VeevlandBrowns

Creighton would seem to make a lot of sense for a kid like him. McD does a good job with big kids, you get to play in the Big East, and yet there's probably an opportunity for early minutes that wouldn't be there at some Big Ten level programs (he needs to add a lot of weight/strength IMO, having seen him a couple of times now).

I like him and I was inclined not to when he got that job. Thought it was probably another K pedigree move that would fail but I've been really impressed with what he's done there. They have some grit now. I liked Carmody and think he did a decent job there, but Collins has changed the culture and the look of that program during his time there. In the long run, if you're going to compete in this league, it's tough to win gimmicking (the 1-3-1 stuff he insisted on playing, though I'm not wild about the offensive end either over the long haul) your way there and God bless Carmody but that's what he did. I'm sure his rationale was that you can't get the kind of kids at NU other Big Ten programs get so you have to out-clever them. Collins is recruiting guys other Big Ten teams wanted. Yes, he has to do it on the court but last year they were as good as the best of the Carmody seasons in the league and I think there's plenty of reason to believe they're going to get better from here. If Northwestern is serious about becoming competitive in the sport, Collins' approach is the superior one IMO. HOWEVER, if he became the successor and had success at IU, then you'd better hope Coach K's successor does well at Duke, because if he doesn't, then they'll be coming after Collins if he has success at IU (theoretically). I like him a lot as a candidate. I wouldn't like the potential for him leaving because I have to believe that he is one that would leave for the Duke job.

Pack Line (the defensive approach Tony Bennett uses) gets a lot of talk and it's been hugely effective for him and his team. Simply put, what the Pack Line does is "pack" defenders into help position off the ball, while the man guarding the ball is providing strong defensive pressure. I think it unfairly gets labeled as "sagging" defense, which it's really not most of the time. They want to encourage you to drive into help (don't get beat baseline and funnel drivers into the middle of the lane) and they also want to contest post entries HARD. They'll live with a lot of perimeter jumpers because they think that's a lower percentage shot (they're right) and they also believe their defenders can react to provide a strong contest even if the shooter appears to be theoretically open. On the other end, Bennett will remind you of plenty of teams we've seen over the years in the Big Ten. He doesn't run the Swing stuff we've seen from Wisconsin or the kind of read/react stuff Beilein busts out, but in a very generalized sense they will look familiar in that they run their stuff with poise and just don't make many mistakes. Bennett's offense gets a lot less talk than his Pack Line defense but it's also interesting. He inherited the "mover blocker" offense from his dad and UVa runs it very well. Simply put, some guys are movers (shot makers) and some are blockers who are there to set picks and free up the movers. It's done with basic motion principles but the emphasis is always on getting a good shot as the primary objective and thus UVa is known to run a fair amout of clock in pursuit of those good shots. His career has proven that to be a legitimate strategy over time. You can argue that you need more free flowing offense or 95th percentile athletes to break through and win the whole thing but his tenure at UVA has been very successful...easily the best since peak Terry Holland. I think he, and his success, is a major reason why the college game reduced the shot clock from 35 seconds to 30. I like the Bennett style. I like that it exists as a change-up. It's just something different to watch and evaluate. I like the variety. I wouldn't want college basketball to become homogenized the way the NFL and NBA are, with everyone doing the same thing. But the 30-second clock, down from :45 and down from :35, has provided steps in that direction.I thought it was hilarious when Bennett used to beat Duke and North Carolina and win the ACC with inferior talent. I think that's good for basketball.

Shocking, mostly because OSU has Pickens deep pockets. Figured if it's a money deal that they'd fight to keep him.He's good. Remains to be seen how he recruits but he's a really good offensive coach as I said. Did a tremendous job at Stephen F Austin and got Okie State back to relevance in a hurry.Would the Cowboys go after/consider Crean? Would be a good landing spot for him. You can compete there.

