The Settler's Paradigm (pretty long but there are pictures!)

[Paterfamilias]

I typically like to lay out a few stats without commentary. It's good, I think, for people to draw their own conclusions. This is the case particularly when the person providing the statistics/data has no real expertise or insight into whatever it is that they are providing statistics/data for.

Since this is a message board, I've very slowly discovered that it is the commentary and the commentary alone (no matter how uninformed) that people are interested in. The reason for that (imo) is that most people on message boards are primarily interested in debating ideas rather than evolving them.

It's in that vein that I want to revisit a few of the ideas that have been discussed this off-season along with some of the research that I've done in thinking through some of these ideas.

#1 I've seen it discussed, since the end of last season, this idea that the Big Ten Championship should be viewed as a secondary goal. Some say that those who put too much emphasis on the Big Ten Championship are "settlers". I have always been and currently reside firmly in the detractor camp where Crean is concerned. That said, I think this notion of diminishing the Big Ten Title is an extremely weak argument on the part of my fellow travelers, and here's why... btw it ties in with Sweet 16 "settler" argument.

Since the NCAA began seeding teams for the famous 1979 Bird vs Magic Tournament.

• Indiana has won 10 Big Ten Championships.
• Those 10 Big Ten Champions have reached 10 Sweet 16's.
• That leaves 28 Indiana teams that did not win the Big Ten Championship
• Of which only 4 reached the Sweet 16

For those keeping score that is 100% Sweet 16's for Big Ten Championship Hoosier teams and 14% Sweet 16's for Non-Big Ten Championship Hoosier teams. You can't win an NCAA Title without reaching the Sweet 16 and winning the Big Ten seems to be the preferred route to the Sweet 16.

#2 This one is a two part-er. First of all, there has been a lot of discussion about the weakness of Crean's recruiting. Could it be better? Sure! However, when you compare Crean's success rate landing top 75 players to IU's historic success rates, this argument doesn't hold much water.

The chart below (Top 20 schools the past 8 years ranked by % of Top 75 players landed plus some historic IU era's) illustrates clearly that there is little difference between the quality of player that Crean has been bringing in the past 8 seasons and that of which Knight brought in from 1983-92. Even Knight's better strike rate with McDonald's All-Americans is brought into a different light when you consider that 3 of Knight's McD AA's were ranked in the 40-55 range (Daryl Thomas #41, Greg Graham #46, Neil Reed #52) where Crean has also landed a few (Davis, Hollowell, Watford, Johnson, Perea and Williams).

Knight is one of the greatest coaches in any sport that have ever lived. His teams were much more successful and his players are rightfully esteemed in IU lore. To expect/demand Crean to bring in highly touted players at a much higher rate than Knight did is unrealistic imo.

The second part of the recruiting argument is the notion that Crean needs elite talent for his system to be successful. An interesting fact is that

• Indiana'a offense has been ranked in the Top 10 (kenpom) 4 of the past 5 seasons
• Only Duke (5 of 5) and Kentucky (4 of 5) have managed to equal Indiana's offensive success
• Iowa St is the only other team to appear in the top 10 in 3 of the past 5 seasons

The 2 Big Ten titles and 3 Sweet 16's, no matter what you might think of them, at least imply some level of success

Even if Crean were to begin getting elite talent, I have my doubts that he would be as sucessful as he has been. Crean's offense requires experience, time played together or chemistry if you will. The one disastrous offensive season followed the departure of four 1,000 minute players.

#3 Lastly, the elite question. Indiana has a great and storied history in College Basketball. It would be awesome to be the greatest and most storied, but other schools have operated differently throughout the history of the game and played in conferences which were not nearly as difficult to amass a large number of wins each and every year. Thus, those schools have attained a loftier perch in the hierarchy. I like our history better and would be satisfied to see IU just get back to being IU. For a variety reasons, I am not jealous of those other schools and I can't be convinced to be so.

At any rate, the chart below breaks the last 68 seasons (since the beginning of the AP Poll) into 17 four year segments. Using appollarchive.com I found the Top 16 schools in each 4 year period ranked by # of appearances in the AP Poll Top 10. Notice that IU has never, ever been the reload type of basketball program that consistently hovered in and around the Top 10 in the AP Poll. Even the 12 year run from 81-92 that featured 2 National Titles saw IU much more up and down than the schools we try to compare ourselves to usually are.

Indiana has built great teams over a period of every few years and cashed in as best it could when the crop was ripe. IU's greatness until recent times has been it's ability to be pretty good most of the time, while building toward the occasional great season or two.

To hold Crean or any coach to an expectation that is even above IU's own storied history is unreasonable. The first step is to get back to where we were, then discuss world domination. Have I stumbled into the settler's paradigm?

 

[Tasmanian Devil]

I typically like to lay out a few stats without commentary. It's good, I think, for people to draw their own conclusions. This is the case particularly when the person providing the statistics/data has no real expertise or insight into whatever it is that they are providing statistics/data for.

