over a touch more. IU made a few more free throws and won the rebounding battle (as does everyone against Northwestern). Northwestern played great defense on the final inbounds play, IU panicked a bit, and that was that.

While Tom Crean and his team don't want to consider moral victories, it is to Crean's immense credit that this team continues to fight, both in every game and when games seem out of reach, such as when Northwestern took a 9 point lead in the second half. Although obviously disappointed to lose, Crean offered his team a round of applause as they came off the court Wednesday night.

The individuals:

Devan Dumes was great. 26 points on 16 attempts, 6-10 from behind the arc. Yes, he probably should have been ejected for the forearm to the head of Craig Moore. I don't really understand how the officials saw enough for a technical but not enough for the flagrant, but I won't complain. This has been the week of the cheap shot. Michigan's Zack Novak was ejected Wednesday night for an elbow to the head of an OSU player, and Wisconsin's Joe Krabbenhoft somehow didn't even get called for a foul when he added an obvious (and unnecessary) forearm to what should have been a beautiful screen.
Matt Roth had his biggest impact of the season, scoring 12 points on 4-7 from behind the arc.
Verdell Jones is progressing. He scored 14 points on 7 attempts, but gave back some of that efficiency by turning the ball over 7 times.
Malik Story managed 6 points on 0-2 from the field, thanks to a 6-6 performance from the line.
Tom Pritchard scored only 7 points, but had 10 rebounds, four offensive.

Again, IU fans can take some solace in the ability of this team to compete with 5 of 7 Big Ten foes to this point. Still, with two games against MSU, road trips to Purdue, Minnesota, and Penn State, a home game against Illinois, and two games against Wisconsin, the opportunities for wins are dwindling. Just one, to avoid heading into the offseason with a 21 game losing streak, would be nice, although this team's reward isn't going to come in 2008-09. We are going to have one seasoned group of sophomores next year, at least.

Be sure to check out postgame discussion here and here at Lake the Posts, and at Welsh-Ryan Ramblings.

The Northwestern game.

2009-01-28T15:50:00.004+03:30

Northwestern Wildcats
Current record: 10-7 (2-5)
Current RPI: 41
Current Sagarin: 43
Current Pomeroy: 46
2007-08 record: 8-21 (1-17)
2007-08 RPI: 191
2007-08 Sagarin: 190
2007-08 Pomeroy: 158
Series: IU leads 107-43
Last Northwestern win: 1/5/2005 (73-52 in Evanston)
Last IU win: 2/23/2008 (85-82 in Evanston)
Pomeroy scouting report
TV: 8:30 tonight, BTN

Tonight, IU tries once again for its first Big Ten win, and Northwestern tries to preserve its best NCAA Tournament hopes in memory (ever?). The Wildcats' record is unimpressive, but they have played a tough conference schedule to date, and their computer rankings suggest that they will be in bubble range if they win out at home and perhaps steal a road game (most likely in Bloomington, where NU hasn't won since 1968). A win tonight probably is crucial to Northwestern's postseason hopes. While IU has dominated the overall series and won 26 in a row against Northwestern from 1988 to 2003, NU has been much better at home, winning three of the last five in Evanston.

As always, NU is one of the slowest-paced teams in the country. Their offense is the same as it has been under Bill Carmody: NU shoots well, particularly from behind the arc (38 percent), takes care of the ball (17.6 %, #23), doesn't rebound well on either side of the ball. It's striking just how similar NU's tempo-free numbers look across good seasons and bad. The main distinction between this season and last season for NU is on the defensive side of the ball. NU is always good at forcing turnovers, and this season is no exception (25% defensive TO percentage, #21 nationally). The main difference this year has been 2 point field goal percentage. NU still allows its opponents to make 35 percent of their three point shots, but NU is holding opponents to 43.8 percent from two point range, good enough for #46 nationally.

Northwestern, like many slow paced teams (including Wisconsin) is always labeled as a good defensive team by those who haven't seen the tempo-free light. In most seasons under Carmody, the defense has lagged the offense. For once, however, the label fits this year. Even without any rebounding to speak of, NU's 47% effective field goal percentage and 25 percent turnover percentage lead to an adjusted offensive efficiency that ranks NU #35 nationally.

In previous weeks, I have noted that IU is better equipped to compete with perimeter-oriented teams than with teams with a strong inside presence. That means that on paper, IU should be competitive, relative to this season, with NU. The problem with that is that despite a very three pointer-oriented offense, NU is huge. Five of NU's top seven scorers, including leading scorer and three point threat Kevin Coble, are 6-8 or taller. Like Ohio State's Jon Diebler did, I worry that NU is going to get a bunch of easy three point looks.

Pomeroy gives IU a 4 percent chance of winning this game. That's hard to accept at an area where IU has lost only 6 times in the last 37 years. Still, IU made some progress against Minnesota and hopefully can continue that trend and hope for some cold shooting by the Wildcats.

Be sure to check out NU's Chamber of Commerce, Lake the Posts, for coverage.

Minnesota 67, IU 63.

2009-01-26T19:51:00.001+03:30

The box score. IU was competitive for the fourth time in six Big Ten games, but has nothing but an 0-6 record to show for it. IU stayed with Minnesota all day, despite allowing Ralph Sampson (it seemed somehow appropriate to hear that last name repeated over and over) to run wild, would have been in a great position to win the game but for poor free throw shooting and some poor decision-making down the stretch. IU was only 11-21 from the line, including 7-15 in the second half. IU led for most of the first half, and while Minnesota stretched its lead to 7 on a couple of occasions in the second half, IU stayed close. I thought the key sequence was with 4:32 remaining. IU had pulled to within one point at 58-57, and rebounded a Minnesota miss. Malik Story, instead of pulling up, committed a charge on a drive to the basket. IU got to within one again in the final minute, but never took the lead in the second half. I don’t mean to pick on Story. Freshmen who ordinarily wouldn’t be put in such situations are forced to do so for this team.

Oh well. On to Northwestern. NU won at Michigan State last week, but at 2-5 needs to make a move if the Wildcats are to make their first NCAA Tournament appearance. It would be a tough road win.

The Minnesota game.

2009-01-23T21:13:00.003+03:30

Minnesota Golden Gophers
Current record: 16-3 (4-3)
Current RPI: 30
Current Sagarin: 36
Current Pomeroy: 49
2007-08 record: 20-14 (8-10), lost to Maryland in first round of NIT
2007-08 RPI: 98
2007-08 Sagarin: 78
2007-08 Pomeroy: 61
Series: IU leads 88-64
Last Minnesota win: 3/14/2008 (59-58 in BTT quarterfinals, Indianapolis)
Last IU win: 3/5/2008 (69-55 in Bloomington)
Last Minnesota win in Bloomington: 2/18/2004 (74-71)
Pomeroy scouting report
TV: noon Sunday, BTN

There was a time (well, as recently as last year) that I really dreaded these bye weeks, but I have to admit that the last week has been a relief. IU resumes Big Ten play at noon on Sunday against Minnesota, currently ranked #18 in the AP poll but having lost at Northwestern and at home to Purdue. I don't particularly relish the idea of playing a desperate Minnesota team. The Gophers, if they wish to remain in the Big Ten title hunt, cannot lose to IU.

The Gophers are in a great position to return to the NCAA Tournament, thanks to a 12-0 non-conference schedule, including a signature win over Louisville. The Gophers rank in the top 70 in both offensive and defensive efficiency, thanks mostly to strong shooting and offensive rebounding. The Gophers don't take particularly good care of the ball: they have a turnover percentage of 21.1 (#195) and steal percentage of 11.2 (#277). On the defensive end, the Gophers play good field goal defense, especially inside the arc, but do not rebound well. Particularly bad news for the Hoosiers: Minnesota leads the nation in shot block percentage, refunding an incredible 20.5 percent of opponents' field goal attempts. IU, of course, ranks #342 nationally with 14.4 percent of its attempts blocked. What's the over under on shot clock violations? The Gophers also are among the nation's leaders in forcing turnovers (23.9%, #34) and steals (13.9%, #7). To a significant degree, IU's worst stats are in Minnesota's best categories. Still, the Gopher defense has shown some vulnerability in the last two losses to Northwestern and Purdue. Northwestern shot 9-21 from behind the arc and Purdue was 6-11 last night.

Lawrence Westbrook is Minnesota's only doubvle-figure scorer at 13.9 points per game. Damien Johnson, Al Nolen, and Blake Hoffarber also contribute. Hoffarber is the Gophers' best three point shooter, and IU fans will remember him for the disappointing but probably merciful game-winner that he hit against IU in last season's Big Ten Tournament.

For all of IU's flaws, the Hoosiers have been mostly competitive in both conference home games, the excruciating loss to Michigan and last weekend's loss to Penn State. Minnesota needs a win, but IU can at least hope that the Gopher's poor play continues.

Big game for women's team tonight.

2009-01-19T22:12:00.003+03:30

UPDATE: IU wins 71-57. While IU has won at Mackey and in the Big Ten Tournament, this was the Hoosiers' first home win against Purdue since 1998. This puts IU in sole possession of first place in the conference at 6-1, at least until 5-1 Ohio State plays next.

While I won't pretend to follow women's basketball closely, it's at least worth noting that while the men's team is having its worst season in memory, the women are having their best season in memory. IU is 11-2 and is 5-1 in the Big Ten, good enough for a three-way first place tie with Ohio State and Purdue. The Hoosiers are not ranked in either of the polls at the moment, but currently stand at #15 in the RPI and #18 in the Sagarin ratings. IU plays Purdue at Assembly Hall tonight. As a rivalry, it's always a big game. IU would gain legitimacy as a win, but I'm sure Purdue isn't anxious to surrender its historical upper hand in this series. One of the nice benefits to the Big Ten Network is that a game like this is actually televised.

Penn State 65, Indiana 55.

2009-01-19T19:49:00.002+03:30

Sigh. IU was more competitive in this one than in the last two games, and certainly didn't quit, but IU never really threatened in this one. And so goes IU's 15-game homecourt winning streak against Penn State, leaving Northwestern as the only Big Ten team that has never won at Assembly Hall (or any other Bloomington venue since 1968). While Penn State's offensive numbers were more impressive than its defense before this game, some combination of PSU's defense and IU's anemic offense accounted for this loss. Penn State didn't shoot or rebound all that well, although the Lions turned the ball over only 8 times in a 64 possession game as opposed to 15 for IU. Penn State's main offensive accomplishment was getting to the line. On the defensive side, this was just another in a long line of anemic offensive performances for IU (.85 points per possession). Matt Roth (2-3) and Brett Finkelmeier (1-1) were the only Hoosiers who shot over 50 percent from the field, and the team overall shot 37 percent and 20 percent from behind the arc.

Of all of the indignities of this season, this one might have been the toughest. By that I mean no disrespect to Penn State, a much improved team with a shot at making the tournament. Still, entering the game, this appeared to be IU's best chance at a conference win, and while IU was by no means embarrassed, Penn State plainly was the better team throughout, even on the road. This one was tough to swallow because before Saturday, I really hadn't accepted 0-18 as a reasonable possibility. It is.

The Penn State game: playing for pride.

2009-01-16T21:27:00.003+03:30

Penn State Nittany Lions
Current record: 13-5 (2-3)
Current RPI: 86
Current Sagarin: 72
Current Pomeroy: 76
2007-08 record: 15-16 (7-11)
2007-08 RPI: 155
2007-08 Sagarin: 115
2007-08 Pomeroy: 108
Series: IU leads 27-4 (25-4 since Penn State joined the Big Ten in 1992-93)
Last Penn State win: 3/9/2008 (68-64 in OT, University Park)
Last IU win: 1/20/2008 (81-65 in Bloomington)
Last Penn State win in Bloomington: never
Pomeroy scouting report
TV: 6 pm, BTN

As I have said at various points, it was obvious before the season that an invitation to the NCAA Tournament was beyond this team's reach. It became obvious early in the season that a winning season was beyond this team's reach. Now, most IU fans would kill for a handful of Big Ten wins. IU has been competitive in two of its conference games, most painfully the Michigan game and the blown 20 point lead. The other two have been blowouts. Now, IU faces an improved Penn State team. The numbers above make clear that the Nittany Lions have some work to do if they want to contend for a NCAA bid, but it seems that every Big Ten team except for IU can make the case that it is still in the hunt. According to Pomeroy, tomorrow's game presents IU's best chance for a win. Pomeroy gives IU a 22 percent chance to win this game, 5 points better than IU's 17 percent odds at home against Iowa. So, if there are any important games this season, this is one of them.

The Nittany Lions have played well at home this season, upsetting Purdue and nearly upsetting Michigan State. They are 2-2 in true road games, with wins at Penn and Georgia Tech and with losses at Wisconsin and Minnesota.

Penn State play what quickly seems to be becoming a predominant Big Ten style: like Iowa, Michigan, and Ohio State, Penn State plays a slow-paced game and has an efficient offense premised on taking care of the ball and shooting well from three point range. Penn State ranks #42 in offensive efficiency (1.10) #7 in offensive turnover percentage (16.8%), #27 in three point shooting percentage (38%), and #56 in percentage of points generated by three pointers. On the defensive side, Penn State is just above the mean, surrendering .99 points per possession. The rebound well defensively, ranking #9 nationally by allowing only 26.9 percent offensive rebounding, but clearly this rebounding focus to some extend explains below average numbers in steals, blocks, and turnovers. IU has so many deficiencies that it's hard to say which is the worst, but at the very least, IU should have better luck taking care of the ball against this Penn State team, but better shoot well. Penn State rebounds well without being a particularly tall team.

As for the individuals, sophomore guard Taylor Battle leads the way with 18.9 points per game and 41 percent three point shooting. Jamelle Cornley averages 14.6 points and shoots over 50 percent from the field, and Stanley Pringle averages 14.2 points per game and 50 percent (!) from behind the arc. Given IU's perimeter defense...well, you figure it out. Cross your fingers and hope they have a first half like Michigan did. That's what it has come to.

Ohio State 77, Indiana 53.

2009-01-14T19:38:00.003+03:30

Here are the stats. IU competed for most of the second half, and actually managed to pull within 13 points at one point, but like all too many of IU's games this season and for the second game in a row, it was over by the first media timeout. IU's perimeter defense continues to be a problem, and Ohio State made 11 three pointers in the first half, accounting for 75 percent of their scoring. Jon Diebler made 5 of those three pointers. I noted in the preview that Diebler's height and shooting ability could prove a deadly combination. Certainly, some of those shots were wide open, but at least a couple were "contested" by a much shorter IU player. IU's .81 points per possession will win very few games, and the 24.8 turnover percentage, while not awful by this team's standards, continues to be a problem. Verdell Jones looked more comfortable attacking the basket than he ever has, but accounted for five of those turnovers. IU did rebound well (38 percent on the offensive end to 21 percent by OSU), but the Buckeyes made so many three pointers that it didn't matter. Other random thoughts:

Dallas Lauderdale looks old enough to be Greg Oden's father.
Tom Prtichard was fairly effective, scoring 16 points on 14 shots and grabbing 11 rebounds.
Devan Dumes struggled in his return from an ankles injury (is it a return if he didn't miss a game), shooting 3-12 from the field and finishing with 8 points.
Broderick Lewis, a freshman walk-on from Lafayette, received his first meaningful minutes, and played reasonably well. He didn't have an official field goal attempt, but shot 3-4 from the line and had two rebounds and no turnovers. Lewis is 6-6 and was a state finalist in the long jump in high school. He had the reputation of not being a particularly skilled basketball player, but hopefully he will improve and continue to contribute.
Although he is a graduate of Lafayette Jeff, his hometown is listed as "West Lafayette." IU has Verdell Jones from Champaign, and will have Jordan Hulls from Bloomington next year, which is a fair representation of Big Ten college towns.

Check out the Buckeye perspective here and here.

