Exile on Waveland

Here's an Indiana fan that will be upset if Illinois doesn't make the tournament. The Illini have wins at Clemson, Vanderbilt, Michigan State, at Wisconsin, and neutral against Wisconsin. That is simply so, so much better than what these other crappy bubble teams have done. In my bracket I don't think they'd even be one of the "last four" in.

Yet they'll still get in.

Who starts games at 10:30 AM Central? If you're a conference that wants to play a championship game on the last Saturday and don't want to get buried behind Big East/Big 12/Pac 10 championship coverage, you play early. They've started this game at this time for years. And mostly for the reason I stated. For sure. I watch it every year, but, seriously, who would watch this crap over the ACC/Big Ten/Big 12/etc.?

Who starts games at 10:30 AM Central? If you're a conference that wants to play a championship game on the last Saturday and don't want to get buried behind Big East/Big 12/Pac 10 championship coverage, you play early. They've started this game at this time for years.

I haven't watched much C-USA this year, but this is seriously the best team they have to offer? Wow, UTEP looks awful; they're collapsing.

I now hope Va Tech doesn't make the tournament simply because of the extreme illogical shown by Greenberg.

You guys are gonna win it all, but having seen most of your games you have played really well for maybe 5 halves all year. Very odd team. It's pretty frustrating, and it gives me a lot of concern. Honestly, this Kansas team sort of reminds me of 2005-06 UConn. They're the best team, they're the favorites to win it, but they almost seem to coast at times. I'll probably pick them to win it all, but, despite being clearly the best/favorites, them being upset wouldn't stun me. Can you coast almost to the point of disinterest -- and I haven't seen every game, so disagree at will -- and win the title? We'll see.

I would mostly agree with your positions; though I think a CB is more likely than a LB in round one (a TE in the top three or four rounds is another luxury that wouldn't surprise me). I am definitely hoping for offensive and defensive linemen uber alles early though. After Polian's post-Super Bowl loss comments about the offensive line -- reminiscent of last year's anti-Addai comments leading to Brown's drafting -- I have to believe that's the most likely position to be drafted in the first. Second, I hate how this draft has gone so far for the Colts (unless I'm missing someone). I was realistically hoping for maybe Pouncey for guard, Odrick/Price for defensive tackle, etc., would be available. Right now I see Charles Brown at OT, Everson Griffen at DE, Tyson Alualu/Geno Atkins/Arthur Jones at DT, and Sean Weatherspoon at LB. Honestly, I think I'd trade down at this point in real life. Some of those players I think you could get later in the draft; others I'm not necessarily sure they're tons better than players you could get later. I suppose Weatherspoon is the best value, but I doubt the Colts take a LB in round one. I'd probably decide between either USC player with Brown being favored. I wasn't much help, sorry, I just got out of two trials and haven't kept up on this much at all.

Syracuse is still a No. 1 seed. Easy.

Hey, you're very likely right. You can't really blame me for being edgy on this subject though, now can you? And while we're patting ourselves on the back, I was all over Penn State being bad.

You've pretty much locked up the 9 seed in the Big Ten Tourney cause you're 3-0 vs PSU and IU, and it's pretty damn unlikely that either of them win their last 2. Also, some really smart guy on here said you wouldn't finish in last this year. Nice job predicting Mo Creek's injury. IU's only had 3 close losses all Big Ten season, and did lose to Loyola, Boston, and George Mason with Creek. There's no guarantee Indiana wins the 2 more games necessary to finish ahead of Iowa with him. True, I can't empirically prove how many more games -- if any, and it could have been zero, or, however unlikely, less-- IU would've won with Creek. However, you basically just attempted the opposite. I don't think you can say "IU lost X game by more than X points, therefore Creek wouldn't have made a difference that game." For example, the first Iowa game was a 3-point game around midway through the second half before they lost by 15. I think you know better than this superficial analysis. I also don't think you can only cite the bad teams IU lost to with Creek, while ignoring the good teams IU beat with him (admittedly, only one, but it is a team clearly better than all but four Big Ten teams). Simply put, we just don't know how many more, if any, wins IU would have with a healthy Creek; however, what we do know is teams are generally worse off when their best player is out. So patting yourself on the back for prescience requires the suspended disbelief that this was the IU team you expected would participate in the Big Ten. It wasn't. Hypothetical: After the Patriots nearly went undefeated in 2007, I predicted they'd miss the playoffs the next year. I'm AWESOME.

You've pretty much locked up the 9 seed in the Big Ten Tourney cause you're 3-0 vs PSU and IU, and it's pretty damn unlikely that either of them win their last 2. Also, some really smart guy on here said you wouldn't finish in last this year. Nice job predicting Mo Creek's injury.

