Exile on Waveland

You don't like Carmody? The announcers were talking about some stat the other day that Carmody had more 8+ conference win seasons than the 30+ years before he became the coach. My numbers might be a little off, but given his recruiting restraints (kids have to be able to read and write), facilities, etc. I think he's doing a pretty good job, no? He's plateaued. I don't think they can get much farther under him. He could wind up in the tourney with what he's doing, but if they have any more ambitious goals (they should), then they should probably dump him before that happens. Considering that plateau is at a far higher elevation than Northwestern had ever previously reached, this seems rather myopic. Programs that move on from their most successful coaches because those coaches have "plateaued" and the program wants to reach the "next level" seem to decline more often than they incline. The plateau is NIT berths. What exactly are you risking? The one and two win Big Ten seasons Northwestern used to specialize in? The Big Ten is filled with some really strong coaches at the best programs -- and Illinois is likely to upgrade their coaching position this offseason (if it were me, I'd go after Buzz Williams) -- and I fail to see much room for upward mobility for Northwestern. I see more room for downward mobility: Iowa is improving and Nebraska is, at least, improving their facilities.

You don't like Carmody? The announcers were talking about some stat the other day that Carmody had more 8+ conference win seasons than the 30+ years before he became the coach. My numbers might be a little off, but given his recruiting restraints (kids have to be able to read and write), facilities, etc. I think he's doing a pretty good job, no? He's plateaued. I don't think they can get much farther under him. He could wind up in the tourney with what he's doing, but if they have any more ambitious goals (they should), then they should probably dump him before that happens. Considering that plateau is at a far higher elevation than Northwestern had ever previously reached, this seems rather myopic. Programs that move on from their most successful coaches because those coaches have "plateaued" and the program wants to reach the "next level" seem to decline more often than they incline.

Are all the perfect players free agents next year, then?

Sure, he's spazzing out. Two spazzes don't make a non-spazz though. Or something.

That was incredibly immature.

The revisionist history is the other way, I think. Go back and read the thread. The initial discussion point of Wells-for-Garza not being efficient enough to help the rotation quickly turned into a discussion where posters argued Wells was just as good as Garza: --"It's really not that much of an upgrade" --"I wouldn't go past Wells alone. And it's not like I'd jump to do it either." --"Regardless, a straight swap would be an ill-advised and very shortsighted move at best. Including prospects with Wells would be incredibly dumb." --"I really don't see the positive behind dealing Wells for Garza." I have. And all of those quotes are easily read in the context of the idea that trading Wells for Garza is cutting off your nose to spite your face. The semantics of people thinking that Wells is only marginally worse or marginally + x worse than Garza(who was a buy low candidate to begin with) misses the point entirely. Sure, the context of the discussion was "trading Wells for Garza is cutting off your nose to spite your face." But no context is necessary for statements such as "it's really not that much of an upgrade." That is an explicit qualitative comparison between the two players. That's not semantics, it's the plain language of the words used in the thread.

The revisionist history is the other way, I think. Go back and read the thread. The initial discussion point of Wells-for-Garza not being efficient enough to help the rotation quickly turned into a discussion where posters argued Wells was just as good as Garza: --"It's really not that much of an upgrade" --"I wouldn't go past Wells alone. And it's not like I'd jump to do it either." --"Regardless, a straight swap would be an ill-advised and very shortsighted move at best. Including prospects with Wells would be incredibly dumb." --"I really don't see the positive behind dealing Wells for Garza."

Uh, he clearly slammed the basketball down after the foul call. They fixed the blown charge call but that doesn't change his reaction. Plus he threw an elbow at Barlow and would've been ejected in the first half if he hadn't missed. He barely even touched the ball. So? You can't slam the ball down like that; he did.

Rhode Island made the Elite Eight in 1998, losing to Stanford -- keyed by Mark Madsen's dunk and silly celebration. (Somewhere snood is cringing.)

It also seems that the most obnoxious IU fans were either not alive the last time they won a championship, or at best were small children. edit: we should do a poll of the IU fans! How old were you guys in 1987? The most obnoxious fans are younger (males)? You don't say . . .

Which is insane. If Savannah State committed violations, would they actually reward them? Obviously, you're going to disagree. But, to me, this is a distinction without a difference. Does it really matter if the NCAA or the institution decimates a program? I have a suspicion that if IU had stuck their head in the sand, hired John Calipari, kept their players/incoming recruits, etc., and the NCAA (correctly) hammered them most people -- even fans of rival schools -- would be pretty satisfied. Instead, IU did the hammering themselves and people are still upset. This ignores the fact that what matters in major college athletics is on-court performance. No one goes around bragging about being allowed to conduct more recruiting visits or having a full thirteen scholarships instead of twelve. There are basically only two places the NCAA can hit a program that will hurt: wins/losses and the pocketbook (which are rather difficult to separate). IU suffered severely in on-court performance. IU was humiliated routinely against the Big Ten, against rivals like Kentucky, Purdue, and Illinois. IU was a three-year laughing stock. I'm not sure how that can be defined as anything other than reparations/punishment. As for Savannah State, I think this is a bit apples-to-oranges. The NCAA has no mechanism to punish them the way it can punish IU. You can't take away Savannah State's wins/money because they have neither. They're judgment-proof just like many citizens and companies.