Since this is a message board, I've very slowly discovered that it is the commentary and the commentary alone (no matter how uninformed) that people are interested in. The reason for that (imo) is that most people on message boards are primarily interested in debating ideas rather than evolving them.

It's in that vein that I want to revisit a few of the ideas that have been discussed this off-season along with some of the research that I've done in thinking through some of these ideas.

#1 I've seen it discussed, since the end of last season, this idea that the Big Ten Championship should be viewed as a secondary goal. Some say that those who put too much emphasis on the Big Ten Championship are "settlers". I have always been and currently reside firmly in the detractor camp where Crean is concerned. That said, I think this notion of diminishing the Big Ten Title is an extremely weak argument on the part of my fellow travelers, and here's why... btw it ties in with Sweet 16 "settler" argument.

Since the NCAA began seeding teams for the famous 1979 Bird vs Magic Tournament.

• Indiana has won 10 Big Ten Championships.
• Those 10 Big Ten Champions have reached 10 Sweet 16's.
• That leaves 28 Indiana teams that did not win the Big Ten Championship
• Of which only 4 reached the Sweet 16

For those keeping score that is 100% Sweet 16's for Big Ten Championship Hoosier teams and 14% Sweet 16's for Non-Big Ten Championship Hoosier teams. You can't win an NCAA Title without reaching the Sweet 16 and winning the Big Ten seems to be the preferred route to the Sweet 16.

#2 This one is a two part-er. First of all, there has been a lot of discussion about the weakness of Crean's recruiting. Could it be better? Sure! However, when you compare Crean's success rate landing top 75 players to IU's historic success rates, this argument doesn't hold much water.

The chart below (Top 20 schools the past 8 years ranked by % of Top 75 players landed plus some historic IU era's) illustrates clearly that there is little difference between the quality of player that Crean has been bringing in the past 8 seasons and that of which Knight brought in from 1983-92. Even Knight's better strike rate with McDonald's All-Americans is brought into a different light when you consider that 3 of Knight's McD AA's were ranked in the 40-55 range (Daryl Thomas #41, Greg Graham #46, Neil Reed #52) where Crean has also landed a few (Davis, Hollowell, Watford, Johnson, Perea and Williams).

Knight is one of the greatest coaches in any sport that have ever lived. His teams were much more successful and his players are rightfully esteemed in IU lore. To expect/demand Crean to bring in highly touted players at a much higher rate than Knight did is unrealistic imo.

The second part of the recruiting argument is the notion that Crean needs elite talent for his system to be successful. An interesting fact is that

• Indiana'a offense has been ranked in the Top 10 (kenpom) 4 of the past 5 seasons
• Only Duke (5 of 5) and Kentucky (4 of 5) have managed to equal Indiana's offensive success
• Iowa St is the only other team to appear in the top 10 in 3 of the past 5 seasons

The 2 Big Ten titles and 3 Sweet 16's, no matter what you might think of them, at least imply some level of success

Even if Crean were to begin getting elite talent, I have my doubts that he would be as sucessful as he has been. Crean's offense requires experience, time played together or chemistry if you will. The one disastrous offensive season followed the departure of four 1,000 minute players.

#3 Lastly, the elite question. Indiana has a great and storied history in College Basketball. It would be awesome to be the greatest and most storied, but other schools have operated differently throughout the history of the game and played in conferences which were not nearly as difficult to amass a large number of wins each and every year. Thus, those schools have attained a loftier perch in the hierarchy. I like our history better and would be satisfied to see IU just get back to being IU. For a variety reasons, I am not jealous of those other schools and I can't be convinced to be so.

At any rate, the chart below breaks the last 68 seasons (since the beginning of the AP Poll) into 17 four year segments. Using appollarchive.com I found the Top 16 schools in each 4 year period ranked by # of appearances in the AP Poll Top 10. Notice that IU has never, ever been the reload type of basketball program that consistently hovered in and around the Top 10 in the AP Poll. Even the 12 year run from 81-92 that featured 2 National Titles saw IU much more up and down than the schools we try to compare ourselves to usually are.

Indiana has built great teams over a period of every few years and cashed in as best it could when the crop was ripe. IU's greatness until recent times has been it's ability to be pretty good most of the time, while building toward the occasional great season or two.

To hold Crean or any coach to an expectation that is even above IU's own storied history is unreasonable. The first step is to get back to where we were, then discuss world domination. Have I stumbled into the settler's paradigm?

I see several things I can differ with here:

1) Not sure how many people have said winning the conference wasn't important. Rather, the discussion as I remember it dealt with those who put more emphasis on the RS titles than a BTT.

Just how many RS titles ( shared or otherwise) has IU won since the BTT began in 1998? Three - 2002, 2013 and 2016. How did those teams finish in the BTT? No better than the semis, despite 2 of them having the #1 seed - with one a 1st Rd flameout.

The point of that discussion is that doing well in the conference tourney generally bodes well for NCAA success. In another thread it was pointed out that of the last 20 Nat Champs, 14 either won (11) or were runner-up in their conf tournament.

#2 How many McD's did IU have? 5?