I was reluctant to respond to this because I don't want to waste too much time on this board on such a crappy team. The way I figure it, IU fans are ostensibly guests here. (However, I'm dubious as to earlier posts that IU fans aren't at least right there with Mizzou fans for second most prevalent on the board.) As to the content of your post, it's hard to disagree. What you're saying is mostly true. Being a team constantly in transition is a concern; and perhaps it's more salient than hope of future recruits. But watching this team, how much better will next year be? More importantly, how much would certain transfers really hurt? I hate naming names, but would IU be any worse off next season without (insert player) or (insert player)? Assuming the key 3-5 players stay (or 2-4 of those 3-5), how much difference would it make? I also think IU is in much better position for 2012 kids than you. If they can just get one commitment -- easier said than done -- it wouldn't surprise me to see two or three follow quickly. I'm willing to take that gamble.* I honestly think it's the best chance at success; better than incrementally improving by three wins a season (especially considering each three-win improvement is more difficult than the last). *Of course, considering Crean gives out scholarships like most grandmothers give out Sweet Tarts on Halloween, I'm tempted to assume he'd just bring in more of the same.

IU couldn't beat five posters from NSBB at this point; no chance they win at Purdue. None. I do, however, think Penn State may give the Boilers a run, they're playing much better.

WOOOOOOOO!!!!! sully: "already been covered"

already been said Woah. Sorry for breaching sully's board etiquette. Seriously, though, Tracy Porter now Toews?

At least it's Toews . . . right?

I figured Story would leave, I was surprised and saddened when Williams left. He would have clearly helped this team. I would completely disagree that IU can't afford people to leave this year. They're not going to be very good next either; so forget about it. It's myopic. Taking the long-view, IU needs people to leave. They simply cannot have marginal players wasting scholarships with the Classes of 2011 and 2012 absolutely loaded in Indiana (especially counting a couple kids with Indiana ties). Not to say I want a complete house cleaning, but they need open scholarships. (Nor do I want Crean running-off players, I'm asking for willing transfers, which will happen). Obviously this raises the issue of how much they need to win next year to attract recruits, but I'd honestly rather deal with that then be a incrementally better next year with fewer scholarships to hand out (I also think that if they kept a few key players, and had no major injuries, they'd be better even without "depth"). Also, too many players leaving would have negative APR consequences, but I admit to some ignorance there. Oh, and six injuries mentioned, two being Hoosiers ](*,) : http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/4710/a-look-back-at-season-shaping-injuries

Pretty much the definition of a Pyrrhic victory for Purdue. Really hate to see injuries like that, and especially to such a good player/kid. I may not like Purdue as a team/program, but, individually, I really like most all their players. The Big Ten has just been crushed by injuries this year. Sucks.

Fair. But Leuer was actually missing in action for nine games and is now back presumably healthy (and coming off a good game). Lucas missed one game and hasn't played noticeably worse (he may not look fully healthy, but his numbers are certainly comparable). We don't know if Lucas will be any healthier by the tournament -- and that's what is important. If he's the same as he is now, they won't get any benefit of the doubt for playing with him banged up. You're also being too rough on Leuer. He's averaging 14.5 points and 5.8 rebounds per game. He was a four-star recruit. Sorry, shoulda made it clear I was talking about the media's perception. Wisconsin seems to always be talked about having no talent just because it's a bunch of goofy looking white guys. People would say that stuff about Brian Butch and he a McDs All-American. Gotcha. I misunderstood. You stayed on point while I digressed. I would agree with you then.

Fair. But Leuer was actually missing in action for nine games and is now back presumably healthy (and coming off a good game). Lucas missed one game and hasn't played noticeably worse (he may not look fully healthy, but his numbers are certainly comparable). We don't know if Lucas will be any healthier by the tournament -- and that's what is important. If he's the same as he is now, they won't get any benefit of the doubt for playing with him banged up. You're also being too rough on Leuer. He's averaging 14.5 points and 5.8 rebounds per game. He was a four-star recruit.

OK, someone convince me why Michigan State deserves a higher seed than Wisconsin. Green Bay? That can't seriously be enough. MSU is getting off easy because nobody realized how bad their losses to Florida and UNC were. At the time, they looked respectable. I don't think their resume is all that great. Sure, they're ahead of Wisconsin in the Big Ten right now by one game (though Jon Leuer missed a number of games). The Spartans best non-conference win is Gonzaga. Wisconsin arguably has three better wins -- though did lose to the same Gonzaga team. Michigan State also is only 1-3 against the Big Ten's top four. Wisconsin is 3-3, having beat each. I think it has a lot to do with (i) they're named "Michigan State"; and (ii) what you said.

OK, someone convince me why Michigan State deserves a higher seed than Wisconsin. Green Bay? That can't seriously be enough.

I'm guessing Illinois ends up in the dreaded 8-9 game.

How is that better than beating Tennessee on a neutral floor? Because it is.* Using the Pomeroy rankings I just dismissed, Pitt is No. 20 and Tennessee is No. 27. Tennessee has the huge win over Kansas (No. 2), but outside of that their best win is Ole Miss (No. 48). Tennessee is just 8-4 in the SEC. Color me underwhelmed. Pitt, on the other hand, has beat West Virginia (No. 3), won at Syracuse (No. 4), beat Villanova (No. 14), won at Marquette (No. 22), beat Louisville (No. 30), and won at UConn (No. 43). They're 10-4 in a much stronger league than the SEC. *Now, obviously, there are some issues with who played in either game due to suspensions/injuries. So it's not a perfect analysis.