Exile on Waveland

Indiana, as per usual, has the worst class in the Big Ten. It's close to Northwestern's, but far behind the rest of the conference. Of course, the coaching situation was in flux. The Hoosiers brought in five three-star players, headlined by Darius Willis (#41 RB), Cortez Smith (#48 CB) and 6-foot-5 DE Kyle Kozak (#36 prep schooler). Willis, who's from Indianapolis (Franklin Central HS), was a big get for Coach Lynch. They beat out some big time schools for his commitment -- Michigan, Notre Dame, Tennessee, Boston College and Illinois. Hopefully, IU won't lose its best commit on signing day like last year, when the 37th ranked player overall, and top-ranked safety, Jerimy Finch of Indianapolis, signed with Florida instead of IU. He was poised to be perhaps the best recruit ever to come to IU.

If IU doesn't play much, much better the next five games are going to be a major struggle. They're not very good right now.

Welker is completely classless too. Why? I've never heard anything about him either way. His taunting players during games which were clearly out of reach. When you score a TD to make the score 52-7 you should hand the ball to the ref. You certainly shouldn't spike it in the defender's face. He's not a cheapshot artist like Harrison, WIlfork or Seymour, but he's displayed little class.

=; Let's not talk about last year's Super Bowl. Thanks. Sorry, I really didn't meant to rub salt in wounds (I know Colts fans are ostensibly guests on this board). I was just trying to describe how happy I am.

Welker is completely classless too.

The Patriots are unbeatable. No one will beat them this year. It's impossible. They will beat the Giants 40-10. This isn't as good a feeling as last year's Super Bowl, but it's the next best thing.

Umm, total ass? Seriously, Kentucky's 4-2 in your conference.

I still can't believe the teeth-gnashing over IU's loss to UConn.* Or people calling UConn a middle of the road Big East team. It was obvious from seeing them in person that they're a Sweet Sixteen type team. Honestly, they might be one of the best ten teams in the nation right now. What a roll they're on. Nice win by Stanford. I think I was right to expect big things from them. And while I don't think UK can garner an at-large bid, short of winning out as was said on here, I stand by my 10-11 SEC wins prediction. *That's not to say IU has beaten anyone of consequence or deserved their top-10 ranking. They didn't. UConn has had a much better season than IU at this point.

I haven't seen the Nationals. The Expos yes, Nationals no. That's it.

Is it not until next year that everyone makes the tourney. If it starts this year, then yes, I'd say the expectations are too low. I don't know how to fix DePaul. It's sad. They may have been better off playing 2nd banana in C-USA rather than go to the Big East, though I understand their reasoning. i don't know either. jerry wainwright isn't the answer, but i don't know what is. it's simply not a job that anyone who is "up and coming" really wants, and i think the athletic department has grown a reputation of not treating their head coaches very well They need to pick up the scraps from the state the next two years. Illinois is done recruiting in the state. That leaves a lot of talent. Anthony Johnson Diamond Taylor Marcus Jordan Chris Colvin Jack Cooley Paul Bunch Jordan Prosser DeAndre McCamey You need to clean up on that talent. Is that McCamey any relation to the one currently playing for Illinois? Yeah it is his younger brother. Many people think he will be better than Demetri. Figured it was. IU likes Jordan Prosser. I figure you will be in on the younger McCamey too, since you weer a finalist for Demetri. I haven't heard much on that front, but I'm sure you're right.

Is it not until next year that everyone makes the tourney. If it starts this year, then yes, I'd say the expectations are too low. I don't know how to fix DePaul. It's sad. They may have been better off playing 2nd banana in C-USA rather than go to the Big East, though I understand their reasoning. i don't know either. jerry wainwright isn't the answer, but i don't know what is. it's simply not a job that anyone who is "up and coming" really wants, and i think the athletic department has grown a reputation of not treating their head coaches very well They need to pick up the scraps from the state the next two years. Illinois is done recruiting in the state. That leaves a lot of talent. Anthony Johnson Diamond Taylor Marcus Jordan Chris Colvin Jack Cooley Paul Bunch Jordan Prosser DeAndre McCamey You need to clean up on that talent. Is that McCamey any relation to the one currently playing for Illinois? Yeah it is his younger brother. Many people think he will be better than Demetri. Figured it was. IU likes Jordan Prosser.