And IU had all those top 75 kids - but still max out at RS conf titles and Sweet 16's. Maybe the shortcomings isn't the players as much as the coach?

No one hasn't ever said Crean needs to recruit better for offense, it's those other things (like defense and rebounding) that need help.

#3 can you show us 1971-1980? You missing a big chunk of RMK's best years, yet trying to use some of his worst as an apples-to-apples comparison.

 

[CradleofBasketball]

Thank you for taking time to assemble the numbers.

The 'storied' part of IU's history was written before 2001. Can you please cross-tabulate and re-rank again, excluding results for '01 - '16 for all teams?

Then with a second table, cross-tabulate an re-rank all teams for only the '01 - '16 period.

 

[Paterfamilias]

I see several things I can differ with here:

1) Not sure how many people have said winning the conference wasn't important. Rather, the discussion as I remember it dealt with those who put more emphasis on the RS titles than a BTT.

Just how many RS titles ( shared or otherwise) has IU won since the BTT began in 1998? Three - 2002, 2013 and 2016. How did those teams finish in the BTT? No better than the semis, despite 2 of them having the #1 seed - with one a 1st Rd flameout.

The point of that discussion is that doing well in the conference tourney generally bodes well for NCAA success. In another thread it was pointed out that of the last 20 Nat Champs, 14 either won (11) or were runner-up in their conf tournament.

#2 How many McD's did IU have? 5?

And IU had all those top 75 kids - but still max out at RS conf titles and Sweet 16's. Maybe the shortcomings isn't the players as much as the coach?

No one hasn't ever said Crean needs to recruit better for offense, it's those other things (like defense and rebounding) that need help.

#3 can you show us 1971-1980? You missing a big chunk of RMK's best years, yet trying to use some of his worst as an apples-to-apples comparison.

1)There should be much more emphasis on winning the Big Ten RS over BTT and the numbers show that I think.

• All BTT Winners- 12 of 19 Sweet 16's (.632)
• All BTRS Champs- 23 of 29 Sweet 16's (.793)
• Win Both RS & BTT- 9 of 10 Sweet 16's (.900)
• Win only the BTRS- 15 of 19 Sweet 16's (.789)
• Win only the BTT- 3 of 9 Sweet 16's (.333)

It certainly bodes well to win both RS and BTT, but if you're only going to win one of the two the RS Champs have fared much better.

2) No argument with the first part as I'm certainly a doubter as far as Crean's system being best suited for deep runs in the Tourney. As for the second part, I've only seen it said that Crean's system requires elite talent. I see Crean's system as leaning heavily towards offense. I just don't see a revolving door of elite level recruits as being helpful to his system. Certainly the defense would seem likely to improve due to the increased size and athleticism, but I see his system as a whole suffering if perpetually inexperienced.

3) I wish I could, just because I really enjoy digging into recruiting history. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find anything pre-1983 on-line. I know my Dad used to get a recruiting newsletter back in the 70's. I wish we would have held on to them.

While I agree that Knight's #'s were probably a little bit better right around the time of him fielding two of the greatest teams to ever play, I certainly don't see the 1983-92 era as substandard in any way. The noticeable dip in recruiting performance came post 1992 which is the reason I broke the data into the era's that I did. The 1983-1992 era represents the best recruiting era for IU that I currently have any data for.

-- I'm not saying that the general objections that people have against Crean are wrong. I just see many of these arguments as being far from as cut and dried as some make them out to be. In fact some pretty basic statistics flat out refute several of the debate points that are frequently reiterated.

 

[Paterfamilias]

Thank you for taking time to assemble the numbers.

The 'storied' part of IU's history was written before 2001. Can you please cross-tabulate and re-rank again, excluding results for '01 - '16 for all teams?

Then with a second table, cross-tabulate an re-rank all teams for only the '01 - '16 period.

I will do this in a couple of days, but I think it is easily enough seen how that would turn out. The point wasn't really where IU ranks historically though. I think looking at the time increments shows that IU has not been the same kind of program as the other bluebloods. IU has not had the super-elite talent level required to just live in the AP Top 10. IU has built toward great teams then cashed in, whereas the other bluebloods simply reload and cash in less frequently than one would think given the talent advantage.

 

[Tasmanian Devil]

1)There should be much more emphasis on winning the Big Ten RS over BTT and the numbers show that I think.

• All BTT Winners- 12 of 19 Sweet 16's (.632)
• All BTRS Champs- 23 of 29 Sweet 16's (.793)
• Win Both RS & BTT- 9 of 10 Sweet 16's (.900)
• Win only the BTRS- 15 of 19 Sweet 16's (.789)
• Win only the BTT- 3 of 9 Sweet 16's (.333)

It certainly bodes well to win both RS and BTT, but if you're only going to win one of the two the RS Champs have fared much better.

2) No argument with the first part as I'm certainly a doubter as far as Crean's system being best suited for deep runs in the Tourney. As for the second part, I've only seen it said that Crean's system requires elite talent. I see Crean's system as leaning heavily towards offense. I just don't see a revolving door of elite level recruits as being helpful to his system. Certainly the defense would seem likely to improve due to the increased size and athleticism, but I see his system as a whole suffering if perpetually inexperienced.