In Izzo's 3rd season, in early December there was an ugly loss to Detroit. MSU''s record was about 7-5 and the season was starting to look lost. One of the papers put out a survey on whether Tom was the right person for MSU and should he be fired. Yes or No. Crean and Nick Saban caught wind of this and organized a group of MSU coaches, assistant coaches and their wives to purchase as many papers as possible and check, "yes." At the end of December, 1997 MSU went into Purdue and blew them out of the gym. Izzo has not looked back since. When people want to rip Crean, we should remember how he went to bat for Tom. Those type of stories rarely get out.

I watched OK State vs ISU. I thought OK State looked good, not great. Their PG is pretty good and matched up well vs ISU's Monte Morris. OK State runs an interesting style on offense under first-year coach Brad Underwood. How interesting is their style? First-year Georgia Tech coach Josh Pastner adopted Underwood's offense at Ga Tech, he said, because Pastner's Memphis team had so much trouble with it when they faced Stephen F Austin last year when Underwood was head coach at Stephen F. Austin. That's about as good a compliment as you will find. So I watched OK State, curious about the offense. It looked like a lot of high post feeds and then cutters off of the high post, frequently with handoffs from the high post man. Frequently with fake handoffs from the post man as players runs in different directions toward the high post player with the ball. That's not what they do every time. But they do a lot of that. And if I'm watching it right, that stuff is nothing new. It's actually ancient. I think it's remnants of the old Adolph Rupp scissors play, 1948. But it's unique, which is good in this day and age of increasingly homogenized basketball.

I was looking at the scholarship breakdown and saw that IU received a commitment from a 2017 guard out of Georgia, which has proved (in a general) sense to be the rule and not the exception for Crean's IU program, in that the player in question is not a Hoosier state native. The impression has been that Crean has gone about as far away from the Bob Knight blueprint as one can get in terms of roster construction...Knight built his program almost entirely on kids from Indiana, Illinois and Ohio. He occasionally recruited Michigan (I know they were hot after Peplowski and Lindeman, both coming very late in his tenure) but I don't recall his actually signing anyone from that state. Regardless, he had an approach that resonated with that fanbase in a major way and when he won with it, the impression was solidified that this was the "right" way to build a program at that school. Looking at this year, Crean has only 3 scholarship players from the state of Indiana on his team (Blackmon, Hartman and Gelon). Now, one could wonder if the failing has been in those states rather than with Crean...maybe they're not producing as much in the way of talent as they used to. I don't think that's the case. Take a look at the last few years, using RSCI as a basis for evaluting Top 100 players. 2017 - 5 in Indiana and 6 more from Illinois and Ohio. 2016 - Yes, kind of a down year in Indiana with only 2 Top 100 players add in 7 more from Illinois and Ohio. 2015 - Yes, kind of a down year in Indiana with only 2 Top 100 players but add in 9 more from Illinois and Ohio. 2014 - 4 in Indiana and 8 more from Illinois and Ohio 2013 - 4 in Indiana and 5 more from Illinois and Ohio Now, to be fair, Crean hasn't ignored the state. His 2012 class was heavy on instate kids...they just didn't stick around very long outside of Ferrell (it's also noteworthy that the two highest rated instate players that year opted to go to MSU and Michigan, respectively). I just saw that note on his 2017 commitment and it got me to think about the subject. I don't think it's an issue at most schools. Most of the elite programs historically actually aren't dependent upon local kids to a great extent...Duke, UNC, Kenucky and Kansas all have normally had far more kids on their rosters from outside their home states than within it. UCLA has had a bit more of a home state orientation, so they're an exception. Indiana is different, though. It's different because of the space the sport occupies in the state's DNA and specifically the place that IU basketball occupies. Crean's got to do whatever he needs to keep the program competitive but it does make me wonder...can you really satisfy the fanbase without a roster heavily tilted toward regional states? For Izzo's program, it's been almost entirely about the Upper Midwest but especially Michigan, Indiana and Ohio. Look at the rosters for the 7 Final Four teams: 2015 - 6 guys from those three states (they had multiple players from Illinois as well, but I'm not counting them for the sake of this discussion...if you expand it, it's even larger still). 2010 - 9 2009 - 10 2005 - 8 2001 - 10 2000 - 9 1999 - 10 Now, again, those teams also had guys from Illinois, Wisconsin and Minnesota on the rosters...count them and the numbers are larger still. I think it has been a part of the program's identity. Would it feel the same for fans if MSU were more like a UConn or Arizona or the others I mentioned above? I don't know that it would if I'm an MSU fan.