Well, as I said, IU at least has some conceivably winnable games in the future, although IU will be a decided underdog in all three. In my mind, Saturday is a major "pride game" for this program. This team is going to finish with IU's worst record in generations, so there won't be much opportunity for major milestones. But Penn State has never won at Assembly Hall. Continuing that streak, while not banner-worthy, could be some sort of source of pride for this team.

The Ohio State game.

2009-01-13T20:12:00.002+03:30

Ohio State Buckeyes
Current record: 11-3
Current RPI: 30
Current Sagarin: 29
Current Pomeroy: 45
2007-08 record: 24-13 (10-8) (won NIT)
2007-08 RPI: 46
2007-08 Sagarin: 21
2007-08 Pomeroy: 29
Series: IU leads 101-71
Last Ohio State win: 1/2/2007 (74-67 in Columbus)
Last IU win: 2/26/2008 (72-69 in Bloomington)
Last IU win in Columbus: 2/10/2008 (59-53)
Pomeroy scouting report
TV: 7 pm, ESPN

IU's rough road in the Big Ten seems likely to get rougher tonight. After playing competitively in close losses to Iowa and Michigan, IU was humiliated at Illinois, and Ohio State seems likely to continue that trend. The Buckeyes are one of the country' best defensive teams, allowing only .89 points per possession. The Buckeyes' numbers don't reveal any particular excellence in rebounding or steals/turnovers. The Buckeyes simply play excellent two point field goal defense, block lots of shots, and their opponents don't get to the line. OSU opponents shoot fewer free throws per field goal attempt than against all but ten other teams, and OSU ranks #33 and #21 in three point and two point field goal defense. On offense, OSU shoots well from two point range and takes good care of the ball.

The Buckeyes are tall. Evan Turner leads OSU with about 15 points per game and is shooting 49 percent from the field, and just below that from two point range. John Diebler, a three point specialist who also happens to be 6-5, seems like a particularly bad matchup.

As if this team's best day weren't bad enough, IU is likely to be without one of its key players, Devan Dumes. Dumes twisted his ankle in the Illinois game and per Inside the Hall, Tom Crean described Dumes as a "game time decision at best." I think it's unlikely that he will play. After tonight's game, IU plays Penn State at home, Minnesota at home, and at Northwestern. While IU will be the underdog in all of those games, they seem a bit more realistic than the prospect of winning at OSU even with Dumes.

Despite the football-oriented name, Eleven Warriors is an OSU blog that acknowledges the existence of basketball and previews the IU game.

Illinois 76, Indiana 45.

2009-01-11T18:31:00.002+03:30

Illinois is a good team that played well. IU is a bad team that played badly. I'm not sure it warrants any more analysis than that. Unfortunately, the turnover problems, which had subsided for a while, were back in full force yesterday. The IU official site couldn't bring itself to post the play-by-play, but it seems to me that much like the Kentucky game, a huge run of turnovers combined with hot, uncontested Illinois shooting ended this game before the first TV timeout.

The worst part of the game was the injury to Devan Dumes. This morning, WTHR-TV reported that Dumes was seen on crutches after the game after landing badly on his ankle during the Illinois game. It's hard to imagine IU winning a conference game in which Dumes doesn't play.

The Illinois game.

2009-01-10T04:02:00.005+03:30

Illinois fighting Illini
Current record: 13-2 (1-1)

Current RPI: 21

Current Sagarin: 17

Current Pomeroy: 24

2007-08 record: 16-19 (5-13)

2007-08 RPI: 99

2007-08 Sagarin: 73

2007-08 Pomeroy: 40

Series: IU leads 82-78

Last IU win: 2/7/2008 (83-79 in Champaign, double OT)

Last Illinois win: 3/9/2007 (58-54 in Chicago, Big Ten Tournament quarterfinals, OT)

Last Illinois win in Champaign: 1/23/2007 (51-53)

Pomeroy scouting report
TV: 3pm Saturday, BTN

No longer "one player away," the Illini, like Michigan, like Iowa, and like just about everyone else, are on the list of vastly improved Big Ten teams. The Illini lost at Michigan, but also have the Big Ten's most impressive conference win to date, at preseason favorite Purdue. Last year, the contentiousness between Illinois coach Bruce Weber and Kelvin Sampson and Eric Gordon boiled over, and I expect that Weber and his team will be out for blood. I've said just about all I'm going to say about last year's despicable, coach-and-administration-approved atmosphere at the other Assembly Hall. I thought that Joe from Paint the Town Orange had a very reasonable perspective on the whole affair, although I'm sure we would disagree on some of the particulars. I was shocked when I heard earlier in the week that the Big Ten Network showed it as one of the Big Ten's greatest games. Give me a break. IU should be embarrassed that it ever hired Kelvin Sampson, and Illinois (and I hold the administration and Squeaky responsible much more than the fans) should be ashamed of that toxic atmosphere that they encouraged. I really don't want to think about that game, let alone see it again. Still, I couldn't help but think of it when Michigan's Laval Lucas-Perry bounced in that three pointer to force overtime. It was the third time in IU' last 13 Big Ten games that a fluky three pointer has played a huge outcome: the banked-in Gordon three that sent the Illinois game to overtime, the banked-in game-winner by Wisconsin's Brian Butch last season, and the Michigan game.

As for this year's Illinois team, they are excellent in basically every aspect of the game except rebounding and getting to the free throw line. They shoot well, take care of the ball, force lots of turnovers on defense, and play strong field goal defense. Unlike IU's recent opponents, Illinois is not a perimeter-oriented team. Only 25 percent of their field goal attempts are three pointers, #303 of 344 D-I teams. The Illini have a very balanced attack, with four players averaging between 11.7 and 12 points per game. Those four are Demetri McCamey, the unfortunately named Mike Davis, Mike Tisdale, and Trent Meacham. Chest-bumpin' Chester Frazier starts and leads the team with over 6 assists per game, but doesn't score much. Illinois had its worst defensive performance of the year against Michigan, and allowed 11-27 three point shooting. Devan Dumes and Matt Roth probably are IU's only hope.

This will be a very difficult task for IU, and I don't hold out much hope for a win. Still, IU has played better than expected in both Big Ten games this season, and we can hope that trend will continue.

Final Blogpoll ballot.

2009-01-09T21:05:00.006+03:30

Rank	Team	Delta

1	Florida	1
2	Texas	1
3	Southern Cal	3
4	Utah	4
5	Oklahoma	2
6	Alabama	2
7	Penn State	--
8	TCU	8
9	Ohio State	--
10	Oregon	4
11	Texas Tech	6
12	Boise State	2
13	Georgia	2
14	Mississippi	8
15	Virginia Tech	10
16	Oklahoma State	5
17	Oregon State	9
18	Iowa	8
19	Missouri	1
20	Florida State	4
21	Cincinnati	8
22	West Virginia	4
23	Michigan State	6
24	Georgia Tech	12
25	LSU	1

Dropped Out: Boston College (#19), Pittsburgh (#20), Northwestern (#21), Brigham Young (#23).

I'm all over the map on the lower end of the poll, which means I'm probably overvaluing bowl games. Oh well, does anyone care about anything but the top five at this point? If Oklahoma had won last night, I probably would have ranked Texas #1. As it stands, Florida's SEC championship game win over Alabama and last night's win, comparable to Texas's best win, gives the Gators the best resume.

I respect what Utah did, and if they had scheduled (and beat) the Michigan program they thought they were scheduling, I might have given them a look. But they played only three teams from the Sagarin top 30, and two of those were non-BCS conference programs. I have a hard time imagining that Utah could have navigated the gauntlet Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Missouri, and Texas Tech with the 3-1 record that Texas managed, let alone 4-0. Ditto the SEC schedule of Florida. Every team ranked ahead of Utah has a top 16 schedule per Sagarin. Utah is #56. Sorry, guys. Maybe you and BYU can talk the Pac-10 into becoming the Pac-12. Until then, it will take a special confluence of circumstances for a non-BCS program to become a national champion (of course, I'm so averse to the idea of a 2-loss champion that I probably would have voted Utah over LSU last year, assuming the Utes wouldn't have played in the championship game under that scenario).

Michigan 72, Indiana 66 (OT).

2009-01-08T19:20:00.004+03:30

Here's the box score. I really don't know what to do with it. The game was such a tale of two halves that a full-game box score doesn't tell much of a story. I'm embarrassed to say how into that game I was and how much I wanted IU to win it. It may as well have been the Elite Eight given the way I handled it. Of course, the missed free throws in OT were tough, but the game was over by then. IU had a six point lead with a minute to go but couldn't hang on. Devan Dumes is taking quite a bit of grief in certain quarters (most conspicuously from a certain 4'10" sports columnist with bad facial hair whom I will not dignify with a link) for his decision, with about 40 seconds remaining and a three point lead, to drive to the basket to take advantage of a 2 on 1. Obviously, in retrospect I wish he had tried to dribble the clock out, but I think it was as much an execution problem as a judgment problem. If it had been a 3 on 1, or a 2 on 1 with a defender in a worse position, it would have been worthwhile. As well as Michigan shoots the ball, I would rather have a 5 point lead with 30 seconds left than a 3 point game with 10 seconds left. Ultimately, he made the wrong decision and a bad play, but I disagree that he violated some cardinal rule of basketball. If that had been a bit better opportunity, going for the quick basket would have been the right decision.

As for the rest of the game, I don't have a whole lot to say. While IU's defense was good, Michigan missed plenty of makeable three pointers in the first half, and everyone knew that neither that trend nor IU's 50 percent shooting would hold up. I thought Matt Roth showed why he is going to be a weapon for years to come. Nothing in the tempo-free gameplan from Pomeroy is overwhelmingly good or bad. We took moderately good care of the ball by this team's standards, rebounded pretty well at both ends of the court, and so on. This was a missed opportunity against a pretty good team.

IU now travels to Illinois on Saturday, and we can expect Bruce Weber to show no mercy. Next Tuesday, IU goes to Ohio State. After that, IU enters a three game stretch that presents a bit of hope: Penn State and Minnesota at home, Northwestern on the road. IU will be a prohibitive underdog, but if the effort remains, I do agree with the emerging consensus that this team will find a way to win a few conference games.

Reaction from the Michigan blogosphere:

Ugh.

2009-01-08T06:43:00.003+03:30

I would have rather lost by 20. As I was going to say in my gracious post-game victory post, it's an odd sensation to have a 17 point home lead and yet fear that Michigan's coach might engineer a comeback. I didn't feel that way when Michigan was good, let alone the last 10 years. The Big Ten is on its way back. We aren't quite yet. More tomorrow.

Pregame notes.

2009-01-07T22:51:00.003+03:30

Just a brief tour of the Internet before tonight's game:

Dylan at UMHoops runs one of the best basketball-focused Big Ten blogs. His preview of tonight's game is here.
Leading Michigan blog mgoblog is covering basketball a bit more than usual this season, although nothing about this game so far.
Inside the Hall talks tempo-free, has also noticed IU's good defensive turnover numbers; Michigan preview here.
Maize-n-Brew's preview.
Maize-Blue Nation here.

The Michigan game.

2009-01-06T20:18:00.004+03:30

Michigan Wolverines
Current record: 11-3 (1-1)
Current RPI: 40
Current Sagarin: 37
Current Pomeroy: 56
2007-08 record: 10-22 (5-13)
2007-08 RPI: 167
2007-08 Sagarin:
2007-08 Pomeroy: 112
Series: IU leads 97-51
Last IU win: 1/8/2008 (78-64 in Ann Arbor)
Last Michigan win: 2/17/2007 (58-55 in Ann Arbor)
Last Michigan win in Bloomington: 1/24/1995 (65-52)
Pomeroy scouting report
TV:6:30 pm Wednesday, BTN

Michigan, like several other Big Ten programs, is dramatically better this season than last. I had forgotten just how bad the Wolverines were in John Beilein's first season, but with non-conference wins over Duke and UCLA, Michigan is showing signs of progress. Michigan lost its Big Ten opener to Wisconsin at home, but beat Illinois, also at home, on Sunday. I doubt Michigan fans will feel much sympathy for IU's plight, given the long ramifications for the (much more serious) violations associated with the Fab Five/Fisher era improprieties. It seemed that Michigan was in limbo for a decade after that story broke. IU is 15-3 against Michigan since the Wolverines' last NCAA bid in 1998, and won 11 in a row to begin the Amaker era. Also, Michigan's Assembly Hall record of 4-30 is the worst of any Big Ten team other than Penn State and Northwestern (neither school has won in Assembly Hall). Michigan could exercise some demons with a win tomorrow night.

On the other hand, like Iowa, Michigan is a perimeter-oriented, less-than-physically-overpowering team that probably presents one of IU's best chances for a Big Ten win. Right now, Pomeroy gives IU a 17 percent chance to win this one. IU's only better odds are for home games against Penn State (21%) and Minnesota (19%).

Not unlike Iowa, Michigan plays a slow-paced style (62 possessions per game, #262 of 344). The Wolverines take extremely good care of the ball, ranking #4 nationally with a 16.1 turnover percentage. The Wolverines' overall offensive efficiency ranks them in the top 30 nationally, and they are shooting very well from two point range (51.7%, #49) and from the line (77.8, #9). Michigan takes 45.1 percent (#13) of its shots from behind the arc, but hasn't been overwhelmingly good in that regard: the Wolverines are shooting 34.9 percent, good enough for #134 nationally.

On the defensive side of the ball, Michigan is fine but not overwhelming. They rank #135 in defensive efficiency, play excellent three point defense, and their opponents don't get to the line. As with the Iowa game, one glimmer of hope for the Hoosiers is that Michigan doesn't force many turnovers. IU has improved in that regard recently. The Wolverines also don't rebound all that well, particularly on the offensive end. That's by design, but does create some opportunities for IU. Thanks to better ball handling, IU's offensive production has been better in the last two games, but the defensive performance has slipped. If IU can continue to take care of the ball but can force Michigan to turn the ball over, the Hoosiers might have a chance.

Manny Harris, formerly an IU recruiting target, leads Michigan at 18.8 points per game, but is shooting only 44 percent from the field and 30 percent from behind the arc. DeShawn Sims, a 6-8 junior with three point range, is averaging 16.6 points but is shooting 53 percent overall and 38 percent from behind the arc. If the performances of Iowa's Cyrus Tate and Lipscomb's Adnan Hodzic are any indication, Sims is going to be a problem. Also, Zach Novak, a 6-5 freshman from Chesterton, Indiana, is shooting 43 percent from three point range and is 8-12 in his first two Big Ten games. Also, Laval Lucas-Perry, a midterm transfer from Arizona, is averaging 11.6 per game in his first five games as a Wolverine and is shooting 50 percent from behind the arc.

Michigan is currently at the top of the "others receiving votes" category and the computer rankings show that Michigan is in NCAA Tournament contention. An IU win would be a significant upset, but because Michigan won't be able to push IU around physically in the manner of Gonzaga or Wake Forest, there is some hope. That's about the most we can ask this season.

Iowa 65, Indiana 60.

2009-01-04T23:31:00.003+03:30

Here are the stats. Not surprisingly, many are describing yesterday's loss as a moral victory. I'm not so sure. IU is going to have a seriously limited number of opportunities to win Big Ten games this season, and it's disappointing to pass up such an opportunity. Despite trailing by 13 on a couple of occasions in the second half, IU pulled to within two points on two Matt Roth free throws with 22 seconds remaining.

IU's offensive efficiency number of 1.045 points per shot was IU's best of the year against a major opponent, and while the slow pace of 57 possessions exaggerates it, IU's 11 turnovers amounted to IU's second best turnover percentage of the season, 19.2. IU didn't shoot particularly well, so the increased offensive production seems most closely related to the lack of turnovers. IU rebounded reasonably well and got to the line often. Unfortunately, everything that IU did, Iowa did just a bit better. IU got to the line. Iowa got to the line more. IU had only 11 turnovers. Iowa had only 10. And so on. IU did do a decent job on the perimeter defensively. Ordinarily, Iowa takes 48 percent of its shots from behind the arc and makes 40 percent of them. Yesterday, Iowa took only 32 percent of its shots from three point range and made only 35 percent. Still, it's not clear whether that was because of IU's defense or because Cyrus Tate was incredible, scoring 22 points on 6-6 from the field andf 10-11 from the line. Finally, Iowa's leading scorer, Anthony Tucker, did not play.

