Exile on Waveland

I am, but only because I think they have a better shot at beating UNC. I like MSU as a team better. I'll be the first one to go out on this limb, but I think Michigan State would beat UNC Monday night. That said, I still think UConn will pull this one out.

In whatever order, I see little chance they finish higher than Michigan State, Purdue, Minnesota, Illinois, or Wisconsin. It's hard to say what Ohio State or Michigan will look like until early entries are finalized. Northwestern loses less than Penn State and finished only two games behind them.

Likewise, making the NCAA tourney was far more satisfying than losing twice to PSU. In all seriousness though, there was a different set of expectations coming into the season for both schools. PSU doesn't have any history of sustained success like Illinois does. A "down" year for Illinois is usually a "good" year for PSU. So, for a school that is trying to establish a higher level of competitiveness, a 5 game run through the NIT was a more valuable playing experience than the NCAA might have been. Now, if PSU had made the NCAA and had pulled an Arizona and gone to the Swet Sixteen, that' a completely different story. Either way, I'm proud of the players for shaking of the disappointment of missing the dance and playing some really good basketball in the NIT. They'll get to hang a banner, and they'll return most of their players for another run in the Big Ten next year. If they can finish in the top half next year, I'll be pretty happy. Sorry, but I seriously doubt Penn State finishes in the top half of the Big Ten next year (and I really like both DeChellis and Battle).

memphis is as fertile as la and there isnt a better school in the same city ala ucla. I strongly disagree that Memphis is as fertile a recruiting ground as the LA metro. Yeah, that's just not true.

Dr. J?

Why not just cut to the chase and hire World Wide Wes?

the next coach(Rick Pitino). Hahahaha

I think it was this thread where it was initially discussed (it may have been the tournament thread), but the Big Ten now has six teams in the top-50 of adjusted offensive efficiency.

Would it have really mattered? They would've made the tournament but I don't think they really would've went too far; similar to Indiana and EJ. Indiana is a terrible analogy.

Apologize as it often seems I have to get the last word. I would've gone Iglesias here, too, so we agree. He's solid and the Colts shouldn't have to wait long for him to develop. As you said, they don't need Randy Moss. They just need another competent WR. I've heard conflicting reports on Follet. He didn't seem stiff when I've seen him, but I've certainly read that in scouting reports (and that he sometimes struggles in coverage). I've also read that he's explosive to the ball. So who knows. If there's a question, though, he's not much of a fit, you're right.

I'd agree on the positions. Not sure I agree that I know more. I feel like guessing what Polian would do here is an exercise in futility. I could see any number of positions, and which linebacker is especially difficult to predict. I wouldn't be surprised by secondary or even another offensive lineman. I do doubt the latter since Jeff Saturday was signed, but I'm still more bearish about the line than most, I think. At WR I'd guess Juaquin Iglesias. He's not the fastest but is a good route runner with good hands. That's pretty much the current prototype for Colts WR's (unless you think they need to supplement with a deep threat or a taller redzone target). Linebacker is a little more difficult for me -- honestly, who is the fastest LB left on the board? Those deserving mention, at least, include Zack Follet, Jason Williams, Gerald McRath, Jason Philips, et al. I would lean towards Follet, who is tough, pretty fast, rushes the passer pretty well and is a good tackler. I think the latter attributes will be in demand with a slightly tweaked (?) defense under Caldwell/Coyer. As between the two positions, I'm not really sure. It might be easier to find a comparable LB in the next round, but the Colts have even less depth there than at WR I'd say. I'm deferring again to you (though I'm deferring a more difficult decision here).

On what planet did the Big 12 have three elite eight teams?

Where's loukycub been? Went to the same dark corner that all the other "Big 10 sucks" people went to. 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. Well that's just absurdly false. 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) 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. 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. 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. You've gone from "sucked" to "slight down year" for the Big Ten that "played to their seeds like everyone else." Maybe you should just admit you were completely wrong initially? Actually, you implicitly just did. And, on the Big East, I would say they've already had the best tournament of anyone by far. That's why I said plus/minus wasn't a terribly fair barometer for them.

Where's loukycub been? Went to the same dark corner that all the other "Big 10 sucks" people went to. 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. Well that's just absurdly false. 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) 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. 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.