3) I wish I could, just because I really enjoy digging into recruiting history. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find anything pre-1983 on-line. I know my Dad used to get a recruiting newsletter back in the 70's. I wish we would have held on to them.

While I agree that Knight's #'s were probably a little bit better right around the time of him fielding two of the greatest teams to ever play, I certainly don't see the 1983-92 era as substandard in any way. The noticeable dip in recruiting performance came post 1992 which is the reason I broke the data into the era's that I did. The 1983-1992 era represents the best recruiting era for IU that I currently have any data for.

-- I'm not saying that the general objections that people have against Crean are wrong. I just see many of these arguments as being far from as cut and dried as some make them out to be. In fact some pretty basic statistics flat out refute several of the debate points that are frequently reiterated.

What is your #1 section reflect - all Big 10 teams, or just IU?

I've said on part #2 that Crean's team needs elite talent. With less talented players he might still have a pretty good offense, but his team's won't go far in the tournament - either BTT or NCAA.

There was a dip in the state from around 82-86 in talent. Not surprisingly, IU struggled for a couple of years during the mid '80s.

 

[IU Scott]

I typically like to lay out a few stats without commentary. It's good, I think, for people to draw their own conclusions. This is the case particularly when the person providing the statistics/data has no real expertise or insight into whatever it is that they are providing statistics/data for.

Since this is a message board, I've very slowly discovered that it is the commentary and the commentary alone (no matter how uninformed) that people are interested in. The reason for that (imo) is that most people on message boards are primarily interested in debating ideas rather than evolving them.

It's in that vein that I want to revisit a few of the ideas that have been discussed this off-season along with some of the research that I've done in thinking through some of these ideas.

#1 I've seen it discussed, since the end of last season, this idea that the Big Ten Championship should be viewed as a secondary goal. Some say that those who put too much emphasis on the Big Ten Championship are "settlers". I have always been and currently reside firmly in the detractor camp where Crean is concerned. That said, I think this notion of diminishing the Big Ten Title is an extremely weak argument on the part of my fellow travelers, and here's why... btw it ties in with Sweet 16 "settler" argument.

Since the NCAA began seeding teams for the famous 1979 Bird vs Magic Tournament.

• Indiana has won 10 Big Ten Championships.
• Those 10 Big Ten Champions have reached 10 Sweet 16's.
• That leaves 28 Indiana teams that did not win the Big Ten Championship
• Of which only 4 reached the Sweet 16

For those keeping score that is 100% Sweet 16's for Big Ten Championship Hoosier teams and 14% Sweet 16's for Non-Big Ten Championship Hoosier teams. You can't win an NCAA Title without reaching the Sweet 16 and winning the Big Ten seems to be the preferred route to the Sweet 16.

#2 This one is a two part-er. First of all, there has been a lot of discussion about the weakness of Crean's recruiting. Could it be better? Sure! However, when you compare Crean's success rate landing top 75 players to IU's historic success rates, this argument doesn't hold much water.

The chart below (Top 20 schools the past 8 years ranked by % of Top 75 players landed plus some historic IU era's) illustrates clearly that there is little difference between the quality of player that Crean has been bringing in the past 8 seasons and that of which Knight brought in from 1983-92. Even Knight's better strike rate with McDonald's All-Americans is brought into a different light when you consider that 3 of Knight's McD AA's were ranked in the 40-55 range (Daryl Thomas #41, Greg Graham #46, Neil Reed #52) where Crean has also landed a few (Davis, Hollowell, Watford, Johnson, Perea and Williams).

Knight is one of the greatest coaches in any sport that have ever lived. His teams were much more successful and his players are rightfully esteemed in IU lore. To expect/demand Crean to bring in highly touted players at a much higher rate than Knight did is unrealistic imo.

The second part of the recruiting argument is the notion that Crean needs elite talent for his system to be successful. An interesting fact is that

• Indiana'a offense has been ranked in the Top 10 (kenpom) 4 of the past 5 seasons
• Only Duke (5 of 5) and Kentucky (4 of 5) have managed to equal Indiana's offensive success
• Iowa St is the only other team to appear in the top 10 in 3 of the past 5 seasons

The 2 Big Ten titles and 3 Sweet 16's, no matter what you might think of them, at least imply some level of success

Even if Crean were to begin getting elite talent, I have my doubts that he would be as sucessful as he has been. Crean's offense requires experience, time played together or chemistry if you will. The one disastrous offensive season followed the departure of four 1,000 minute players.

#3 Lastly, the elite question. Indiana has a great and storied history in College Basketball. It would be awesome to be the greatest and most storied, but other schools have operated differently throughout the history of the game and played in conferences which were not nearly as difficult to amass a large number of wins each and every year. Thus, those schools have attained a loftier perch in the hierarchy. I like our history better and would be satisfied to see IU just get back to being IU. For a variety reasons, I am not jealous of those other schools and I can't be convinced to be so.

