Exile on Waveland

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. I was getting ready to post this. Using human polls to support your argument? So lame. Sagarin has the SEC as the sixth best conference, and only UT in the top-25. To be fair, Ole Miss (26) and Florida (29) are just outside. Same with Pomeroy.

I meant to respond to this earlier. UConn is NOT a middle of the road Big East team. That's absolutely absurd. They're currently tied for third. They're No. 21 in Sagarin. Their RPI is 19th with the 14th best strength of schedule. UConn has two top-25 wins, and three top-50 wins. Their last three games they beat Marquette by 16, won at IU and beat Louisville. UConn is a surging team that is much better than people think. It's amazing how the Big Ten always stinks. Every year, every sport we hear stuff like this. Right now, the Big Ten has the Nos. 9, 11 and 12 Sagarin teams. Plus, No. 24 and a surging No. 46. If IU plays UConn in the first or second round (they won't) they'll likely lose again -- the Huskies are a terrible matchup for IU. Right now, the Big East is the only other conference with three top-16 Sagarin teams. I'd say at this pace, the Big Ten will do quite well in the tournament. (Now, I certainly agree that IU needs to beat someone of consequence.)

Yea the bitching about "omg more Big Ten, IU/UI, etc...." talk is ignorant. The board is made up mostly of people with Illinois roots, or ties to Illinois, hence there likeing of the Cubs. So more than likely those same people are probably going to be fans of a school in IL or the surrounding states, which the majority of them are from the Big Ten, its amazing how that works huh. I bet if you go to the Cardinals board you would find more talk of Memphis, Tenn, Univ. of Stl, etc... But you can never have enough bitching about the Big Ten or their "terrible" teams from those allmighty powerhouse kickass schools in the greatest conference to ever be made up in college sports, the SEC. Maybe we should just give the SEC their own thread since they are the kings of college sports and shouldnt have to be dirtied up by posts surrounded by the Big Ten. Plus, there is no baseball team in Indiana. The Cubs are extremely popular in Indiana, hence me and other IU fans on the board. It's certainly true that the Big Ten is horrible in every sport. Like in football, all we heard on this board is that they had no chance of winning a bowl game against the mighty SEC (which is, obviously a superior conference). However, as happens every other year, the Big Ten did fine. Michigan beat Florida, Penn State nearly beat Tennessee but, of course, OSU got smoked in the title game by LSU. And watch UK finish well (9-11 wins) in the SEC after being humiliated by IU without Gordon, Bassett and Ratliff. Yea all those power house SEC teams in the top 15 is amazing. What a great conference it is. With that said how in the hell is Vandy still ranked after losing 3 of their last 4 games and getting smoked in 2 of those 3? Tennessee is very, very good. They're No. 6 in Sagarin and 4-1 against the top-25. However, the rest of the SEC is 1-13 against the top-25, and the win is UK beating UT. UT is 6-1 against the top-25, the rest of the conference is 12-41. (The Big Ten's numbers are ugly at 6-39 and 12-49. But Michigan, Northwestern, Iowa, Penn State and Illinois combine for 0-20 and 2-29.) Vanderbilt shouldn't be ranked (meanwhile, Ohio State probably should be). Gaudy record, but have played a poor schedule and struggled recently. Before the season started, I though Mississippi State would be the second best team in the conference and they're finally starting to live up to that.

Yea the bitching about "omg more Big Ten, IU/UI, etc...." talk is ignorant. The board is made up mostly of people with Illinois roots, or ties to Illinois, hence there likeing of the Cubs. So more than likely those same people are probably going to be fans of a school in IL or the surrounding states, which the majority of them are from the Big Ten, its amazing how that works huh. I bet if you go to the Cardinals board you would find more talk of Memphis, Tenn, Univ. of Stl, etc... But you can never have enough bitching about the Big Ten or their "terrible" teams from those allmighty powerhouse kickass schools in the greatest conference to ever be made up in college sports, the SEC. Maybe we should just give the SEC their own thread since they are the kings of college sports and shouldnt have to be dirtied up by posts surrounded by the Big Ten. Plus, there is no baseball team in Indiana. The Cubs are extremely popular in Indiana, hence me and other IU fans on the board. It's certainly true that the Big Ten is horrible in every sport. Like in football, all we heard on this board is that they had no chance of winning a bowl game against the mighty SEC (which is, obviously a superior conference). However, as happens every other year, the Big Ten did fine. Michigan beat Florida, Penn State nearly beat Tennessee but, of course, OSU got smoked in the title game by LSU. And watch UK finish well (9-11 wins) in the SEC after being humiliated by IU without Gordon, Bassett and Ratliff.

