Perfect team?

What does a perfect basketball team look like, in your opinion? Obviously we could say "A player at every position that is great at everything" but that's boring. I'm thinking more about the key characteristics, thinking about prior Indiana players who might resemble that player, and players on the current team or recruits that might become that player.

Here's my take:

First, I don't think a great team needs more than 8 players. In fact, part of me thinks having more than 8 players in the rotation can be a distraction. And because I think it's very important for players to understand their roles, I'm going to assume a stable starting lineup with a stable set of reserves (though in reality I think a stable starting lineup is almost always overrated). I'm only going to discuss the starting five, but the bench players would be (as you'd expect) a ballhandler, a wing, and a guy who can play in the post.

Point Guard: The three main traits I like to see in a point guard are
1. Mental toughness
2. Defensive stopper
3. Decision making
The best point guards are the guys who are always in control, who disrupt the opponent's offense everytime down the floor, who are absolutely convinced that they're smarter than you, and who play their best when the game is on the line. These are rare individuals. Right after these top 3 are things like ballhandling and court vision. And then farther down is scoring ability. Obviously we want every player on the court to be a scoring threat, and I enjoy watching point guards who can score, but I'm willing to give up a whole lot of scoring ability if I can get ridiculous mental toughness in return.

Keith Smart, who wasn't even a pure point guard, is pretty close to my archetype here. Obviously Smart was a great defensive player, and like the rest of the 1987 team he displayed amazing mental toughness. He also knew his role well and didn't often make bad decisions. I think if I could trade a little of Smart's scoring ability for a little more court vision, that would be the point guard I'd want.

In terms of current or future Indiana players, it's tough to say because mental toughness is hard to predict. I really Jones, but his defense in particular has a long way to go before he even approaches my archetype (though I do think his defensive ceiling is high). I don't know enough about Rivers or Hulls to comment. As I said, in my opinion great PGs are very rare.

Shooting Guard: Main traits:
1. Pure shooter
2. Defensive stopper
3. Mental toughness
For some reason, it seems unusual to see #1 and #2 in the same player. When I think back at the really great pure shooters in Indiana history (like Steve Alford, Jay Edwards, A.J. Guyton) it seems that most of them lack greatness on the defensive end. Everybody loves the pure shooter, but honestly I'm not a "trade baskets" kind of guy, so defensive stopper is a close second here. Mental toughness is also critical. Jay Edwards, who as far as I could see had no mental toughness off the basketball court, knew that he would sink the big shot. You want your shooting guard to be dangerous everytime down the floor, but you want to opposing team to terrified of him taking the last-second-shot-to-win-the-game. Other things I like to see in a shooting guard is the ability to slash to the basket and score (off the dribble or not), plus some amount of the ballhandling and court vision that we want in a PG. Not a "combo guard" necessarily, but someone who can contribute offensively even when they are not shooting from the perimeter.

Dane Fife is one of the best defensive players I've ever seen, and his shooting ability was phenomenal during his senior year, but he wasn't a guy a wanted shooting the last second shot and he certainly had some notable, um, mental lapses diuring games. Greg Graham as a senior is probably the closest to the archetype I can think of in one player. He could score from anywhere on the court and he was the best defensive player in the B10. All I would add to Greg Graham is a little bit of Dane Fife's mean streak and a little bit of Jay Edwards' arrogance and he'd be my archetypal point guard.

I don't see any current players or recruits who resemble my archetype. I like Dumes' lack of fear and he has the potential to be a lockdown defender, but he's not a pure shooter and his decision-making needs a lot of work. Plus he only has one more year to put it all together. Maybe Maurice Creek is closer, but as usual I don't know much about our recruits.

Small Forward: Main traits:
1. Triple threat
2. Defensive stopper
3. Rebounding
This is probably my favorite position in basektball. Really good small forwards are a delight to watch because thay are so versatile. I listed my top 3 traits but those traits miss the point - great small forwards are jacks-of-all-trades who do everything well. They can shoot from the perimeter, drive to the basket, pass the ball, rebound, defend smaller guys or bigger guys, and handle the ball reasonably well.

Of course, the easiest way to explain my archetypal small forward is simply to type, "Calbert Cheaney". I'm trying to think of what I would change about Cheaney and it's tough to think of anything. Maybe add a little more vocal leadership. Maybe a bit of a mean streak. But mostly Cheaney is my archetype.

I have high hopes for Christian Watford and Derek Elston, but I don't know how Cheaney-like their games are.

Power Forward: Main traits:
1. Quickness
2. Length
3. Rebounding
I think the "power forward" vs "center" designation is even more useless than most of the other standard player positions, particularly at the college level. This made it tough to think of my archetype because it's really the pair of interior players as a package that creates my archetype. Anyway, when I think of my favorite "power forward" type players I think of guys like Jared Jeffries, Alan Henderson, and Jeff Newton. Not strong, bulky guys or guys who play with their back to the basket (though Jeffries played with his back to the basket a lot). Rather, guys who were sneaky good because of their quickness and length... which contributes to scoring, rebounding, and defense. All three of those guys were excellent defenders and a danger to block shots. And all three could hit mid-range shots, which I think is critical. Newton had some issues with consistent effort, but when he was at his best he was very, very good.

No one on this year's squad is like that, though maybe Watford next year will be.

Center: Main traits:
1. Rebounding
2. Defensive stopper
3. Mean Streak
This is the one position where thinking of an Indiana player who resembles my archetype is tough. I don't remember pre-1986 Indiana basketball, and in the last 23 years there hasn't exactly been a parade of great centers going through the Indiana program. And I have a particular archetype in mind... big and mean. I like the "power forward" (see rant on positions above) to have finesse, but I want this guy to spit on the very idea of finesse... and then punch the idea in the mouth and kick it in the ribs while it's down. I want someone who thinks every shot within ten feet of the basket looks like a dunk, and I want the opposing team to be terrified of trying to take a charge. When this guy sets a screen it should be a felony in some states and Puerto Rico. You get the idea.