Three jobs currently open which are very high if not at the top of the "are they elite, near elite, or graveyard" variety in Illinois, Missouri and NC State. All three have tradition (though only NC State has a national title (I don't count the one Illinois claims from 1915). All three are schools where basketball is arguably king...it's at least a peer of football at those places. All are in major conferences with strong fanbases. Yet, you have to wonder about the wisdom of taking any of those jobs. All three seem to be on a path where they're looking to get a current Power 5 head coach...I'm not sure that they'll all be successful. Illinois - Word is now circulating that they were trying to get Monty Williams at least for the last month, but he's turned them down. Has interest in getting another NBA head coaching job and not interested in the college game. Someone mentioned Tony Bennett to me. I don't see that because Bennett has his thing going at UVa and why would you swap that out for a job that's essentially a lateral move? Unless he has a burning desire to get back to the Midwest, that doesn't make any sense. Cuonzo Martin makes sense. He's a traveling man and there's just too much smoke around his leaving Cal to not believe he's going *somewhere*. Thing is, his background makes sense for both this job at Mizzou, so there's competition. If Illinois is willing to really go back to the dark side, I could see Scott Drew (reportedly looking to get out of a bad university environment at Baylor) or Buzz Williams. Just saw UI's AD claim at a press conference that following the rules will be a priority. If true, rule those guys out. If not? The Illini could get back in the Chicago game in a big way, because guys like these two don't GAF. A darkhorse name? Tim Jankovich from SMU. He's from Gary, Indiana. Played at K State. Been in coaching forever and was an assistant for Bill Self at both Illinois and KU. Assistant to Larry Brown at SMU before taking over for him, so you know he's comfortable with coloring outside the lines. Dan Muller at Illinois State makes sense to me but probably would have had a stronger candidacy if his team had made the Tournament instead of just missing. Missouri - Cuonzo Martin, a native of East St. Louis, is the name which makes the most sense to me, but Illinois might be competition for this job. Crean if IU and he part ways? Would Scott Drew look here for a port in a storm to escape Baylor? Missouri will pay and they're historically comfortable with cheaters. Some talk about Travis Ford. Mediocre at Okie State, bad year at St. Louis but he's recruited well to that school already (good incoming class next year) and that would be a positive for the Mizzou job. Buzz Williams makes some sense here. This is a "better" job in pretty much every way except conference affiliation vis a vis VaTech. Jankovich and Muller make sense here as well. Lots of overlap between this job and Illinois, which could prove really interesting. NC State - I don't think alum/favorite son Arch Miller is taking this job. It seems no one does. Crazy fanbase, large expectations and yet very stiff competition make this the toughest of these three gigs IMO. More so than Illinois and Missouri, I think these people may have to go the mid major route. Their AD is not well respected and I think that plus the inherent challenges in the job are going to make it a very tough sell to an established Power 5 coach. Will Wade of VCU would be a name. Kevin Keatts of UNC Wilmington makes all kinds of sense to me. Pat Kelsey from Winthrop (located in South Carolina) also would be a logical candidate of this type. Going to be an interesting year.

Wow. I have not a bit of hate in my heart for Tom Crean but that is an indictment. Yes, there were injuries and yes they were significant but this team had plenty of talent, more than enough to make the Tournament in a year such as this. When you've got wins like that, it tells you what the potential is and when you still fail to make the Tournament, to me it says something is off. Something in the culture of the program, something in the way you're teaching or approaching the game...something. I would think that is the final straw. Will be interesting to see if it is.