Why are people surprised that most of the college basketball talk centers around the Big Ten, Southern Illinois, Depaul, etc? It's a Cubs/Chicago board.

interesting. this might be a stupid question, but who is Loren Tate? do you have a link? thanks. Champaign News-Gazette. Illini Basketball reporter. His reliability isn't the greatest according to illiniboard.com It's a pay article, apparently he says this: Some things he knows: -NCAA is chasing complaints from other universities, -Quizing prep prospects that may have been contacted during dead periods, -Analyzing Senderoff dealings (including those 2 Ebanks), -Sampson calls weren't minor when taken in context to prior violations and him being president of Nat Assoc of Basketball Coaches. Here's what he thinks: Probation, Sampson and Greenspan are gone. Zero tolerance and lack of support by Alumni and former players brings down the house of cards. thanks. interesting take. though the actual violation may seem minor when looked at in a vacumm, i do agree they aren't minor in Sampson's case once you consider the prior violations. if probation is the end result, i'm not sure i agree Sampson and Greenspan are gone. most of this just sounds like speculation on his Tate's part, but maybe he has some inside sources. If probation* is the end result, Sampson and Greenspan better be gone. Hiring a coach under investigation was already a huge mistake; allowing the same coach to put IU on probation -- a place they've never been for basketball -- would be a travesty. *"Probation" is a nebulous term. What exactly does he mean by that? They're already a scholarship short. If NCAA-induced, is that probation? I'm assuming "probation" in this context means some kind of post-season ban. I really don't think that will happen, but, if it does, house should be cleaned.

I'd typically agree; but the only chance in hell IU had to maybe stop UCONN from scoring was to foul and hope they miss. God knows they couldn't stop them otherwise. Price would just wait until the 10-second mark and drive and dish over and over. Pretty pathetic really. My biggest coaching issue in that game was not going to Stemler sooner. Robinson didn't come anywhere near him on the outside. He would have had open shots all game. Sampson made the mistake of trying to matchup with UConn defensively most of the game, instead of making them matchup with us. Going with four "guards" (Bassett, Gordon, Crawford, Ellis) was also an option he didn't take advantage of...until it was too late. I understand wanting to match up, but sometimes you just have to put your five best players out there, period. Like you said, see if you can make them match up with you. I was screaming for four guards early. IU wasn't rebounding or defending inside anyway (mainly because the Stemler-Mike White-Thomas triumvirate simply isn't good). How much worse could UConn dominate the interior? My guess was not much. Especially when offset by IU getting its best five players on the court. It would've been a gamble, but the status quo wasn't working. However, besides going to four guards too late, IU needed to speed the game up. They did a decent job isolating on offense and using their quickness; they did a terrible job defensively. Sampson kept trying to fit a square peg into a round hole (I'm not sure that's exactly how the saying goes). This game called for a different game plan than normal -- as did his 2002 Final Four loss to Mike Davis. I'm not sure Sampson is capable of that.

Wait who beat Michigan State? Last I checked, Indiana had less losses before the game and was ranked higher. Oh ya, and Iowa beat Michigan State. And to whoever said Uconn was only missing "role" players and then goes on to say "well, the guy was their second leading scorer, but he's not important" Come on now. Just admit that the Big 10 sucks as a whole. I made the comment you are referring to, but I didn't say he wasn't important...I said he wasn't AS important as most of his team. Dyson's a solid player, but he's on a team with the top frontcourt, possibly in the nation and the top assist man in the conference. UConn would have been a lot worse off today had Price, Thabeet or Adrian missed the game instead of Dyson. I agree. Obviously, he was an important piece of their team. However, if they were going to beat Indiana it was going to be because of their size advantage. I'm sure this will be labeled as a biased IU post, but the Hoosiers would've been much better off if Thabeet, Adrien, Robinson or Price were out. UConn's frontcourt was what could, and did, defeat Indiana.

That's why they were lackluster. I don't think either of those things are happening. Since Wisky has only lost two home games under Bo Ryan in conference play, and they both were to us, I don't see it happening either. Indiana matches up very well with Wisconsin. I think IU stands an excellent chance of winning that game. I also still think IU will win the Big Ten.