Is it not until next year that everyone makes the tourney. If it starts this year, then yes, I'd say the expectations are too low. I don't know how to fix DePaul. It's sad. They may have been better off playing 2nd banana in C-USA rather than go to the Big East, though I understand their reasoning. i don't know either. jerry wainwright isn't the answer, but i don't know what is. it's simply not a job that anyone who is "up and coming" really wants, and i think the athletic department has grown a reputation of not treating their head coaches very well They need to pick up the scraps from the state the next two years. Illinois is done recruiting in the state. That leaves a lot of talent. Anthony Johnson Diamond Taylor Marcus Jordan Chris Colvin Jack Cooley Paul Bunch Jordan Prosser DeAndre McCamey You need to clean up on that talent. Is that McCamey any relation to the one currently playing for Illinois?

My bad, and fixed.

Suton is averaging 26.7 minutes, White 31.5. Suton has taken 148 field goals, White 208. So, obviously, there's a discrepancy there as you predicted. But White is also shooting substantially higher from the field .611-.507 and gets to the line much better (88/123 attempts to 35/48). Yes, White plays more and shoots more, but that could be because he's a superior player or because MSU has more depth. I'm unsure how to weight and account for those variables. White has also been much better in the Big Ten play. He's upped his averages to 18.9 and 12.1. He leads the league in offensive and defensive rebounds and is second to Gordon in scoring. He should be Big Ten POY. And, wow, are you right that IU doesn't have any other talented big players. Hopefully, Eli Holman can get there.

Maybe he was making a reference to the post that claimed IU is as talented as anyone in the country, when in fact they are not. I would venture to say they are not the most talented team in the conference, a very bad one this year. Exactly what I was referencing. Overall, MSU probably has more talent. Outside of Gordon & White, there's nothing special there. If Gordon is actually injured, that makes them even more vulnerable. I don't like Illinois, but I can't wait to see the business EG gets in Champaign next week. That's going to be awesome. FYI: I have no opinion on Indiana basketball in general. I think Bob Knight is/was a great coach and its unfortunate that he wasn't able to finish his career there and have the court/stadium named after him and all of that stuff. I guess a lot of it is his own fault though. Overall, Michigan State has more talent. They have more depth of talent. But this is basketball where one or two players can make a huge difference. IU has, pretty easily, the best two players in the conference. I think that's enough to make a solid argument that IU's the most talented team in the conference. It depends if you're looking for quality or quantity. I think most coaches would take IU's roster over MSU's, OSU's or UW's. Obviously, they're nowhere near the most talented team in the country. Also, you're wrong about IU not having anything besides those Gordon and White. Bassett, Ellis, Crawford and even Ratliff (4-star recruit) and Holman (4-star recruit) have plenty of talent. Lol, MSU's roster is stuffed with talent. I don't think any coach would take your roster over MSUs. You have too many flaws. You have all shooting guards on the perimeter and no power forward. That's IU's flaw. Plenty of talent, but way too much redundancy. The team had 5 good shooting guard/small forward options, but no point guard or power forward. I would agree that IU has more talent, but MSU's talent is in more well rounded places, and that quite possibly makes them the better team. There's no doubt MSU's talent is more well-dispersed and IU lacks a power forward (I don't believe PG has been much of an issue, however). If MSU's roster is better it's because of depth and equal dispersement. I'll use rivals, for what it's worth, because it's easy. IU has two five-star players, two four-star players and five three-star players. MSU has one five-star (Marquise Gray), seven four-star players and three three-star players. Again, clearly, MSU has more talent depth. But IU is very top-heavy, especially considering who MSU's lone five-star player is. I would rather look at it from a matchup standpoint. Neitzel>Your point guard of the week Walton Morgan>Ellis Gray>Mike White Suton From that Neitzel is much better than your points, EJ is much better than their shooting guards, Morgan is a lot better than Ellis, Gray is a lot better than Mike White, and D.J. White is better than Goran Suton. Although I think Suton is closer to D.J. White than many think. I don't think anyone can argue on your arrows. They have the advantage at three spots, but, again, the two IU possesses are pretty substantial. A couple things I'd argue with: First, is Neitzel really their point guard anymore? I think he plays more SG for Walton/Lucas. That duo is likely still better than Bassett/Crawford though you're underrating that pair in my estimation -- both are averaging double figures. Suton, who averages 8.8 points, 8.5 rebounds, 1.1 blocks and is at 1.25 points per shot is close to White, who averages 17.1, 10.6, 1.8 and 1.64? Suton might be "closer than many think" because that's completely nebulous, but he's certainly not very close at this point.