Going to get out early on this one: next year's Big Ten is going to be loaded. That's assuming no bizarre early entry decisions, etc. Assuming that, this is going to be a much improved league next season. The reason why is the incredible youth all around the conference. Michigan State should be better. Need to see how the wing spots get filled out to know for sure, but this is going to be a bigger, deeper and more mature group with the kind of high end talent needed to contend for championships. Purdue will lose Swanigan, which is of course major, but as long as Haas returns, I don't see much reason to think they'll fall off a cliff. Should still be an NCAA caliber team. Maryland may lose Melo Trimble and will lose Dodd but they've got two Top 50ish recruits coming in and three freshmen starters who will be sophs next year. I think they've got a reasonable chance to be better next season, even without Melo. Minnesota loses no one. Northwestern will bring everyone back. They should be a Tourney team. With Michigan, it's all about the point guard spot and if Wagner and Wilson return. If those two are back, M has an enviable post combination. They'll need massive improvement from Simpson or Eli Brooks to be better than advertised coming in next season. Nebraska will lose Webster but they've got everyone else coming back, an interesting transfer from Georgetown and expected maturity from guys like Watson, Tshimanga, etc. I think they'll be better. PSU has been snakebit lately but I love their young guys. That's a team which should be good enough to contend for a Tourney bid next season. OSU will return everyone but Marc Loving and should have Bates-Diop back, who might be their most purely talented guy. Who knows what will happen with IU? The coaching position is in flux it would seem, so you don't know who might opt to leave, but IU doesn't have seniors on this roster. If OG, Bryant everybody else were to return, this is a team with a lot of ability. Maybe a new voice gets more out of them on the defensive end? Iowa loses Jok, and that is significant but they'll replace him with Franny Volcano's kid, who is a very highly regarded shooting guard...and they've got everyone else back from a team which has played beyond expectations IMO and should be better with another year of maturity. That leaves Rutgers, Illinois and Wisconsin. I expect Rutgers to be improved simply because their new staff has another year to improve the offensive talent and to continue to develop the guys they already have. Still likely the worst team in the conference but reasonable to expect them to be better. Wisconsin loses 4 starters but Happ is back and it wouldn't floor anyone to see some guys who have played limited roles to suddenly develop into good Big Ten starters. That's what Ryan did year after year, so we'll see if Gard can turn the same trick. Illinois also has a coaching situation to deal with, but beyond that they're slated to lose a lot of guys. OTOH, they have a strong recruiting class waiting in the wings. Hard to expect them to be better, but too much uncertainty there at the moment to know for sure what things will look like. The bottom line is that this should be a much better conference top to bottom. Too early to tell who might be national contenders but I think getting through the 18 game slate next winter is going to be pure warfare, because so many of these teams were exceptionally young and when freshmen become sophomores, usually better things start to happen.

* What a great response to PSU's run at the under 4. That's something MSU hasn't seen very much of this year...maybe a sign of a team maturing? * Freshmen again driving the train. Ward flat out owned the blocks early, Miles was Miles throughout, Winston was under control, making plays and hitting a 3, and then Langford with the kind of assertive play MSU needs from him. * Turnovers a major story and really, if you like the word "trend," it's one that's been developing in a positive way over the past 2-3 weeks for MSU. But for the Illinois game, MSU has done a very solid job valuing the ball over it's past 4 1/2 games. Continue that in the second half and this one is over. * For all the knocks he's taken, it's becoming very clear that you can get at least a little something out of Ahrens. Defenses are going to have to start locating him, especially in transition...that shot is becoming money for him lately. * Great work on the glass as well. PSU getting very little done in terms of second chances and the MSU bigs are controlling that area of the game. * Izzo really has his guys looking to push the pace. That's Basketball 101 against a team you have a rest advantage over and it's paid huge dividends.

Mid major names to watch for in moving up to Power 5 + 3 (Big East, American, A-10) jobs: Kevin Keatts - UNC Wilmington Joe Dooley - FGCU. Former KU assistant. 2nd straight NCAA bid. John Becker - Vermont. 67% winning percentage overall and 81% in the league over 6 years. Playing for a Tournament championship and NCAA bid. Pat Kelsey - Winthrop. Former assistant at Xavier and Wake Forest. 64% WP overall, 65% in league. Won regular season Big South titles the last two years and just won their Tournament on Sunday to earn his first NCAA trip. King Rice - Monmouth. Second straight year he's won the MAAC regular season and failed in the tournament, so probably not going to be dancing. Still, I would think he's a name which will pop up on some openings. Dan Muller - Illinois State. Regular season co-champ in the MVC. 62/63% WP in 5 years on the job and steady improvement every season. Have to think he's at least a second tier candidate at Missouri and Illinois if that job opens up. Nebraska as well if they decide to fire Tim Miles. Eric Musselman - Nevada. Great results in two years in Reno but have to think most would be suspicious about long term goals, given his extensive NBA/CBA/DLeague background. That said, he was an ASU assistant for two years and an LSU assistant for a year prior to getting the Nevada job. 52 years old, so probably still young enough that age isn't a negative. Leon Rice - Boise State. Not as hot as some of the other names here because his team didn't win its league or anything, but he continues to put up strong seasons (3rd this year in the Mountain West) and he's done it long enough that I think he'd make sense for someone, especially West of the Mississippi. Nathan Davis - Bucknell. He's only had two years there but they've been very strong in the regular season (29-7 over those two years) and they play for a Tournament championship today. Before that, he was head coach at D3 Randolph Macon and had a 78/80% WP over 6 years, making the NCAA Tournament in every season and getting to one Final Four and an Elite Eight. Maybe more risk than some other names here because of the short period in D1 but you can't argue with the W/L record. Brett Reed - Lehigh. A native of Waterford, they're playing Bucknell for that Patriot title today. He's got a good record 58% both overall and in the conference over 10 seasons. Still remarkably young given how long he's been a head coach (only 44). He doesn't have the knockout year in, year out consistency that some other guys here have but he's made two NCAA Tournaments already and today might make his third. Steve Forbes - East Tennessee State. Sort of similar to Davis in that he's only got two years as a D1 head coach but they are really impressive ones...24-12 and then 27-8 with back to back 14-4 years in the conference. Just won a Tournament bid. Crazy good record at the JUCO level and then Gregg Marshall hired him to be an assistant at Wichita State. He's also done time at Tennessee and Texas A&M, so D1 power conference basketball is not unfamiliar territory at all. Scott Cross - UT Arlington. Has a Sun Belt Tournament coming up but his record at UT-A is pretty sterling regardless. 14-4 and regular season champs this year, 3rd place last year. Overall he's "only" at 55% WP but he's young at 42 and I think he's going to be an appealing name based on recency of winning. I've eliminated some guys whose records would indicate they'd be candidates but who are a bit old to get the nod... Kermit Davis at MTSU, Tim Cluess at Iona, Rick Byrd at Belmont, etc.

* I think MSU finally found a team that defends ball screens worse than the Spartans: Maryland. I don't think Maryland is going to last too long in March. That's too big of a hole, their ball screen defense. Maryland has some offensive juice, but I don't know that they can outscore their ills when it comes to ball screen defense. * As for MSU, their ball screen defense isn't actually that bad. My opening sentence was just for effect. Ward had some tough moments in ball screen defense vs Maryland. He got beat on a quick slip for a lay-up in the first half, and later did too much of an olé number all the way to the rim vs Trimble, rather than stopping him. But Ward had a few occasions when he defended the ball screen well. He can do it for stretches. Just needs to stay locked in. And they need to stay on him. It's all constructive. * Ellis gets two demerits in this game for being late in chasing Trimble around ball screens. Didn't recognize, didn't anticipate, was a half-step late in taking off with him and then became a full step late because he wasn't quick enough in trying to catch up. The second time he made this error, Trimble's 3-pointer gave Maryland its biggest lead at 43-35 with 13:00 left. * Langford had his usual slumber in the first minute of the second half. Completely missed a switch with Bridges, and his man was left wide open for a 3-pointer. MSU was "switching four" throughout the game, meaning that Bridges was switching with anyone who screened him. That meant a point guard might have to guard a power forward for a few seconds. That meant if a three screened for a four, then Langford had to switch onto that four. He didn't do it. Justin Jackson nailed a 3-pointer. First possession of the second half. That was part of why Langford only played 15 minutes in this game - although it seemed like he played more than that. * MSU became more of a screen-roll team in this game, and with effectiveness. A few times, they did it from the right sideline, which was a change for MSU. MSU is usually a left side ball screen team. They did it from the right and created some offense over there (including a pick-and-pop action for Bridges which Bridges turned into a driving lay-up which tied the score at 5-5. And a quick-hitting screen-slip to Ward for a dunk which cut Maryland's lead to 58-55 with 4:30 left. And one time Winston ran it for a step-back 3-pointer to give MSU a 28-25 lead. There were a few other times, but those two stand out). * There were more new wrinkles, or new layers off of standard plays. Moving some side ball screen to the right was one example. More of the offense went through Bridges in different ways in this game. * As for other new stuff, for the first time in ages, MSU didn't run a double down screen or stagger down screen for a wing shooter after winning the opening tip. Instead, MSU ran a sideline triangle play with a couple of back cuts. But the play didn't go anywhere because Ward didn't know where to go. That's why Ward was yanked :55 seconds into the game. * As for other new wrinkles, Izzo mentioned they used Bridges as a decoy a couple of times. + One of those plays came on the first possession of the second half. MSU showed a new look with Bridges and Ward setting up in the mid post, which was strange. Then Bridges ran out to the right wing to set a ball screen. While Bridges was running out there, Langford fed Ward in the post deep for a short hook shot. Defense wasn't expecting the entry pass to come at that moment. This was a change-of-rhythm to an offensive set and it worked great. + The other time was after a time out, MSU set up a sideline triangle to the right, with Bridges running out there to form the triangle. While he was running out to form the triangle, boom, the entry pass went inside from Winston to Ward, deep for a point-blank lay-up. Maryland got caught watching the paint dry. Good passing and structure for MSU in this game, and it netted a season-low in turnovers. MSU was less of a guard-shooting team than any time all year. But MSU's FG percentage inexplicably suffered. No player on the team shot above 50 percent in this game. * Overall, MSU did some slightly different things with their base high screen roll/replace rescreen/roll replace stuff. For instance, rather than rescreen/re-roll, they left Bridges out high a couple of times from the beginning. Rather than send him from block to the top as the replace man, he was already at the top, almost like a Draymond Green thing when Day Day used to play the four. Bridges made a 3-pointer and missed one with that structure. And MSU did more straight pick-and-pop stuff for Bridges. Just Isiah/Laimbeer pick-and-pop, quick-trigger 3. Bridges made a 3 that way, working the pick-and-pop with Ellis. I think MSU could find some smart simplicity with some of this stuff, especially as these players continue to get to know each other better. Winston and Ward are starting to get more of a feel for one another on those screen/rolls, either as a quick-hitter or an elongated read. Ward knows to keep working and twisting and showing his hands and if he comes open, Winston will find him. Ellis played 36 minutes and looked for his shot less (only five attempts). McQuaid played 27 minutes and only had two shots. This resulted in more shots for Ward and Bridges, and more right-of-refusal for Bridges. This is MSU's best path, in my opinion. * As well as MSU rebounded, they got beat on four or five expensive failed box-outs, allowing second-chance points. Ward and Bridges were beaten for a pair of back-to-back offensive put-backs early in the second half. Ellis was beaten for a colossal one at the end of the game. And Ellis was beaten for a range offensive rebound midway through the game. He looked and found his man but didn't go put a body on him and instead went to the rim, and the rebound bounced over his head and to his man. Come to think of it, I'm a little surprised that Langford didn't get more of Ellis' minutes in this game. Both had their errors.

I honestly have no idea. I don't think anyone can know what the committee is thinking. And honestly, with Mark Hollis overseeing it, the chances of this year's committee thinking more "outside the box" than in most recent years is a definite possibility. The talking heads have had nothing - and I mean nothing - but major conference teams among the last four in, last four out and next four out for about a month. If I know Hollis, and if he cares about it, he likes to stick it to those professing conventional wisdom as absolute truth. I don't know what the committee chairperson does. I don't know if the chairperson directs the committee on which criteria to emphasize. But if Hollis has power in this area, he may have them on a slightly different path than the Lunardis and Palms are expecting.