I'm not sure exactly what to take from this game. As I said in the preview, Iowa isn't a particularly imposing team, and they were missing a key player. IU's progress this year has not been linear, so I am hesitant to think that we have turned the corner. Still, this game provides some optimism about IU's ability to hold on for a few home wins. As for the individuals:

Pritchard was okay, scoring 11 points on 7 shots, but was in foul trouble, as were several other Hoosiers.
Nick Williams had his best day as a Hoosier, scoring 14 points on 7-11 from the field.
Devan Dumes scored 12 points on 8 shots, despite 2-8 from the field, thanks to 6-6 from the line.

IU plays at home against Michigan on Wednesday. The Wolverines are now 1-1 in the Big Ten after losing at home to Wisconsin and beating Illinois, also at home. Michigan has non-conference wins over Duke and UCLA, but hasn't won a true road game yet. More on that game later.

The Iowa game.

2009-01-03T18:07:00.004+03:30

Iowa Hawkeyes
Current record: 10-4
Current RPI: 42
Current Sagarin: 61
Current Pomeroy: 46
2007-08 record: 13-19 (6-12)
2007-08 RPI: 188
2007-08 Sagarin: 149
2007-08 Pomeroy: 116
Series: IU leads 93-68

Last Iowa win: 2/3/2007 (81-75 in Iowa City)

Last IU win: 1/23/2008 (65-43 in Bloomington)

Last IU win in Iowa City: 1/3/2008 (79-76)
Pomeroy scouting report
TV: 4:30 pm, BTN

IU last played in Iowa City exactly one year ago. The tables have turned. Last year, Iowa entered the game with sub-200 computer ratings and IU harbored Final Four aspirations. While the Hawkeyes remain NCAA Tournament longshots, they are vastly improved, as are most Big Ten teams. Further, at this point, IU would kill for Iowa's 6-12 Big Ten record of 2008. As most of you know, the Hawkeyes are led by former Butler coach Todd Lickliter, and the style of play is as expected. Iowa is the slowest-paced team in Division I, averaging only 57.2 possessions per game. Like Lickliter's Butler teams, Iowa is very efficient offensively. The Hawkeyes average 1.13 points per possession, rank #4 nationally in effective field goal percentage, and are in the top thirty in two point, three point, and free throw shooting percentage. The Hawkeyes take good care of the ball, turning the ball over less than 20 percent of the time, and they assist 60 percent of their made field goals. Like those Butler teams, Iowa doesn't place a priority on offensive rebounding, but barely into Lickliter's second season, he has dramatically reshaped the program. Iowa's defensive numbers are not as outstanding but are above-average nearly across the board. The Hawkeyes are highly three-point reliant, so IU's only (slim) hope is a poor shooting night.

Iowa's best win came against Kansas State, currently #18 in Pomeroy, in Las Vegas. Really, that is Iowa's only signature win, and the losses have all been respectable: West Virginia, Boston College, Drake, and Ohio State (Iowa lost by three on the road on New Year's Eve).

Freshman Anthony Tucker is Iowa's leading scorer at only 11.8 points per game, with freshman Matt Gatens and sophomores Jeff Peterson and Jake Kelly (Daniel Moore's high school teammate at Carmel) close behind. Tucker shoots 43 percent on over 7 three point attempts per game. Gatens is shooting 53 percent from behind the arc and Peterson 41. Cyrus Tate seems to be the only true big man who plays much role in the scoring offense.

The Hawkeyes are not as physicially imposing as some of the very tall teams IU has played thus far, but they are very effective at what they do, and IU will need to play much better, and hope for some cold Iowa shooting, to be competitive.

The ugly story from Pomeroy, and other midterm thoughts.

2008-12-31T21:07:00.002+03:30

IU opens the Big Ten season in Iowa City Saturday afternoon. Since this is a good breaking point, it seems worthwhile to see where the Hoosiers stand.

First, here is where IU’s Pomeroy scouting report stands at the conclusion of IU’s nonconference schedule. Sorry for the formatting. Column one is offense, column two is defense.

Raw Efficiency : 87.3 (309) 99.4 (155)
Adj Efficiency : 90.8 (284) 95.2 ( 89)
Effective FG% : 46.8 (240) 51.5 (260)
Turnover Pct. : 28.9 (342) 25.1 ( 30)
Off. Rebound% : 32.9 (190) 35.7 (248)
Free Throw Rate: 25.3 (148) 31.3 ( 82)
3-Point FG% : 28.6 (304) 33.5 (159)
2-Point FG% : 48.8 (145) 52.1 (293)
Free Throw Pct.: 65.6 (244) 65.1 ( 64)
Block Pct. : 14.5 (340) 6.8 (240)
Steal Pct. : 15.0 (343) 11.7 ( 70)
3PA/FGA : 34.5 (132) 30.2 ( 76)
A/FGM : 57.1 (106) 53.0 (133)

For reference, there are 344 schools in Division I. The D-I rank is in parentheses next to the stat. IU’s pace is at 69.1 possessions per game, faster than usual. A few observations:

This is truly a horrid team offensively. IU averages only .87 points per possession, near the bottom of D-I. IU turns the ball over more and has the ball stolen more than all but a couple of teams in the country. IU has lots of its shot attempts blocked. With 344 teams, that means that a ranking below 300 places a team in the bottom 13 percent of D-I teams. IU ranks below the 300 line in five of the 13 statistics tracked by Pomeroy.

The offensive stat line is not completely without merit. IU is slightly above average in two point field goal percentage (thank you, Tom Pritchard), is #106 in assists per field goal made, and is in the middle of the pack in offensive rebounding. Really, though, there isn’t much good to say about this team offensively.

On the defensive side, there are some positives. IU’s defensive efficiency numbers are pretty good despite less than overwhelming field goal defense. As poor as IU’s offensive turnover numbers are, the defensive turnover numbers are very good. IU forces turnovers on 25.1 percent of possessions, #30 nationally, and steals the ball on 11.7 percent of possessions, #70 nationally.

As for individuals:

Devan Dumes now leads IU in scoring with 13.6 points per game. He is shooting 52 percent from two point range but only 28 percent from behind the arc. Still, he has improved recently: he is shooting 37.4 percent from behind the arc in the last five games, and that includes a 1-8 performance against Kentucky.

Tom Pritchard, averaging 12.9 per game, is shooting 57 percent from the field, but only 60 percent from the line. He is IU’s only inside scoring threat, and so it will be interesting to see how effective he is during the Big Ten season.

Nick Williams, Verdell Jones, and Malik Story all have struggled to consistently contribute.

Kyle Taber, considering how thin IU is up front, is playing a surprisingly slim 20 minutes per game. According to Hoosier Scoop, Tom Crean had some surprisingly harsh words for Taber in his weekly radio show, suggesting Taber should be doing more to get his teammates in the gym to work on their own. I think Crean may be forgetting that while nominally IU’s lone senior leader, at this time a year ago Taber had spent his entire career as practice fodder.

Daniel Moore leads the team with 4.2 assists, and his turnover numbers have been steadily declining over the last few games (declining in the good way).

I expect Matt Roth to be a key contributor as his career continues, but it’s not surprising that a three point specialist would struggle to find shots under these circumstances. IU’s offense presents few tough decisions for opposing defenses.

So, there we are. As some of you may know, Pomeroy, in addition to logging a huge variety of stats, uses those stats to project records. Pomeroy currently projects IU to finish 7-24 (he doesn’t count the Chaminade game, I do) and 1-17 in the Big Ten. He also projects the individual game outcomes. While he does predict that IU will win a game, he doesn’t give IU better than a 22 percent chance of winning any particular game. According to Pomeroy’s model, IU’s best chances are: Penn State at home (22 percent); Wisconsin at home (14 percent); Michigan at home (13 percent); Iowa at home (12 percent); Minnesota at home (11 percent); and Michigan State at home (10 percent). All other games rate a less than tenpercent chance of victory. I don’t completely buy Pomeroy’s numbers this year. It will be an odd year indeed if Northwestern finishes several games ahead of MSU and Wisconsin. Still, the raw numbers suggest a very difficult season ahead.

The Northwestern story may be worth watching. Pomeroy currently projects Northwestern at 20-9, 11-7. If that happens, NU almost certainly will earn its first-ever NCAA Tournament bid. We should know fairly early if the Wildcats are for real. After this afternoon’s game at Penn State, NU plays MSU at home, at Wisconsin, and Purdue at home. If the Wildcats start 3-1, look out. Given IU’s current status, I think NU may be my on-the-side rooting interest this year.

Well, this most unusual season moves to the next stage this weekend. I think I'm going to be prediction-free and will just let it play out.

Lipscomb 74, Indiana 69.

2008-12-29T23:32:00.004+03:30

IU's recent results have served to end any expectations that IU fans had for this season, however modest those expectations might have been. For the second straight game, IU jumped out to a nice lead against a mow-major program but ultimately was manhandled for the last 30 minutes of the game. Here's the box score. IU led 35-14 win 7 minutes remaining in the first half and was outscored 60-34 for the rest of the game.

Oddly enough, this loss came in a game in which IU improved on some long-standing flaws. IU's 19.8 turnover percentage was the best of the season against a D-I opponent. IU's 1.05 points per possession was among IU's top four outcomes of the season. Unfortunately, the previously respectable IU defense fell apart. IU allowed 1.12 point per possession to Lipscomb, third worst outcome of the season after Notre Dame and St. Joseph's, and worse than against Gonzaga and Wake Forest. Other than Northwestern State, no team has done better against IU than Lipscomb's offensive rebound percentage of 41, and IU's defensive OR percentage of 25 was the second-worst of the season. Despite shooting reasonably well and taking care of the ball, IU simply gave Lipscomb too many opportunities, most of which manifested themselves at the free throw line, where Lipscomb shot 16-20 to IU's 8-16. Also, Lipscomb did not turn the ball over very often.

A week ago, entering the Big Ten season with a 7-5 record seemed a reasonable expectation. Instead, IU now stands at 5-7 and will be an underdog in each of its remaining 19 games. There are no easy answers. Iowa is next.

The Lipscomb game: final pre-conference "tune-up."

2008-12-28T03:33:00.002+03:30

Lipscomb Bisons
Current record: 4-6 (1-1 in Atlantic Sun)
Current RPI: 336
Current Sagarin: 264
Current Pomeroy: 260
2007-08 record: 14-16
2007-08 RPI: 228
2007-08 Sagarin: 209
2007-08 Pomeroy: 195
Series: first meeting
Pomeroy scouting report
TV: 6 pm, BTN

IU, after its worst loss in recent memory, now plays the weakest team on the remaining schedule. Lipscomb's only foray into major competition was a 20 point loss to NC State, but IU, at #194 in the Pomeroy ratings, isn't looking terribly major. Fortunately, the Hoosiers now face a team that doesn't take the ball away and turns the ball over quite a bit. Lipscomb shoots reasonably well from the line and from two point range, gets to the line, and crashes the offensive boards, but that's about it. Meanwhile, IU remains one of the country's worst offensive teams and respectable defensively, somehow.

After this game, I'll put together some sort of comprehensive look at where IU stands now, on its own and in relation to other Big Ten programs before the Big Ten season begins this coming weekend.

Northeastern 55, Indiana 42.

2008-12-23T20:37:00.003+03:30

Box score.

Yeah, I'll admit it. I was eyeballing the Big Ten scheduling, wondering about various home games against Big Ten opponents. No need for that. Any conference game that IU wins will be an upset. I certainly don't want to jump to too many conclusions after the worst effort of the season, but as I mentioned in the preview post, with the possible exception of St. Joseph's, all of IU's losses to this poin would have been defensible for a better team. In other words, even if IU were a middle-of-the-pack Big Ten team, the Hoosiers still might have lost to Notre Dame, Wake Forest, Gonzaga, and Kentucky (by lesser margins, but you get the point). The Northeastern loss is simply impossible to sugar coat. It wasn't a fluke. IU was manhandled by an average Colonial Athletic Association program.

The game was played on Northeastern's terms. As I indicated in my preview, Northeastern is very good at taking care of the ball and forcing turnovers. IU has been horrible at taking care of the ball yet fairly effective forcing turnovers. NU prevailed by this metric and most others. First, this game was played at NU's pace--the 58 possessions are even fewer than in NU's usual 61 possession game. John Lazkowski and others continue to focus on IU's per game turnover numbers, and IU's 21 is about average by that metric, but is simply horrendous in a 58 possession game. IU's turnover percentage of 36.1 was the worst of the season, worse even than the Wake and Gonzaga games. On the defensive side, IU forced turnovers on only 18.1 percent of possessions--only notoriously ball-conscious teams Notre Dame and IUPUI turned it over less against IU. IU rebounded reasonably well, particularly on the offensive end, where Northeastern grabbed only 23 percent of its misses. The obvious story from the box score is that IU failed to get to the line (Northeastern shot 20 free throws to IU's 6) and could not take care of the ball. As for the individuals:

Tom Pritchard was the sole bright spot for IU, managing 12 points on 6-8 from the field (but 0-3 from the line) and 14 rebounds. On the downside, he was responsible for nearly a quarter of IU's turnovers.
Dan Moore was more of an offensive presence, hitting a three pointer and turning the ball over only 3 times.
Verdell Jones hasn't found his game since returning from injury. Jones was 1-4 from the fueld and turned the ball over 5 times.
Devan Dumes led the team with 13 points but needed 12 shots to get there.

This probably was IU's worst non-conference loss in Assembly Hall history., or at least the worst since a loss to a horrid DePaul team in 1995, a game that ended an 11-year winning streak As the announcers noted last night, this is only the 19th time that IU has lost to a non-conference opponent at the Hall. Again, IU has played better against comparable competition, so I don't think last night's game was a representative performance. But it certainly fades any hope that IU fans might have had of winning a handful of Big Ten games. Every one will be difficult.

IU is off for another six days, and then plays Lipscomb on December 28 before beginning the Big Ten season on January 3 at Iowa. I do hope to take a long look at the nonconference season and overall numbers at that point.

The Northeastern game.

2008-12-22T20:46:00.002+03:30

Northeastern Huskies
Current record: 5-4
Current RPI: 92
Current Sagarin: 142
Current Pomeroy: 184
2007-08 record: 14-17
2007-08 RPI: 173
2007-08 Sagarin: 169
2007-08 Pomeroy: 157
Series: IU leads 2-0
Pomeroy scouting report
TV: 9 pm, BTN

A clear dividing line has emerged in IU's season. IU currently is 0-5 against the top 100 of the Pomeroy ratings (St. Joseph's is ranked lowest at #93) and 5-0 against 101 and below (TCU, at #102, is the highest ranked team that IU has defeated). Of course, IU was close to losing two of the sub-100 games (IUPUI and Chaminade) and hasn't come close to beating a team in the current top 100. The good news for IU is that Northeastern now ranks 181 in the Pomeroy ratings. The bad news for IU is that every Big Ten team is ranked #61 or higher, including four teams in the top 20 (yeah, I'm not sure if I believe in Northwestern, either, but the conference is going to be the subject of a post down the road). I'm glad to see the Big Ten on the road back to respectability, but the timing isn't good for this year's IU team.

In most respects, Northeastern's defense is nearly as bad as IU's offense. The exception, and a cause for concern for IU, is that NU forces turnovers on 24 percent of its defensive possessions, good enough for #40 in D-I. Consistent with that, NU steals the ball on 12 percent of its defensive possession. Still, opponents have shot fairly well against the Huskies, and they don't rebound well on the defensive end, either. On offense, Northeastern is a below average shooting team, but maintains a middle-of-the-pack offense (just over 1 point per possession, ranking 170 nationally in raw rating, 192 in adjusted) by taking very good care of the ball (less than 19 percent turnover percentage) and decent offensive rebounding (34 percent). Right now, IU's only defensive strength is forcing turnovers and steals. So, it will be interesting to see how each team response to the other team's defense.