Uh, there's been at least 3 IU fans just in the last page say that IU is a deeply flawed team. How is that arrogant or delusional? I do think IU basketball fans can be very arrogant at times, but that was the wrong time to put that comment in. Most of the posts lately about IU have been anything but arrogant. Maybe he was making a reference to the post that claimed IU is as talented as anyone in the country, when in fact they are not. I would venture to say they are not the most talented team in the conference, a very bad one this year. Exactly what I was referencing. Overall, MSU probably has more talent. Outside of Gordon & White, there's nothing special there. If Gordon is actually injured, that makes them even more vulnerable. I don't like Illinois, but I can't wait to see the business EG gets in Champaign next week. That's going to be awesome. FYI: I have no opinion on Indiana basketball in general. I think Bob Knight is/was a great coach and its unfortunate that he wasn't able to finish his career there and have the court/stadium named after him and all of that stuff. I guess a lot of it is his own fault though. Overall, Michigan State has more talent. They have more depth of talent. But this is basketball where one or two players can make a huge difference. IU has, pretty easily, the best two players in the conference. I think that's enough to make a solid argument that IU's the most talented team in the conference. It depends if you're looking for quality or quantity. I think most coaches would take IU's roster over MSU's, OSU's or UW's. Obviously, they're nowhere near the most talented team in the country. Also, you're wrong about IU not having anything besides those Gordon and White. Bassett, Ellis, Crawford and even Ratliff (4-star recruit) and Holman (4-star recruit) have plenty of talent. Lol, MSU's roster is stuffed with talent. I don't think any coach would take your roster over MSUs. You have too many flaws. You have all shooting guards on the perimeter and no power forward. That's IU's flaw. Plenty of talent, but way too much redundancy. The team had 5 good shooting guard/small forward options, but no point guard or power forward. I would agree that IU has more talent, but MSU's talent is in more well rounded places, and that quite possibly makes them the better team. There's no doubt MSU's talent is more well-dispersed and IU lacks a power forward (I don't believe PG has been much of an issue, however). If MSU's roster is better it's because of depth and equal dispersement. I'll use rivals, for what it's worth, because it's easy. IU has two five-star players, two four-star players and five three-star players. MSU has one five-star (Marquise Gray), seven four-star players and three three-star players. Again, clearly, MSU has more talent depth. But IU is very top-heavy, especially considering who MSU's lone five-star player is.