Where's loukycub been? Went to the same dark corner that all the other "Big 10 sucks" people went to. 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. Well that's just absurdly false. 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) 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.

Where's loukycub been? Went to the same dark corner that all the other "Big 10 sucks" people went to. 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. Well that's just absurdly false.

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. 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.

How much does he drink though? You don't have to be drunk to be over the legal limit. If he's going out and getting plastered every single night, sure, he's probably got a drinking problem. But if he's having a few beers per night, might be over the legal limit and doesn't want to risk a DUI, I don't think that's a drinking problem. Actually being responsible enough to not put yourself in a position where you are going to drink and drive suggests the opposite of a drinking problem. Seems almost commendable. Most drunks would likely continue driving regardless. They drive better with a few in 'em.

Well, they just fired Tubby Smith. Well not really he left before they could. But, they wanted him out because he wasn't getting talent in there. How in two years should Gillespie have been able to turn that around? JOhn Wooden wouldn't have won a ton with the Kentucky team there now. What about John Wooden plus that guy that paid everyone. Kentucky had one contributing player that BCG brought in. He has been a disaster. And he STILL deserved more than 2 years. Sam Gilbert. I don't disagree that Gillispie has not been successful at all, but as per my above post, he's clearly got some nice recruits lined up the next two seasons. Regardless, this is karma for ousting Tubby. Hey, who was that in the NCAA Tournament this year? Oh right, it was Minnesota. The same Minnesota team that was 9-22 the year before Tubby took over.

Well, they just fired Tubby Smith. Well not really he left before they could. But, they wanted him out because he wasn't getting talent in there. How in two years should Gillespie have been able to turn that around? JOhn Wooden wouldn't have won a ton with the Kentucky team there now. Isn't college basketball all about the young-uns? 2 years seems like plenty of time to bring in 2 or 3 difference makers that will change a program. Only if you land DRose or Michael Beasley. Hell even with Eric Gordon and Michael Beasley both of their teams got beat out right away in the tournament. You need 4 years to build a program into what you want it to be. This would be very foolish. Currently, Kentucky has signed a five-star (No. 22 overall) and a four-star player (No. 32) for the Class of 2009. Another five-star (No. 6) has committed for 2010. I agree with your four-year time frame, and it seems UK's recruiting has/had picked up.

Kentucky's expectations are astronomically unrealistic. They ostensibly forced out one of the top-10 coaches in the nation just two years ago.

can't wait to hear matta bitch about the one and done players. Also, Columbus Dispatch sports editor isn't losing sleep over this http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/sports/stories/2009/03/27/hunter_3-27.ART_ART_03-27-09_C1_KTDCBDO.html?sid=101 That confirms that the sports editor of the Columbus Dispatch is a moron. Mullens may not have lived up to the hype of Rival's No. 1 recruit, but he was mostly an effective, positive player for the Buckeyes. He was also likely to be much, much improved next season. This is a big loss for Ohio State. The only returning interior player they have is the limited Dallas Lauderdale and they have zero incoming recruits (though a great class for 2010 is on the way). The Buckeyes will have a nice set of swingmen regardless of Evan Turner's decision, but they will struggle in the paint and at the point.

Should have stuck with my initial gut instinct and picked Mizzou over Memphis. Stupid Pomeroy and efficiency ratings convinced me that Memphis was something I didn't believe they were. Oh well. UConn-Mizzou should be a very interesting matchup. If UConn controls tempo, they will dominate inside and win. If Mizzou convinces UConn to run -- this could be a distinct possibility as UConn has always been known as an uptempo team -- Thabeet could spend the entire game at midcourt turning in circles as the other nine guys race back and forth.

can't wait to hear matta bitch about the one and done players. This is also partially why Ohio State will likely never be as good as the sum of their parts (unless they change their modus operandi -- which it seems they aren't). Of course, they'll still be good because of talent. And perhaps they have another Oden-Conley, Jr. super-class, but those don't come around too often. It's hard to build a team around one-and-done's. Here's betting Evan Turner leaves early too (though they have squeezed two years out of him so far).

Malik Story to transfer from IU. http://www.insidethehall.com/2009/03/26/report-malik-story-decides-to-transfer/ This clears up Indiana's scholarship situation for the time being. However, they are still recruiting Darius Smith and will possibly have another ride open up.