The Ohio State game.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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:

• mgoblog
• Michigan Sports Center
• UMHoops

Ugh.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.