They have an odd mix. There only real post player is D.J. White. I like their young guards though. Gordon, Bassett, and Crawford are all good. Ellis can be a real match-up problem, but sometimes it seems like he struggles to fit in with that team. I wonder how much the frosh center would have helped this team. I think a lot. This is about right. IU only has one decent big man. If they had another to pair with D.J. White then they'd truly be one of the best teams in the nation; instead they're solidly in the second group of teams, in my estimation. I'm not sure I agree that Holman would help much at this point, he's very raw and struggled to even catch the ball when he played. While IU didn't play well today, I think that has a lot to do with UConn. Their sized bothered IU and they played very well. I'm disappointed but not at all stunned. IU has now lost to the best two teams they've played. That will change -- they still have two left against both Michigan State and Wisconsin. UConn was a difficult matchup for IU, but I think they match up very well with Wisconsin. It wouldn't surprise me if IU came back and won in Madison Thursday. Regardless, IU will enter the NCAA Tournament without a single non-conference victory of note.

That's unfortunate for IU. I still expect a competitive game. UConn's huge frontline is still intact, which is what worries me. However, it would lessen a victory if IU wins; I wanted the Hoosiers to be fully tested. While I still think this will be a difficult game -- UConn is schizophrenic, IU could play the same and win by 15 or lose by 10 -- it won't mean quite as much.

26-5 would mean either a home upset (29 straight wins in Bloomington) or losing all 4 of those tough road games. At this point, I can't see them losing at Illinois. I think we could beat O$U in Columbus also. Wisconsin isn't playing the best basketball, either, but I still think that's a loss. IU beat Illinois by four in Bloomington and trailed a good portion of the game. The crowd will be insane in C-U. Gordon will have two fouls in approximately 55 seconds. It's going to be very, very difficult for IU to get out of there with a win.

I think you'd have to put Purdue ahead of Minnesota at this point, no question. Winning one of those four is about what I'd expect, though I'm hoping for two. Anything more would be amazing. And I agree with illiniguy, a big reason Big Ten road games are so difficult is because of the incredible home team bias shown by the officials.

There's no arguably about it. At Minnesota is the only Big 10 game IU should have been challeneged in. UConn's easily one of the top-two teams IU has played this year, along with Xavier. However, that's just how the Big Ten schedule broke; IU hasn't played Michigan State, Wisconsin, Ohio State or Purdue yet.* The conference slate gets tough starting next Thursday at Wisconsin. Though at Minnesota (#46 Sagarin) is a solid win. UConn is a difficult matchup for IU with their size. I'm very concerned about this game. As Raw said, IU did win at UConn last year, but both teams have improved. If IU isn't hitting outside shots, this could be a very difficult game. *Edit: I don't mean to imply that UConn isn't better than Purdue or perhaps Ohio State. Just pointing out that of the likely top-5 Big Ten teams outside of IU, the Hoosiers have played only one.

Adding Tyler Smith was huge for them. I never felt like people (media included) understood just how important that addition was. JP Prince was just as big an addition as Tyler was. Two EXCELLENT transfers. Yes, but Smith's hardship waiver allowing him to play without sitting out -- not implying it was an incorrect decision -- significantly shifted the balance of power nationally. It was a huge advantage for Tennessee and took this year's team from Sweet 16 good to top-5 good. I don't believe they'd be a title contender without him; they are with him. Oh, I know Iowa fans, and Big Ten fans in general, understood how good Smith was. I just don't think that awareness was present nationally.

I don't think so. I think he's finally coming into his own. He's a GOOD QB. The guy got the Ole Miss Rebels into the top 15 for gods sake! That's a Herculean feat in and of itself. Obviously he isn't his brother and never will be, but he's physically more gifted than Peyton is and that's been known for a long, long time. I don't think he's playing that much above his head. He's only 26 years old let's not forget. Look at what Peyton did when he was in his 4th year in the league: 26 TD - 23 INT, 84.1 passer rating. Eli this year: 23 TD - 20 INT, 73.9 passer rating. I'm rooting for him big time not just because he's an Ole Miss guy, but because I want people to get off his ass. Hell, he's only taken his team to the playoffs every year he's been a starter, and has now taken his team to the Super Bowl at 26. I don't disagree with most what you wrote, but the fourth-year comparison isn't fair. Peyton Manning's first season the Colts went 3-13, then 13-3 then 10-6. His fourth season Edge tore his ACL and the defense bottomed out to a historically bad level. Manning tried to compensate by scoring a TD every possession, which was the only way the team could win. That was Manning's -- and the Manning-era Colts -- worst season outside of his rookie campaign. This wasn't part of his upward learning curve, it was a one-year blip due to mitigating factors. Truffle supplied some supportive stats, I won't repeat them.