At any rate, the chart below breaks the last 68 seasons (since the beginning of the AP Poll) into 17 four year segments. Using appollarchive.com I found the Top 16 schools in each 4 year period ranked by # of appearances in the AP Poll Top 10. Notice that IU has never, ever been the reload type of basketball program that consistently hovered in and around the Top 10 in the AP Poll. Even the 12 year run from 81-92 that featured 2 National Titles saw IU much more up and down than the schools we try to compare ourselves to usually are.

Indiana has built great teams over a period of every few years and cashed in as best it could when the crop was ripe. IU's greatness until recent times has been it's ability to be pretty good most of the time, while building toward the occasional great season or two.

To hold Crean or any coach to an expectation that is even above IU's own storied history is unreasonable. The first step is to get back to where we were, then discuss world domination. Have I stumbled into the settler's paradigm?

That is exactly what I have been saying but you illustrated it a lot better than I ever could. Great post and really appreciate the hard work you must have done on this.

 

[Paterfamilias]

What is your #1 section reflect - all Big 10 teams, or just IU?

I've said on part #2 that Crean's team needs elite talent. With less talented players he might still have a pretty good offense, but his team's won't go far in the tournament - either BTT or NCAA.

There was a dip in the state from around 82-86 in talent. Not surprisingly, IU struggled for a couple of years during the mid '80s.

The #1 section is referencing all Big Ten teams since the conference started the Tournament

On #2 you may well be right on all counts. I just see hints that his system whether good or bad requires experience,continuity and chemistry. I think it takes a fantastic coach to win big while perpetually young. Crean, imo, is not in the class of K or Cal who are the only ones who haven't suffered when their teams are too inexperienced.

On #3 There's really not much more that can be said here as it's as far back as we can go. The main point is that if Crean's "on paper" talent is close to equal to the best #'s that IU has produced in 34 years.. it just can't be as bad as some make it out to be.

 

[Wat Shot]

I will do this in a couple of days, but I think it is easily enough seen how that would turn out. The point wasn't really where IU ranks historically though. I think looking at the time increments shows that IU has not been the same kind of program as the other bluebloods. IU has not had the super-elite talent level required to just live in the AP Top 10. IU has built toward great teams then cashed in, whereas the other bluebloods simply reload and cash in less frequently than one would think given the talent advantage.

Interesteing post. One thing I'll disagree with is this idea that IU has been a fringe blueblood historically. Yes our Top ten rankings or Even FFs don't stack up to other blue bloods.
Here's what does 5 NCAAs!
Also our win rate in the FF is absurd.
5 titles on 8 apperances, even better in title games 5 of 6. So no we don't have as many FFs as other bluebloods. What we do have is titles.

 

[Paterfamilias]

Interesteing post. One thing I'll disagree with is this idea that IU has been a fringe blueblood historically. Yes our Top ten rankings or Even FFs don't stack up to other blue bloods.
Here's what does 5 NCAAs!
Also our win rate in the FF is absurd.
5 titles on 8 apperances, even better in title games 5 of 6. So no we don't have as many FFs as other bluebloods. What we do have is titles.

Just to clarify, I don't consider IU to be a fringe blueblood historically either. I just think that IU operated differently than the other bluebloods historically operated. The other bluebloods to some extent bought their success through whatever means they used to accumulate the most talent consistently year in year out. IU relied on playing better basketball, which resulted in Titles whenever a contender was built.

 

[becauseIknow]

Paterfamilias, you are one of my favorite posters. We don't always agree, but you at least make an attempt to bring facts (not opinions) to the argument. I do have several nits on your post, but nothing that cannot be further expanded upon.

#1, that point is great. B10 RS are important, elite, etc. Absolutely agree. Not just for the predictive value of what they mean down the road, but more importantly what a team accomplishes over the longhaul of the season and not just a few games.

#2, this is where I have a slight nit and a suggestion for improvement. I like the approach, but McD's AA is quite political. I'm not sure that's the best evaluator of recruiting ability. Certainly should be considered, but I would think pulling in a RSCI composite rankings would also help to add strength to your argument in this area.

#3 Bravo!! People remember the elite years, and quickly forget the not so great years. When one mentions how up and down we were at times, or early exits, the typical comeback is "he gets a pass because he won a title". That's a foolish argument in many respects. Of course you tip your hat at the championships, but that doesn't make the down years any less down. If an elite coach like RMK can have some stubbed toe seasons, then anyone can. RMK is a top 5 college coach of all time. Some will say top 2. There is no one else in the landscape out there right now that is top 5 walking through those doors. This doesn't stop people anyway from thinking a change for the sake of changing is a good idea. In fact, it is a bad idea, especially how we are trending of late. I suspect Fred Glass knows this.

Good work by you.

 

[Wat Shot]

Just to clarify, I don't consider IU to be a fringe blueblood historically either. I just think that IU operated differently than the other bluebloods historically operated. The other bluebloods to some extent bought their success through whatever means they used to accumulate the most talent consistently year in year out. IU relied on playing better basketball, which resulted in Titles whenever a contender was built.

