I just don't like this style of basketball...

[YOTHN]

I type this not to bash Crean, but to shed further light on those winning percentages. If you go to sports-reference.com and do a little research on Strength of Schedule, you will find that IU consistently played one of the toughest schedules in the nation under Knight. That is not the case today.

For example: Knight's IU teams faced a Top 5 SOS 16 times in his 29 seasons along with 4 more seasons with a Top 10 SOS. Knight's 3 worst SOS's were 51st, 49th and 37th. Crean's last 3 SOS's have been 63rd, 52nd and 58th (using sports-reference for consistency)

RMK's S.O.S. was considered better but as we all know, it's built off a lot of teams in the 75-200 range. Feel free to call Crean stupid for scheduling 300+ ranked teams because the outcomes of games versus 75-200 would be the same as we currently have. But comparing schedules, I don't look at the RMK pre-conference schedules and think "those are better than what IU plays now". So the winning percentage fact still remains.

 

[YOTHN]

Thanks for the numbers. I was having discussion the other day about how IU has a lot easier schedule today, than when Knight coached, but didn't have the numbers to back it up. I didn't realize it it was that big of a discrepancy.

LOL But again, is IU going to lose vs #220 ranked team as opposed to #330? It really has no bearing on the ending winning %. The # of top 10 teams played this year bests most of RMK's last decade as coach. 4 ranked teams and not even playing in a pre-conference tourney? Come on.

 

[Paterfamilias]

RMK's S.O.S. was considered better but as we all know, it's built off a lot of teams in the 75-200 range. Feel free to call Crean stupid for scheduling 300+ ranked teams because the outcomes of games versus 75-200 would be the same as we currently have. But comparing schedules, I don't look at the RMK pre-conference schedules and think "those are better than what IU plays now". So the winning percentage fact still remains.

I didn't call Crean stupid for his scheduling. I've even said that i don't think the non-con SOS matters as much as many here think it does. I'm not going to pretend that there's not much difference between a Top 5 SOS and a #60 SOS though... that would be stupid.

Scheduling is just weaker today across the nation. In fact I think a Top 5 schedule of yesteryear was tougher than a Top 5 schedule of today.

 

[neigo]

Question has any other team played four teams that have been ranked in the top 15 or better 3 in the top 10 in their pre-season schedule.

 

[YOTHN]

I didn't call Crean stupid for his scheduling. I've even said that i don't think the non-con SOS matters as much as many here think it does. I'm not going to pretend that there's not much difference between a Top 5 SOS and a #60 SOS though... that would be stupid.

Scheduling is just weaker today across the nation. In fact I think a Top 5 schedule of yesteryear was tougher than a Top 5 schedule of today.

Yeah, that was me calling out Crean for his lack of mid-tier scheduling. ha

Playing #330 vs 150 does make that vast of a difference. If you look just at the top opponents IU plays they could compare that schedule to anyone else in the country. To me I think you get a better picture of a pre-conference by reviewing how many top 25 teams one faces and what their record is tied to those. The other games are mere practice games. I would prefer IU play a 100-200 opponent as opposed to bottom 300. If IU transferred some of those games over, they would be a top 5 SOS.

 

[YOTHN]

Question has any other team played four teams that have been ranked in the top 15 or better 3 in the top 10 in their pre-season schedule.

Most look at UK and say "wow, they play a tough schedule"....but its not even close. They play MSU, UNC, Kansas, UCLA and Lousiville. We play all of those minus UCLA but we had Butler instead. To that we also have to play a full conference slate with more ranked B1G teams while the SEC only has South Carolina as a fringe ranked team at best right now. The way the S.O.S. is setup to me is incredibly flawed but to each their own.

 

[Paterfamilias]

Yeah, that was me calling out Crean for his lack of mid-tier scheduling. ha

Playing #330 vs 150 does make that vast of a difference. If you look just at the top opponents IU plays they could compare that schedule to anyone else in the country. To me I think you get a better picture of a pre-conference by reviewing how many top 25 teams one faces and what their record is tied to those. The other games are mere practice games. I would prefer IU play a 100-200 opponent as opposed to bottom 300. If IU transferred some of those games over, they would be a top 5 SOS.

I agree with much of what you are saying. My only disagreement would be with comparing winning %'s of coach's today to those of bygone eras. Scheduling in general is much too soft. As you say Crean could have a Top 5 SOS today without adding any more major conference opponents than he already does. A top schedule was much different in most of Knight's era is all I'm saying.

 

[snarlcakes]

LOL But again, is IU going to lose vs #220 ranked team as opposed to #330? It really has no bearing on the ending winning %.

You can argue against the facts, but IU use to play a harder schedule. Go back and look at their schedules. What you are missing is that IU didn't play as many cupcakes. Indiana's 85-86 Schedule for example IU played only 3 teams not in today's Power 5 conferences. IU played 9 this year. That's a big difference. Also,the Big Ten has been watered down with the additions of the 4 new teams. Only Maryland is a traditionally good basketball school. The other 3 might be the 3 worst teams in the conference now.

The # of top 10 teams played this year bests most of RMK's last decade as coach. 4 ranked teams and not even playing in a pre-conference tourney? Come on.

I agree players and teams are better today, but that has nothing to do with strength of schedule, year to year.