So what Indiana center resembles my archetype? Um... let me think... hell, I don't know. Maybe Jarrod Odle? A taller, bigger, meaner version of Jarrod Odle, I guess. With this one I should probably go outside Indiana and point out someone like Reggie Evans at Iowa.

Current players or recruits? Uh, let's not go there.

Indiana picked the wrong year to be bad in the B10

Let me make an obvious point - Indiana's ability to win a game is based on two factors - #1. How good Indiana is, and #2. How good the opponent is. Clearly, we know the answer to #1 -- Indiana is the worst B10 team in recent memory. But let's look at #2.

Fortunately, Indiana fans usually don't have to concern ourselves with how good the bad teams in the B10 are. Whether they are kinda bad, pretty bad, or super bad, it usually just means a "W" for Indiana. This year it matters a lot. So how bad are the bad teams? Let's use Pomeroy's ratings of the bottom 4 teams in the B10 for the past six seasons (including this one):

2008-09
63. Michigan
68. Iowa
77. Penn State
244. Indiana

2007-08
108. Penn State
112. Michigan
116. Iowa
158. Northwestern

2006-07
64. Iowa
112. Northwestern
119. Penn State
140. Minnesota

2005-06
79. Minnesota
117. Penn State
123. Northwestern
159. Purdue

2004-05
98. Purdue
107. Northwestern
109. Michigan
180. Penn State

2003-04
94. Northwestern
109. Minnesota
117. Ohio State
210. Penn State

Two things jump out - first, sadly, Indiana is really, really bad. We know this, but the ratings knock that point out of the park. This isn't just a bad year by Indiana standards, this is a bad year by any standard. No team in 6 B10 seasons (as far back as Pomeroy goes) has been as bad as Indiana this season, and most seasons no team even comes close.

The other thing that jumps out is that the bad teams in the B10 (Indiana notwithstanding) are clearly better this season than any season in the last 6. Heck, Michigan is on the list of the 4 worst B10 teams and they are ranked in the Top 25!

Bottom line: Unlike most years, for Indiana to avoid going winless we're going to have to beat a pretty good team.

Is it too early for dispassionate analysis?

Are we still in the giddy honeymoon phase or can I put my geek hat on and start looking at Crean's career and what he brings to the table? I guess we'll find out.

IU fans have disagreed a bunch about the relative importance of these various coaching dimensions, but I think there's broad agreement that these are indeed the dimensions we care about (in no particular order):

1. Integrity (running a clean program, academics, etc.)
2. Recruiting
3. "Fit" (Indiana ties, Midwest ties, etc.)
4. Age
5. Name recognition
6. Coaching Experience
7. Coaching Ability (Xs and Os)
8. Style of Play

He's my analysis for each one, for what its worth

1. Integrity
Grade: A
Thoughts: Indiana needed a slam dunk on this dimension and they got it. We all remember the uproar when Sampson was hired, and it centered on two things: the NCAA infractions and his graduation rate. Sampson said all the right things and successfully snowed most of us over, but obviously we learned that it's a lot easier to learn about someone's integrity based on their actions, not their words. Crean has proven over a 9 year period that he runs a clean program and graduates players - there are no negatives for us to rationalize away. If things go south in this regard under Crean, at least we'll be able to say, "No one saw that coming!"

2. Recruiting
Grade: B+
Thoughts: I do everything in my power to ignore recruiting. I know it's important, I just hate the drama around it. If I had my way, I wouldn't know who the new players on the team were until they were introduced at Midnight Madness. So I'm not the best person to evaluate Crean here. But based on what little I'd know, recruiting is considered one of Crean's strengths, and he has a track record of bring in good classes at Marquette and will hopefully be able to improve on that at Indiana. He's known as a passionate, hard-working recruiter, and that counts for a lot. I didn't give him an A simply because there are a handful of guys in the country that are at another level when it comes to recruiting, and there's no evidence that Crean is on par with them (Roy Williams, Bill Self, Billy Donovan, etc.). Maybe he'll get there at Indiana, but he's not there yet.

3. Fit
Grade: B+
Thoughts: This is clearly one of the best things about this hire, from my perspective. I didn't give him an A because he hasn't had any formal association with IU or the state of Indiana, but it's obvious that Coach Crean "gets it". He's a lifelong Midwest guy, he's recruited the state of Indiana for years, he's got Big Ten experience from MSU, and he's been a fan of Indiana since he was a kid. And you can tell that he loves the prospect of coaching basketball at Indiana University. Again, other than not being a former player or coach, it's hard to think of anyone who is a better fit.

4. Age
Grade: A
Thoughts: There was a lot of disagreement about how important it was to bring in a young guy who could coach at Indiana for 20 years, but all else being equal everyone seemed to agree that younger was better. At 42, Crean can be at Indiana for decades. Personally, this was an important factor for me. I would have been willing to trade some additional age to make sure we brought in someone who was a proven commodity, but in Crean we got both - ample major conference track record plus youth.

5. Name Recognition
Grade: B
Thoughts: Another contentious dimension, in terms of importance. Crean doesn't have the immediate name recognition that someone like Rick Pitino, Tom Izzo, or John Calipari has, but he's also a bigger name than Brad Brownell, Tony Bennett, or Anthony Grant. He's been to a Final Four, he's coached multiple NBA players (including Dwayne Wade, one of the biggest names in basketball), and he's coached at a major conference school in the Midwest for nearly a decade. He's a big name, and hopefully he'll be on the same level as those first guys with a few years at IU under his belt.

6. Coaching Experience
Grade: B+
Thoughts: Another strength for Crean - he's got more major conference experience than many of the rumored coaching candidates. Obviously there are guys like Pitino, Kruger, or Montgomery that have a lot more experience than Crean (and the advanced ages to prove it), so I couldn't give him an A here, but 9 years at Marquette is clearly a strength, not a weakness.

7. Coaching Ability
Grade: B+
Thoughts: This is the toughest one to analyze, obviously, so I decided to look at some data. Let's look at his career at Marquette.

I'm using Pomeroy ranks here because Pomeroy goes back 9 years and has game-by-game data available on the website.

Looking at the above, it's a solid record. He was in rebuilding mode his first couple years at Marquette and posted solid seasons in the context of what he took over. Then he had a couple excellent seasons capped by the Final Four run in 2003. After losing Wade, Marquette struggled a bit the next two seasons, going to the NIT both times, but nothing awful. Then the last 3 seasons were in the super-sized Big East, where Marquette fared very well. Even though the overall records are similar, the 2006 team was much better than the 2005 team. It's easy to look at those Big East records and think that Marquette was little more than mediocre, but it would be a mistake. The Big East is a meat grinder. Here's a list of the records for the top Big East teams since the expansion:

That's the top 9 teams in the 16 team league. As you can see, there's a little bit of separation for Georgetown, but Marquette is right there with UConn, Louisville, Pitt, 'Nova, ND, and West Virginia in terms of league performance. No one breezes through the Big East. For those 9 teams over 3 seasons (meaning 27 records), there have only been FOUR cases of teams making it through the league with 2 or 3 losses. That should put Marquette's 31-19 record in perspective. Tom Crean took Marquette from Conference USA to the Big East and has been one of the top teams in the league.

I'm not a big fan of scoring offense or scoring defense as a measure of coaching ability, but some might find it interesting. From going through the games one-by-one, my takeaway is that Coach Crean likes to run and score in transition, but will grind it out if necessary. Marquette seemed to be just as successful in low scoring games as high-scoring games, which is a good sign, IMO.

Here's some interesting numbers. Again, these are based on Pomeroy rankings because that's what was available to me. Note that Coach Crean has never lost to a team ranked below 200 (which is actually kind of impressive, given that he had four teams ranked close to 100). Also noteworthy is that his record against 101-200 teams is 53-17, but 8 of those losses happened in his first two rebuilding years. In his last 7 seasons, he's 45-9.

His records against Top 10, Top 25, and Top 100 teams map pretty well to the strength of his individual teams (as you'd expect). Notice the increase in games against Top 25 teams from 2004 to 2008. Eleven games against Top 25 teams in 2007! That's brutal. I'll also say that considering that he has only had a Top 25 team three times out of the 9 seasons, his 24-32 overall record against Top 25 opponents is awfully impressive. I also noted that as I was going through the games - Marquette seemed to do well against the best competition, even when they didn't win.

More numbers that reflect well on Coach Crean. I threw the 10+ point defeats and wins in there, but I don't think they're very interesting. But I like the stats for games decided by 3 points or less (essentially meaning one possession games) and games decided by 6 points or less (two possession games). Being over 50% in both of those is really nice to see. It speaks to good end-game management, and he's been consistently good at that throughout his career.

Data isn't everything, but I'm very happy with what I found. Yes, he's had some average seasons, but that was at Marquette. He re-built the program there when there was absolutely no guarantee that it could be done, he successfully transitioned Marquette into the Big East when there was no guarantee that it would be smooth, he competed with the top teams in the country year in and year out and held his own, and he did it in a way that created a stable environment from season to season.

Obviously the blemish which can't be swept under the rug is NCAA tournament performance. He had the great run to the Final Four, but he also got upset twice in the first round by a 10 seed and a 12 seed (though that "12 seed" was ranked #33 by Pomeroy). Personally, I think the sample size is too small to know what kind of tournament coach he's going to be, but it's worth bringing up.

Do I need to justify why I didn't give him an A? If so, I'll simply say that he may very well be an A a few years from now, but to me an A means "one of the elite minds in college basketball" and other than the fact that he's now MY coach, there doesn't seem to be much justification for putting him in that company.

8. Style of Play
Grade: C+
Thoughts: This one is completely subjective, because there's no one right way to play basketball, a lot of it just comes down to personal preference. For example, I have gobs of respect for Tom Izzo and I think he's a really excellent coach, but I have never particularly liked his style of play. Even in the national title year, I didn't enjoy watching them shoot brick after brick and score off offensive rebounds. It's not ineffective, it's just not aesthetically pleasing, and that matters to me. Crean doesn't play exactly the same style, but it looks more similar than different to my untrained eye.

I'm sure I'll learn to enjoy this style more as I learn more about it, and begin to understand what the players are doing and why. But when I found out it was Crean, this was really my only concern - would I enjoy watching the team play?

Overall

I think this is a great hire, and the one thing that strikes me is the complete lack of negatives for Coach Crean. Sure, he didn't get an A across the board, but there's no coach who would. The exciting thing is that he didn't get any low marks anywhere, which is why I'm cautiously hopeful that Coach Crean will still be at Indiana 20 years from now.

Peegs' coaching hot board

Here's the Coaching Hot List from Peegs'.

Here's my ranking of them based on how much I want them:

1. Tony Bennett
2. Jamie Dixon
3. Anthony Grant
4. Brad Brownell
5. Sean Miller

6. Mike Montgomery
7. Rick Pitino
8. Thad Matta
9. Tom Crean
10. Jay Wright
11. Mike Brey

12. Randy Wittman
13. Bruce Pearl
14. Rick Barnes
15. Scott Skiles

16. Dan Dakich
17. Kevin Stallings
18. Scott Drew
19. John Calipari

The gaps indicate big drops between one coach and the next in terms of my interest.

Fourteen years

Memories... light the corners of my mind... misty water-colored memories... of the way we were...

Without further ado, I present the last 14 years of Indiana's great basketball program. Summary chart is at the end.

1994-95
   Coach: Bob Knight
   19-12 Overall
   11-7  Big Ten
   FG%:     .484
   Opp FG%: .410
   Starters: Alan Henderson
             Brian Evans
             Andrae Patterson
             Neil Reed
             Michael Hermon
   NCAA - 9 seed
   Final Game - Lost in 1st round 65-60 to 8 seed Missouri

1995-96
   Coach: Bob Knight
   19-12 Overall
   12-6  Big Ten
   FG%:     .472
   Opp FG%: .409
   Starters: Brian Evans
             Andrae Patterson
             Neil Reed
             Charlie Miller
             Sherron Wilkerson
   NCAA - 6 seed
   Final Game - Lost in 1st round 64-52 to 11 seed Boston College

1996-97
   Coach: Bob Knight
   22-11 Overall
   9-9   Big Ten
   FG%:     .438
   Opp FG%: .422
   Starters: AJ Guyton
             Neil Reed
             Andrae Patterson
             Jason Collier
             Charlie Miller
   NCAA - 8 seed
   Final Game - Lost in 1st round 80-62 to 9 seed Colorado

1997-98
   Coach: Bob Knight
   20-12 Overall
   9-7   Big Ten
   FG%:     .491
   Opp FG%: .446
   Starters: AJ Guyton
             Luke Recker
             Andrae Patterson
             William Gladness
             Michael Lewis
   NCAA - 7 seed
   Final Game - Lost in 2nd round 78-61 to 2 seed UConn

1998-99
   Coach: Bob Knight
   23-11 Overall
   9-7   Big Ten
   FG%:     .469
   Opp FG%: .419
   Starters: AJ Guyton
             Luke Recker
             William Gladness
             Larry Richardson
             Lynn Washington
   NCAA - 6 seed
   Final Game - Lost in 2nd round 86-61 to 3 seed St. John's

1999-2000
   Coach: Bob Knight
   20-9 Overall
   10-6 Big Ten
   FG%:     .478
   Opp FG%: .388
   Starters: AJ Guyton
             Kirk Haston
             Dane Fife
             Lynn Washington
             Michael Lewis
   NCAA - 6 seed
   Final Game - Lost in 1st round 77-57 to 11 seed Pepperdine

2000-01
   Coach: Mike Davis
   21-13 Overall
   10-6  Big Ten
   FG%:     .453
   Opp FG%: .394
   Starters: Jared Jeffries
             Dane Fife
             Tom Coverdale
             Kirk Haston
             Jeff Newton
   NCAA - 4 seed
   Final Game - Lost in 1st round 77-73 to 13 seed Kent State

2001-02
   Coach: Mike Davis
   25-12 Overall
   11-5  Big Ten
   FG%:     .460
   Opp FG%: .408
   Starters: Jared Jeffries
             Dane Fife
             Kyle Hornsby
             Tom Coverdale
             Jared Odle
   NCAA - 5 seed
   Final Game - Lost title game 64-52 to 1 seed Maryland

2002-03
   Coach: Mike Davis
   21-13 Overall
   8-8   Big Ten
   FG%:     .426
   Opp FG%: .416
   Starters: Tom Coverdale
             Jeff Newton
             Bracey Wright
             George Leach
             Kyle Hornsby
   NCAA - 7 seed
   Final Game - Lost in 2nd round 74-52 to 2 seed Pittsburgh

2003-04
   Coach: Mike Davis
   14-15 Overall
   7-9   Big Ten
   FG%:     .397
   Opp FG%: .425
   Starters: Bracey Wright
             Marshall Strickland
             AJ Moye
             George Leach
             Donald Perry
   NCAA - None
   Final Game - Lost 71-59 to Illinois in BTT

2004-05
   Coach: Mike Davis
   15-14 Overall
   10-6  Big Ten
   FG%:     .425
   Opp FG%: .420
   Starters: DJ White
             Robert Vaden
             Marshall Strickland
             Bracey Wright
             AJ Ratliff
   NCAA - None (NIT)
   Final Game - Lost 67-60 to Vanderbilt in 1st round NIT game

2005-06
   Coach: Mike Davis
   19-12 Overall
   9-7   Big Ten
   FG%:     .461
   Opp FG%: .436
   Starters: Robert Vaden
             Marco Killingsworth
             Marshall Strickland
             Lewis Monroe
             Earl Calloway
   NCAA - 6 seed
   Final Game - Lost in 2nd round 90-80 to 3 seed Gonzaga

2006-07
   Coach: Kelvin Sampson
   21-11 Overall
   10-6  Big Ten
   FG%:     .446
   Opp FG%: .416
   Starters: DJ White
             Roderick Wilmont
             Earl Calloway
             Armon Bassett
             Lance Stemler
   NCAA - 7 seed
   Final Game - Lost in 2nd round 54-49 to 2 seed UCLA

2007-08
   Coach: Kelvin Sampson & Dan Dakich
   25-8 Overall
   14-4 Big Ten
   FG%:     .463
   Opp FG%: .412
   Starters: DJ White
             Eric Gordon
             Jamarcus Ellis
             Armon Bassett
             Lance Stemler
   NCAA - 8 Seed
   Final Game - Lost in 1st round 86-72 to 9 seed Arkansas

                B10  B10        Opp  NCAA  NCAA
     Win  Loss  Win  Loss  FG%  FG%  Seed  Games
94-95  19   12    11   7     484  410  9     1
95-96  19   12    12   6     472  409  6     1
96-97  22   11    9    9     438  422  8     1
97-98  20   12    9    7     491  446  7     2
98-99  23   11    9    7     469  419  6     2
99-00  20   9     10   6     478  388  6     1
00-01  21   13    10   6     453  394  4     1
01-02  25   12    11   5     460  408  5     6
02-03  21   13    8    8     426  416  7     2
03-04  14   15    7    9     397  425  -     0
04-05  15   14    10   6     425  420  -     0
05-06  19   12    9    7     461  436  6     2
06-07  21   11    10   6     446  416  7     2
07-08  25   8     14   4     463  412  8     1
Avg    20.3 11.8  9.9  6.6   455  416  6.6   1.6

Number of wins over higher-seeded teams: 2 (both in '02)
Number of losses to lower-seeded teams:  5
Number of losses to higher-seeded teams: 7
Number of wins over lower-seeded teams:  8
Overall NCAA tournament record:          10-12

My conflict over Rick Pitino

First off, just to be clear, I'll give our new coach a chance no matter who it is. If Greenspan hires Charles Manson to be the new coach, you'll see me on the board saying things like "Sure, what he did was wrong, but that was before he was coaching at Indiana, and I'm sure he knows that stuff won't fly here," and "Technically, I don't think brainwashing people to commit murders is an NCAA violation." I'm not going to take my ball and go home if Greenspan doesn't pick "my" candidate (and so far I don't have a particular guy that I'm pulling for... and I'm trying hard to stay that way).

That said, it obviously doesn't mean that I have no feelings about the search at all. Basically, there are a number of coaches that I've seen mentioned for the job that I don't want to see hired. They fall into two main camps:

1. Coaches who I think just aren't very good and are only mentioned because of some IU tie (like Dakich, Alford, Stallings, etc.)
2. Big-name coaches who I don't think are clean enough (like Calipari, Pearl, etc.)

And then there's Rick Pitino. Pitino represents a real conundrum for me.

1. As far as I can tell, Pitino runs a clean program, and has run clean programs for years.
2. As much as he's considered an "East coast guy", he's spent most of the last 20 years coaching within a couple hour drive of Bloomington, Indiana. He knows the midwest.
3. I think he's a good coach.
4. From a distance, I like his relationship with his players. He doesn't try to be their friend, but they seem to like playing for him anyway.
5. I think Pitino would be really successful at Indiana. Really successful. Like Final Fours and National Titles.

And yet, I have a big problem with Pitino. I hate his style of play. That's it in a nutshell. I don't think his style is bad or it makes him a bad coach, I just think it's ugly to watch.

When Pitino went to Kentucky, Kentucky was not in good shape. They had a little talent, but nothing like what would come later. When a team doesn't have much talent and needs to beat more talented teams, conventional wisdom says that you want to slow the game down and decrease the number of possessions. The fewer the possessions, the less chance the more talented team has to pull away.

Pitino turned that on its ear. He decided that what he wanted to do was minimize the number of halfcourt possessions, both offensively and defensively. So he focused on reducing the opponent's halfcourt offensive possessions by playing full court, pressure, trapping defenses that generated turnovers and made the opponent score in transition (which seems like a bad thing, except it was outside their comfort zone). And he focused his team on scoring in transition, even when the numbers weren't in his favor, and particularly on shooting 3s in transition (which wasn't commonplace back then). And of course he played his whole bench in order to wear the other team down. He increased the importance of athleticism at the expense of "basketball smarts". This was a brilliant coaching move, and it also was a style that the players loved, so recruiting followed.

And I hated watching it.

As Kentucky's talent increased, the effectiveness of this technique increased even more... or did it? I would submit that it didn't. Kentucky had so much talent that they didn't need to rely on high-risk/high-return techniques to win. Early on, the techniques turned probable losses into wins, but at some point it stopped doing that. I think it starting turning probable wins into blowouts... and then UK would run into a team with great guards who could consistently break UK's fullcourt press and POW the core of UK's gameplan was useless. In other words, they reached a point where Kentucky's style was most effective when it was least needed, and least effective when it was most needed.

And I hated watching it.

Giving credit where credit is due, Pitino's reliance on fullcourt defense and 3 point shooting seems to have gone down over time and he's adjusted to today's game. The man's a good coach. If he was hired by Indiana, I'm sure I'd feel some excitement over the success I think he'd bring to the program. But I'd also feel some real disappointment at the prospect of watching Indiana play that style of ball. There's nothing evil about it. There's nothing stupid about it. I just don't enjoy it.

I'd be very conflicted.

The Big Ten race is heating up!

Indiana (9-1) now has road wins over Ohio State, Illinois, Iowa, and Minnesota... against one loss at Wisconsin. Concerns about our soft schedule are now moot, in my opinion - we're a legitimate contender for the B10 crown with the wins to prove it.

The other contenders are Purdue (10-1), Wisconsin (9-2), and Michigan State (8-2).

Working backwards, I don't think Michigan State has much of a chance. Their remaining schedule is brutal. The still play on the road at Indiana, Purdue, Wisconsin, Ohio State, and Illinois. The fact that they've already lost road games at Iowa and Penn State suggests that they won't win enough of those games to win the B10 title. Pomeroy predicts them to finish 10-6.

Wisconsin still has road games against Indiana, Ohio State, Illinois, and Northwestern, plus the MSU game at home. Finishing with one more loss would require a remarkable run of basketball... two losses is probably more likely. Pomeroy predicts them to finish 14-4. They've got an outside shot at the title, and if they beat Indiana on the road then they become a frontrunner.

Purdue has road games against Indiana, Ohio State, Michigan, and Northwestern, plus a home game against MSU. Given that they just won at Wisconsin, all those games are winnable, but like Wisconsin I think 1 more loss would be extremely impressive and 2 losses is probable. But that still leaves them at 15-3 in the B10 (which is also what Pomeroy predicts).

Indiana only has 3 road games left against Michigan State, Northwestern, and Penn State, by far the easiest road schedule of the contenders. It's the home games that are brutal for Indiana - Wisconsin, Michigan State, and Purdue all in a row next up, then two more home games against Ohio State and Minnesota. If Indiana holds home court it's hard to picture them not at least sharing the B10 title, but that's a big if. In addition to the MSU road game, I think there's another loss lurking in there somewhere. 15-3 is the most likely finish.

So, best guess at this point is tying with Purdue for the B10 title at 15-3 with Wisconsin one game behind at 14-4.

Who is the best bet to win the title? I have to say Purdue. They have the best win in the conference (at Wisconsin) and their only loss was by 3 at Michigan State. But their edge over Indiana at this point is very slight.

I don't hate Kentucky

There was a time, a long time ago, when my intense dislike for Rick Pitino certainly bled over to the Kentucky program in general, but even then I always kinda liked the UK fans. They know their basketball and a fair number of them can manage to enjoy the rivalry with Indiana without letting it destroy their perspective.

I don't hate Purdue. Never have. I always liked Gene Keady. Not only was he a good coach, but he always struck me as being a good guy who was surprisingly funny in the right circumstances. I've made friends with a handful of Purdue fans over the years, though not in the same number as UK fans... Purdue fans tend to be pretty myopic about the rest of college basketball.

I used to hate Michigan. They were the one team in the B10 that I would root against in the NCAA tournament. I can't hate them anymore. They were just so pathetic during Tommy Amaker's tenure that they didn't inspire strong feelings, and I really enjoy John Beilein's style of play. I haven't met a Michigan basketball fan that I've liked yet, but that's probably just because there are so few of them. It's like trying to meet a scuba diver that you like in Wyoming.

I hate Illinois. I am absolutely amazed at the amount of whining Bruce Weber has publicly done about Eric Gordon... and about everything else. I have rarely seen a game where the refs helped a team as much as they helped Illinois last night, and Weber whined about not getting any breaks after the game. All coaches work the refs during the game and express mock outrage at calls and non-calls, but in Weber's case he seems to not be acting. Even before I knew who Gordon was, I had a hard time stomaching the Illinois games because watching Weber on the sidelines made me nauseous. I do think he's a good game coach, though, begrudgingly giving credit where credit is due.

I hate the Illinois players. This is a new thing - I actually really liked Illinois's team the year they made it to the championship game. They were unselfish, played hard, and were fun to watch... and seemed like classy kids. There's nothing classy about this year's squad. They embarrassed their program last night. Everyone knew there were going to play with a lot of emotion last night. Everyone knew that this was going to be a tough, physical game. That's college basketball. It's part of what makes it fun -- I don't think you ever see that kind of emotion in the NBA. But last night went beyond playing hard. I honestly believe that if Eric Gordon had gotten injured during the game from one of the many elbows thrown his way, the Illinois players would have been happy.

And I really hate the Illinois fans. I don't think IU fans are universally wonderful, smart, gracious people who shrug off disappointment and don't hold grudges. If the Eric Gordon situation had been reversed, I am sure I would have been embarrassed by the behavior of a few Indiana fans. But I am morally certain that we would not have degraded ourselves as a group like Illinois has. We'd have decided that if Gordon wanted to go to Illinois more than Indiana then it was his loss (arrogant self-justification, admittedly, but that's what would have happened). When Gordon came to Bloomington, he would have caught grief, but more in the "Hey, this is a great excuse to party" kind of way. The Illinois fanbase needs to look in the mirror... they are hurting their program.

To make a long story short, last night's double overtime victory over Illinois and the officiating crew was as satisfying a victory as I've experienced from watching Indiana for years. They pulled out a win on the road in extremely difficult circumstances against a team that is far better than its record suggests. Frankly, I'm amazed Indiana won.

And happy. Very, very happy.

A sad, classless scene from Champaign

Illini fans angry at Hoosier's Gordon cross line

Illini seethe hatred at Eric Gordon (and family), but IU wins anyway

Bob Knight "Interview" with Jay Bilas

Jay obviously didn't need to do much prompting.

And, as usual, Coach Knight was unable to bring himself to say the word "Indiana". At one point, he had no choice, but said "in the midwest" instead.

Some Bob Knight articles

A Coach Who Frequently Lost It Seemingly Had Nothing Left by John Feinstein (great article, terrible title)

General's Last Stand by Dan Wetzel

Ex-IU Players React to News by Michael Marot

Bob Knight's Gifts as Abundant as his Faults by Eric Crawford

My take? Simple, really. I think Knight's astonishing coaching talent and integrity in running his programs doesn't excuse the fact that he was a pluperfect jerk. And I think the fact that he was a pluperfect jerk doesn't invalidate his astonishing coaching talent and integrity in running his program. Both facts are equally true and valid, neither eclipses the other, and the two can't be separated. The same character traits that made him a great coach also made him a jerk. If someone could have waved a magic wand and softened Knight's edges 35 years ago, I'm convinced he would have been a lesser coach because of it.

I'm glad Bob Knight was Indiana's coach during my formative years, and I have never enjoyed IU basketball more or followed it with more passion than when he was the coach of my team... but in retrospect it was almost a relief when he left. The sideshow that enveloped him had become a distraction from following the team.

I just wish his successor had not brought his own sideshow with him as well.

Good luck, Coach Knight. Enjoy your fishing, you've earned it.

According to Sagarin's computer...

... Indiana has played 2 games against teams ranked in the top 40, and 17 games against teams ranked below 40. Indiana has won all those games against lower-than-40 teams.

Against the Top 40 teams, Indiana has lost by 15 to #14 Xavier on a neutral court and lost by 5 at home to #28 UConn.

Doesn't bode well for our road game against #9 Wisconsin.

Some thoughts on seventeen-and-one

I'm used to Indiana being ranked higher in the computer rankings than they are in the AP... or even higher than seems reasonable... because we've played such a difficult schedule that our SOS is in the single digits and yet we have several losses. In other words, we've played really good teams - and lost to them. This season is a complete role reversal. I can't remember the last time Indiana had a schedule this poor at this point in the season.