I cannot agree with you more about the BIG TEN. When people dismiss winning the BIG, to me that's like dismissing a FF quality team.
A very well thought out post sir.

 

[becauseIknow]

I cannot agree with you more about the BIG TEN. When people dismiss winning the BIG, to me that's like dismissing a FF quality team.
A very well thought out post sir.

Some people here have agendas, and because we have won 2 of the last 5, they dismiss the accomplishment. That is how sad it has become for some IU fans.

 

[TeeJay88]

I typically like to lay out a few stats without commentary. It's good, I think, for people to draw their own conclusions. This is the case particularly when the person providing the statistics/data has no real expertise or insight into whatever it is that they are providing statistics/data for.

Since this is a message board, I've very slowly discovered that it is the commentary and the commentary alone (no matter how uninformed) that people are interested in. The reason for that (imo) is that most people on message boards are primarily interested in debating ideas rather than evolving them.

It's in that vein that I want to revisit a few of the ideas that have been discussed this off-season along with some of the research that I've done in thinking through some of these ideas.

#1 I've seen it discussed, since the end of last season, this idea that the Big Ten Championship should be viewed as a secondary goal. Some say that those who put too much emphasis on the Big Ten Championship are "settlers". I have always been and currently reside firmly in the detractor camp where Crean is concerned. That said, I think this notion of diminishing the Big Ten Title is an extremely weak argument on the part of my fellow travelers, and here's why... btw it ties in with Sweet 16 "settler" argument.

Since the NCAA began seeding teams for the famous 1979 Bird vs Magic Tournament.

• Indiana has won 10 Big Ten Championships.
• Those 10 Big Ten Champions have reached 10 Sweet 16's.
• That leaves 28 Indiana teams that did not win the Big Ten Championship
• Of which only 4 reached the Sweet 16

For those keeping score that is 100% Sweet 16's for Big Ten Championship Hoosier teams and 14% Sweet 16's for Non-Big Ten Championship Hoosier teams. You can't win an NCAA Title without reaching the Sweet 16 and winning the Big Ten seems to be the preferred route to the Sweet 16.

#2 This one is a two part-er. First of all, there has been a lot of discussion about the weakness of Crean's recruiting. Could it be better? Sure! However, when you compare Crean's success rate landing top 75 players to IU's historic success rates, this argument doesn't hold much water.

The chart below (Top 20 schools the past 8 years ranked by % of Top 75 players landed plus some historic IU era's) illustrates clearly that there is little difference between the quality of player that Crean has been bringing in the past 8 seasons and that of which Knight brought in from 1983-92. Even Knight's better strike rate with McDonald's All-Americans is brought into a different light when you consider that 3 of Knight's McD AA's were ranked in the 40-55 range (Daryl Thomas #41, Greg Graham #46, Neil Reed #52) where Crean has also landed a few (Davis, Hollowell, Watford, Johnson, Perea and Williams).

Knight is one of the greatest coaches in any sport that have ever lived. His teams were much more successful and his players are rightfully esteemed in IU lore. To expect/demand Crean to bring in highly touted players at a much higher rate than Knight did is unrealistic imo.

The second part of the recruiting argument is the notion that Crean needs elite talent for his system to be successful. An interesting fact is that

• Indiana'a offense has been ranked in the Top 10 (kenpom) 4 of the past 5 seasons
• Only Duke (5 of 5) and Kentucky (4 of 5) have managed to equal Indiana's offensive success
• Iowa St is the only other team to appear in the top 10 in 3 of the past 5 seasons

The 2 Big Ten titles and 3 Sweet 16's, no matter what you might think of them, at least imply some level of success

Even if Crean were to begin getting elite talent, I have my doubts that he would be as sucessful as he has been. Crean's offense requires experience, time played together or chemistry if you will. The one disastrous offensive season followed the departure of four 1,000 minute players.

#3 Lastly, the elite question. Indiana has a great and storied history in College Basketball. It would be awesome to be the greatest and most storied, but other schools have operated differently throughout the history of the game and played in conferences which were not nearly as difficult to amass a large number of wins each and every year. Thus, those schools have attained a loftier perch in the hierarchy. I like our history better and would be satisfied to see IU just get back to being IU. For a variety reasons, I am not jealous of those other schools and I can't be convinced to be so.

At any rate, the chart below breaks the last 68 seasons (since the beginning of the AP Poll) into 17 four year segments. Using appollarchive.com I found the Top 16 schools in each 4 year period ranked by # of appearances in the AP Poll Top 10. Notice that IU has never, ever been the reload type of basketball program that consistently hovered in and around the Top 10 in the AP Poll. Even the 12 year run from 81-92 that featured 2 National Titles saw IU much more up and down than the schools we try to compare ourselves to usually are.

Indiana has built great teams over a period of every few years and cashed in as best it could when the crop was ripe. IU's greatness until recent times has been it's ability to be pretty good most of the time, while building toward the occasional great season or two.

To hold Crean or any coach to an expectation that is even above IU's own storied history is unreasonable. The first step is to get back to where we were, then discuss world domination. Have I stumbled into the settler's paradigm?

