ADVERTISEMENT

Looking at Win %'s since 1995

Paterfamilias

All-Big Ten
Dec 3, 2010
3,705
2,805
113
A post below got me thinking about how comparing win percentages can be pretty dependent on schedule strength. I did this thing a couple of years ago where I looked only at games vs NCAA Tournament qualifiers, then at only games vs teams who earned a Top 4 seeding. I had to do a little updating, but here's what I've got going back to the 1995 season.

Out in the Win % column, the first number is win % vs NCAA qualifiers and the 2nd number is vs Top 4 seeds. The asterisk in the year column denotes seasons in which IU received a #6 seed or better. I think the rest is self explanatory. Anyway, if we look at only those seasons where IU got a #6 seed or better, IU was just a smidge under 50% vs Tournament qualifiers and about 37% vs Top 4 seeds. I'm thinking that this would be a minimal performance target to Keep fans from being too restless.

IU%2Bcoaching.PNG

IU%2Bcoaching%2B2.PNG

Bob%2BKnight.PNG
 
Last edited:
Most agree that CTC got a three year pass due to circumstances. So after that point results under him were a lot better than we are seeing with CAM. I think it's safe to say CAM walked into a much better situation than CTC. Give CAM a one year get out of jail free card and still worse results. I don't think this is going to fly and it shouldn't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Radio Zero
A post below got me thinking about how comparing win percentages can be pretty dependent on schedule strength. I did this thing a couple of years ago where I looked only at games vs NCAA Tournament qualifiers, then at only games vs teams who earned a Top 4 seeding. I had to do a little updating, but here's what I've got going back to the 1995 season.

Out in the Win % column, the first number is win % vs NCAA qualifiers and the 2nd number is vs Top 4 seeds. The asterisk in the year column denotes seasons in which IU received a #6 seed or better. I think the rest is self explanatory. Anyway, if we look at only those seasons where IU got a #6 seed or better, IU was just a smidge under 50% vs Tournament qualifiers and about 37% vs Top 4 seeds. I'm thinking that this would be a minimal performance target to Keep fans from being too restless.

IU%2Bcoaching.PNG

IU%2Bcoaching%2B2.PNG


Thank you for doing this. Interesting that you denote seasons where we earned a top 6 seed as having an asterisk. You could have instead used an asterisk to denote those seasons where we didn’t receive an NCAA bid, but (sadly), that would have required quite a bit more work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Radio Zero
A post below got me thinking about how comparing win percentages can be pretty dependent on schedule strength. I did this thing a couple of years ago where I looked only at games vs NCAA Tournament qualifiers, then at only games vs teams who earned a Top 4 seeding. I had to do a little updating, but here's what I've got going back to the 1995 season.

Out in the Win % column, the first number is win % vs NCAA qualifiers and the 2nd number is vs Top 4 seeds. The asterisk in the year column denotes seasons in which IU received a #6 seed or better. I think the rest is self explanatory. Anyway, if we look at only those seasons where IU got a #6 seed or better, IU was just a smidge under 50% vs Tournament qualifiers and about 37% vs Top 4 seeds. I'm thinking that this would be a minimal performance target to Keep fans from being too restless.

IU%2Bcoaching.PNG

IU%2Bcoaching%2B2.PNG
This is total bullshit why did you not go back to years 91,92,93 I’d like to see Knights numbers there come on pal manipulation of stats big time
 
  • Like
Reactions: Radio Zero
This is total bullshit why did you not go back to years 91,92,93 I’d like to see Knights numbers there come on pal manipulation of stats big time
Those years would show just how bad things are now....That was also a 64 team field those years poor by you
 
  • Like
Reactions: Radio Zero
Thank you for doing this. Interesting that you denote seasons where we earned a top 6 seed as having an asterisk. You could have instead used an asterisk to denote those seasons where we didn’t receive an NCAA bid, but (sadly), that would have required quite a bit more work.
Waisted time
 
  • Like
Reactions: Radio Zero
A post below got me thinking about how comparing win percentages can be pretty dependent on schedule strength. I did this thing a couple of years ago where I looked only at games vs NCAA Tournament qualifiers, then at only games vs teams who earned a Top 4 seeding. I had to do a little updating, but here's what I've got going back to the 1995 season.