Bad Boys.

2008-12-19T16:59:00.006+03:30

I haven't done as much as I had hoped with this off week for the basketball team, although the Indianapolis Star managed to fill the void with its interview of Eric Gordon, who confirmed long-circulating rumors about drug use on last year's team. I gave an interview on this matter to Chadd Scott of Bustersports.com last night, and hopefully between all the throat-clearing and baby crying you will hear something coherent.

Of course, neither Gordon, nor Adam Ahlfeld, nor Jeff Rabjohns provided a ton of detail. I would be curious to know whether the problems related only to marijuana or whether they included hard stuff. Either way, if it was rampant enough to cause divisions between teammates, it was far too much, and yet another item is added to the bill of particulars against Kelvin Sampson. There is no college campus, and probably no basketball program, that is free of marijuana use (and that includes Knight's IU program), but again, there seems to have been a lack of focus by Sampson on anything outside of basketball. One of thing that I found refreshing about Sampson was that he wasn't a pretentious pseudo-renaissance man. For instance, Sampson would never appear in a credit coach claiming to be "a leader who happens to coach basketball." He was a pure gym rat who saw no dishonor in the title of basketball coach. But there is a flip side. This drug issue, and the phone calls, and the academic implosion of the program all show that he was doing a disservice to his players. Sampson was screwed as soon as the news broke in October 2007. But wouldn't Jamarcus Ellis, Deandre Thomas, Armon Bassett, etc. be better off if Sampson had cared a bit more about the other stuff?

Now, as if the football team was embarrassing enough on the field, redshirt freshman defensive back Cortez Smith was arrested for robbery. Unless this is a case of mistaken identity, it's safe to say that Smith's brief stay in Bloomington is over.

It would be nice to have something good to say about IU sports. I don't give much coverage to the women's basketball team, but they did recently finish the non-conference 7-2 and are ranked #23 in the RPI and #35 in the Sagarin. The women's team hasn't been to the NCAA Tournament since its surprising Big Ten Tournament championship in 2002 (still the only such championship by any IU team) and hasn't received an at-large bid since 1995. Given the lack of suspense regarding the men's postseason prospects, this is worth watching.

Kentucky 72, Indiana 54.

2008-12-15T19:51:00.003+03:30

Here's the box score. Neither the final score nor the overall stats capture how completely over this game was within the first ten minutes. Certainly, I'm proud that the team didn't give up after trailing so badly, but Kentucky was never seriously challenged. Kentucky led 32-6 with 8 minutes left. To the Hoosiers' credit, that 26 point lead was UK's high water mark, but IU never got closer than 15 (after two Verdell Jones free throws with 11:51 remaining in the second half).

As anyone who watched knows, the Wildcats, through some combination of IU's defense and a bunch of hot shooting hands, couldn't miss in the first half of the first half. If my math is correct, UK made 13 of its first 15 shots. IU turned the ball over 11 times in the first 12 minutes of the first half. The scary part is that Kentucky, also a turnover-prone team, wasn't much better: UK turned the ball over 7 times in the first 12 minutes and had 23 for the game to IU's 19. IU's turnover percentage of 25.4 percent, while not good, was IU's third-best of the season (behind the games against Chaminade and IUPUI). Still, by the time the Hoosiers began taking care of the ball (only 8 turnovers in the final 28 minutes) the game was over.

Other than grit, fight, or whatever, there isn't much positive to take from this game. I don't think Kentucky is a particularly good team. The Cats probably are better than St. Joseph's but certainly are a cut below Notre Dame, Gonzaga, and Wake Forest, in no particular order. Yet, the Hoosiers looked as helpless as they have all year in the early going.

Devan Dumes, God bless him, simply isn't a good enough shooter to shoot as often as he does. His numbers at Eastern Michigan and Vincennes make this clear. He's now shooting 38 percent from the field and 26 percent from three. He was 6-15 from the field and 1-8 from behind the arc on Saturday. I'm not sure this is even a criticism of Dumes. I don't know that we have a better option. It's not as if Tom Pritchard and Nick Williams are passing up open looks. Daniel Moore is ruining the reputation of undersized Hoosier schoolboys everywhere with his lack of long distance ability. Still, for this IU team to do anything respectable from here on out, we have to create something higher percentage than a Devan Dumes jumper. What, I have no idea. That's why Crean is getting the big bucks.
Another tough showing for Tom Prichard against a tough opponent. 2-8 from the field, no free throws, six rebounds, five turnovers (although I think a couple were on offensive fouls).
Daniel Moore scored five points on shot 2-5 from the field. He was in the positive range on assist-turnover ratio, with 5 to 3.
Verdell Jones was a bit rusty in his return to action: 1-5 from the field, no assists, 3 turnovers.
Malik Story couldn't reprise his fine performance against TCU: he was 1-5 from the field.

I don't want anything to sound like excessive criticism of any of these players. The composition of this roster just isn't fair to them. Most of the players, particularly Prtichard, Dumes, and Moore, are being asked to do more than is reasonable. And they are playing hard. During the last 15 years, IU is 3-12 against Kentucky, and while this is one of the worst UK teams of this era, several significantly more talented IU teams have mailed it in against the Wildcats. These guys didn't quit, and I hope that their dedication results in something other than a hideous Big Ten season. But that may be asking too much.

Kentucky!

2008-12-13T18:41:00.003+03:30

Kentucky Wildcats
Current record: 6-3
Current RPI: 83
Current Sagarin: 46
Current Pomeroy: 35
2007-08 record: 18-13 (lost to Marquette in first round of NCAA Tournament)
2007-08 RPI: 58
2007-08 Sagarin: 55
2007-08 Pomeroy: 55
Series: Kentucky leads 28-23
Last IU win: 12/8/07 (70-51 in Bloomington)
Last Kentucky win: 12/9/06 (59-54 in Lexington)
Last IU win over UK in Lexington: 12/20/88 (75-52)
Pomeroy scouting report
TV: 4 pm, CBS

No series has been more illustrative of the downturn of IU's basketball program in the last 15 years than IU's record against Kentucky. After IU upset #1 Kentucky in December 1993, IU led the all-time series with Kentucky 20-17. Since then, UK has gone 11-3 against IU, including 4-2 in Indianapolis, 6-0 in Louisville, 1-0 in Lexington, and 0-1 in Bloomington. IU now has won two of the last three, but will be a prohibitive underdog even against a so-so UK team. I don't have enough time for a full preview, but suffice it to say that Kentucky's tempo-free numbers are pretty solid on both sides of the ball with the glaring exception of turnovers. These are two of the most generous teams in the country, and if one or the other manages to keep turnovers in check, it could have a significant impact.

I had forgotten that Tom Crean's last win at Marquette was a first-round NCAA win over UK last season. That's the second time in five years that Crean and Marquette eliminated Kentucky, including a whipping of the top-ranked Wildcats in the 2003 regional final.

The Wetzel column.

2008-12-12T18:21:00.003+03:30

Since everyone is discussing this column, I suppose I should weigh in a few days after the fact. The long and short is that Dan Wetzel thinks that IU got off easy because of its power, Myles Brand’s position with the NCAA, and the NCAA’s improper consideration of the current condition of IU’s program. It’s fashionable, when responding to such a column, to say how much I ordinarily like Dan Wetzel’s work. I don’t. I used to like him, but now find him to be a pompous scold, a “look at the silly sports fans” sportswriter in the mold of Mitch Albom and Christine Brennan. I haven’t read any of his work in months, so there’s my bias. Here are the major problems with his column:

First, Wetzel latches on to a single line from the chairman of the infractions committee: “The committee did note the current condition of the program.” From that, single statement, Wetzel whips himself into a lather, noting that no NCAA bylaws “state ‘Indiana must field a winning basketball team.’” He notes that IU has nice facilities, a big name, a top flight coach, and so on. Frankly, I think Wetzel assigns the statement too much significance. If he wants to make an argument that IU’s sanctions were not sufficient in light of the facts and in comparison to other similar infractions case, he should make that argument (I suppose he tried with the Texas Southern stuff, which I will discuss below). But does he really believe that if Armon Bassett, Jamarcus Ellis, Eli Holman, and Deandre Thomas were still on the team, and IU were good enough for an NCAA bid, that the NCAA would have given IU a postseason ban or stripped more scholarships or something of the sort? I certainly don’t think so. Wetzel doesn't think the current roster deficit is related to any decision by IU to blow things up. I think he's wrong. The departures of Bassett, Ellis, Thomas, and McGee almost certainly were directly caused by IU's decision to fire the coach in the midst of the best season IU has had in 15 years. It was the right decision, and doesn't make up for the bad decision to hire Sampson. But I think many schools would have let it ride and tried to wring a long tournament run out of the team. IU didn't do that, and I'm glad IU didn't do that. But the team's academic and discipline problems resulted from IU's decision to can Sampson in mid-season and well before the NCAA's report came out. I don't know how Wetzel can escape that obvious fact.

Again, if Wetzel wanted to prove favoritism in favor of IU, he should undertake a detailed review of NCAA infractions cases. Instead, he latches on to a silly comparison to a case involving Texas Southern.

What about that Texas Southern case? Here’s the link to the Texas Southern report. The highlights:

This case involved the head coaches of the softball program ("former head softball coach") and the men's and women's tennis programs ("former head tennis coach") committing violations that went undetected by the institution. In the spring of 2004 the former head softball coach knowingly allowed an ineligible student-athlete ("student-athlete 1") to participate in 47 practice sessions and nine games. Student-athlete 1 also received almost $1,500 in impermissible benefits when she traveled with the team and received textbooks at no cost. She was ineligible for the benefits.
The former head tennis coach was in charge of two squads that were non-competitive until he began recruiting international student-athletes. In particular, with the large influx of international student-athletes during the 2005-06 academic year, the team improved markedly. However, the former head tennis coach enticed many of the international student-athletes with promises of full grants-in-aid, which he was unable to deliver once the prospects arrived on campus. To fund their costs of attendance, the former head tennis coach concocted a scheme in which he used legitimate institutional scholarship money, scholarship funds redirected from their intended recipients, personal funds and funds obtained from sponsors to pay the costs incurred. Inevitably, the funds ran short and serious student-athlete welfare issues arose, as some of the international student-athletes had no money for even basic human necessities. For example, during the fall of 2006 three of the international student-athletes faced eviction from their apartments and were reduced to subsisting on bread and water because they had no money for rent or food.

The violations went undetected because the institution's compliance system was inadequate, resulting in a lack of institutional control over the athletics program. The system relied upon coaches to supply accurate information to the athletics and institutional administrations, particularly in the areas of participation records, financial aid distribution and tracking travel expenses. No follow-up was done to confirm the information was accurate and the coaches were operating within the rules. Because of the lack of supervision, the violations came to light only when they were reported to the institution by an anonymous source (softball) and a tennis student-athlete.

Emphasis is mine. Texas Southern's self-imposed sanctions included the "death penalty" for the tennis program. The NCAA added four years of probation (just one year longer than IU) and a 2009 postseason ban for softball.

It seems to me that the NCAA always has been more harsh about paying players than about non-tangible recruiting advantages such as phone calls. Also, Texas Southern didn't self-report, and was found guilty of lack of institutional control. Finally, unlike most NCAA case, this one seems to have involved violations that literally threatened the health and welfare of student-athletes. It seems to me that the TSU case is distinguishable from the IU case in many ways other than the Big Ten/SWAC distinction. Indeed, except that both are cases involving "NCAA violations," I fail to see any way in which they are similar. Again, if there is a case in which a minor program was hammered harder than IU for violating the same bylaws, then find it, Dan? But the TSU case is not analogous.

So, neither his emphasis on the "condition of the program" statement nor the spurious comparison to a completely dissimilar case at Texas Southern are at all convincing. Wetzel also argues: "Its former campus leader is current NCAA president Myles Brand. Maybe that’s why the NCAA feels bad for Indiana’s current condition." Now, I've long detailed just how little I think of Myles Brand, how his post-Knight-firing speaking tour and short-notice resignation showed a disregard for IU's interests. But even if he were a beloved former leader who loved Indiana University, I would hope Wetzel would recognize the gravity of what he writes. This a very serious allegation, and Wetzel has no evidence to support the notion that Myles Brand influenced the process. In his column, Wetzel notes that IU is the only program from a major conference to have been found guilty of major violations in the last two years. While I make no excuses for what happened at IU, does anyone believe that IU is the only major conference school to have committed major violations in the last two years? If Wetzel wanted to write good column, he might wonder whether IU's phone call issues were really the worst thing that has happened in the BCS conferences in the last two years. Instead, he considers IU's status as the only sanctioned BCS school as evidence that...the NCAA is biased in favor of IU! This is some serious through-the-looking-glass bullshit, Dan.

My guess is that Wetzel has wanted to write this column for a long time. He's sure that BCS conference programs are favored by the NCAA and that minor programs are hammered. And he may be right. Unfortunately for Dan, IU is the only BCS level program that has been found guilty of major violations in the last 25 months, and so rather than keep the column in the can for a few more months, he decided to force a square peg into a round hole. It doesn't fit. If Wetzel wants to craft a case, based on NCAA precedent, establishing that IU deserved more than it got or that Texas Southern more than it deserved, I would gladly read it and respond to it. But this lazy and dishonest column doesn't come close.

Indiana 66, TCU 56.

2008-12-12T04:53:00.002+03:30

The final score doesn't tell the story, but this was, at least for the first 38 minutes, IU's finest performance of the season. IU was ahead by 20 with 1:27 remaining, but turned the ball over on its last five possessions and allowed TCU to finish within 10. Certainly, a late-game collapse like that isn't to be completely ignored, but hopefully this young team learned some lessons in a win, for once.

As noted, IU played well for most of the game, particularly early in the second half. IU's 28.5 turnover possession (18 in a 63 possession game), isn't great, but still is above average for this team. Through the first 58 possession, IU had 12 turnovers, and that 22 percent rate would have been IU's best of the year against a D-I opponent. In addition to taking care of the ball better IU dominated the offensive boards, pulling down 50 percent of their own misses despite TCU's size advantage. TCU actually shot pretty well, but IU won on turnovers (TCU had 21), offensive rebounding, and free throw shooting.

The individuals:

Tom Pritchard was his reliable self: 15 points on 9 shots, 11 rebounds;
Devan Dumes scored 20 points on 12 shots;
Daniel Moore scored 4 points on 1-4 shooting, but had 7 assists to 4 rebounds;
Nick Williams scored 11 points on 6 shots and had 7 rebounds;
Malik Story couldn't reprise his Gonzaga performance: he scored 7 points on 2-9 from the field.

I'm afraid that false hope will be the main outcome of this game. This remains a flawed team. Still, I'm dreading the Kentucky game much less than I was a week ago.

The TCU game.

2008-12-10T05:10:00.004+03:30

Texas Christian Horned Frogs
Current record: 7-3
Current RPI: 70
Current Sagarin: 106
Current Pomeroy: 97
2007-08 record: 14-16
2007-08 RPI: 200
2007-08 Sagarin: 181
2007-08 Pomeroy: 169
Series: IU leads 2-0
Last IU win: 12/27/1993 (81-65 in Indianapolis)
Last TCU win: never
Pomeroy scouting report
TV: 8 pm, ESPN2

TCU, like IU, is a program in transition. Jim Christian, formerly of Kent State, took over for Neil Daugherty, who had only one winning season (2004-05) in six seasons. After a 1-3 start, TCU has won six in a row, including against Big 12 cellar-dweller Colorado and the recently prominent Wichita State of the MVC. As the numbers above show, TCU is a borderline top 100 team at this point, and so this will be an important test. IU has defeated all worse teams and has lost badly to all better teams. The Frogs are led by senior Kevin Langford and junior college transfers Edvinas Ruzgas and Zvonko Buljan. Buljan was a teammate of Devan Dumes at Vincennes last season.

Like IU, TCU is more impressive defensively than offensively. TCU gets to the line and shoots free throws well, but doesn't shoot well and turns the ball over quite a bit. Defensively, TCU's tempo-free numbers are above average except for two point field goal defense. They force turnovers at a reasonably high clip, 23.5 percent of possessions. IU now ranks #343 in Division I in turnover percentage, ahead of only lowly Arkansas-Pine Bluff. IU turns the ball over on 29.8 percent of its possessions, a number that has to improve.

Unfortunately, it does not appear that Verdell Jones will be back anytime soon and therefore won't be taking the burden off of Daniel Moore in the near future. The Hoosier Scoop reports that Jones is cleared for non-contact work only, which makes me speculate that it's unlikely Jones will play against Kentucky on Saturday.

Again, offensive turnovers have been IU's biggest problem and defensive turnovers have been TCU's strength. An improved TO number by IU would be some cause for optimism, but also will be a tall order.

Blogpoll draft ballot, final regular season.

2008-12-08T15:56:00.001+03:30

Rank	Team	Delta

1	Texas	1
2	Florida	2
3	Oklahoma	--
4	Alabama	3
5	Texas Tech	1
6	Southern Cal	1
7	Penn State	--
8	Utah	3
9	Ohio State	1
10	Boise State	2
11	Oklahoma State	2
12	Georgia Tech	11
13	Cincinnati	5
14	Oregon	5
15	Georgia	2
16	TCU	2
17	Michigan State	3
18	Missouri	10
19	Boston College	2
20	Pittsburgh	4
21	Northwestern	1
22	Mississippi	3
23	Brigham Young	3
24	Florida State	3
25	Virginia Tech	1

Dropped Out: Ball State (#15), Oregon State (#16).

Here it is. I don't think the software is right. None of the up and down numbers make sense, as you will note if you scroll down and review last week's ballot. So, ignore the up and down numbers. As for my top four, I have Texas-Florida-Oklahoma-Alabama. My Big XII rationale is the same as last week. I don't think Oklahoma should have been in the title game over Texas, so I'm not going to give excessive credit for whipping a team that Texas whipped once and probably would have again. As I said last week, I'm a big believer in using head-to-head results among fairly comparable teams, and I'm also generally opposed to conference rematches in bowl games unless there is a really compelling reason. So, why Texas over Florida for #1? It could have gone either way. Each team's signature win was nearly identical to the other's: Texas beat OU by 10 on a neutral field, Florida beat Alabama by 11 on a neutral field. Texas Tech's loss, in the final seconds on the road against one-loss Texas Tech, was more excusable than Florida's loss at home to Ole Miss.

Gonzaga 70, Indiana 54.

2008-12-08T05:30:00.003+03:30

Here's the box. IU lost by 16, but was within 9 points with under four minutes remaining, so obviously on a superficial level, IU exceeded expectations. I would love to claim this game as significant progress, but I think it had more to do with an uncharacteristically awful shooting performance by Gonzaga. The Zags shot 45 percent from the field but only 3-16 from behind the arc. Unfortunately, IU's shooting was even worse, 30 percent for the game, although the Hoosiers stayed in it by shooting 6-12 from behind the arc in the second half. If there was any bright spot for the Hoosiers, that was it: maximizing possessions by taking care of the ball and making three pointers is IU's only hope for respectability. Unfortunately, the second part of that equation, taking care of the ball, was as bad as ever. IU turned the ball over 25 times in a 69 possession game. That 34 percent turnover percentage is IU's worst of the season, which is saying something. Verdell Jones missed his second consecutive game after an apparent concussion in the Cornell game, and could have been used to spell Daniel Moore, who turned the ball over 7 times in 37 minutes of play. Tom Pritchard played well, although he spent most of the game in foul trouble. Malik Story emerged, scoring 14 points on 11 shots, but there weren't too many offensive success stories for the Hoosiers.

IU enters an interesting stretch of the schedule. The Hoosiers play TCU at home on Wednesday before playing a spotty Kentucky team on the road. I don't expect a win at UK, but a competitive game might be a positive sign, while a loss to TCU probably spells disaster.

The Gonzaga game.

2008-12-06T04:08:00.002+03:30

Gonzaga Bulldogs
Current record: 5-0
Current RPI: 2
Current Sagarin: 3
Current Pomeroy: 2
2007-08 record: 25-8 (lost to Davidson in first round of NCAA Tournament)
2007-08 RPI: 34
2007-08 Sagarin: 29
2007-08 Pomeroy: 30
Series: IU leads 2-1
Last IU win: 3/15/2007 (70-57 in first round of NCAA Tournament, Sacramento)
Last Gonzaga win: 3/18/2006 (90-80 in second round of NCAA Tournament, Salt Lake City)
Pomeroy scouting report
TV: 1:30 pm, BTN

IU won the last matchup between these two teams, in the 2007 NCAA Tournament. The Zags have lost in the first round of the NCAA Tournament in the last two years, but hopes are high this year. Gonzaga's starting backcourt in that 2007 game, Jeremy Pargo and Matt Bouldin, remains intact, and 6-11 forward Josh Heytvelt, who was suspended for the previous meeting with IU, remains. As the Kennel Report noted, Gonzaga has a balanced attack, with six players averaging between 9.6 and 15 points per game. And as the Pomeroy scouting report indicates, Gonzaga has excelled at nearly everything except rebounding and free throw shooting. Everything else is great: shooting, field goal defense, taking care of the ball, forcing turnovers, you name it.

At this point, IU has defeated, with varying degrees of ease, every low major opponent, but has been humiliated by every major or borderline major program on the schedule. Gonzaga may be IU's toughest opponent to date, although Notre Dame and Wake are very good. I hate to consider anything a moral victory, but a competitive loss would be a sign of significant progress for this team. I don't expect it.

Wake Forest 83, Indiana 58.

2008-12-05T22:18:00.003+03:30

I'll hopefully get a Gonzaga preview up before tomorrow's game, but first thing's first. Here's the box score from the latest of IU's blowout losses. I didn't see much of this one (operator error by my wife re: Tivo, although that 15 minute block of ESPNNews was fascinating). It sounds as if I missed the best part. The game was tied 20-20 after the first 10 minutes of the game, but Wake Forest outscored IU 27-11 for the rest of the half, and that was that. I was hoping that perhaps IU took good care of the ball during that stretch, but I count 8 turnovers in the first 10 minutes. Mostly, it seems that Wake was even sloppier, with nine TOs in that stretch. Indeed, Wake was nearly as sloppy, turning the ball over 24 times to IU's 26. Even the rebounding numbers weren't in Wake's favor: the teams had identical offensive rebounding percentages. The difference is that Wake scored at will, shooting 60 percent to IU's 37 percent on nearly identical shot totals. Quite simply, Matt Roth's 12 points on 4-5 from the field were IU's only offensive success story.

There's not much to be said about this one, except that IU still hasn't shown an ability to compete with even a lower tier Big Ten team. And it may not get better soon. IU plays Gonzaga, TCU, and at Kentucky in the next eight days.

Q&A with The Kennel Report.

2008-12-05T16:34:00.003+03:30

I exchanged some questions with The Kennel Report, a Gonzaga blog. My answers to their questions, as well as answers to the same questions by Inside the Hall, are here. Maybe next time I'll proofread a little better, and my answer to the question about defense makes clear that I didn't see the Wake game. I asked a shorter set of questions, and TKR's answers to mine are below:

1. There have been many flash-in-the-pan programs that have made a run to the Sweet 16 and quickly fell back to earth. What is Gonzaga's secret? Is it just Mark Few, or is there some other reason that the Zags have become a legitimate national power?

Wow, this is one of those questions that is probably in the eye of the beholder but Gonzaga's success has to stop and start with Mark Few. Dan Monson was the head coach when the Zags went to the Elite Eight in '99 but bolted to Minnesota the next year. Since then Few has led Gonzaga to the tournament in every year since. A big part of Mark Few's tenure at Gonzaga has been about developing talent. Guys like Ronny Turiaf, Adam Morrison, and Blake Stepp weren't huge on the recruiting scene but they blew up upon their arrival in Spokane. The staff has done a great job at recruiting this untapped talent and putting out a team that buys into the 'team' concept. The Zags have kind of left those days behind. They now recruit at a high level and it should be interesting to see how the coaching staff adapts to being a power school because the days of sneaking up on teams are long gone.

2. What should IU expect from this team? Strengths, weaknesses, concerns, etc.

We're extremely excited about this team so these answers could be a little bit swayed in the positive side...

The major strength of this team is experience and depth. People around the program know that if there is a year for the Zags to make a final four run, this is it. Jeremy Pargo, Micah Downs, and Josh Heytvelt are all seniors who have been around the program for a while. They are all playing at extremely high levels. Pargo is near the top in assists per game, and Downs and Heytvelt are leading the team in scoring. Along the same lines, Gonzaga has five players averaging double figures in points so far in Pargo, Downs, Heytvelt, Matt Bouldin, and Austin Daye. Steven Gray is averaging 9.6 points a game so I expect him to join the group soon. With that kind of experience and depth, there is no doubt that on any given night, a different player can score twenty points for Gonzaga. This is a much needed change for the program because for so long we relied on that one player to win games for us (see Adam Morrison, Ronny Turiaf, Derek Raivio etc etc..)

The thing you will notice right away is the size and length of this team. Matt Bouldin and Jeremy Pargo start at the guard spots for Gonzaga and look like they should be playing linebacker for the University of Washington. They are both around 220 pounds so they can not only play on the outside but they can also go down low and back you down. The front line for the Zags is extremely long. Micah Downs is 6'8'', and Austin Daye and Josh Heytvelt are 6'11''. They are all tremendous shot blockers and, aside from the Tennessee game, have rebounded very well. Mark Few has got a couple of 7 footers on his bench as well in Rob Sacre and Will Foster. You'll probably see Sacre early and often but Foster, who is 7'5'', has only really played in garbage situations.

The glaring weaknesses for Gonzaga is their reliance on the three point shot and foul problems on the front line. As I mentioned earlier, Gonzaga has players that can shoot from all over the court and during some games, they all try to take over and shoot the long ball. The only player whose three point shot is his biggest strength is sophomore Steven Gray. He lives around the three point line and is a dagger shooter. Everyone else is a marginal three point shooter but is better at something else. This nearly killed us against in the Old Spice Classic. Another thing which has frustrated the Gonzaga faithful is sloppy fouls by our bigs. Austin Daye and Josh Heytvelt have been taken out of some games early for some bad fouls and that really hurts our depth. Our front line is big but aside from Daye and Heytvelt, not very offensively gifted. Rob Sacre is coming off injury, Ira Brown is a a great role player, and Will Foster hasn't made any huge stride in his three years at Gonzaga. If they get in foul trouble early, we will be forced to play small and that is something we don't want to do.

3. Is there any discontent among Gonzaga fans? I would guess that the program's current status is beyond the wildest dreams of fans who followed Gonzaga before 1999. But is there any grumbling about not yet reaching the Final Four, for instance?

That's a great question and something I have been trying to figure out for awhile. Gonzaga has a weird fanbase because you have the older fans who have seen the crappy days when Gonzaga was terrible and you have newer generation fans like myself who have only seen Gonzaga dominate their conference and make the tournament every year. I think I would have a great answer to your question after this year because this is the make or break year for the Zags. They have no reason not to at least make the Elite Eight and if they don't, Mark Few is going to hear it from some of the fans. After this year their will be a huge transformation in the program because Pargo, Downs, and Heytvelt all graduate along with Ira Brown. Austin Daye may bolt to the draft as well.

As of right now, you can almost taste the fear floating around Spokane right now. Everyone knows this is a talented team but is worried about the NCAA Tournament. Hopefully the Old Spice Classic victory will ease some tensions but I would have to characterize the mood in Spokane as being cautious enthusiasm.

Not to mention the fact that Gonzaga has the weight of Washington sports on it's back. The football season wasn't kind to the state of Washington, I believe the Seahawks, Cougars and Huskies have 4 wins combined between the three teams. It's basically 'Zags or Bust' up here.

Thanks, guys. I would wish you luck, but luck can only work against Gonzaga in this game.

The Wake Forest game.

2008-12-03T07:37:00.006+03:30

Wake Forest Demon Deacons

Current record: 6-0

Current RPI: 61
Current Sagarin: 22
Current Pomeroy: 38
2007-08 record: 17-13
2007-08 RPI: 103
2007-08 Sagarin: 74
2007-08 Pomeroy: 68
Series: Wake Forest leads 1-0
Pomeroy gameplan
TV: 4 pm, BTN

Wake Forest is tall. IU is not. Of the 9 Demon Deacons who play 10 or more minutes a game, six are 6-9 or taller. Three are 6-11 or taller. IU, of course, has only three scholarship players taller than 6-6: Tijan Jobe, Tom Pritchard, and Kyle Taber. IU is so small that 6-5 guards Malik Story and Verdell Jones count as "size," but Jones seems unlikely to play after getting his bell rung against Cornell.

Unfortunately, I have little time for a true preview today, but it will be very difficult for IU to compete in this game. While IU's earlier opponents have tended to be offensive juggernauts, Wake is by far the best defensive team that the Hoosiers have faced. Wake is allowing only .78 points per possession (#7 nationally), and really limits opponents' opportunities in nearly every way imaginable: they force turnovers, play excellent field goal defense, rebound really well defensively, and block tons of shots.

IU's only previous meeting with Wake was under similar circumstances. In the 2003-04 Big Ten ACC Challenge, IU lost at Wake 100-67 on the way to IU's only losing record of the last 40 years. Oh, and IU's other trip to Winston-Salem? The 1997 NCAA Tournament, in which IU mailed in an 80-62 loss to Colorado. Lawrence Joel Coliseum has not been kind to the Hoosiers, and I don't expect that to change tonight.

Indiana 72, Cornell 57.

2008-12-01T20:34:00.003+03:30

Andy Bernard no doubt had a relapse during this one, which amounts to IU's best win of the year. Cornell has nothing approaching Big Ten talent, but won the Ivy League last season with a perfect record and is favored to win again. My pregame concern was in part based on ignorance: I didn't realize that two of Cornell's best players were injured and unavailable. I also didn't expect Verdell Jones to miss the last 30 minutes of the game after being knocked cold by a (clean) Cornell screen. (By the way, I hope it was out-of-state students booing the Cornell player in question, Jeff Foote. I would like to think that native Hoosiers would recognize the excellence and appropriateness of that screen).

Here are the stats. This was a 68-possession game, and so IU generally is playing a bit faster than last season's much more talented team. Cornell's vaunted offense played a horrible game. The Big Red shot 33 percent from the field and managed only 9 offensive rebounds. Ryan Wittman scored 28 points for Cornell, but he needed 22 shots to do it, and was only 8-22 from the field. Even that less-than-efficient performance was above average compared to his teammates. IU, in the meantime, shot over 55 percent from the field, 79 percent from the line, and was more effective than usual on the boards. Tom Pritchard excelled: he scored 23 points on 7-7 from the field and 9-13 from the line. IU's rebounds were well-distributed. The bad news? Turnover problems continued, and against a team not known for its defense. IU turned the ball over on nearly 30 percent of its possession, second-worst on the season after the St. Joseph's game. Most importantly, IU finished strong. After blowing big leads against IUPUI and Chaminade, it was encouraging to see IU finish an opponent that was on the ropes.

In sum, IU played reasonably well against a tall but not particularly aggressive team. This doesn't give me much hope that IU will be competitive in upcoming games against Wake Forest, Gonzaga, and Kentucky, but this was IU's most complete effort of the season, and so I'll take it.

Blogpoll ballot, week 14.

2008-11-30T23:51:00.003+03:30

Rank	Team	Delta

1	Alabama	--
2	Texas	--
3	Oklahoma	--
4	Florida	--
5	Texas Tech	1
6	Southern Cal	1
7	Penn State	--
8	Utah	3
9	Ohio State	1
10	Boise State	2
11	Oklahoma State	2
12	Georgia Tech	11
13	Boston College	4
14	Cincinnati	4
15	Ball State	--
16	Oregon	3
17	Georgia	4
18	TCU	4
19	Missouri	11
20	Michigan State	--
21	Pittsburgh	3
22	Northwestern	--
23	Mississippi	2
24	Brigham Young	2
25	Florida State	4

Dropped Out: Oregon State (#16).