Nice recap. Thanks.

 

[Tasmanian Devil]

.

#2, this is where I have a slight nit and a suggestion for improvement. I like the approach, but McD's AA is quite political. I'm not sure that's the best evaluator of recruiting ability. Certainly should be considered, but I would think pulling in a RSCI composite rankings would also help to add strength to your argument in this area.
.

This is not a good argument.

RSCI is the "best" indicator? Where a guy can be ranked anywhere from 140 - 360 and STILL be a 3 star?

 

[tru123dt]

This is not a good argument.

RSCI is the "best" indicator? Where a guy can be ranked anywhere from 140 - 360 and STILL be a 3 star?

Do you know of a better indicator of talent?

 

[choptalk]

Just to clarify, I don't consider IU to be a fringe blueblood historically either. I just think that IU operated differently than the other bluebloods historically operated. The other bluebloods to some extent bought their success through whatever means they used to accumulate the most talent consistently year in year out. IU relied on playing better basketball, which resulted in Titles whenever a contender was built.

Better basketball? How many pros were on the 76 team? The 81 team had one of the all time great guards and another player who would have been in the nba if it wasn't for the horrific crash that left him paralyzed. The 92-93 team had a ton of talent, including the all time scorer in the BIG . About 3 years ago the number one rated Hoosiers had the number 2 and 4 pick in the draft. Where does this less talent nonsense come from?

 

[Paterfamilias]

Better basketball? How many pros were on the 76 team? The 81 team had one of the all time great guards and another player who would have been in the nba if it wasn't for the horrific crash that left him paralyzed. The 92-93 team had a ton of talent, including the all time scorer in the BIG . About 3 years ago the number one rated Hoosiers had the number 2 and 4 pick in the draft. Where does this less talent nonsense come from?

I'm the one arguing that Indiana has a lot of talent and pretty much always has, but compared to UNC, UK and the very elite recruiters of the different era's IU has generally been a notch below. I don't follow the NBA much, but I don't think the '76 team had any NBA All-Star type of players. I think the '81 team was probably IU's most talented, but it wouldn't stack up that well with the most talented teams of UNC, UK or quite a few others honestly.

Indiana has been blessed with much more talent than Purdue no doubt, but Purdue hasn't won any championships either. The "better basketball" comment was in comparing IU to the other bluebloods and in that regard we've rarely had the talent advantage.

 

[Shirtsandskins]

I typically like to lay out a few stats without commentary. It's good, I think, for people to draw their own conclusions. This is the case particularly when the person providing the statistics/data has no real expertise or insight into whatever it is that they are providing statistics/data for.

Since this is a message board, I've very slowly discovered that it is the commentary and the commentary alone (no matter how uninformed) that people are interested in. The reason for that (imo) is that most people on message boards are primarily interested in debating ideas rather than evolving them.

It's in that vein that I want to revisit a few of the ideas that have been discussed this off-season along with some of the research that I've done in thinking through some of these ideas.

#1 I've seen it discussed, since the end of last season, this idea that the Big Ten Championship should be viewed as a secondary goal. Some say that those who put too much emphasis on the Big Ten Championship are "settlers". I have always been and currently reside firmly in the detractor camp where Crean is concerned. That said, I think this notion of diminishing the Big Ten Title is an extremely weak argument on the part of my fellow travelers, and here's why... btw it ties in with Sweet 16 "settler" argument.

Since the NCAA began seeding teams for the famous 1979 Bird vs Magic Tournament.

• Indiana has won 10 Big Ten Championships.
• Those 10 Big Ten Champions have reached 10 Sweet 16's.
• That leaves 28 Indiana teams that did not win the Big Ten Championship
• Of which only 4 reached the Sweet 16

For those keeping score that is 100% Sweet 16's for Big Ten Championship Hoosier teams and 14% Sweet 16's for Non-Big Ten Championship Hoosier teams. You can't win an NCAA Title without reaching the Sweet 16 and winning the Big Ten seems to be the preferred route to the Sweet 16.

#2 This one is a two part-er. First of all, there has been a lot of discussion about the weakness of Crean's recruiting. Could it be better? Sure! However, when you compare Crean's success rate landing top 75 players to IU's historic success rates, this argument doesn't hold much water.

The chart below (Top 20 schools the past 8 years ranked by % of Top 75 players landed plus some historic IU era's) illustrates clearly that there is little difference between the quality of player that Crean has been bringing in the past 8 seasons and that of which Knight brought in from 1983-92. Even Knight's better strike rate with McDonald's All-Americans is brought into a different light when you consider that 3 of Knight's McD AA's were ranked in the 40-55 range (Daryl Thomas #41, Greg Graham #46, Neil Reed #52) where Crean has also landed a few (Davis, Hollowell, Watford, Johnson, Perea and Williams).

Knight is one of the greatest coaches in any sport that have ever lived. His teams were much more successful and his players are rightfully esteemed in IU lore. To expect/demand Crean to bring in highly touted players at a much higher rate than Knight did is unrealistic imo.