Out in the Win % column, the first number is win % vs NCAA qualifiers and the 2nd number is vs Top 4 seeds. The asterisk in the year column denotes seasons in which IU received a #6 seed or better. I think the rest is self explanatory. Anyway, if we look at only those seasons where IU got a #6 seed or better, IU was just a smidge under 50% vs Tournament qualifiers and about 37% vs Top 4 seeds. I'm thinking that this would be a minimal performance target to Keep fans from being too restless.

IU%2Bcoaching.PNG

IU%2Bcoaching%2B2.PNG
You figure in 9 years of Crean and 6 years Knight leaving out Knights best years of the 90s typical Apologist bullshit
 
  • Like
Reactions: Radio Zero
Most agree that CTC got a three year pass due to circumstances. So after that point results under him were a lot better than we are seeing with CAM. I think it's safe to say CAM walked into a much better situation than CTC. Give CAM a one year get out of jail free card and still worse results. I don't think this is going to fly and it shouldn't.

No way in Hell does Crean n get a "three year pass". Whether "most agree" with that thinking or not, having worse results in year three than year two should warrant a pass.

Archie walked into a a situation where the previous team finished 18-16 with a first round NIT loss. That team had JBJ and Thomas Bryant. They were gone before Archie showed. That left you with Rojo, Newkirk, Freddy McSwain, Freshman Durham, Freshman.Moore, Freshman Smith, etc. Not quite Crean's first year dilemma but pretty sucky.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IU? I'm Fine
Thank you for doing this. Interesting that you denote seasons where we earned a top 6 seed as having an asterisk. You could have instead used an asterisk to denote those seasons where we didn’t receive an NCAA bid, but (sadly), that would have required quite a bit more work.

Our non-tourney teams (excluding Crean's first 3 seasons which really skew things) have won 23% of the time vs NCAA qualifiers and 16% of the time vs Top 4 seeds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: .Gerdis
A post below got me thinking about how comparing win percentages can be pretty dependent on schedule strength. I did this thing a couple of years ago where I looked only at games vs NCAA Tournament qualifiers, then at only games vs teams who earned a Top 4 seeding. I had to do a little updating, but here's what I've got going back to the 1995 season.

Out in the Win % column, the first number is win % vs NCAA qualifiers and the 2nd number is vs Top 4 seeds. The asterisk in the year column denotes seasons in which IU received a #6 seed or better. I think the rest is self explanatory. Anyway, if we look at only those seasons where IU got a #6 seed or better, IU was just a smidge under 50% vs Tournament qualifiers and about 37% vs Top 4 seeds. I'm thinking that this would be a minimal performance target to Keep fans from being too restless.

IU%2Bcoaching.PNG

IU%2Bcoaching%2B2.PNG
Why did u stop at 1995 oh I know why
 
  • Like
Reactions: Radio Zero
This is total bullshit why did you not go back to years 91,92,93 I’d like to see Knights numbers there come on pal manipulation of stats big time

Good grief CHILL out!

Pater is a stats guy. If you think he is trying to put a good slant on Archies time then you are wrong and have obviously not read some of his posts.

Quit being a dick.

Also, learn how to us punctuation. You know, like . and ,.
 
You figure in 9 years of Crean and 6 years Knight leaving out Knights best years of the 90s typical Apologist bullshit

I love Knight my man! Knight won in the high 50's vs NCAA qualifiers and around 42% vs Top 4 seeds in the years 85-94. I used those Knight years because everyone views them as the bad Knight years. If his bad years are as good, or better than anything since... we have a problem!
 