In a nutshell, there were four possessions to win it: 1. With 2:25 left, MSU ran screen/roll/replace, with Bridges being open for the 3-pointer at the top of the key as the replace man. Good shot. Missed. 2. Next possession: Ellis missed an open 3-pointer from the left wing. 3. Next possession: MSU ran something that I'm pretty sure was new. If it wasn't new, it was something they have rarely run. It resulted in a sideline triangle on the right side. Winston fed Ward in the post, he missed a hook shot from about 5 feet, a little farther from the rim than is his comfort zone. Coaches were correcting Winston at the time out after that play, I think for not getting the ball to Ward on the initial window, which would have resulted in him getting it deeper, closer to the rim. 4. Out of a time out, MSU ran a SLOB with Bridges flashing to the right block, and Winston meeting him over there with an entry pass. The pass was deflected, knocked out of bounds and nearly a turnover. Then with the shot clock running down, MSU ran the screen/roll/replace (eye) play again, and executed it real well in a pinch, but Ward fumbled the pass out of bounds, all alone, under the rim. 5. And add the fifth possession, if you want to call it a possession, with MSU doing real well to get Bridges a fairly make-able 3-pointer at the top of the key. Tough one because a win would have been MSU's biggest, most satisfying, most meaningful win of the year, locking up a No. 3 seed and the NCAA Tournament. The loss may prove to be equally devastating. I don't remember one game carrying such polar opposite of potential outcomes in Izzo's career, more so than this one (aside from possibly the game vs Iowa in the 2007 Big Ten Tournament. A loss in that game and MSU might not have gotten into the big dance, considering MSU's eventual No. 9 seed. Izzo was angry about that No. 9 seed. Ended up beating Crean and Marquette, then losing at North Carolina in the second round).

That Michigan BTT game. Ball screen defense for Indiana was a little better than it was vs MSU. So it improved from an F to a C-minus.It's clear they had worked on it, but they were still on dial-a-clue too often vs basic ball screen plays. They had four problems with it in the last five minutes.1. The Donnal travel. UM turned it over but on the play when Donnal was so surprised that he was so wide open that he traveled at the rim, it was due to Hartman and Bryant BOTH covering the ball on a ball screen.2. There was a weave handoff in which OG committed a reach-in foul (or "reach around" as Dakich called it). Indiana was sloppy with attempted switch rotations vs those handoffs.3. Bryant fouled Walton on a drive (that was after a 1/5 switch). During a time out, Indiana clearly decided to switch on all ball screens. This resulted in Bryant, a center, guarding a point guard, Walton - which is precisely what you're trying to avoid in most situations for most of a game. Sometimes you'll see teams (like MSU) switch everything on the last possession of a game. But this was a desperate attempt by Indiana for some sort of change-up success. It failed.4. On Duncan Robinson's 3-pointer that tied the game, OG over-helped to the inside for Yogi vs a Zak Irvin drive. This wasn't a ball screen situation, but Indiana had become overly aware of trying to help on the weakside that they over-helped in this situation. First of all, Yogi shouldn't need help vs a driving Zak Irvin. And he definitely shouldn't need THAT much help from a sagging wing. And a sagging wing shouldn't help THAT much when guarding Robinson when up 3 late in a game. Bad, bad, bad. That team was not playing Final Four defense. I'll add this is why the bit of crying as to "disrespect" toward IU (in some obscure corners of the Internet...or any Indiana media outlet) was off base. This is who they were. A paper tiger and not a championship threat. What got them past the prior year's level is the defense improved from horrendous to semi/almost average. That said, there were still some big holes, as I pointed out.

The movement continues. Inexorably forward. One step at a time. #greatergood

Who needs an actual human interim coach? Borrow an orange volleyball, paint a face on it, and call it Coach Wilson. It can sit on a chair at one end of the bench. Don't use timeouts other than the TV breaks, during which the team can play rock/paper/scissors to see who subs in. If a guy wins two out of three from a player who was in the game, he replaces that player. The player who scored the most recent points is exempt and gets to stay in but must come out at the next stoppage of play (replacement's name drawn from a hat). In the event the other team uses a timeout of their own, the IU players play knockout, with the winner getting to jack up a contested three on the next possession. It couldn't be any worse than what we have.