Adding Tyler Smith was huge for them. I never felt like people (media included) understood just how important that addition was.

Texas A&M #16 in the country, and a #8 seed. They've accomplished next to nothing. I posted that a few pages back.

The Colts did until perhaps the very end, and they have one less pass rusher at DE than the Giants do. I'm unsure if the Giants did or not, I only saw the last few minutes. the colts got some pressure on brady, but not it wasn't like he was consistently throwing under heat. the giants did not get much pressure; brady was 32-42 for 350 yards in that game, and the giants only got one sack. their offensive line is too good to be beaten by 4 pass rushers unless you somehow manage to get bruce smith, reggie white, l.t. and warren sapp in their prime. if you want to have a chance you have to blitz. I'm not sure how the Colts had a chance then. They basically do not blitz. I doubt the Giants were blitzing much either, but, like I said, I didn't see that game. And just because Brady had a good game and the Giants only had one sack doesn't mean they didn't get pressure. Brady's really good. I'm not saying the Giants shouldn't blitz some. But, to win, their front four must bring some heat. Maybe they can't; if so, they'll lose.

The Colts did until perhaps the very end, and they have one less pass rusher at DE than the Giants do. I'm unsure if the Giants did or not, I only saw the last few minutes.

This is pretty much how I feel. I expect the Pats to win; probably by 10-14. But the Giants can win, and I definitely don't think they'll get destroyed. Strahan, Umenyiora and Tuck will have to have big games to cover for a weak (I'm being generous) secondary. If the rush can get to Brady and throw him off, the Giants have a great chance to win. Offensively, Eli must play at least as well as he did tonight and maybe up to the level he did against the Pats before. The offense will have to keep the playoff turnover streak going too - Eli's INT in the first game really hurt them. Besides all that, I think the Giants have a great shot. :D A good pass rush is the key to beating the Pats, maybe the key to winning NFL games (along with good QB play). And basically any team's QB is going to have to play well to win the Super Bowl. So, while I agree, those two things are keys to win every game. The Giants will obviously have a smaller margin of error than the Pats, but those will keys for both teams. Along with generating a pass rush with their front four, the Giants must convert in the red zone. That means touchdowns, not field goals. You can move the ball on the Pats, especially through the air. However, to beat them, you MUST score TD's. The Chargers didn't -- if they did, they might've won the game. If the Giants get to Brady, don't turn the ball over and score 7's not 3's in the red zone, they'll be right there at the end. But that's true of nearly every game played.

This is pretty much how I feel. I expect the Pats to win; probably by 10-14. But the Giants can win, and I definitely don't think they'll get destroyed.

The Patriots have won their last 10 games by 4, 46, 3, 3, 31, 10, 21, 3, 11 and 9. Yes, there have been a couple blowouts, but more single-digit games. The Patriots team that was dominating everyone the first eight weeks has vanished. The Giants also had a 12-point lead against them in week 17, and lost by only 3. Now, I certainly think the Pats will win; and there's a chance they win big. If they win, they will go down as probably the greatest NFL team ever. But I really don't understand everyone claiming the Giants will be thoroughly dominated. The Pats were 21-point favorites today at home against a team with an injured QB, RB and TE and won by nine.

I know you Colt fans will hate me for saying this, but I'm actually as irritated at Indy for rolling over for the Chargers as I am at Norv and his horrible coaching ability. If only the Colts had been in this game, there would have been a good chance they would have won. Oh well. How do you think we feel? I'm right there with you.

Nice to see Armon Bassett play well. 5-6 from three point range and finished with 17. I really like Ellis' game. 16-1 (5-0 Big 10). UConn should be an interesting matchup next week. After losing to Providence, they pounded Marquette today. UConn is a bad matchup for IU. They are huge -- 7-3, 6-9 and 6-7 starting frontcourt. They are improving and much better than people think. I believe IU will pull it out at home, but it will definitely be a test.