Our non-tourney teams (excluding Crean's first 3 seasons which really skew things) have won 23% of the time vs NCAA qualifiers and 16% of the time vs Top 4 seeds.
Sorry to be a pain, but how do things look removing just Crean years 1-2? IMHO, he deserves no pass for yr 3.
 
A post below got me thinking about how comparing win percentages can be pretty dependent on schedule strength. I did this thing a couple of years ago where I looked only at games vs NCAA Tournament qualifiers, then at only games vs teams who earned a Top 4 seeding. I had to do a little updating, but here's what I've got going back to the 1995 season.

Out in the Win % column, the first number is win % vs NCAA qualifiers and the 2nd number is vs Top 4 seeds. The asterisk in the year column denotes seasons in which IU received a #6 seed or better. I think the rest is self explanatory. Anyway, if we look at only those seasons where IU got a #6 seed or better, IU was just a smidge under 50% vs Tournament qualifiers and about 37% vs Top 4 seeds. I'm thinking that this would be a minimal performance target to Keep fans from being too restless.

IU%2Bcoaching.PNG

IU%2Bcoaching%2B2.PNG


*Some quick thoughts. Knight was still a pretty solid coach at the end of his tenure against tourney teams.

*Sampson is a really good coach

*Archie’s first year team benefited from an easy schedule

*This years team is very similar to last years team
 
I love Knight my man! Knight won in the high 50's vs NCAA qualifiers and around 42% vs Top 4 seeds in the years 85-94. I used those Knight years because everyone views them as the bad Knight years. If his bad years are as good, or better than anything since... we have a problem!
Right but some of the mouth breathers here need to understand the way things should be
 
  • Like
Reactions: Radio Zero
*Some quick thoughts. Knight was still a pretty solid coach at the end of his tenure against tourney teams.

*Sampson is a really good coach

*Archie’s first year team benefited from an easy schedule

*This years team is very similar to last years team

Speaking of easy schedules, look again at Sampson. His second best win in his 2 years was against #4 seed Southern Illinois. I think they were unranked when we played them. I know Sampson is a good coach, but I honestly didn't care that much for his 2 IU teams. Had he stayed longer perhaps it would have been special, but I'm not a big believer!

Also, some have argued, and I might have been one them, that Archie might have overachieved a little bit in year 1. I just can't get behind that now. That team was the only team besides Year 1 Crean that couldn't take down 1 tourney bound team.

I'm not done with Archie yet though, hopefully he shows me something down the stretch to get me excited for next season.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Radio Zero
Speaking of easy schedules, look again at Sampson. His second best win in his 2 years was against #4 seed Southern Illinois. I think they were unranked when we played them. I know Sampson is a good coach, but I honestly didn't care that much for his 2 IU teams. Had he stayed longer perhaps it would have been special, but I'm not a big believer!

Also, some have argued, and I might have been one them, that Archie might have overachieved a little bit in year 1. I just can't get behind that now. That team was the only team besides Year 1 Crean that couldn't take down 1 tourney bound team.

I'm not done with Archie yet though, hopefully he shows me something down the stretch to get me excited for next season.
Man did he kick the shit out of Kentucky though I think Jordan Crawford had like 30 was at that game awesome
 
  • Like
Reactions: Radio Zero
Speaking of easy schedules, look again at Sampson. His second best win in his 2 years was against #4 seed Southern Illinois. I think they were unranked when we played them. I know Sampson is a good coach, but I honestly didn't care that much for his 2 IU teams. Had he stayed longer perhaps it would have been special, but I'm not a big believer!

Also, some have argued, and I might have been one them, that Archie might have overachieved a little bit in year 1. I just can't get behind that now. That team was the only team besides Year 1 Crean that couldn't take down 1 tourney bound team.