Uh, there's been at least 3 IU fans just in the last page say that IU is a deeply flawed team. How is that arrogant or delusional? I do think IU basketball fans can be very arrogant at times, but that was the wrong time to put that comment in. Most of the posts lately about IU have been anything but arrogant. Maybe he was making a reference to the post that claimed IU is as talented as anyone in the country, when in fact they are not. I would venture to say they are not the most talented team in the conference, a very bad one this year. Exactly what I was referencing. Overall, MSU probably has more talent. Outside of Gordon & White, there's nothing special there. If Gordon is actually injured, that makes them even more vulnerable. I don't like Illinois, but I can't wait to see the business EG gets in Champaign next week. That's going to be awesome. FYI: I have no opinion on Indiana basketball in general. I think Bob Knight is/was a great coach and its unfortunate that he wasn't able to finish his career there and have the court/stadium named after him and all of that stuff. I guess a lot of it is his own fault though. Overall, Michigan State has more talent. They have more depth of talent. But this is basketball where one or two players can make a huge difference. IU has, pretty easily, the best two players in the conference. I think that's enough to make a solid argument that IU's the most talented team in the conference. It depends if you're looking for quality or quantity. I think most coaches would take IU's roster over MSU's, OSU's or UW's. Obviously, they're nowhere near the most talented team in the country. Also, you're wrong about IU not having anything besides those Gordon and White. Bassett, Ellis, Crawford and even Ratliff (4-star recruit) and Holman (4-star recruit) have plenty of talent. Lol, MSU's roster is stuffed with talent. I don't think any coach would take your roster over MSUs. You have too many flaws. You have all shooting guards on the perimeter and no power forward. Yes, MSU has more talent overall than IU. No doubt. But Gordon and White are clearly better than anyone they have (I love Morgan, but he's not yet better than either Hoosier). That makes a huge difference. I think coaches would struggle with MSU or IU's roster, but having two stars goes a long way. MSU has the edge in depth and, by far, more good interior players. Two studs in a five-on-five game is often more valuable than depth.

Uh, there's been at least 3 IU fans just in the last page say that IU is a deeply flawed team. How is that arrogant or delusional? I do think IU basketball fans can be very arrogant at times, but that was the wrong time to put that comment in. Most of the posts lately about IU have been anything but arrogant. Maybe he was making a reference to the post that claimed IU is as talented as anyone in the country, when in fact they are not. I would venture to say they are not the most talented team in the conference, a very bad one this year. Exactly what I was referencing. Overall, MSU probably has more talent. Outside of Gordon & White, there's nothing special there. If Gordon is actually injured, that makes them even more vulnerable. I don't like Illinois, but I can't wait to see the business EG gets in Champaign next week. That's going to be awesome. FYI: I have no opinion on Indiana basketball in general. I think Bob Knight is/was a great coach and its unfortunate that he wasn't able to finish his career there and have the court/stadium named after him and all of that stuff. I guess a lot of it is his own fault though. Overall, Michigan State has more talent. They have more depth of talent. But this is basketball where one or two players can make a huge difference. IU has, pretty easily, the best two players in the conference. I think that's enough to make a solid argument that IU's the most talented team in the conference. It depends if you're looking for quality or quantity. I think most coaches would take IU's roster over MSU's, OSU's or UW's. Obviously, they're nowhere near the most talented team in the country. Also, you're wrong about IU not having anything besides those Gordon and White. Bassett, Ellis, Crawford and even Ratliff (4-star recruit) and Holman (4-star recruit) have plenty of talent.

I agree with pretty much all of this. However, I don't think the 3rd scorer is a huge problem. The problem, at least personnel-wise, lies at the PF position next to D.J. The Stemler-Thomas-Mike White triumvirate is an absolute zero. I definitely agree with that. Those 3 haven't played much offense or defense lately. I was screaming for them to get Mike White out of the game early, as they were just exploiting him time after time. Stemler was a little better, but he got dominated on the boards way too easily and couldn't hit more than 1 open 3 pointer out of the few he took. You're right that those 3 are probably the main problem. Teams can collapse on any Gordon drive because they know that Mike White may not catch the pass, and if he does he probably can't hit a layup. I really believe that Gordon would be averaging at least another assist per game if Mike White could make easy, open layups. Oh, and to the Badger fan, I agree. A fully healthy Gordon wouldn't have been enough to make up the 13-point difference (considering he did score 16 anyway). IU only had two players show up and Gordon was one of them, at least in the second half. PS I love Bo Ryan. Best coach in the Big Ten, bar none. One of the best in the nation.

