Shooter

28% is a made up number you created by removing his good games. If you subtract out his slump in February, his percentage would be mid-40s. See how ridiculous this is? The full truth is Nick Dorn took 158 attempts from three this season. They all counted. He shot 38%.

I'll agree with doesn't create for others and mediocre at best defense. But the argument of "if you don't count the games he played well, his stats actually aren't that good" has always been funny to me. Dorn is a bench piece or at best a 5th starter type at this level. I do consider him a high major caliber player though.

The case for Dorn in general is that he's a good shooter with good positional size. The case for Dorn on this team in particular is that we only have two Big Ten caliber players eligible to return. Not sure we are in a position to run one of them off because he is flawed. (unless he has crazy high NIL demands or something)

I think they've lost their identity in the NIL era. They built a decent team from the portal a few seasons ago, and then some of those kids portaled again after the season for a pay raise elsewhere. Would like to see them go back to their old model, recruit mostly in-state kids and develop them - basically Purdue-lite. If that's even possible anymore.

A little surprising, I thought he might be holding out until he can get a big time job. Like Tommy Lloyd did.

Butler has done this twice before with Brandon Miller and Lavall Jordan. Neither turned out very well. Maybe Nored will be better. Interestingly the new Butler AD was a college teammate of Nored. He might be tying his own future to Nored's with this hire.

Yea, in general I love when coaches think outside the box like this, but I think they outsmarted themselves this time. The real life outcome was something that maybe didn't even show up in their analysis - deciding to foul does not guarantee that your players will execute it correctly. Based on the chart, only Manyawu is a bad enough FT shooter to think about fouling. I can't remember if he was even on the floor.

At some point we have to trust our younger, cheaper guys (like Sisley) to play and develop. Just like in the pros, productive players on cheaper rookie contracts are really valuable because it frees up money to spend elsewhere. And it's almost always cheaper to retain your own good players than to buy new ones. Good news is Ryan Carr should be all over this.

I don't think Golden was lying. He was really trying to foul, and I think that's why Fland was so desperate to deny Stirtz. They wanted to make someone else catch the inbound and foul him immediately. Kenpom article on fouling up 2, including a reference to Golden at San Francisco: https://kenpom.com/blog/the-guide-to-fouling-when-leading-or-tied/ edit: the article is actually co-written by Pomeroy, and current Florida assistant Jonathan Safir

Yea. 7-0, 190 lbs is almost unbelievable. Heck of a shot blocker though.

4 guys who made All Big Ten this season were small school transfers. Lendeborg (POY), Stirtz, Boyd, Wilkerson. On top of that, plenty more were important contributors on tourney teams. Too many to list. Evaluate each player on their own merits, not just where they come from

Feels like this guy will have a lot of suitors. Started his career at IU Indy.

It's how he justifies his insistence on year 4 of Woodson.

FWIW, in conference games IU was 8th in the Big Ten in offensive efficiency. Iowa was 10th. In defensive efficiency, IU was 14th, Iowa 5th. That's why they made the tourney and we didn't. Time will tell if Devries can build a team that has the shooting he wants, while still being competent on the other end.

Brownell has had a mid-late career renaissance, so credit to him for that. But he's been there for 16 years and won a total of 5 NCAA tourney games. I don't think that would fly here.

About half of his shots were twos, and he made an outstanding 67% of those twos. So I'm guessing he's a better athlete than the typical small school shooter. Cornell was terrible on defense, so I'd be worried about him there. Same with Vaaks and Providence - though Vaaks at least has excellent positional size.

One of the dumbest internet rumors I've heard. Up there with Trey Galloway transferring to Purdue

And what did that 4th season you argued for accomplish? It was pointless to retain a failing 66 year old coach. Very little upside, just a wasted year.

Crean's last 4 seasons: NCAA 5 seed - sweet 16. NCAA 10 seed - first round exit. Missed tourney. Missed tourney. Woodson's 4 seasons: NCAA 4 seed - second round. NCAA 12 seed - first round exit. Missed tourney. Missed tourney. Crean's last 4 years, combined 38-34 (52.8%) in the Big Ten. Woodson went 41-39 (51.3%). So I guess it makes sense that the same poster who was so adamant that Woodson needed more time, also wanted to give Crean another decade.

The parallels between IU football and Nebraska basketball continue. That game sounds like the Peach Bowl

I'm not an expert. But from what I've read, I expect Moody to be in the rotation. The other two are high major athletes, but may need time to put on weight. Then again, it's always a crapshoot projecting freshmen. I'm sure Illinois fans weren't expecting Wagler to be their best player

Crean didn't get fired because 2016 wasn't good enough. He got fired because that was the only season out of his last 4 where he had a winning conference record.

A bit confused about why we are debating Tom Crean's tenure 10 years later... I liked Crean, he was a decent coach and a good guy. But just because we made two bad hires after him, doesn't mean Crean deserved another decade here.

Agree with your overall point, but I'm going to push back on Michigan. They brought in the #2 portal class. Lendeborg #1, Johnson #26, Mara #47 (right next to Wilkerson), Cadeau #60. The three you mentioned were contributors on big time programs with money, they didn't leave to go to Michigan on the cheap. Plus they brought in a 5 star freshman. Plus the money to retain their other guys. Dusty is a great coach, but he absolutely has a premium expensive roster.

Losing to UMass is bad, probably around -0.9 WAB. That would put them at #40 in WAB after the loss. Could change slightly from that depending on what teams around them do. I think they are still in though. Most of the teams that could have moved past them have blown it, like us