Those Purdue teams were tough as nails. Big Dog's team was the best Purdue team I've seen; but it's not hard to be good with one of the best Big Ten players I've ever seen. The mid/late 90s Purdue teams obviously had some talent, but I'd say they won more on toughness/coaching/discipline. As much as it wasn't fun losing to those teams, it was pretty difficult not to admire them.

First, IU has finished dead last for one year running in basketball (last -- next to last -- last over the previous three seasons). Second, as to IU's punishment -- which was deserved -- please compare and contrast the infractions and on-court/field repurcussions for Memphis basketball, Ohio State basketball, USC football, Ohio State football, etc. I think you'll find IU suffered severely for its sin -- and more severely for some more egregious infractions. (Lest we also not forget that Purdue was not banned from post-season play for arranging an improper $4,000 loan to a recruit.) Honestly, it wasn't Indiana's NCAA punishment that brought the program down. It was the fact that none of Sampson's players were willing to stick around and play for Crean. All those guys quit or got kicked off the team. If Bassett, Crawford, Ellis, etc all came back, it would have certainly eased the transition process for Crean. He would not have been required to do a mad, last minute recruiting scramble just to field a team in 2008-09. The self-imposed punishment is part and parcel to the NCAA's punishment; I don't think you can separate those two things. The NCAA almost certainly came down softer on IU because of IU's actions in rectifying their awful, unforgivable mistake. IU sinned and has suffered; it's pretty difficult to make a claim otherwise. No. The NCAA ruling had nothing to do with those players deciding they didn't want to go to class or quit or whatever. They could have turned over a new leaf under Crean and banded together. They chose not to. True . . . but the player's departure did impact the NCAA's decision. Again, after those players had left the NCAA's decision came down in November of 2008, and noted: "the committee did note the current condition of the program."

First, IU has finished dead last for one year running in basketball (last -- next to last -- last over the previous three seasons). Second, as to IU's punishment -- which was deserved -- please compare and contrast the infractions and on-court/field repurcussions for Memphis basketball, Ohio State basketball, USC football, Ohio State football, etc. I think you'll find IU suffered severely for its sin -- and more severely for some more egregious infractions. (Lest we also not forget that Purdue was not banned from post-season play for arranging an improper $4,000 loan to a recruit.) Sorry, thanks for correcting my statement. IU has only averaged the worst finish in the league over those years, while finishing last most of the time. Also, you're bringing up one isolated issue from 1995? Really? I mean it's only been 17 years and it pales in comparisson to Sampson and what IU wilfully brought on themselves. Ostensibly paying a player to secure his commitment pales in comparison to hiring a coach that makes too many phone calls (then that coach making too many phone calls)? Sorry, can't agree. Further, the Sampson debacle was the one infraction IU has had in the modern era of basketball. IU had been the cleanest (competitive) major college basketball team for over a half century. The hiring of Sampson was the anomaly, not the norm.

Self-imposed punishment meaning what exactly? Not re-admitting players who had failed out of school? Not forcing recruits/players who were weirded out by Tom Crean to stay at Indiana? Do we have to do this again? Seriously? IU self-imploded a promising season by -- rightly, if too slowly -- firing Sampson mid-season (compare to the actions of cesspools like Memphis or Tennessee). None of the players remained (not all had failed out). None of the coaches remained. The athletic director is gone. The university president is gone. IU self-imposed sanctions (various recruiting restrictions, scholarship reduction), which the NCAA committee considered "substantial." And, yes, "the committee did note the current condition of the program." Which, again, was twenty-eight overall wins and eight Big Ten wins over three seasons. That's punishment. IU did a lot wrong in hiring Sampson and staying with him a few months too long; but, beginning with their decision to fire IU, it's difficult to fault their handling of the situation. IU carpet-bombed their program. No, it's not the hari-kiri for every Hoosier fan that you would have preferred, but it resulted in some lean, lean times which other programs that paid players have not suffered through.

First, IU has finished dead last for one year running in basketball (last -- next to last -- last over the previous three seasons). Second, as to IU's punishment -- which was deserved -- please compare and contrast the infractions and on-court/field repurcussions for Memphis basketball, Ohio State basketball, USC football, Ohio State football, etc. I think you'll find IU suffered severely for its sin -- and more severely for some more egregious infractions. (Lest we also not forget that Purdue was not banned from post-season play for arranging an improper $4,000 loan to a recruit.) Honestly, it wasn't Indiana's NCAA punishment that brought the program down. It was the fact that none of Sampson's players were willing to stick around and play for Crean. All those guys quit or got kicked off the team. If Bassett, Crawford, Ellis, etc all came back, it would have certainly eased the transition process for Crean. He would not have been required to do a mad, last minute recruiting scramble just to field a team in 2008-09. The self-imposed punishment is part and parcel to the NCAA's punishment; I don't think you can separate those two things. The NCAA almost certainly came down softer on IU because of IU's actions in rectifying their awful, unforgivable mistake. IU sinned and has suffered; it's pretty difficult to make a claim otherwise.