I agree with pretty much all of this. However, I don't think the 3rd scorer is a huge problem. The problem, at least personnel-wise, lies at the PF position next to D.J. The Stemler-Thomas-Mike White triumvirate is an absolute zero.

Mike Davis and his Indiana Hoosiers go down in Madison to Wisconsin. IU has now lost to the three best teams they've played. I liked Davis better when he was just a terrible coach, not a cheater.

If Gordon is healthy, IU will at the very least have a chance to win the game in the closing minutes. I believe they'll win if Gordon is close to full capability. The Hoosiers match up very well with Wisconsin. Wisconsin is obviously tough at home and they have the best coach in the Big Ten. However, the Badgers don't have penetrating guards that give IU problems. And, while they are big, they are not athletic inside or equipped with the defensive presence of UConn. Dependent on Gordon -- I'm assuming/hoping a bruised left hand won't be too much of a hindrance -- IU is far more athletic, has a much better backcourt and the Badgers shouldn't have an answer for D.J. White. The one team to win in Madison this year was Marquette, a small, athletic, perimeter oriented team.

They're improving quite a bit. I don't think they're great and the post saying they're the best in the Big Ten is laughable (though if Wisconsin beats IU tonight, Purdue will be in first). However, Purdue has beaten Wisconsin, Ohio State and Louisville (though that was when the Cards were still missing a plethora of players). They've also been competitive in three-point losses at Michigan State and Clemson. They have bad losses like Wofford and Iowa State, though. They're young, so that's expected. They are pretty talented and play very hard and well together.

We're just gonna have to agree to disagree on this point. You see, you and I see things very differently. You actually think that formulas and algorithms are an accurate way to determine which is "the best team". You think that a formula that predicts who might win on a given night, irrespective of actual game conditions, matters. (Same with Meph and several others.) To some people, what happens on the field or court matters less than what a computer model says should happen. What you seemingly care about is the answer to the question "who is the best team?" I think that's a ridiculous question, and pretty irrelevant. There is no sports league that is set up to find out the answer to that question. Instead, they are set up to crown champions. Often, the champion of a league is not "the best". But, it doesn't matter. Champions matter. Now I realize that this seemingly began as a debate over which polls were better, but I sincerely don't really care. It is SSR's opinion that the SEC is "total ass". It is my opinion that he is wrong. He uses a computer that disregards reality (game conditions such as fatigue, home court advantage, etc..) and determines probabilities as a way of ranking teams to support him. I use polls that involve people watching real games, with real conditions, where wins and losses matter. You like his way. I like mine. You agree with people like Meph, who think that wins and losses are essentially arbitrary and meaningless, and that only being "the best team" matters. I believe that winning matters more that who was supposed to win. I believe that Championships mean more than being the best team. In your sterile little sports world, Houston will always be the best basketball team from 1983. In mine, NC State is the National Champion. And, that's okay with me. I believe you not only painted my argument with a broad stroke, but also misrepresented it. I'll try to go point by point. I don't believe "formulas and algorithms" decide every game. Hell, in my previous post, I listed missing players in the IU-UK game. That's an actual game condition right there that refutes your claim. Injuries, homecourt, momentum, timing, etc., all matter. A computer would have told me IU beats UConn; I knew it was a tough matchup and probably not likely. I'm not going to, but I could dig up posts of mine saying players aren't robots, games aren't decided by computers. Ratings are merely a very useful tool, never decisive. And, you know what? Winning is a big factor in those computer polls you disdain. How a team matches up with the other is the single most important factor. Your argument here was a clear strawman. Regarding 1983, I can have my cake and eat it too here. No one actually believes NC State was the best team -- they're called "Cinderella" for a reason. Now, I'm unsure if Houston or Virginia or someone else was the best team, but it wasn't the Wolfpack. They were, however, the National Champions. That's fine. In fact, that's good. It would be boring if the best team won every game and every title. NC State earned and deserved the title by winning the tournament. I'd much rather IU win the National Championship than be the best team. Winning is what matters in the end; but being the best gives you the best chance. I never said winning is wholly arbitrary or irrelevant. Tennessee and Xavier have had similar seasons; if that remains the status quo, UT should always be ranked ahead of Xavier because they beat them. However, again, Maryland beat UNC. I can't imagine you could find a single person -- UMd fans included -- that actually believe the Terps are better than the Heels. Upsets happen, the best team doesn't always win, therefore wins cannot be entirely determinative of who's better. You never responded to my UNC-UMd example, instead you simply strawmanned me with "I care about winning, you care about nerdy numbers." Finally, the human polls are an absolute joke. Trust me, I've known many coaches and writers that vote in these things. The coaches literally, en masse, do not vote. Their assistant coaches, assistant ADs, or, sometimes, even their secretaries do it for them. When they do vote themselves, they generally don't take it seriously. Steve Spurrier infamously votes for Duke in every preseason football poll. Even if they did respect it, coaches rarely watch other games. They obsessively watch game film of opponents and study their own team's play. But they are too busy, and likely burnt out, to watch basketball in their free time much. Media, on the other hand, generally attempt to respect their voting duties. However, besides knowing less about basketball, they also don't see everyone. They see the team they cover a lot, but, again, have families and don't watch a ton of basketball in their off-time. They're busy. Finally, both coaches and writers have biases. Computers don't. All it takes is following the human polls, and breaking down what each voter does, to see the ridiculousness that are human votes. Computer polls aren't perfect, but they're immeasurably better than the alternative.

