Exile on Waveland

Wisconsin hasn't been tested at all this year to this point, so it's difficult to know what to make of them. I think they're better than their poll ranking, closer to their Pomeroy rating. I don't think they'll get run out of the building, because Wisconsin just doesn't get run out of the building. For the record, Pomeroy has done a lot to improve his rating accuracy early in the season, which is why I trust it a lot more than, say, Sagarin ratings at this point. Wait, you actually think Wisconsin is near the second best team in the nation (that's where Pomeroy has them ranked)? If so, I'm not going to argue further because you've lost the plot. Entirely. As for Wisconsin not getting run off the court, they often do when player teams with superior, upper-echelon talent. They lost to Ohio State by 28 last year; Connecticut by 19 in 2008-09; Duke by 24 in the 2008 ACC-Big Ten Challenge; by 17 to Ohio State in 2007. That's a small a sample size, but it's not often teams play top-level teams like North Carolina (in terms of talent). And those Wisconsin teams had more talent than this year's team. (I'd also refer you to a few NCAA Tournament losses.) I didn't say Sagarin or any other computer ranking is better than Pomeroy at this stage. You should be skeptical of all of them this early.

I don't remotely believe IU "should" win at NC State. IU is a team that has won one road game in like two years -- and that against a tiny mid-major -- and hasn't beaten anyone of actual note this season (see above for my thoughts on Butler). Pomeroy agrees, for the record. We simply do not know enough about IU to believe they "should" win on the road against a decent BCS-conference team. Oh, and considering Wisconsin at North Carolina a toss-up is completely laughable. You're taking early season Pomeroy way too seriously (except for the IU-NC State game, for some reason). Wisconsin will be lucky if they don't get ran out of the building. That's a blow-out waiting to happen.

The Big Ten should be pretty embarrassed if it loses the challenge this year.

Sure, that's true. But it's hard for me to give much credit to Michigan because their patsies were better than Michigan State's patsies. Michigan State played, and beat Wisconsin (on a fluke, sure), while Michigan did not. That's enough, by my lights, to give Sparty the better resume (especially in such a mediocre league).

Why are you ignoring the fact that Michigan isn't any good? Michigan is going to get housed if they get to a BCS game. Michigan is likely to play Houston in a BCS game. If so, I'd say it's far more likely that Michigan does the housing than gets housed.

Butler's terrible. IU should have won that game by 30 -- though, honestly, if they could make layups (Watford can't), they would have. I wouldn't go that far. Butler still has some guys that can play but obviously it is going to take them a while to get it together. They didn't look very good early last season either. Butler is a team that is good at making a game look ugly and that is how they hang around. I mean Louisville is currently ranked #8 and they played a very similar game against Butler...led by a point at the half, pulled away to a 16 point win. That isn't to say I am comparing IU to UL but I'm just saying to presume we would beat Butler by 30, I can't say I would think that. I figured we would win by double digits and so I'm fine with the result we got. IU didn't play Butler at the end of the season; IU played Butler last night. Whether Butler improves as the season progresses is of no moment. Butler has been bad this year and was bad last night. IU played a miserable first half -- Butler gets some credit for that, they do play tougher, more physical defense compared to the other five schlubs IU has defeated this year. If IU doesn't play better Wednesday night, they'll lose. If they don't play better over the course of the season, they won't win nearly as many games as I'm starting to think they might. I was pretty pleased with the second half, though. I just think you are over-stating how bad they are. Based on the raw results of their games, yeah I wasn't expecting much but then actually seeing Butler play last night they aren't totally devoid of talent. Chris-shawn Thomas looks promising, they still have Nored and Marshall...I think Butler will get better for sure. It can't be easy starting the season with an entirely new lineup and rotation. I don't think IU played their best basketball last night either. I think it was good for IU to play a team that gets very physical on defense. I would agree that their talent-level is better than their result-level so far this year (well, except I still can't understand why people list Nored like he's any good).