 

[Tasmanian Devil]

Way to miss the point.

He really does have a point to be honest .

Another thing - how many other coaches have you heard a recruit say something about the way Kris Wilkes did Crean? Be honest.

 

[Tasmanian Devil]

I type this not to bash Crean, but to shed further light on those winning percentages. If you go to sports-reference.com and do a little research on Strength of Schedule, you will find that IU consistently played one of the toughest schedules in the nation under Knight. That is not the case today.

For example: Knight's IU teams faced a Top 5 SOS 16 times in his 29 seasons along with 4 more seasons with a Top 10 SOS. Knight's 3 worst SOS's were 51st, 49th and 37th. Crean's last 3 SOS's have been 63rd, 52nd and 58th (using sports-reference for consistency)

WOW

 

[Tasmanian Devil]

Right.
Tom Crean since he rebuilt the program, 70.3% winning percentage.
Bob Knights career winning percentage? 70.9%.

Two things:

1) SOS - You think Crean's is anywhere close to that of what Knight's teams played?

2) Why just "since he rebuilt IU"? Why not take a look at Crean's ENTIRE career (you can even remove the first 3 here).

Don't cherry pick - make an apple-to-apple comparison.

 

[fpeaugh]

He really does have a point to be honest .

Another thing - how many other coaches have you heard a recruit say something about the way Kris Wilkes did Crean? Be honest.

What did Wilkes say about Crean? Never heard anything about that. I don't follow our recruiting of 5 star players...they always choose elsewhere.

 

[IU Scott]

You can argue against the facts, but IU use to play a harder schedule. Go back and look at their schedules. What you are missing is that IU didn't play as many cupcakes. Indiana's 85-86 Schedule for example IU played only 3 teams not in today's Power 5 conferences. IU played 9 this year. That's a big difference. Also,the Big Ten has been watered down with the additions of the 4 new teams. Only Maryland is a traditionally good basketball school. The other 3 might be the 3 worst teams in the conference now.



I agree players and teams are better today, but that has nothing to do with strength of schedule, year to year.

Today's top teams are not even close to the top teams of the 80's and 90's. Look at the rosters of the the championship teams back then compared to today and it is not even close.

 

[snarlcakes]

Today's top teams are not even close to the top teams of the 80's and 90's. Look at the rosters of the the championship teams back then compared to today and it is not even close.

I meant players overall are better because they are bigger, faster, and stronger today. I agree with your point though that rosters back then were better. I assume because less players left early?

 

[IU Scott]

I meant players overall are better because they are bigger, faster, and stronger today. I agree with your point though that rosters back then were better. I assume because less players left early?

Exactly but i wouldn't say players today are better basketball players but they are better athletes.

 

[T.M.P.]

I have been a fan since i was 9 im 53 today. I think what gets misunderstood on this board is that those of us that have been around a while will support the coach as long as he is here. We stuck by one of the biggest jerks and embaressments in coach Knight at times.CTC graduates his players wins big ten championships, doesnt hire hookers to recruit players. Does not have entitled brats here like Grayson Allen or Paul Scruggs. Am i disappointed in our BTT and NCAA success ? Yes. Do i think CTC has some coaching problems. Yes. I just posted that turnovers drive me nuts. But it is about being loyal. The younger fans struggle with loyalty in all aspects of their lives. More people change churches today because they dont like some small thing as an example. Marriage is another example. Does not make you bad fans it is just where our society is at today.

A penchant for blind faith and an inability to question leadership or authority is not something to be proud of, it's not loyalty, it's goose stepping.

 

[Tasmanian Devil]

What did Wilkes say about Crean? Never heard anything about that. I don't follow our recruiting of 5 star players...they always choose elsewhere.

Remember this thread?

Wilkes comments

When was the last time you heard a recruit say something like this about the head coach of a school he was considering? For that matter, have you EVER heard a recruit talk about a coach like this?

I'd heard lots of stuff about Crean said by the AAU folks. 1st time anyone did it publicly.

 

[fpeaugh]

Remember this thread?

Wilkes comments

When was the last time you heard a recruit say something like this about the head coach of a school he was considering? For that matter, have you EVER heard a recruit talk about a coach like this?

I'd heard lots of stuff about Crean said by the AAU folks. 1st time anyone did it publicly.

Thanks for reminding me. I forgot about that. I've followed recruiting for 20+ years and I've never heard a recruit say that. Very odd.

 

[Squarepants]

ACT I

What did Wilkes say about Crean? Never heard anything about that. I don't follow our recruiting of 5 star players...they always choose elsewhere.

ACT II

Remember this thread?

Wilkes comments

When was the last time you heard a recruit say something like this about the head coach of a school he was considering? For that matter, have you EVER heard a recruit talk about a coach like this?

I'd heard lots of stuff about Crean said by the AAU folks. 1st time anyone did it publicly.

ACT III

Thanks for reminding me. I forgot about that. I've followed recruiting for 20+ years and I've never heard a recruit say that. Very odd.

An enthralling play in three acts. Bravo!

 

[Tasmanian Devil]

ACT I

ACT II

ACT III

An enthralling play in three acts. Bravo!

Only shame is, we know how the play is going to end.

Every.

Single.

Time.