I'm not done with Archie yet though, hopefully he shows me something down the stretch to get me excited for next season.
Yea maybe Archie will resign like Davis did that would get me very excited for next year!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Radio Zero
Sorry to be a pain, but how do things look removing just Crean years 1-2? IMHO, he deserves no pass for yr 3.

Non-tourney teams (including yr 3 Crean) won 22% vs Tourney teams and 16% vs Top 4 seeds. Needed some rounding to get there, but the overall %'s didn't change much.
 
  • Like
Reactions: .Gerdis
Why did u stop at 1995 oh I know why

When I get back from the OTB, I'll post Knight's 85-94 seasons for ya. I need to look at it again anyway to make sure I'm remembering his old numbers correctly. I always stop these type things at 1985 though. I can't remember why. Was that when they first started seeding or was it the first 64 team field? I think it was the 64, but thought I should go ahead and let you know ahead of time why I don't go back further than 85:)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Radio Zero
I think a very very very more telling comparison would b to look at Archie’s Ken Pom numbers while at Dayton and at IU, if any honest person would do that they would clearly see that what we are seeing as IU fans is basically what Archie did at Dayton, he just benefited from weaker opponents in Atlantic 10
 
  • Like
Reactions: Radio Zero
Speaking of easy schedules, look again at Sampson. His second best win in his 2 years was against #4 seed Southern Illinois. I think they were unranked when we played them. I know Sampson is a good coach, but I honestly didn't care that much for his 2 IU teams. Had he stayed longer perhaps it would have been special, but I'm not a big believer!

Also, some have argued, and I might have been one them, that Archie might have overachieved a little bit in year 1. I just can't get behind that now. That team was the only team besides Year 1 Crean that couldn't take down 1 tourney bound team.

I'm not done with Archie yet though, hopefully he shows me something down the stretch to get me excited for next season.


I give Sampson a little bit of break because it was his 1st 2 years. Also, I think he was 3-4 & 0-3 in his 2nd season. I thought he was 22-4 when he got fired?

I made the point during the summer Archie’s first year wasn’t that good because of the weak schedule and lack of wins against tourney teams. We also had some really bad losses.

I’ve obviously given up on Archie. The regression on defense sealed it for me.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Paterfamilias
I give Sampson a little bit of break because it was his 1st 2 years. Also, I think he was 3-4 & 0-3 I’m his 2nd season. I thought he was 22-4 when he got fired?

I made the point during the summer Archie’s first year wasn’t that good because of the weak schedule and lack of wins against tourney teams. We also had some really bad losses.

I’ve obviously given up on Archie. The regression on defense sealed it for me.

Yeah, It's been awhile since I originally compiled this and I just forgot to make the adjustment for the one Dakich lost.

My main thing with Arch is I know he'll still be coaching next year, and I've thought all along that next season will be a culmination type of season. I would bet against him at this point, but I lose a lot of bets:)
 
  • Like
Reactions: .Gerdis
When I get back from the OTB, I'll post Knight's 85-94 seasons for ya. I need to look at it again anyway to make sure I'm remembering his old numbers correctly. I always stop these type things at 1985 though. I can't remember why. Was that when they first started seeding or was it the first 64 team field? I think it was the 64, but thought I should go ahead and let you know ahead of time why I don't go back further than 85:)
Thanks for some interesting stuff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: .Gerdis
Yeah, It's been awhile since I originally compiled this and I just forgot to make the adjustment for the one Dakich lost.

My main thing with Arch is I know he'll still be coaching next year, and I've thought all along that next season will be a culmination type of season. I would bet against him at this point, but I lose a lot of bets:)

agree on the culmination type of season opinion. I thought that this year and next should be Miller’s version of 2012-2013 for Crean. Not saying I expected to win 27 games this year and 29 (with a number one seed) next season, but I thought it would mirror the progression. Top 6 NCAA seed this year, another jump next year, then the wheels fall off just like they did in 2014 (roster turns over).

I know, the two of us have talked about this before, VBG
 
  • Like
Reactions: Radio Zero
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT