Indiana 64, SIU 51. A damn fine win.

Here's the box. To be honest, I thought the Hoosiers were going to lose by this margin, and I'm glad to be wrong. IU was just good enough offensively and for the second year in a row, Indiana out-SIUed SIU on the defensive end. The Salukis shot only 37 percent from the field (including only 1-14 from three point range despite IU's use of a zone defense) and IU was somewhat better, 46 percent and 8 of 21 from three point range. The Hoosiers also managed 12-14 from the line and SIU shot only 8-15. In other words, IU did all of the things necessary to beat a quality team on the road and got some help from the Salukis.

The pace: 61 or so, right on SIU's average. As stats would have predicted, SIU did force a large number of turnovers, 16, over 25 percent of IU's possessions. IU rebounded 8 of its 26 misses, about 30 percent, while SIU was about the same at 12/42 and 28.5 percent. One stat that I don't always watch but probably says something nice about IU's defense: 9 blocks, compared to 1 by SIU. Not bad for a zone. In sum, this game was as simple as the shooting. IU had the advantage on all shooting percentages, and won comfortably. Good shooting, good defense, 6-1.

On the individual side, Gordon was solid as usual, with 22 points on 14 shots, including 4-7 from 3 and 4-6 from the line (IU's only two misses). Armon Bassett had 12 points on 7 shots, buoyed by 4-4 from the line. Jamarcus Ellis had 11 points on 8 shots, but turned it over five times. IU has not taken care of the ball against quality opponents this year. Hopefully Jordan Crawford, who will be back this week against Tennessee State, will help, but it's a concern. Mike White scored 4 points on 2-2 shooting and grabbed a couple of offensive rebounds. DJ White had 12 points on 10 shots and 12 rebounds.

The Southern Illinois game: first road challenge.

Southern Illinois Salukis

Overall record: 3-1

Missouri Valley Conference record: 0-0

2006-07 record: 29-7 (lost to Kansas in Sweet 16 of NCAA Tournament)

2006-07 RPI: 7

2006-07 Sagarin: 16

Series: IU leads 4-1

TV: 9:30 pm, ESPNU

Southern Illinois was the leading mid-major program last year, completing an outstanding regular season and advancing to the third round of the NCAA Tournament before falling to Kansas (by 3) in the Sweet 16. IU's 57-47 win over SIU in Bloomington probably was the Hoosiers' best nonconference win of the season. IU leads the series 4-1. All four IU wins were in Bloomington, and Southern Illinois beat IU the only time the Hoosiers have played at Carbondale (72-60 in 2001-02). SIU's program has been outstanding recently (the Salukis have played in six consecutive NCAA Tournaments). Current coach Chris Lowery's two immediate predecessors, Bruce Weber and Matt Painter, now coach in the Big Ten (no word on whether Lowery is a self-righteous crybaby).

As Pomeroy and other tempo-free oracles have often noted, teams that allow few points because they play slowly often are erroneously described as "good defensive teams," even if they give up lots of points per possession (Northwestern is the leading example of this fallacy). Southern Illinois is the real thing: the Salukis are a slow team that does play good defense. Last year, SIU averaged only 60.5 possession per game (sub 200) but ranked #18 nationally by allowing only .935 points per possession. The Salukis were mediocre offensively, averaging 1.04 points per possession (#141 out of 336), but their outstanding defense carried them. Last year, the Salukis ranked #22 nationally in offensive rebounds allowed and forced turnovers at a high rate. Not surprisingly for a team with a deliberate offense and strong defense, the Salukis did not rebound their own misses well.

This year, the picture has been a bit different for the Salukis. They have played much faster, averaging 66.4 possessions per game (that still good for only #250, but still faster in absolute terms). Once again, the Salukis have been ordinary offensively (only .96 points per possession, #216) and outstanding defensively (.86 ppp allowed, #29 nationally). For comparison, IU is now #22 offensively at 1.15 ppp and #101 with .945 ppp allowed. As last year, SIU does not place a priority on rebounding its misses (allowing 30 percent, #253) and turns the ball over on 23.7 percent of its possessions (#227). SIU isn't rebounding well defensively, either this season (34.8 #215) but is a turnover machine, forcing TOs on 33.8 percent of possession, #2 nationally. IU's rebounding numbers are middle of the pack offensively and defensively, and despite some breakdowns in recent games, IU is in the top 100 nationally with only a 19.5 turnover percentage offensively.

For the most part, this game pits strength against strength, weakness against weakness. If the Hoosiers can recapture last season's perimeter defense and can take care of the ball, they should win. If Eric Gordon's turnover problems continue, it could get ugly. IU can take some comfort from SIU's last game, a 70-45 beatdown by Southern Cal. USC shot 59 percent (way above average) and held SIU to 32 percent shooting. On the other hand, SIU returns most of its key players from last season's excellent team. Last season, IU shot only 38 percent from the field, compared to 45 percent for SIU, but won the turnover battle (20-11), rebounded well offensively and generated more shots than SIU, outscored SIU by 7 at the free throw line and made 6 three pointers to SIU's 3. This should be interesting.

The Season that Was, game 3: Southern Illinois, Indiana 28.

Date: 9/9/2006.
Location: Memorial Stadium, Bloomington, Ind.
Box score/stats.
Attendance: 31,156.

While IU's MAC winning streak continued, IU followed the Ball State comeback with one of the worst losses in school history. Certainly, the Hoosiers faced trying circumstances. Terry Hoeppner, although he watched from the press box, was out for brain surgery, so this game marked the first of two games that Bill Lynch directed as interim coach. Fairly or not, the outcome of Lynch's two interim games leads to quite a bit of skepticism about whether he should be IU's coach after 2007. Nevertheless, the 2007 season will decide that, so let's look at what happened.

IU dominated the early minutes of this game. SIU's first six possessions were unproductive, while IU scored touchdowns on each of its first two possessions. The IU offense flagged after that: after taking the lead 14-0 with 4:55 remaining in the first quarter, IU ran only 13 plays for the rest of the half and managed only two first downs. SIU managed a late touchdown drive, and what looked like it would be a walk for IU led to what then seemed to be a disappointment: only up 14-7 at halftime against the I-AA Salukis. After the teams traded punts to begin the half, IU took advantage of a shanked SIU punt with a 40 yard touchdown drive, and it appeared that the Hoosiers were restoring order at 21-7. Instead, SIU went 78 yards in 10 plays to narrow the margin to 21-14. After the first IU touchdown of the second half, SIU outgained IU 238 to 151 and outscored the Hoosiers 28-7.

How? Why? Unlike Nicholls State, which nearly upset Indiana with a service academy-style misdirection-based running game in 2005, SIU seems to have been a bit more traditional. SIU gained 244 yards on the ground, an average of 4.9 yards per carry, but also managed 138 yards on 10-19 passing. SIU's ran a rush-heavy offense, but not to NSU absurdity. More disheartening is that SIU's defense made things difficult for Kellen Lewis in his first start. Lewis was 20-40 with a touchdown, and interception, and a fumble. He gained 32 yards on ten carries--but lost 31, for a net of 1 rushing yard. In any event, the Hoosiers led 21-7 and could have controlled the game with some offensive production. It's also worth noting that James Hardy missed this game and the UConn game for disciplinary reasons. Marcus Thigpen (7-32) and Demetrius McCray (10-49) had some success running, but after IU's 21-7 lead, the two combined for only four more rushes. Whether it was the OC, Lynch, or Lewis, someone called Kellen Lewis's number a lot that day. Would a more traditional rushing attack against what should have been an overmatched I-AA oppoent have made a difference? That's second guessing, but again, whether IU can maintain any sort of "traditional" (i.e., non-Kellen Lewis) rushing attack remains an issue for the 2007 Hoosiers.