Side comment - I'm not complaining about the schedule. We didn't have control over many of the teams we played and we don't have any control over how good our opponents are in a given season. Who would have thought that we'd play in the ACC-B10 Challenge plus play Kentucky and neither of those games would be against a high quality opponent? We've almost always had games against Western Carolina or Coppin State type teams... it's just that this season we had nothing to balance that out. And obviously we've started the B10 with a very favorable schedule too.

Anyway, the point is that this is new territory for Indiana fans. I'm used to arguing why Indiana is the best 8-loss team in the country. I'm used to arguing why Indiana deserves an NCAA bid in spite of our 18-11 record because those other bubble teams didn't play anyone good.

And now I'm looking at our 17-1 schedule and thinking, "The only upset we've been involved in is the game where WE were upset by Xavier. The other seventeen games are a combination of expected victories and closer-games-than-we-thought victories." It's hard to pull off an upset when you're as good as Indiana is, because those opportunities will be rare, but that's the problem - we're trying to judge ourselves against the other top teams in the country, but we haven't played any of them. According to Pomeroy, the best team we've played is #13 Xavier and we lost by 15. The next best team is #36 Minnesota - a five point win on the road. Minnesota is also our best win according to Sagarin, who has them at #46. Think about that for a second. Our best win this season is against Minnesota... an NCAA bubble team that's really happy about being a bubble team.

It's very easy to picture this team being exactly as good as it is today and performing exactly as well as it has this season and being 13-5 against a really tough schedule. We might've already played at Wisconsin and MSU. Kentucky could have been a Top 5 team. We could've been paired against UNC instead of Georgia Tech in the Challenge. And this same team probably wouldn't be ranked in the Top 25.

17-1 isn't completely meaningless. It tells me that this team is good enough to win even when they have an off night, and that is important. We've got multiple weapons and don't need to be firing on all cylinders to beat someone. Remember thinking in years past that Indiana could beat anyone in the country IF everything went just right? We don't need everything to go just right this season. And that's good, because as everyone expected with this team of newcomers, our performance has been variable throughout the season... but with a clear upward trend. I am so happy with DJ and for DJ right now. He's always seemed like a great kid to me, but it's no secret that I have been less enamored with his play than many other IU fans. Well, I'm officially no longer in that camp - he's completely exceeded my expectations this season. This team is still developing and that will continue until the last game, but so far they've won the games they're supposed to win, and that's gotta count for something.

But all that is over now. Forget the gaudy 17-1 record. In spite of their struggles, UConn is the second best team we've played this season. We'll be a clear underdog at Wisconsin. And then after a home game with Northwestern, it's at Illinois, at Ohio State, and home against Wisconsin, MSU, and Purdue. Dang. Now things get fun. We're not going to win all those games. But it's going to be exciting. I can't wait.

My first chance to DVR the Hoosiers

I love watching games from the comfort of my home on my DVR. I get to fast forward through commercials and halftime, I am allowed to turn off the announcers, and I get to watch the interesting possessions three or four times before continuing... and all in High Definition! Mmmmm....

So, now that I've seen the Hoosiers against a real opponent, DVR-style, here are some thoughts.

1. This team is loaded with potential... and to date it is largely unrealized potential. This is not too surprising. While I think it's guaranteed that this team will get significantly better over the course of the season, it's still far from certain that they'll realize their potential.

2. Mike White got elbowed in the face and they called a foul on him.

3. Speaking of potential, I think IU started the season with a ranking that matched their potential -- about #8 in the country. That's what I think this team can be. It clearly is not what this team is today.

4. DJ White jumped up to catch a pass and was undercut by a GT player as he was coming down, causing him to bobble the pass out of bounds, and they gave the ball to GT.

5. This is why playing cupcakes at the beginning of the season is a waste of time. Indiana needed to start the season against a couple decent teams to find out what they needed to work on. Beating Longwood gave the Hoosiers no good information about their strengths and weaknesses. Schedule Longwood right before the conference games start, if at all.

6. Gordon is really good, and dang, he's just going to get better.

7. There's been a couple years when I thought the B10 was better than the ACC even though they lost the B10-ACC Challenge... this isn't one of those years.

8. People who complain about officiating annoy the crap out of me.

9. This was a good win, but it wasn't the kind of game that causes visions of Final Fours to dance in your head.

10. Go Wisconsin!

18 year old recruits and national titles

Most recruits enter college when they are 18 years old. So, in their lifetime, what teams (and conferences) have won national titles? Here you go:

2007 - Florida
2006 - Florida
2005 - UNC
2004 - UConn
2003 - Syracuse
2002 - Maryland
2001 - Duke
2000 - MSU
1999 - UConn
1998 - Kentucky
1997 - Arizona
1996 - Kentucky
1995 - UCLA
1994 - Arkansas
1993 - UNC
1992 - Duke
1991 - Duke
1990 - UNLV

ACC - 6
SEC - 5
Big East - 3
Pac 10 - 2
B10 - 1
Other - 1

So the B10 has ONE national title in the last 18 years. The ACC and SEC account for 11 of the 18 titles. What about the 18 years prior to that?

1989 - Michigan
1988 - Kansas
1987 - Indiana
1986 - Louisville
1985 - Villanova
1984 - Georgetown
1983 - NC State
1982 - UNC
1981 - Indiana
1980 - Louisville
1979 - MSU
1978 - Kentucky
1977 - Marquette
1976 - Indiana
1975 - UCLA
1974 - NC State
1973 - UCLA
1972 - UCLA

B10 - 5
Big East - 5
Pac 10 - 3
ACC - 3
Big 12 - 1
SEC - 1

(I'm using current conference affiliation above for Marquette and Louisville)

Conclusion?

The B10 needs to get better. Now.