Obviously, the key issue with this week's ballot concerns the one-loss teams, particularly Texas and Oklahoma. My placement is unchanged from last week and has as much to do with the nature of the Big XII triumvirate's losses more than anything else; in other words, I have ranked the three Big XII teams based on which is the closest to being undefeated. Texas lost at Texas Tech in the final seconds of the game; Oklahoma lost to Texas in a competitive but not down-to-the-wire game on a neutral field; Texas Tech lost badly at Oklahoma. Obviously, a review of the teams' nonconference schedule strength relegates TT a distant third among the group. Oklahoma, thanks to surprisingly good seasons by Cincinnati and TCU, had a tougher non-con than Texas, but not sufficiently tougher to override a 10 point win on a neutral field. I'm not entirely sure whether I should have TT behind Florida, but Florida's placement this week is academic: an SEC title game win over #1 Alabama would place the Gators in the top two, while a loss would take the Gators out of the top 5.

The more interesting question is what I would have done if Oklahoma had lost in Stillwater last night. Clearly, when head-to-head is taken out of the equation, I believe Texas has a resume superior to TT. Still, I'm a strong believer in the significance of head-to-head competition, sanctity of the regular season, etc., so I would have had to rank TT ahead of Texas (in that alternate universe, it would have been Alabama-TT-Texas-Florida). Texas would beat TT 7 times out of ten, but what happened happened. Of course, I may face this conundrum next week if OU edges ahead of UT in the BCS rankings and then loses to Missouri. I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.

The Cornell game.

2008-11-30T05:49:00.003+03:30

Cornell Big Red
Current record: 4-2
Current RPI: 135
Current Sagarin: 127
Current Pomeroy: 103
2007-08 record: 22-6 (lost to Stanford in first round of NCAA Tournament)
2007-08 RPI: 67
2007-08 Sagarin: 113
2007-08 Pomeroy: 135
Series: first meeting
Pomeroy gameplan
TV: 4 pm, BTN

IU returns to the mainland with what could be a really tough game against Cornell, the defending Ivy League champion. Last season, Cornell went 21-5 and lost to Stanford in the first round of the NCAA Tournament. The Big Red were one of the most efficient offensive teams in the country last year. They were #37 in the nation in offensive efficiency, averaging over 1.1 points per possession, and shot 40.2 from three point range (#7 in the nation) and 52.6 percent from two point rsange (#32 nationally). They shot 76 percent from the line, #10 nationally.

The Cornell Basketball blog has an impressive amount of coverage of this one. The Athlon preview noted in this post shows that the Big Red return three all-Ivy selections from last season, including Ryan Wittman, a first team all-conference player who is the son of former IU great Randy Wittman. Witman is about 10 percent off his 43 percent career three point average, but certainly he will be looking forward to playing on his dad's old homecourt.

So far, Cornell has lost to St. John's and Siena and has wins over South Dakota, the Loyolas of Maryland and Chicago, and Eastern Michigan. Cornell has continued to shoot well, but isn't a great rebounding team. On paper, this looks like a challenging post-Hawaii matchup for the Hoosiers, who have been overmatched by both major opponents and competitive with some low major or worse programs.

Lynch receives the dreaded vote of confidence.

2008-11-29T03:38:00.003+03:30

Per the Hoosier Scoop, incoming athletic director Fred Glass, who doesn't actually start the job until January 2, affirmed that Bill Lynch will be the coach next season. He didn't limit it to next season, of course, simply saying that Lynch "will be the football coach at Indiana University." According to the Hoosier Scoop, negative recruiting from other schools and comments from fans led to the decision to issue the statement. While such statements are, from the coach's perspective, better than the alternative, they are never a sign of health in a program, and almost always foretell a firing or resignation in the coming seasons.

One statement from Glass that made me pull my hair out: “I think contracts need to mean something at Indiana University." Yes, they need to mean what they say. Firing a coach with years remaining on his contract is not a violation of the contract. It's consistent with the termination provisions of the contract. Glass, an attorney far more accomplished than me and most in his profession, knows this, but wants to play the sports talk radio game about "honoring" a contract. Why? He's probably going to have to fire him after 2009 with years left on his contract. Whatever. At least we have the answer and can hope for a transformation in the next nine months.

Purdue wrap-up and season post-mortem.

2008-11-28T04:56:00.005+03:30

Here's the box score. Anyone who watched the game, read the coverage, or even saw the score knows that this game was a complete beatdown, and I'm not going to bother to rehash it a week later. 62-10, 596-214 in total offense, and 35-14 in first downs tell most of the story. My post from last weekend puts the game in historical context: the largest margin of defeat to Purdue since the 19th century, and IU's largest margin of defeat, in 122 years of football, to a team with a losing record.

There are many reasonable criticisms of Bill Lynch, but I really hate hearing about how he lacks passion on the sideline. There are great coaches who have a stoic demeanor. There are bad coaches who are fiery on the sideline. Still, when I contrast the indifference with which this result seemed to transpire on the sideline, compared to Terry Hoeppner's exhortation of the Hoosiers in the 2006 comeback at Illinois, it's hard not to buy into those criticisms for a moment. As poorly as the team played, the most pathetic moment of this most pathetic game was with 2:49 remaining in the first half, when IU, facing 4th and goal from the 9, kicked a 27 yard field goal to "narrow" the deficit to 34-3. This was the first half. More than half of the game remained. Against a fellow 3-8, 1-6 team that happens to be a rival. That was the first time in the game that IU had been closer to the end zone than the Purdue 35. I realize, of course, that IU's odds of winning were low at that point. But any IU comeback, however improbable, required a touchdown on that possession. For whatever reason, Lynch was happy to get on the scoreboard and essentially waved the white flag before halftime.

There hasn't been any media groundswell about Lynch's performance, and so I suspect that he will be back for 2009. In his various postseason comments, Lynch has noted the need to go back to work, etc., but I don't see any outward sign of serious introspection.

Some big picture stuff: in all games, IU scored 246 points and allowed 423 for a margin of -177. IU was -187 and -211 in 2002 and 2003, Gerry Dinardo's first two years, and -239 in 1997, Cam Cameron's first year. Before that, it's necessary to go back to 1970 to find a worse point differential. For what it's worth, the 11 game schedule and the eight game Big Ten schedule began in 1971. One might argue that it's not fair to compare a point differential in a 12 game to an 11 game season. I disagree. IU's numbers this year are bad despite a +60 differential in games against I-AA Murray State and essentially I-AA Western Kentucky. The 1997 nonconference schedule included a Mack Brown-led North Carolina team that finished 11-1 and a mediocre Kentucky team. The 2002 schedule, while not murderer's row, included road trips to Utah (5-6) and Kentucky (7-5). The 2003 schedule included road trips to Connecticut (9-3) and Washington (6-6). In other words, the 12 game schedule, which included two functional exhibition games in addition to two good MAC teams, made IU's point differential look better than it should, not worse.

A review of IU's Big Ten performance confirms this. In the eight Big Ten games, IU scored only 116 points and allowed 328. In other words, IU was outscored by 212 points in Big Ten play and the average score of a Big Ten game was 41-15. Here are the Big Ten point differentials for other bad seasons since the eight game schedule was introduced in 1971 (although the Big Ten did play a nine game schedule in 1983 and 1984):

2008: -212
2005: -148
2004: -99
2003: -175
2002: -168
2000: -116
1999: -86
1998: -105
1997: -207
1996: -87
1995: -175
1985: -124
1984: -112
1983: -163
1981: -115
1974: -81
1973: -132
1971: -108

In other words, this was IU's least competitive Big Ten season since the advent of the eight game schedule.

I don't know what is going to happen to Lynch. As I said above, I expect that he will be back for 2009, and if so, I sincerely hope that he proves me wrong and wins a bunch of games. Still, by the numbers, Lynch's first season is most comparable to Cam Cameron's first season and Gerry Dinardo's first two seasons. The only rationale for hiring Lynch, as opposed to opening up a search and finding someone who didn't lose 21 in a row at Ball State, was to avoid the negative aspects of a coaching change. Instead, IU produced a season that was comparable to recent transition seasons, and quite arguably worse. Rick Greenspan was under quite a bit of pressure last year, from the media and from old guard program guys like Bill Mallory and Harold Mauro, to give Lynch the job. Certainly, it would have been odd to see IU preparing for its first bowl game in 14 seasons with a lame duck coach. Still, the facts have not vindicated the decision to hire Lynch, and actually undercut the only reason for hiring him. Calling the 2008 season a setback doesn't quite capture it.

Maui Invitational, game 3: Indiana 81, Chaminade 79.

2008-11-27T20:17:00.003+03:30

Here are the stats. We'll take it, of course. As I mentioned yesterday, Chaminade wins a game in this tournament every so often, so it's nice that IU avoided that indignity. IU led by 9 at halftime and expanded the lead to 15 with 14:41 remaining in the game. IU missed a bunch of freethrows in the final minutes, and Chaminade had a three point shot for the win. I didn't see this one, so I'll avoid too much comment. By the numbers, IU improved a number of problems. The Hoosiers shot 58 percent from the field, assisted 18 of 30 field goals, and turned the ball over only 11 times in a 68 possession game. Chaminade was able to stick around because the Silverswords made 12 od 23 three point shots and because IU shot only 14-27 from the line. There are no big lessons to be drawn from a game against a D-II opponent, but the Hoosiers leave the islands with a 3-2 record overall and a chance against Cornell of the Ivy League on Sunday, before the inevitable beatdown at Wake Forest.

Maui Invitational, game 3: Chaminade.

2008-11-26T20:44:00.004+03:30

IU's trip to Hawaii comes to a merciful end at 7 p.m. tonight with a game against Chaminade, the host school. I'm not doing a full preview because there isn't much statistical information about the Division II Silverswords. IU played Chaminade in the loser's bracked in 1994 and won 92-79, between losses to Utah and Tulane. According to Yahoo! Sports, Chaminade has a 5-65 record in the tournament, including a win last season over Princeton. Chaminade also defeated Davidson in 1984, Providence in 1991, Stanford in 1992, and Villanova in 2003. Contrary to popular belief (or at least my belief), Chaminade's legendary upset of top-ranked Virginia in 1982 was not part of the Maui Invitational; rather, it provided the inspiration for the tournament.

The NCAA report.

2008-11-26T18:55:00.004+03:30

Here's a link to the .pdf of the NCAA's report. It's much longer than most of the reports I have read of this nature--about 60 pages. Ultimately, the NCAA seems to have split the difference. The NCAA stood firm on its 11th hour addition of the "failure to monitor" charge, concluding: "

Its monitoring of the former head coach and the men's basketball program proved both untimely in execution and inadequate to fulfill the requirements of heightened scrutiny.

Nevertheless, the NCAA added no additional penalties. Ultimately, the NCAA decided that hiring Sampson was such a gamble that IU was obligated to review by hand every single telephone record as it came in the door. Factors in IU's favor on this count were IU's nearly 50 years without a major violation, the significance of the self-imposed sanctions (including lost scholarships, significant recruiting restrictions on Crean, Dakich, Sampson, and one of the assistant coaches, the slot then filled by Dakich and now filled by one of Crean's assistants), and the way that IU dealt with Sampson and the remaining players.

So, that's that. IU kept its nose clean for 50 years beforehand, so doing so for the next three years (and hopefully for long after that) shouldn't be a problem. If anyone wants to argue that IU didn't pay a price, I would direct you to IU's results after mid-February of last year through this season, and to a comparison of last season's roster to this season's.

Maui Invitational, game 2: St. Joseph's 80, Indiana 54.

2008-11-26T06:24:00.003+03:30

Here's the box. I didn't get the chance to watch this one, and probably won't see tomorrow's seventh place game against Chaminade. IU was reasonably competitive in the first half, trailing 34-29 at the break, and pulled to within one after scoring the first four points of the second half. A 23-2 run by St. Joseph's immediately thereafter sealed the game and illustrated just how long this season could be. Certainly, IU's young players should improve, but they are far from being able to compete with even a middle of the pack Big Ten team. Nine turnovers in the first seven and a half minutes of the second half sealed the deal. Frankly, however, St. Joseph's didn't take much better care of the ball, with 19 turnovers to IU's 23. Really, the numbers were fairly similar with the glaring exception of field goal percentage: St. Joe's shot 58 percent from the field, including 7-9 from three point range by Darrin Govens. Again, considering that IU isn't going to out-muscle anyone, shooting and valuing the ball are the Hoosiers' only hope, and they haven't shown much of it recently.

Probation.

2008-11-25T20:00:00.002+03:30

According to the Hoosier Scoop, IU will be on probation for three years, but will receive no additional sanctions other than what IU self-imposed. It will be interesting to read the report, of course, but my guess is that the outcome will satisfy everyone who matters (the definition "everyone who matters" does not include Purdue and Illinois fans or their douchebag coaches, of course).

The Hoosier Scoop doesn't say what happened to Sampson and Senderoff. That will be interesting.

NCAA to announce decision at 4 p.m.

2008-11-25T18:53:00.001+03:30

This will be an unusually eventful afternoon for the IU basketball program. Per the Indianapolis Star, the NCAA will announce its disposition of IU's case in a 4 p.m. conference call today. That call will commence shortly after the conclusion of IU's game against St. Joseph's in Maui.

Maui Invitational, game 2: St. Joseph's.

2008-11-25T17:54:00.003+03:30

St. Joseph's Hawks
Current record: 1-2
Current RPI: 78
Current Sagarin: 78
Current Pomeroy: 191
2007-08 record: 21-13 (lost to Oklahoma in first round of NCAA Tournament)
2007-08 RPI: 50
2007-08 Sagarin: 54
2007-08 Pomeroy: 54
Series: IU leads 2-1
Last IU win: 12/15/1984 (81-44 in Bloomington)
Last St. Joseph's win: 12/30/68 (80-72 in Philadelphia)
Pomeroy gameplan
TV: 1:30 pm today, ESPNU

IU enters the loser's bracket of the Maui Invitational today and plays St. Joseph's, a team that has struggled a bit this season but has been one of the most successful programs in the Atlantic 10 in recent years. As noted above, this is the fourth meeting all-time between the schools. The most memorable to IU was was in the 1981 NCAA Tournament. St. Joe's upset top ranked DePaul in the second round of the tournament, but ultimately lost 78-46 to IU in the regional final, and IU eventually won the title.

As for the current team, St. Joe's was, like Notre Dame, an extremely efficient offensive team last year. The Hawks ranked #19 in raw offensive efficiency last year, and ranked in the top 30 in both two point and three point shooting percentage. According to this CollegeHoopsNet preview, St. Joe's lost its leading scorer and most of its big men, and like IU, the Hawks should be more of a perimeter-oriented team. The Hawks lost 68-50 to Texas in the first round in Maui, and after a season-opening 69-57 win against Rider, but lost 73-69 to Holy Cross. Even a much better IU team may well have lost to Notre Dame, but this game strikes me as something of a bellwether that will tell us whether the 2008-09 Hoosiers might flirt with an NIT bid, or whether we are headed for a single-digit victory total. Obviously, IU is young and inexperienced and should improve as the season goes on, so I don't want to overemphasize this game. But I think it will tell us more than last night's game told us.

Maui Invitational game one: Notre Dame 88, Indiana 50.

2008-11-25T06:56:00.002+03:30

IU's first game against high major competition certainly highlighted the problems that the Hoosiers will have this season, although very few games will be against teams the caliber of #8 ND. Here's the box score. Certainly, ND has a high powered offense that will score points against nearly anyone, but IU's poor shooting in the first half, even on open shots, prevented IU from competing in the game. IU shot 31 percent in the first half before improving to 50 percent in the second half. The other story was offensive rebounding: while the announcers convinced themselves early on that IU was forcing ND into long possessions, IU pulled down only 7 offensive rebounds on 35 misses.

This game was played at Notre Dame's pace--roughly 72 possessions--but IU's 20 turnovers still are a concern, as was the 1-12 shooting from behind the arc. This is going to be a familar routine, but if IU is going to achieve any relative success this year with this guard-heavy roster, the team must shoot well from behind the arc and must take care of the ball. Notre Dame, on the other hand, shot 10-26 from three point range. While Harangody had a decent enough game, Tory Jackson and Kyle McAlarney killed IU from outside. As for IU's individuals:

Tom Pritchard's game looked prettier on TV than on paper. Pritchard shot 6-15 from the field and score 14 points while pulling down 6 rebounds. Still, he wasn't overwhelmed by Harangody, and put himself in position for open shots that he simply did not make. If that improves, Pritchard is going to be a fine player this season and beyond.
Devan Dumes likes to shoot, but it wasn't working tonight: 10 points on 13 shots.

St. Joseph's tomorrow.

Maui Invitational, game one: Notre Dame.

2008-11-24T20:46:00.003+03:30

Notre Dame Fighting Irish
Current record: 2-0
Current RPI: 224
Current Sagarin: 34
Current Pomeroy: 147
2007-08 record: 25-8 (lost to Washington State in second round of NCAA Tournament)
2007-08 RPI: 28
2007-08 Sagarin: 22
2007-08 Pomeroy: 28
Series: IU leads 47-20
Last IU win: 12/10/2003 (66-63 in South Bend)
Last Notre Dame win: 12/8/2004 (55-45 in Bloomington)
Last neutral site meeting: 12/19/1967 (Fort Wayne)
Pomeroy gameplan
TV: 5:30 pm tonight, ESPN2

IU and Notre Dame play each other this afternoon for the first time in four years. This is the longest gap in the series since the teams went 15 years between meetings from 1932 to 1947. IU leads the series comfortably, although in the last meeting, ND won at Assembly Hall, breaking a 31-year skid in Bloomington and an 8-game series losing streak. ND seems likely to defeat IU in back-to-back games for the first time since the Lou Watson era, 1968 and 1969. The numbers above show why I should ignore computer rankings until mid December: ND is universally expected to be a top 10 team this year. The main reason for ND's recent renaissance (after missing the tournament three straight times from 2004-2006) is Luke Harangody, a surprisingly versatile big man who happens to be the son and brother of former IU football players. Harangody is one of the more notable recruiting misses brought on by IU's stubborn refusal to part with Mike Davis when his incompetence had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Giving up about a 40 point game to Harangody would be a nice illustration of IU's recent missteps: getting beat up by a guy who might have played for IU if Davis were gone, against a roster decimated by IU's post-Davis decision to hire a crook.

I don't have time to do a full workup, so I recommend this Inside the Hall post, which links to the ND preview written by John Gasaway, formerly the Big Ten Wonk. In short, ND has been great offensively, not so dominant defensively. Harangody's presence makes a competitive game even more of a longshot than it would be against many other top 10 teams. IU's only chance would seem to be foul trouble (or a self-inflicted off game) by Harangody combined with incredible shooting from Matt Roth and other IU guards. Not likely.

Blogpoll draft ballot, week 13.

2008-11-24T17:07:00.003+03:30

Done quickly. Hopefully nothing stupid. My ranking of the Texas-Texas Tech-Oklahoma triumvirate is based on how close each team is to being undefeated. Texas lost to TT at the last second; Oklahoma was competitive with Texas but lost by 10; TT was pantsed by Oklahoma.

Rank	Team	Delta

1	Alabama	--
2	Texas	1
3	Oklahoma	2
4	Florida	--
5	Southern Cal	1
6	Texas Tech	4
7	Penn State	--
8	Missouri	1
9	Oklahoma State	1
10	Ohio State	--
11	Utah	--
12	Boise State	--
13	Georgia	--
14	TCU	10
15	Ball State	--
16	Oregon State	--
17	Boston College	2
18	Cincinnati	3
19	Oregon	7
20	Michigan State	6
21	Florida State	5
22	Northwestern	4
23	Georgia Tech	3
24	Pittsburgh	4
25	Mississippi	1

Dropped Out: LSU (#17), Miami (Florida) (#18), Maryland (#22), North Carolina (#23), Brigham Young (#25).

Indiana 60, IUPUI 57.

2008-11-23T17:39:00.003+03:30

My cooling-off period following the Bucket game continues, but I do need to catch up on old business and wrap up the IUPUI game. Here are the stats. This game provided some of the roller-coaster effect that we should expect from this young team this season. IU fell behind 18-12 with 7:30 remaining in the half, but finished the half with a 19-2 run and led 31-20 at the break. Like many Hoosier fans, I'm sure, I began thinking, hey, we're not that bad. IU then let IUPUI almost catch up, although the Jaguars never again led the game, but had a shot to win in the last minute.

The Pomeroy game plan reveals a 61 possession game, a complete opposite of IU's 86 possession game against Northwestern State. IU's offensive production remains below average on a points-per possession basis, mostly because of a high percentage of turnovers. IU's effective field goal percentage is 49 percent, good enough for a rank of 135 nationally, and IU especially excels in getting to the line (#36 nationally) and two point field goal percentage (52.3, #88 nationally). Still, this is a guard-dominated team that, however it might bother Tom Crean, is never going to dominate the offensive or defensive boards. If IU is to flirt with a .500 record, which I think is a reasonable if fairly optimistic goal, the Hoosiers simply cannot allow 25 percent of their possessions to end in turnovers. We have good shooters, and have to get them the ball. The prettiest number? 73 percent of IU's field goals have been the result of assists, good enough for #10 nationally. We certainly haven't seen the likes of that number in a while.

Defensively, IU's raw numbers are respectable, but that's probably mostly a function of competition. We will have a tough time guarding people this year, I would guess, starting with Luke Harangody tomorrow. Still, at this point IU's defensive turnover percentage and defensive field goal percentages are excellent, so perhaps there is more there than I am willing to acknowledge.

As for the individuals:

Tom Pritchard was outstanding, scoring 19 points on 7-8 from the field and grabbing ten rebounds.
Nearly all of the guards struggled shooting, but Matt Roth literally saved the game with his 4-9 three point shooting.
Both Devan Dumes and Nick Williams struggled with turnovers.
Walk-on Daniel Moore is an assist machine, although he did not attempt a field goal.

In sum, IU will take any wins it gets this season, and showed some character in refusing to surrender the lead after it mostly evaporated. The team is now in Hawaii, and I'll try to preview the Notre Dame game sometime today.

History.

2008-11-23T04:55:00.004+03:30

IU does not have a strong football history. Indeed, IU ranks fairly low among major conference teams in all-time wins and winning percentage. Still, to put today's game in historical perspective, here's a list of IU's games, from 1900 to present, in which IU has lost by more than 50 points:

2008: Purdue 62 IU 10 (4-8)
2000: Michigan 58 IU 0 (9-3)
1999: Wisconsin 59 IU 0 (10-2)
1997: Iowa 62 IU 0 (7-5)
1978: Nebraska 68, IU 17 (9-3)
1971: Michigan 61 IU 7 (11-1)
1957: Michigan State 54, IU 0 (8-1)
1957: Ohio State 56, IU 0 (9-1)
1948: Michigan 54, IU 0 (9-0)
1925: Michigan 63, IU 0 (7-1)
1923: Wisconsin 52, IU 0 (3-3-1)
1914: Illinois 51, IU 0 (7-0)
1913: IU 60, IU 0 (5-2)
1904 Chicago 56, IU 0 (10-1-1)
1903: Michigan 51, IU 0 (11-0-1)
1902: Michigan 60, IU 0 (11-0)

The opponent's record is in parentheses. Take a look at those records, and compare and contrast to the record of the team that did this in 2008. In 100 years of mostly bad football, that's only 16 games in which IU has lost by 50 or more points. I write this not to rub salt in the wounds of fellow IU fans, but to show that I'm not exaggerating a bit when I call today's game what it was: the worst loss in the history of Indiana University football. Much more later.

Addendum:

IU lost five games by more than 50 points in the 19th Century: to Depauw and Purdue in 1891; to Purdue in 1892; to Purdue in 1893; and to Butler in 1894. All finished with winning records, so my point stands.

The Purdue game.

2008-11-20T16:22:00.006+03:30

Purdue Boilermakers
2008 record: 3-8
2008 Sagarin: 76 (IU is #105)
2007 record: 8-5 (beat Central Michigan in Motor City Bowl)
2007 Sagarin: 57
Series: Purdue leads 62-36-6
Last IU win: 11/17/2007 (27-24 in Bloomington)
Last Purdue win: 11/18/2006 (28-19 in West Lafayette)
Last IU win in West Lafayette: 11/23/1996 (33-16)
TV: Noon, ESPN2

Both IU and Purdue have had horrific seasons, but one of the teams can take some solace with a win in the Bucket game. IU, in one of the few bright moments of the last 15 years, beat Purdue on a late 49-yard field goal by Austin Starr. It was unfortunate that the game came down to that--IU had a 24-3 lead in the third quarter before the awakening of Purdue's offense and some IU miscues and turnovers necessitated the heroics. Now, IU seeks its first back-to-back Bucket wins since 1993 and 1994 and its first win in West Lafayette since 1996, a game that was the last coached by IU's Bill Mallory and Purdue's Jim Colletto.

Both teams enter the game with identical records, although even Purdue's meager accomplishments look good next to IU's. Purdue's losses in the non-conference were to respectable Notre Dame and Oregon, while IU lost to two MAC teams--the two best MAC teams, but still MAC teams. In the Big Ten season, Purdue has been more competitive: only one of Purdue's 6 Big Ten losses has been by more than 20 points, while 4 of IU's 6 Big Ten losses have been by at least 27 points. Depending on the source, oddsmakers have made Purdue an 11 to 13 point favorite.

Curtis Painter, who actually entered the season with (incomprehensible to me) Heisman hype given his hard-to-figure place of prominence in the Big Ten and Purdue record books, has been horrid even when he hasn't been injured. He has completed only 58 percent of his passes and has thrown 11 interceptions to only 8 touchdowns. His two backups have been similarly unremarkable. The savior for Purdue's offense has been Cory Sheets, who averages nearly 5 yards per carry and has run for 1070 yards and 13 touchdowns. Purdue ranks 68 in total offense (IU is #62); 47 in passing offense (IU is #82); #86 in rushing offense (IU is #44); 72 in total defense (IU is #102); 40 in pass defense (IU is #104); ansd 96 in rushing defense (IU is #92). In short, they are two rotten teams, and Purdue has a slight edge statistically against a tougher schedule.

Still, this is an important game. A road win for IU would provide some reason for optimism among recruits and players. A win for Purdue would give them some momentum as Danny Hope takes over for Joe Tiller. Given Tiller's 9-2 record against IU, sending him home a loser in his last game would be nice. Finally, if IU wins this one, Purdue fans might have to admit that it counts. What do I mean? Take this, for instance, from Off the Tracks:

Both times it took extraordinary circumstances (an absolute monsoon and a coach’s death providing motivation) for Indiana to beat us.

The absolute monsoon was in 2001. I was at the game, and by my recollection, it was raining on both sides of the field (and was only drizzling in the second half.) I have always thought that games played in inclement weather counted, that it's part of the game, but Purdue fans have always disagreed about 2001. But I can let that go. Here's what I can't let go: I'm sorry that Travis, who I like and respect, is the one who has to bear the brunt of this, but I am completely fucking sick and tired of hearing about how the fact that our coach fucking died of fucking cancer was such a fucking advantage for the 2007 team. If you think it's so great, maybe someday your coach will die of fucking cancer and you can see how great it is. Go dig up some 2007 previews. The talking heads, the bloggers, the print journalists, and others were unanimous that Hoeppner's death would be a fatal blow to the fortune's of IU's 2007 season. The Hoosiers were supposed to finish in the basement. Instead, they managed to win seven games and play in a bowl game. They didn't do that because of a ghost. or because of any "win one for the Gipper" speeches. They did it because a) the schedule was easy; b) the Big Ten was down; c) we had a uncoverable wide receiver; d) we had two senior cornerbacks, including one who started in the NFL this year; e) Kellen Lewis was healthy and didn't miss spring practice.; f) and out-of-nowhere All-American performances from Greg Middleton and Austin Starr. We won last year because we had a better team than Purdue and because we were playing at home, and it shouldn't have been that close.

So, a win would be nice, but might be too much to ask from the 2008 Hoosiers. This team was bad before the injury problems began, but those injuries are unquestionably a factor now. IU has to win the turnover game. In 2006, Curtis Painter threw 4 interceptions, but IU couldn't take advantage. If anything of the sort happens again, hopefully IU will be ready.

The IUPUI game.

2008-11-18T19:19:00.003+03:30

IUPUI Jaguars
Current record: 1-1
Current RPI: 202
Current Sagarin: 118
Current Pomeroy: 258
2007-08 record: 23-7
2007-08 RPI: 70
2007-08 Sagarin: 70
2007-08 Pomeroy: 91
Series: IU leads 1-0 (IU won 86-57 on 12/22/2006 at Conseco Fieldhouse)
TV: 6:30 pm tonight, BTN

The IUPUI Jaguars make their first-ever appearance at Assembly Hall tonight. As the numbers above indicate, IUPUI put together quite a respectable season last year, finishing in the top 100 in all three computer rankings. Unfortunately, after losing to Oral Roberts in the Summit League (formerly the Mid Continent Conference) title game, the Jaguars missed out on an NIT bid. Certainly, this could be something of a rebuilding year for coach Ron Hunter, because the Jaguars lost George Hill, IUPUI's greatest player ever, to the NBA (he was drafted by the Spurs in the first round). Still, it's hard to overstate the significance of Hunter's accomplishments in Indy. When he arrived in 1994, the team was known as the "Metros" and had just made the leap from NAIA to NCAA Division II. IUPUI moved up to Division I in 1997, and reached the NCAA Tournament in 2003, in only its sixth year in Division I and less than a decade removed from NAIA. While they haven't yet returned to the Big Dance, they have become a consistently successful program, nearly always finishing in the top half of the conference standings.

The Jaugars succeeded last year with a deliberate (62 possessions per game, about #300 in Division I) but ruthlessly efficient offense. Here's their Kenpom scouting report. The Jaguars led the country in offensive efficiency (that's right, #1 of 341 Division I programs), averaging 1.17 points per possession. The Jags also led the country in three point field goal percentage (42.4 percent), finished #3 in free throw percentage (78 percent), #11 in two point field goal percentage, and second in effective field goal percentage (a computation based on points per shot). IUPUI took very good care of the ball, ranking #49 in turnover percentage and #34 in steal percentage. The Jags' defensive numbers are more pedestrian, except that they ranked #47 in steal percentage. Certainly, some of these numbers relate to George Hill, a true man among boys in the Summit League, but IUPUI's efficiency numbers are top 100 (and often much better) for as far back as Pomeroy keeps track. In short, George Hill or not, IU will be facing a motivated opponent that will take care of the ball. This game will give us a better idea of IU's style of play: IU goes from playing one of the fastest-paced programs in D-I to one of the slowest.

Still, this isn't last year's IUPUI team. Hill is in the NBA, and second leading scorer Austin Montgomery is gone. Gary Patterson is out indefinitely with a broken hand, which leaves Jon Avery as IUPUI's only returning double figure scorer. Currently, freshman Alex Young, a 6-5 wing from Northwest HS in Indianapolis, leads the way at 16 points per game. Juco forward Robert Glenn is averaging 12.5 points per game while shooting 75 percent from the field. LeRoy Nobles, who played only 10 minutes per game last season, is averaging of 10 points per game and is shooting 40 percent from behind the arc.

In short, both teams are relying almost entirely on new faces or former role players. It's hard to have a feel for this game because IU's team remains a mystery, but this game will be an interesting test before IU heads to Maui.

Blogpoll draft ballot, week 13.

