Re: 2009 NCAA Tournament thread

bcl412 · March 30, 2009

I don't think this is really a fair argument because it's not fair to just take out one coacg but when you look at championships (I know championships aren't everything when evaluation a school) IU won two outside of Bob knight. UCLA has one sans Wooden, Kentucky has three sans Rupp, UNC has two sans Smith. I'd say IU is a power program without knight

March 30, 2009

Did you read my post beyond the first sentence, or were you that anxious to make the dig on Kansas?

SouthSideRyan · March 30, 2009

Over the last 20 years they've been a run of the mill good team. Along the lines of a Maryland. Before that, Knight or not they have a top of the line resume.

SouthSideRyan · March 30, 2009

Nobody has any good Digger reactions to MSU making the Final 4?

snoodmonger · March 30, 2009

He had to turn the Kansas one into a joke, because the formula wouldn't work with us. Six of the eight coaches we've had took us to at least one Final Four.

SouthSideRyan · March 30, 2009

Louisville vs. Big East: 19-2

Louisville vs. Big Ten: 0-2

Sosa21MVP · March 30, 2009

I think it is highly disingenuous to pretend Indiana lacks tradition in basketball outside of Bob Knight. I think illiniguy makes the point rather concisely regardless of his dig on Kansas.

The problem with IU was that the departure of Knight was a nasty divorce rather than a clean transfer of power and even that did not stop us from making yet another Final Four after RMK was gone. But between Davis and Sampson we set ourselves back roughly a decade overall so........don't enjoy it too much Crean is rapidly fixing things up.

March 30, 2009

Where's loukycub been?

Banedon · March 30, 2009

Ugh. I had 3 of the final four right on my bracket. The one I missed....Louisville. And I had them winning it all. Man that's annoying.

Soul · March 30, 2009

Went to the same dark corner that all the other "Big 10 sucks" people went to.

SouthSideRyan · March 30, 2009

I really think Indiana fans need to reel in the expectations. Crean has brought in 2 good, not great recruiting classes, and doesn't have much room to add any help in the coming years. Crean right now has IU back on pace to within 2-3 years to be where they've been over the past 20 years, a 3-7 finisher in the Big 10.

soapy · March 30, 2009

as an IU fan, i more or less agree with SSR here. Crean is doing things exactly as well as I'd hoped so far, but i think it's unrealistic to expect IU to return to the pre mid-90's type of success. having said that, i'm looking forward to seeing what he can do with this situation in a few years. i think being a regular contender for a Big Ten title is a fairly realisic expectation maybe starting 4-5 from now if things go right for Crean.

as mentioned in reference to Tim's question, i don't think IU's previous success can be put squarely on Knight. obviously they won two championships before he was there. having said that, IU's era of being a yearly top-10 program have been gone since the mid 1990's. they really haven't been considered a championship contender in the last 15 years, unlikely 2002 tournament run aside. the downturn didn't start with Knight's departure either. his teams had been on the downslide (by previous standards) his last 5-6 years at IU.

Exile on Waveland · March 30, 2009

It's the past 15 years, not the past 20. In five years you'll be able to say 20, but not yet.

That said, as per your subsequent post, you are correct. IU certainly isn't set up to be anything close to a title contender over the next few seasons. Crean's classes will restore IU to a winning team, but not Coach Knight-level success. I do think your contention of fans expectations is a bit of a strawman though. Very few, if any, expect a title contender in 2-3 years (obviously our fan base is not unique with some completely irrational fanatics). However, in conclusion, I don't think it's outside the realm of possibilities that Crean could return IU into a top-10/15 program.

apete6 · March 30, 2009

In his defense, the Big 10 did suck. Michigan State is just a very good team. They would have been a top 4-5 finisher in the Big East (maybe a Villanova type season). It's not MSUs fault that the rest of the league sucked.

Exile on Waveland · March 30, 2009

Well that's just absurdly false.

bukie · March 30, 2009

Sagarin's conference ratings updated after Sunday's games: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/bkc0809.htm

Of note, the top 5 conferences are basically identical.

SouthSideRyan · March 30, 2009

Haha, just as I expected, no matter what actually happened during the tourney, this trash would continue.

