IUHoosierJoe

Nebraska 77, Indiana 68

Indiana 86, Kennesaw 77

lol. I think you like to argue. Spend some time reading what other coaches say about Dusty May. Read what Tommy Lloyd said after the game. I’ll let the experts in the field tell me about Dusty May. And I’ll let message boarders compare him to the likes of Frank Martin, etc.

Sure. I'd probably take everybody on that list before Crean or Archie, which was the point I originally responded to.

No doubt, and I’m not dismissing what Stevens did or his coaching talent. But I think what May has done is at least as impressive. It amounts to much more than just one great tournament run when you’re talking about a school at the level of a Florida Atlantic.

He built FAU’s program from basically nothing. Improved every year he’s been there. Dominated in the regular season last year and did even better in the tournament. Took a mid major to the Final Four. And he’s proving this year that last year was no fluke. Crean? Marquette was a good program when he got there and he maintained it. Had one good tournament run and underachieved in the tournament the rest of his tenure there. Archie? Change Crean and Marquette to Miller and Dayton and put ditto marks. I would argue that if May has another good tournament run this year he is a better candidate than Brad Stevens. Butler was an established, good program. FAU was nothing. There’d really be no comparison to what May has done.

The NET is not a result-based metric; it’s a predictive metric (mostly). If you beat poor teams by just a couple points (as IU has also done), you’re not expected to do as well in future games.

Indiana 80, North Alabama 71

Indiana 74, Morehead St 68

I don’t think it was being used yet then, but it certainly would have been just as bad or worse at this point in the season. The thing killing our NET right now is the close games we played against horrible teams. If we can win these next 3 games by a big margin, it will help significantly.

Kansas 77, Indiana 69

I see the Curt Cignetti thread has just become another Bash IU thread.

That could have been a special year. Top 15 offense, but literally one of the worst defenses in the country.

Auburn 75, Indiana 66

Manchester was undefeated until that final game.

We have to improve day by day. James Madison was a better team with better players and coaches than we were this year, regardless of level. Getting most of their coaches and a few of their players is an excellent start with our improvement.

Good. Going for it on 4th down, especially when you have an opportunity to put an easy 3 points on the board, is way overrated.

Apparently so.

Wow, they were as bad as us this year.

Agree with you on the KenPom comment as someone who has produced and occasionally published sports ratings as a hobby since the late-90s. And I absolutely understand why people prefer tempo-adjusted stats and ratings. It seems to make perfect sense. Except the scoreboard isn’t adjusted for tempo. And while the argument is certainly true that a slow-paced team would have won a game by 25 instead of 20 if they played at an “average” tempo, the scoreboard still says they won by 20.

Just a guess, but he may have found a client to sell them to since USA Today no longer carries them. Maybe they will appear somewhere else soon. He’s still updating the other sports.

Michigan 81, Indiana 69

For computer-rating geeks like myself, there are a few systems out there that rank teams by "strength of record" or "resume," and I produce some myself. Every one that's updated so far, including mine, has Washington #1 and Michigan #2. After that, it's crapshoot. I have Texas #3 and Alabama #4. ESPN has Florida State #3 and Alabama #4. Anderson-Hester has Florida State #3 and Ohio State #4. Colley Matrix , like mine, has Texas #3 and Alabama #4. I guess the bottom line is, the committee has a tough job on its hands.

Agree with this. I'm not sure it's ever been really clear, either with the football or basketball selection committees, what they mean by the "best" teams. I've noticed in interviews when they are asked how they determined how one team is better than another, they actually go right back to comparing resumes.

The bad news is it’s still factoring in the pre-season ratings. Their NET ranking would be significantly worse than 69.