Yep, 5 teams in the top 25 is "total ass". Come on, stop with the whining. Is the SEC the best conference in basketball? No way. But to call it "total ass" (as opposed to "down"- which is more accurate) is ignorant and absurd. 1 team in Pomeroy's top 25. Total Ass. 4 in the AP Top 25. 5 in the Coaches Poll. #1, #13, and #14 in the current Real Time RPI. Total Pwnd. Pomeroy is far superior to what you listed. Yeah... which explains why West Virginia and Xavier are both ranked ahead of a UT team who has beaten both teams... without JP Prince, and with Lofton enduring the worst slump of his career. That makes total sense. And, I am genuinely shocked that NSBB folks would lend credence to the Pomeroy Rankings. First, to your earlier post: the Big Ten would get "their collective ass beaten" by the SEC? The Big Ten is 3-2 against the SEC this year. One of the losses was OSU (fourth-ranked Big Ten team) at UT (easily top-ranked SEC team) in which the Buckeyes led for a long time. IU also dominated UK without Gordon, Bassett and Ratliff. The same UK team that is 3-2 in the SEC, beating both UT and Vanderbilt. Granted, UK wasn't at full strength but what they were missing can't compare to Gordon, et al. The SEC certainly isn't beating any Big Ten ass at this point. But, the thing is, none of that really matters. One isolated game means very little. Meph was right in all the football threads; one game is a crapshoot. Anomalous results happen nearly every night. Just because UT beat Xavier and West Virginia doesn't mean they're better than either (though I believe they certainly are). UNC lost to Maryland, UCLA to USC. Does that mean rankings that have UNC ahead of Maryland or UCLA ahead of USC are bogus? (Not that you could find a ranking that said otherwise; UNC and UCLA are clearly superior teams.) Oh, and Lofton's shooting slump is completely nebulous and irrelevant-- it may be true, but surely you're not suggesting every player plays to his full potential every game? That's the exact reason one game has very little determinative value.