Butler's terrible. IU should have won that game by 30 -- though, honestly, if they could make layups (Watford can't), they would have. I wouldn't go that far. Butler still has some guys that can play but obviously it is going to take them a while to get it together. They didn't look very good early last season either. Butler is a team that is good at making a game look ugly and that is how they hang around. I mean Louisville is currently ranked #8 and they played a very similar game against Butler...led by a point at the half, pulled away to a 16 point win. That isn't to say I am comparing IU to UL but I'm just saying to presume we would beat Butler by 30, I can't say I would think that. I figured we would win by double digits and so I'm fine with the result we got. IU didn't play Butler at the end of the season; IU played Butler last night. Whether Butler improves as the season progresses is of no moment. Butler has been bad this year and was bad last night. IU played a miserable first half -- Butler gets some credit for that, they do play tougher, more physical defense compared to the other five schlubs IU has defeated this year. If IU doesn't play better Wednesday night, they'll lose. If they don't play better over the course of the season, they won't win nearly as many games as I'm starting to think they might. I was pretty pleased with the second half, though.

Butler's terrible. IU should have won that game by 30 -- though, honestly, if they could make layups (Watford can't), they would have.

But but but there's going to be a huge push-back against a rematch just like when it was Ohio State-Michigan.

Twenty-eight wins and eight conference wins over three seasons is pretty damn close to burning. And the tears of blood? I think it would have been difficult for any IU fan watching the last three years not to have those.

Twenty-eight wins and eight conference wins over three seasons is pretty damn close to burning.

Holman threw a potted plant at Crean during a meeting in which, as I recall, Crean was recruiting Holman to stay (or some similar reason). That said, is this something we really need to go through again? I'd love for IU to never stop going through it. Ha ha. Of course you would. What a nightmare.

Yes, "the Movement" is pretty terrible. I was hoping they'd change it before making shirts and such (there was actually an IU fan holding up a poster that said "the Movement" in the background on gameday a couple weeks ago at the Oregon-Stanford game). Oh well. From what I've seen, both classes are very good (not very familiar at all with the out-of-state recruits). I think Hammons is going to end up being a huge steal for Purdue. I was always disappointed that IU never went after him very hard.

Holman threw a potted plant at Crean during a meeting in which, as I recall, Crean was recruiting Holman to stay (or some similar reason). That said, is this something we really need to go through again?

My post merely stood for the proposition that it would be unfair to consider any of those players "Creaned" for purposes of this discussion (also, I had no desire to dig through who left when, who did what, etc., because I honestly don't recall the entire timeline of those player's departures). In any event, Crean's handling of that situation, in some ways, was a black mark, in my opinion, because I don't believe he actually wanted to clean house. In the end, though, none of those players ever played at IU again. However that happened, it's a positive.

Well, being a sensitive IU fan isn't the only reason I don't like the "Creaning" thing -- it is one of those things that once it's repeated enough, it becomes "fact" when it's really not. Anyway, Crean seems a pretty ripe target for some jest without inventing things. Tan-Tommny -- what grown man tans? Clappy -- his sideline behavior is reminiscent of a hyperactive teenager that accidently took speed instead of Ritalin. (For the record, your initial post probably wasn't the best to make my point, it was pretty clearly sarcasm.) I was never entirely comfortable with the Harris recruitment on IU's part either. They were already over-committed by one. I think there's a good chance that gets worked out naturally, without someone getting the proverbial axe. (Though ask Capobianco if that was always the case.) If Harris had ended up committting to IU, someone else clearly was going to get the axe. That would have been distasteful.