Oh, tons of patsies for sure. As many as IU? Or equal enough across twelve teams to draw a reliable conclusion? I'm not sure that would be the case.

First, IU has finished dead last for one year running in basketball (last -- next to last -- last over the previous three seasons). Second, as to IU's punishment -- which was deserved -- please compare and contrast the infractions and on-court/field repurcussions for Memphis basketball, Ohio State basketball, USC football, Ohio State football, etc. I think you'll find IU suffered severely for its sin -- and more severely for some more egregious infractions. (Lest we also not forget that Purdue was not banned from post-season play for arranging an improper $4,000 loan to a recruit.)

I skimmed and assumed. I was wrong.

IU has played six home games and is coming off a game with an, admitted, huge disparity in free throws. It's hard for me to consider numbers from six games very dispositive. Further, IU has played Ohio State, Michigan State, Michigan, and Wisconsin on the road -- which no other team has -- meaning IU's road stats likely are skewed in the other direction and will change. I would like to see the full-season numbers, and then numbers from previous seasons, before any actual conclusion is made. It's hard to claim a trend based on an unbalanced six games from one season. That said, outside of the most irrational, I doubt you'll find IU fans that don't believe Assembly Hall offers an advantage in this regard. In the Big Ten, every team receives such an advantage. Is IU's advantage more significant? I'd say most likely because officials -- actually humans in general, as studies have shown -- react to crowd noise and extraneous factors when making decisions. And Assembly Hall is probably/possibly the loudest stadium in the Big Ten (anecdotally, it seems that way to me . . . but I haven't been to Nebraska . . . haha). Just FYI, those are the season numbers, not conference only. It bears out what I was saying, Illinois generally doesn't go to the line a lot, but nobody goes to the line as much as IU did last night. OK, my mistake. I think my point still stands that it's still a relatively small, unbalanced sample size (IU played a ton of patsies in the non-conference season).

IU has played six home games and is coming off a game with an, admitted, huge disparity in free throws. It's hard for me to consider numbers from six games very dispositive. Further, IU has played Ohio State, Michigan State, Michigan, and Wisconsin on the road -- which no other team has -- meaning IU's road stats likely are skewed in the other direction and will change. I would like to see the full-season numbers, and then numbers from previous seasons, before any actual conclusion is made. It's hard to claim a trend based on an unbalanced six games from one season. That said, outside of the most irrational, I doubt you'll find IU fans that don't believe Assembly Hall offers an advantage in this regard. In the Big Ten, every team receives such an advantage. Is IU's advantage more significant? I'd say most likely because officials -- actually humans in general, as studies have shown -- react to crowd noise and extraneous factors when making decisions. And Assembly Hall is probably/possibly the loudest stadium in the Big Ten (anecdotally, it seems that way to me . . . but I haven't been to Nebraska . . . haha).

1. Absolutely, officiating can persuade teams to drive and dissuade other teams from driving. It's possible that happened; that's opinion and my post was mainly trying to put forth facts. 2. I'm not squirming. I said Illinios got homered. But IU did deserve more free throws, in my opinion, which I think is supported by the shot-selection (but see above for possible officiating outcomes). Further, I merely attempted to answer your questions and lay out some facts as you requested -- there was meant to be no thesis to my post.

It's not in the box score; I'm sure it is somewhere but I don't know where. Because I'm a nerd, I counted from the play-by-play (also, predicting what you're getting at, I counted fouls). The count is open to some interpretation -- offensive rebounds not counted as seperate possession, Sheehey's steal and immediate turnover as a possession -- and mistakes, but by my count: 33 offensive possessions 15 fouls called on Illinois Now that's a bit skewed for two reasons: IU's last four possession, and five of the last six, resulted in fouls (I don't have a photographic memory or game tape, but it's likely that all/most/some of those possessions Illinois was fouling intentionally), there were three offensive rebounds, which I didn't as extra possessions, but did result in fouls (fouls often result on put-backs from offensive rebounds), and one of those is Hulls being fouled after a defensive rebound (which, in person without the benefit of replay, looked like a foul to me). I also counted shots made/missed (from the play-by-play it is impossible to determine if free throws resulted from an open court play, an over-the-back foul, a drive, a layup attempt, etc.; much less whether they were fouls or not). Shot selection, by my count, in the second half: Illinois 3 layups/dunks 8 jumpers 13 three-pointers Indiana 11 layups/dunks 4 jumpers 3 three-pointers

I did and that claim seems to be, well, literally false. Yeah, but he just made you waste 5 minutes of your day, so point sulley (and 2 free ones for IU) i didn't think anyone would actually check, but the image of eow sitting in front of his tv pausing and unpausing and rewinding holding a clipboard makes me smile Haha. I just checked the play-by-play though: http://espn.go.com/ncb/playbyplay?gameId=320400084 Also, "i didn't think anyone would actually check"? Isn't that, ostensibly, "it wasn't meant to be a factual statement" . . . ?

I did and that claim seems to be, well, literally false.