Numbered thoughts on Indiana

1. I don't think we can hang the Michigan loss on Tommy Amaker - he did everything he could to help us win. I realize this is beating a dead horse, but everytime I watch Michigan I just shake my head at how horrible Amaker is. I mean, Lester Abram, Dion Harris, Brent Petway, and Courtney Sims are all SENIORS. According to RSCI, they were ranked #49, #22, #62, and #52 nationally as recruits, and all have played extensively for Amaker for four years. And they still can't take care of the ball. I mean, IU had trouble taking are of the ball earlier this season as well. Then Sampson focused on it and two weeks later our turnovers take a precipitous plunge. It's an embarrassment for the entire B10 that Michigan has continued to employ Amaker. Yeah, he's clean, and apparently that's quite an accomplishment at Michigan. But c'mon, can they really not find a coach that's both clean AND a decent coach?

2. Injuries are part of basketball and every team deals with some types of injuries every season. But that doesn't mean that don't matter, and in my opinion Indiana wins at Michigan with a healthy Calloway. Calloway is extremely important to this team, and I was actually pretty impressed with Indiana's play at Michigan considering we didn't have Calloway and DJ spent half the game on the bench. We needed the win, but I thought we battled through some tough circumstances.

3. I really, really like Armon Bassett. He's been a pleasant surprise all season, and although he needs to work on his shot selection, that's not unusual for an offense-oriented freshmen. I'm sure Sampson will work that out in time, and in the meantime I'm enjoying watching him play, and I think he's going to be a key part of this team for four years. But he is NOT a point guard, in any shape or form. Wilmont does a better job of looking for his teammates than Bassett... and that's saying something. You can tell that whenever Bassett has the ball, he's thinking, "What can I do with this that will end in me getting a shot?" That's a great attitude in a shooting guard... but not a point guard. The question of who is going to play point guard next season continues to loom large. I would also add that this is NOT a criticism of Bassett - it's an observation. Bassett is just being the player that he is.

4. Before the season, everyone in the country and on this board agreed that Ohio State and Wisconsin were obviously the class of the B10, and that no one knew who the 3rd best B10 team was going to be. Like pretty much everyone else on this board, I really hoped Indiana could be that 3rd best team (though in my case I doubted it would happen). Well, right now, ignoring the unbalanced conference records and standings and all that stuff and just using my own eyes to gauge the situation -- I think Indiana is obviously the 3rd best B10 team. I'm happy about that.

5. Different people can say the same thing and mean completely different things, and different people can read the same thing and reach completely different conclusions, and I think somewhere along the way a lot of that has been happening regarding Sampson, Mike Davis, and this year's talent versus last season. Here's what I think, articulated as clearly as I can:

5a. I think Sampson is an enormous step up from Mike Davis.

5b. I think Davis was a terrible coach, but I think his faults have become overblown in the minds of IU fans (and they were overblown while Davis was still here), particularly with regard to his game prep and game coaching. I've heard many times here that "We would've lost this game under Davis" and I just shake my head. We won a lot of big games under Davis... and we lost quite a few of them as well. We beat #1 MSU in Davis's first season, and finished well ahead of where I thought we would. We obviously made the FF in his second season. And we had several seasons where in my opinion our talent level was not very good. Other than last season, I don't think Davis was squandering highly talented teams - he was struggling to get much out of mediocre talent. Davis was bad, but he wasn't the only factor in our performance the past six seasons.

5c. I think Sampson is a wonderful coach, but I think his skills became overblown in the minds of IU fans this season. Maybe we're still suffering from Bob Knight hangover and want to get back to the point where we're able to worship the ground that our coach walks on, but that's silly. Sampson is not the best coach in every facet of the game in the entire nation... and that doesn't mean he's a failure either. It's absolutely amazing to me how badly Indiana fans seem to want to deify their coach... all it took was 14-4 start to the season and we're convinced that Sampson can walk on water and the team will never have a down game or lose intensity ever again. it's absolutely amazing to me how quick Indiana fans are to criticize our coach after a couple losses... all it's taken is a few completely predictable road losses and now Sampson doesn't know how to use time outs or coach offense or teach shot selection. Listen, Sampson is an experienced coach, an excellent leader, and knows what he's doing.... that doesn't mean we'll win every fricking game. Sampson is good, but he isn't the only factor in our performance this season.

5d. Regarding talent, I do think that this team has significantly less talent than last season. First, remember that Indiana went on an impressive 5 game winning streak during the 5 games that DJ White played in - and we were 12-10 in the rest of the regular season games, so DJ's talent did have an important influence on our record last season. Add Marshall Strickland, Robert Vaden, and Killingsworth to the mix and that was quite a talented team, IMO. This year's team isn't very close to that level, and I've mentioned that I think this is one of the least talented teams at Indiana in many years - but that doesn't make them untalented by B10 standards and certainly not by THIS season's B10 standards. Indiana is used to having quite a bit of talent, so there's a big difference between comparing our talent to previous Indiana teams versus comparing our talent to other B10 teams. The point is that I think Sampson clearly has something to work with this season, but I also don't think this Indiana team was somehow only a good coach away from greatness.

6. One final thought - I think there's an obvious explanation for Indiana fans' manic depressive attitudes. We are all really, really, really tired of watching Indiana field mediocre/decent/good teams that sometimes tantalizingly approach really-good-to-great status but can't quite get there. We don't want to hear about talent deficiencies, or coaching problems, or leadership issues, or justifications for recruiting losses, or anything else... we don't want explanations or rational analysis... we want to be able to watch a GREAT INDIANA TEAM again. Until we get there, we're going to try to argue that each Indiana team could be great until such time that it becomes obvious that they aren't great, and then we're going to get depressed and pissy about it for awhile. I think we're going to see this same cycle again next season as well (in other words, I don't think we'll be a great team next season either). I completely understand (and feel) this emotional response.