Please list the players that have been "Creaned." Next, list the players that have been "Painted." I don't have much insight on the Crean "list", but I'm pretty sure Capobianco is one of those guys. I may be mistaken though. As for the Painter "list", here's the guys that have left the team since Painter became head honcho. Nate Minnoy - Left the team inexplicably after being the only freshman to start every game in 2005 leading up to a knee injury. Averaged 10.2 ppg and 5.1 rpg. Left the team in September 2006, so they did not get the benefit of adding another scholarship for the year. Chris Lutz - Easily Purdue's best shooter at the time. I believe percentage-wise, he was the best shooter in the conference when he left the team. There's no way he was forced off the team. He likely was unhappy about his reduced minutes, but he still had a large role. Jonathan Uchendu - Left the team at the same time Lutz did. His leaving left the 2007 Boilermakers with only two guys 6'10 or taller. He was going to serve a role as a reserve big man behind Johnson and Calasan. He got in some legal troubles in his freshman year which was likely a contributor to leaving Purdue. Scott Martin - I don't think I need to explain this one. Patrick Bade - This is the one I could see people questioning. After rigorously cutting weight after his freshman year, Bade did not get the benefit of increased minutes. This last off season, he decided to drop his scholarship for the basketball team and pick one up with the football team. He was actually more highly recruited as a tight end in high school than he was as a basketball player. The one reason I don't see this one being suspicious either was the low playing time and the fact that again, Purdue lost out on a scholarship as they were not able to fill it before the season started. So, which of these guys was "Painted"? Well, if you're not counting Kyle Molock, then I'm not counting David Williams. Excepting the house-cleaning of Sampson's players, these are the players that have transferred under Crean: -Nick Williams -- Left after one year in 2009. Played 66% of minutes, second highest on the team. Was a decent player with good athleticism that IU could have used recently. Left before any scholarship crunch existed -- before a scholarship crunch was even a figment in an IU fan's eyes. (Would have used up his eligibility this year, before the scholarship-crunching 2012 class used any scholarships.) -Malik Story -- See above. Played 45% of minutes, seventh most. Also, was from California, evidently home sick, and left to be closer to home (Nevada). -Bawa Muniru -- Left after one year evidently due to playing time. He wasn't very good and ended up at Tennessee State. (I honestly don't recall if there was more to this story.) If we're assuming the worst, he might have been "Creaned." Though, if you get to count "low playing time" as a valid reason for leaving for Bade, that should apply here. -Bobby Capobianco -- This one looked a little too convenient at the time, and still does. See above for "low playing time" though. So, in sum, that's, what, maybe two players "Creaned" to maybe one player "Painted" (or maybe 3-2 if you count unsigned recruits). Considering Crean was just looking for warm bodies at the beginning of his tenure, it doesn't seem surprising to me that he's ahead of Painter (by one! gasp!). The idea that this is some epidemic is completely unsupportable by the record and seems to live only in the imaginations of fans that dislike IU. It is super hilariously clever though.

LOL. you will punish us down low. You know more than me on this front . . . but I think you are too down on this year's Kansas squad. Sure, they're not as loaded as previous years -- but that just means you fell back to the pack a bit. KU was better than I expected against Kentucky -- they played them nearly straight up and UK is just loaded with talent/athleticism.

Please list the players that have been "Creaned." Next, list the players that have been "Painted."

Sheehey would be a big loss, I like his potential. I think the idea of Hulls paying his own way is a pipe dream that has been created on the internet based on the premise that he is from Bloomington and grew up on IU fan, I highly doubt there is any truth to that rumor. It may not happen; but I'm not merely going off internet rumors.

He was recruiting Harris, but he chose Michigan State. As far as I know he isn't recruiting anyone else, but I am not the most plugged in on that front. They still should be recruiting for 2013 because they have another scholarship left to fill in that class (and possibly 2 depending on how the oversign situation works itself out for 2012). If Crean is still recruiting someone for 2012, it is completely under the radar. All the available information indicated that 2012 was Harris-or-nothing. I think IU would like to bring in two more recruits for 2013, though.

Someone should get them extra exposure by writing a book about the franchise and later turning it into a major motion picture starring a famous actor, like Brad Pitt. Yeah, and have it be about the 2002 A's. That will really help the notoriety of the 2011 A's.

That's what I was going for -- I did say "gives up basketball" . . .

Not that IU is going to beat Kentucky, but I wouldn't write it off as a blowout just yet. IU played UK close into the second half the last two years before faltering, and this IU team is much better (Kentucky may be better, who knows, they're always loaded with talent so it's hard to say). Pomeroy has UK with a 75% chance of winning, but the margin of victory at only eight. But, you're without the legend of Mo Creek! True. IU is going to miss Creek's 31.0 points-per-game average against Kentucky. Did you hear that he scored 31 points against Kentucky as a freshman? Technically, the hobbled version of Creek did make it to the Kentucky game last year and was pretty terrible. After watching IU for a few games, I still don't know who will transfer to make room for the oversign. The four names that I guess something could happen with are Etherington, Sheehey, Jurkin, or Creek, but I don't see any of those as very likely. Oh yeah. My bad. I try to forget that Creek played last year because it was so painful. Not painful because he was not good; painful because he looked so unhealthy, so unsteady on his legs, that I kept waiting for him to get hurt. Oh well. I keep hearing Hulls might pay his own way and go off scholarship (unless Creek gives up basketball and takes a medical/hardships/whatever-it's-called-that-I-think-exists scholarship). I don't want to lose Jurkin or Etherington, and I sure don't want to lose Sheehey.