In response to your previous post, saying people better enjoy getting their beatings on IU now because Tom Crean is rapidly fixing things up the sentence after saying Sampson and Davis set the program back, I don't know how else to take that. I certainly don't see how you can interpret it as saying Crean will get the team back to the level they were at under Davis/Sampson(minus the anarchy that went on off the court with Kelvin)

bcl412 · March 30, 2009

I missed having all the final four teams because Villanova made a buzzer beater. I have Carolina and UConn in the finals though.

Exile on Waveland · March 30, 2009

I'm going to ignore tournament results and claim the Big East is terrible. It's terrible because yesterday I watched in person the Big Ten Champ destroy the Big East Champ. The Big East sucks.

I didn't read that post the same way you did; perhaps I am wrong on interpretation. I don't think it's unrealistic to expect the beatings to stop. Now, it is rather unrealistic to expect a complete reversal where IU starts beating down those teams regularly. It's possible I read the post under the guise of my expectations.

apete6 · March 30, 2009

What exactly happened in the tourney that convinced you that the Big 10 was awesome? Purdue playing 1 slot above their seed, same with MSU? Or was it Ohio State losing essentially a home game to Siena or Illinois losing to Western Kentucky? Maybe it was the stellar showing by Minnesota. Or are you going to play the "Michigan almost beat Oklahoma but the refs gave it to Blake Griffin" card?

The Big 10 performed pretty much as expected. Penn State is putting on a good showing in the NIT, but Northwestern lost to mighty Tulsa in the first game.

The Big East is good because they have a ton of teams, but those teams also performed, 5 in the Sweet 16 and 2 in the Final 4. The Big 12 had 3 in the Elite 8 which was pretty good for them. Most conferences performed exactly as they should have, not much better or worse, although the ACC can probably be considered "underachievers" after the Clemson loss and the beatdown Duke got from Villanova.

woodchip2153 · March 30, 2009

The ACC sucked. The Big Ten performed at the same level as the Big East, in regards to seed expectations.

http://yetanotherbasketblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/pase-expectations.html

SouthSideRyan · March 30, 2009

So the Big 10 put 7 teams in and performed a little better than expected, and that means they suck.

MSU beats the Big East champ(said team's 2nd loss in as many tries against Big 10 teams), goes to the final 4, and they could have probably carved out a nice 5th place finish in the Big East.

Exile on Waveland · March 30, 2009

The Big Ten is +2 in seed win/loss expectations (nice job here conveniently ignoring No. 12 Wisconsin winning). The Big East is -1 (though this isn't a terribly fair barometer for the conference). The Big 12 is +2. The ACC is -4. The Pac 10 is +1. The SEC is even.

The Big Ten, along with the Big 12, exceeded expectations more than any other power conference.

apete6 · March 30, 2009

OK, but the tourney isn't over. Let's say MSU loses and Villanova beats UNC and UConn giving the Big East a total of +3, does that mean they had a better tourney than if UConn wins it?

Is it just me or are those numbers strikingly close? Kind of shows that this was a "big conference" year. That, coupled with all of the blowouts, makes the committee look good anyway.

Big 10 probably isn't as bad as everyone thought, but they certainly aren't a powerhouse. They essentially played to their seeds like everyone else. Couple that with the fact that they had lower seeds to begin with means it was a slight down year for the Big 10.

CubColtPacer · March 30, 2009

Yes, most of the conferences did almost exactly what the committee thought they would do overall. Some were a little better, some a little worse.

What makes the Big 10 different than the other conferences is that they were the ones who were heavily criticized for not deserving what the committee gave them. So when they go out and do just a little better than the committee envisioned, it ends up being much better than most of the national perception. The Big 10 proved they deserved to have 7 teams in which was quite far off from what most people were saying around Selection Sunday. They were saying that the Big 10 would get 7 teams in, but that the play in the league was so low that they shouldn't get 7 teams in, and that opinion was mostly defused by the last couple of weekends.

Most of the other conferences it was agreed that they were treated fairly by the committee, and the tournament results have borne that out (with the exception of the ACC).

Re: 2009 NCAA Tournament thread

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest

Guest

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Member Statistics

Prospect News & Highlights

Recent News

Notes & Rumors

Recent Blogs