2008-11-17T21:51:00.002+03:30

Too late for inclusion in the preliminary poll, I fear, but open to modification until Wednesday.

Rank	Team	Delta

1	Alabama	--
2	Texas Tech	--
3	Texas	--
4	Florida	--
5	Oklahoma	--
6	Southern Cal	--
7	Penn State	--
8	Oklahoma State	--
9	Missouri	3
10	Ohio State	1
11	Utah	--
12	Boise State	2
13	Georgia	--
14	Michigan State	--
15	Ball State	--
16	Oregon State	6
17	LSU	3
18	Miami (Florida)	8
19	Boston College	7
20	Pittsburgh	1
21	Cincinnati	2
22	Maryland	4
23	North Carolina	7
24	Brigham Young	3
25	TCU	7

Dropped Out: Florida State (#17), Tulsa (#24), California (#25).

Late update: I flipped BYU and TCU.

Penn State 34, Indiana 7.

2008-11-17T04:34:00.003+03:30

There's not much to say about this one. It bore some similarity to last week's game against Wisconsin in that IU hung around in the first half but was shut out in the second half. IU held Penn State to punts, a fumble, and a missed field goal in five of their first six possessions, but did little more on offense. IU managed only 6 first downs all day, and eventually the defense wore down. The scoreboard and the most basic statistics tell the story: in addition to the above, Penn State outgained IU 442-180. Well, on to the Bucket game, where IU is an early 13 point underdog.

Good enough: Indiana 83, Northwestern State 65.

2008-11-16T21:25:00.003+03:30

Here's the box score. IU led for most of the game. Much like the football team's early warmups, this game doesn't tell us much: a game like this can deliver only bad news. First, this game was played at a blistering pace: roughly 86 possessions per my count (ps: Ken Pomeroy updated his site before I came back to finish the post, and Ken puts this game at 85.9 possessions per game, so that is correct). That means, of course, that viewed through the prism of tempo-free, IU's 83 points aren't as good as that number ordinarily would suggest and the 23 turnovers, while bad, aren't as bad as in a typically paced game (although this would have been IU's third-worst performance of 2007-08 in that regard). Kenpom's gameplan numbers go back only two years, but IU never played in an 80 possession game in either 2007-08 or 2006-07.

By the way, for those of you who are new to the site and unfamiliar with tempo-free stats, Ken Pomeroy's website is the place to go. Pomeroy tells a mixed story about IU's first game. Of course, Northwestern State likes to run, and so the 86 possession game may not be the standard. Nevertheless, it also shows that IU's 83 points wasn't terribly efficient, and amounted to less than a point per possession. IU's shooting percentage, about 45 percent, isn't bad, but IU's 68 percent shooting on 41 free throw attempts had a big effect on IU's bottom line. On the other hand, IU's defense was quite effective, limiting NSU to 31 percent from the field. Also, IU forced 30 turnovers, which even in a fast paced game amounted to a remarkable 36.1 turnover percentage.

Finally, Crean-coached teams, like those of his mentor Tom Izzo, focus on rebounding. The very nature of IU's roster this year is going to lead to some frustration for the coach. Certainly, NSU's poor shooting percentage gave the Demons more opportunities for offensive rebounds, but by any measure, IU did not rebound well on the defensive end. NSU rebounded 49 percent of its own misses, which, if repeated all season, would put IU well into the 200s of the 320 or so Division I teams. It's difficult to draw many conclusions from a single game, but IU's size, or lack thereof, could create some problems in rebounding.

As for the individuals:

Tom Pritchard played well, shooting 5-8 from the field, grabbing 10 rebounds, including 4 offensive boards, and scoring 13 points.
Kyle Taber was 2-6 from the field. Taber was excellent in his limited role last year, and his four missed field goals in the NSU game exceed the number of field goals he missed in 2007-08 (he was 11-14 from the field). The efficiency that Tabor demonstrated last year is unlikely to repeat itself now that he has been forced into a more significant role.
Devan Dumes, who with his year at Eastern Michigan and year at Vincennes JC is IU's most experienced player, led the way with 21 points on 10 shots from the field. He shot 6-10 from the field, including 4-8 from three point range, and shot 10-13 from the line.
Nick Williams, IU's most highly regarded recruit, did not fare as well. He scored 6 points on 2-5 shooting and turned the ball over 6 times.

This game doesn't say much about IU's future. It tells us that IU can win comfortably against a middle-of-the pack team from a low Division I conference. The game also presents some red flags. Still, any IU fan would have been happy to take an 18 point win.

The real beginning of the Crean era: Northwestern State.

2008-11-15T17:52:00.007+03:30

Northwestern State Demons
Current record: 0-0
Current RPI: n/a
Current Sagarin:n/a
Current Pomeroy:
2007-08 record: 12-17
2007-08 RPI: 191
2007-08 Sagarin: 237
2007-08 Pomeroy: 258
Series: first meeting
TV: 7 pm tonight, BTN

Pomeroy scouting report

I'm under the weather and so I won't give this preview the full workup that I would like, but IU should be ready to run tonight. Northwestern State ranked #8 in Division I with 74.9 possessions per game. The Demons also have a Big Ten scalp in their recent history: they upset Iowa in the 2006 NCAA Tournament. Coach Mike McConathy is in his tenth season there. Still, NSU has fallen back to the pack in the last two years. As for the current roster, I'll lift directly from NSU's official preview:

Back from last year’s team is 51 percent of the scoring (1,234 of 2,437 points) and 40 percent of the rebounding (484 of 1,218 rebounds). Seven players on this season’s team started at least once last year with a total of 71 starting assignments. The returning starters are guards [Keithan] Hancock and Michael McConathy. There is not a player on the team who has averaged scoring in double figures for an entire season. Hancock did score 10.2 per game in Southland Conference play last season. However, there are eight players who scored in double figures at least once last year, and who combined to post 42 double-figure games.

2008-11-15T17:52:00.001+03:30

Q&A with Zombie Nation.

2008-11-13T19:46:00.002+03:30

Penn State blog Zombie Nation and I exchanged some questions and answers about Saturday's scintillating matchup. My answers to his questions are here; his answers to my questions are below.

1. Well, sorry about that one last weekend. At least this time, you guys lost your shot by actually losing a game, not by allowing a couple of garbage time touchdowns to IU as in 1994. And at least the Lions remain favorites to win the conference and head to Pasadena. For so many years, in the pre-BCS days, reaching (and winning, hopefully) the Rose Bowl was the pinnacle of success for any Big Ten school. Especially for those of us who follow schools that rarely get there, it retains huge appeal. I'm wondering, given Penn State's fairly recent relationship with the Big Ten compared to the other members, whether the game has any special significance for Penn State fans. Is making the Rose Bowl a big deal, or is it just another BCS bowl in a year in which you would rather be playing for the title?

ZN: It's always "just another BCS bowl." You have to understand (I know you do, but just saying), that Penn State made itself as a football power as an independent. It was either the National Championship or bust for decades. Also, there is no historical significance to the Rose Bowl for Penn State fans, as the 1994 edition didn't mean squat, and the last time before that was 1923! Yes, we would love to win the conference, but it will be yet another shared title, so really the Rose Bowl is no different than the Orange Bowl was three years ago.

2. The numbers I have seen install Penn State as a more than 30 point favorite. Any particular concerns about IU? And presuming that the answer is no, what do you hope to see from your team as compared to last week? How in the world did Iowa beat Penn State?

ZN: It looked to me like Penn State didn't check the weather until the first snap. Iowa played with the weather, while Penn State played against the weather. I'm not blaming the loss on that, but it definitely played a part. Well, that, and the fact that Iowa had blow heaters on its sidelines, while Penn State did not.

This weekend, I want to see Penn State play like it did the first nine games–confident, poised and clean. I'm not so sure Indiana will roll over, especially since Penn State may very well come out flat. If Penn State can get on the score board before Indiana, things should be fine for PSU.

3. So, Daryll Clark spent two years behind Anthony Morelli? Why? Was his play this year expected, or did he come out of nowhere?

ZN: He did sort of come out of nowhere. Everyone will tell you that they "knew" he was better than Morelli, but really, there's no substance to that argument. Clark never played meaningful downs, until the Alamo Bowl, and then he just ran the ball. I do think the Iowa game proved or disproved nothing at all, as everyone's saying "see, I told you he was overrated." Every quarterback has a bad game, and the Iowa outing was it. Clark could return to form this week, and if he does, Michigan State could be in trouble.

4. I'm sure you enjoy Joe Paterno questions as much as I enjoy Bob Knight questions. But, for those of us who don't follow PSU on a weekly basis, is Joe expected to return as head coach next year? If not, what is the conventional wisdom on a successor–i.e., doe Joe have the clout or desire to install one of his assistants, or will the next coach be an outsider?

ZN: I really do hope, if Penn State finishes 12-1, that Joe Paterno will step down. More so, I hope that if someone is installed as HC, it's Tom Bradley. As you said, I've heard this a thousand times, and have had plenty of practice with the argument. Jay Paterno is no more than a position coach, if that. Bradley should get the nod, giving the defense over to Larry Johnson, Sr. On offense, Galen Hall will leave when Joe does. Joe and Galen already said that much. So, if an outside hire must be made, I would go with a new offensive coordinator, leaving the rest. There are plenty of good Penn Staters out there to bring in, who would understand how PSU works. But then again, some of the inside guys are pretty good picks for OC.

Good luck this weekend, you Hoosiers will need it!

The Penn State game.

2008-11-13T19:11:00.003+03:30

Penn State Nittany Lions
2008 record: 9-1
2008 Sagarin: 7 (IU is #100)
2007 record: 9-4 (beat Texas A&M in the Alamo bowl)
2007 Sagarin: 26
Series: Penn State leads 11-0
Last IU win: never
Last Penn State win: 10/20/2007 (36-31 in Bloomington)
TV: Noon, BTN

The last two meetings in this series, close IU losses in 2004 and 2007, were among the most disappointing losses IU has had in the last 15 years, not because IU was the better team on either occasion, but because opportunities for programs like IU to beat programs like Penn State are so rare. In 2008, both IU and Penn State are back to their historical positions, and the Nittany Lions are favored by more than 30 points. Black Shoe Diaries tells the statistical story, and it's not pretty (although everyone knows that "net punting" is a bellwether stat). Simply, of the 21 stats listed by BSD, 19 favor Penn State, and in 9 of the statistical categories, Penn State ranks in the top 25 while IU ranks below 100.

This has been a horrible season for IU, and not because of injuries. Still, injuries have played some role in preventing IU from making late-season progress. This paragraph from IU's weekly release says it all:

Junior free safety Nick Polk became the third starting member of the Hoosier secondary to suffer a season-ending knee injury last week, joining senior cornerback Christopher Phillips and junior strong safety Austin Thomas. Overall this season, Indiana has lost 29 starting games to 13 starters. Phillips has missed seven games followed by Thomas (5), Polk (3), junior QB Kellen Lewis (3), sophomore DT Deonte Mack (2) and junior LT Rodger Saffold (2). Junior wide receivers Andrew Means and Ray Fisher, junior C Pete Saxon, junior TE Brian Zematis, sophomore C Alex Perry, sophomore RG Cody Faulkner and redshirt freshman LG Andrew McDonald have each missed one game.

This would be a tough game under the best of circumstances, but injuries have made it nearly impossible. IU's only hope for a shred of dignity this season is to ruin Joe Tiller's farewell party and keep the Bucket. Hopefully, nothing that happens in the Penn State game will make that less likely.

BTB Roundtable: playing out the string edition.

2008-11-11T19:41:00.004+03:30

We haven't been terribly consistent with these roundtables this year, but Michigan blog Maize and Blue Nation has shaken off the disappointment of Michigan's first losing season in decades and has submitted some questions for the group. Check back later in the week for his recap.

1) With two weeks left in the season, it's safe to say that most schools have reached the point where the year has been a success or a disappointment. How has your school fared this year in your opinion? Or, is the jury still out?

A disappointment, indeed. IU's historical track record is what it is, and it's almost always safe to bet against the Hoosiers. Still, with eight home games, one of the easiest schedules of any BCS conference member, and most key players returning from a team that won seven games, I expected IU to at least come close to postseason play. Absent one of the biggest upsets in conference history, IU will lose its eighth game at Penn State on Saturday, and as bad as Purdue is, a loss in Joe Tiller's last home game seems likely. Going 3-9 against one of the weakest schedules in BCS-land is by no means a sign of progress.

2) Is your school heading to a bowl? If so, which one? And if not,WTF?

See above.

3) The Big Ten has recently had a hard time getting respect among the national media as a top conference. Has the Big Ten taken a step forward or a step backward in this debate this season?

I don't know how anyone could make the argument that the Big Ten has taken a step forward this year. The Big Ten played very few top-notch nonconference games, and the only arguably impressive wins were Penn State's whipping of Oregon State and Michigan State's win over a mediocre Notre Dame team. OSU was embarrassed by USC, the aforementioned ND team has two wins against the Big Ten, and decent-but-not-great Cal, Pitt, Missouri, and Oregon all prevailed against what should at least be peer programs. A Penn State win over USC in the Rose Bowl (plus respectable showings against the SEC in Tampa and Orlando) would be the only way to salvage the season in this respect.

4) Would the Big Ten benefit from adding another school to create two divisions like the SEC, Big 12, ACC and MAC? And if so, which school should be added? Or, should we drop one school?

Conference championship games have financial benefits, but also provide a conference's championship contenders one more opportunity to lose a game. I don't think a championship game would solve the Big Ten's current problems, and while I wouldn't be opposed to adding a 12th team, I don't support expansion for the sake of expansion. Notre Dame is the only obvious fit, but has no interest. While the usual suspects such as Missouri, Rutgers, West Virginia, and Syracuse all have positive and negative traits, one school that intrigues me a bit is Kentucky. UK's football program isn't great, but it is well-supported, and the basketball program would be quite an asset to the conference. I'm not necessarily advocating for Kentucky, and don't expect UK would leave the SEC, but I'm at least intrigued, and wanted to mention a school that doesn't usually enter these conversations.

5) Do you agree with President-elect Obama that college football should have an 8 school post-season playoff?

Not really. I would have no problem with an eight game playoff as long as it preserved the bowl system. Such a setup would involve playing the first two rounds at campus sites in early December, playing the championship game at a bowl site, and preserving the rest of the system as it is. Unfortunately, these things take on a life of their own. As soon as we accept an eight team playoff, the teams on the cusp will start clamoring for 16. The importance of the regular season sets college football apart from all other sports. If I thought the playoff would stop at eight games, I would support it, but I think it would be the first step in ruining what makes college football unique and enjoyable.

6a) Who is your favorite network television play-by-play announcer/ color commentator/sideline reporter?

I like Ron Franklin of ESPN for play-by-play, and while I haven't seen him this year, enjoy Bill Curry for color commentary. Verne Lundquist is getting a bit-mistake prone in his old age, but does a good job. Also, I'm really excited that GUS! JOHNSON!! will be joining the Big Ten Network for college basketball coverage. Not as excited as GUS!, but excited nonetheless. GUS! will make every Northwestern-Penn State tilt feel like the Final Four.

Indiana 103, Anderson 71.

2008-11-10T17:59:00.005+03:30

Normally, it might not be worth the trouble to review the box score of an exhibition game against a D-III opponent, but that's literally all we have to go on for the 2008-09 Hoosiers. A few random thoughts:

This was a 74 possession game, much faster than IU's 2008-09 average of 67.1. On the other hand, IU was pretty fast against lesser non-conference opponents last season, so this many not represent a sea change in tempo--it may just have been IU running wild on one of the few teams we will out-talent this season.
In light of the pace, it's outstanding that IU turned the ball over only 10 times. Again, this was against a Division III team, but given the pace, the completely new roster, and Anderson's experience, I happy about this.
IU was 4-11 from three point range, again, quite a departure for IU. It's lower than I expected for such a guard-heavy team, and I expect that to change as we play more talented opponents.

Again, all this game proves is that IU would be a very good Division III team. But that's better than the alternative.