The second part of the recruiting argument is the notion that Crean needs elite talent for his system to be successful. An interesting fact is that

• Indiana'a offense has been ranked in the Top 10 (kenpom) 4 of the past 5 seasons
• Only Duke (5 of 5) and Kentucky (4 of 5) have managed to equal Indiana's offensive success
• Iowa St is the only other team to appear in the top 10 in 3 of the past 5 seasons

The 2 Big Ten titles and 3 Sweet 16's, no matter what you might think of them, at least imply some level of success

Even if Crean were to begin getting elite talent, I have my doubts that he would be as sucessful as he has been. Crean's offense requires experience, time played together or chemistry if you will. The one disastrous offensive season followed the departure of four 1,000 minute players.

#3 Lastly, the elite question. Indiana has a great and storied history in College Basketball. It would be awesome to be the greatest and most storied, but other schools have operated differently throughout the history of the game and played in conferences which were not nearly as difficult to amass a large number of wins each and every year. Thus, those schools have attained a loftier perch in the hierarchy. I like our history better and would be satisfied to see IU just get back to being IU. For a variety reasons, I am not jealous of those other schools and I can't be convinced to be so.

At any rate, the chart below breaks the last 68 seasons (since the beginning of the AP Poll) into 17 four year segments. Using appollarchive.com I found the Top 16 schools in each 4 year period ranked by # of appearances in the AP Poll Top 10. Notice that IU has never, ever been the reload type of basketball program that consistently hovered in and around the Top 10 in the AP Poll. Even the 12 year run from 81-92 that featured 2 National Titles saw IU much more up and down than the schools we try to compare ourselves to usually are.

Indiana has built great teams over a period of every few years and cashed in as best it could when the crop was ripe. IU's greatness until recent times has been it's ability to be pretty good most of the time, while building toward the occasional great season or two.

To hold Crean or any coach to an expectation that is even above IU's own storied history is unreasonable. The first step is to get back to where we were, then discuss world domination. Have I stumbled into the settler's paradigm?

1) the big ten title is diminished by not having a true round robin. You can throw around all the stats you want, but the five seed proves that it's not just the haters who think the title has been diminished

2) I don't care if it's the recruiting or the coaching,

3) meh

 

[Paterfamilias]

1) the big ten title is diminished by not having a true round robin. You can throw around all the stats you want, but the five seed proves that it's not just the haters who think the title has been diminished

2) I don't care if it's the recruiting or the coaching,

3) meh

The #5 seed only proves that this past season featured one of the weakest Big Ten's in memory. The Big Ten hasn't played a round robin in a really long time. Through the entirety of the BTT era the Big Ten regular season champ has been far more likely to advance to the Sweet 16 than the BTT champ. I don't consider the numbers shown below to be anything less than facts. If you don't accept facts, then there is nothing much left to discuss.

• All BTT Winners- 12 of 19 Sweet 16's (.632)
• All BTRS Champs- 23 of 29 Sweet 16's (.793)
• Win Both RS & BTT- 9 of 10 Sweet 16's (.900)
• Win only the BTRS- 15 of 19 Sweet 16's (.789)
• Win only the BTT- 3 of 9 Sweet 16's (.333)

 

[Shirtsandskins]

The #5 seed only proves that this past season featured one of the weakest Big Ten's in memory. The Big Ten hasn't played a round robin in a really long time. Through the entirety of the BTT era the Big Ten regular season champ has been far more likely to advance to the Sweet 16 than the BTT champ. I don't consider the numbers shown below to be anything less than facts. If you don't accept facts, then there is nothing much left to discuss.

• All BTT Winners- 12 of 19 Sweet 16's (.632)
• All BTRS Champs- 23 of 29 Sweet 16's (.793)
• Win Both RS & BTT- 9 of 10 Sweet 16's (.900)
• Win only the BTRS- 15 of 19 Sweet 16's (.789)
• Win only the BTT- 3 of 9 Sweet 16's (.333)

I accept facts, yes winning the conference is a good indicator of a short NCAAT run, yay. That is likely due to it usually leading to a good seed, but anyway

True round robin titles mean more than what we have now. It's been diminished by the conference scheduling

 

[Paterfamilias]

I accept facts, yes winning the conference is a good indicator of a short NCAAT run, yay. That is likely due to it usually leading to a good seed, but anyway

True round robin titles mean more than what we have now. It's been diminished by the conference scheduling

Well, getting a good seed is the point, and quite difficult to do if you don't win the conference. MSU managed to pull off a high seed this past year without winning the conference, but that didn't turn out to good. Here's something that shows the importance of a good seed if you want to make a deep tourney run.

• 30 of 128 #1 seeds have advanced to Title Game for odds of (3.26-1)
• 13 of 128 #2 seeds have advanced to Title Game for odds of (8.85-1)
• 09 of 128 #3 seeds have advanced to Title Game for odds of (13.22-1)
• 03 of 128 #4 seeds have advanced to Title Game for odds of (41.66-1)
• 03 of 128 #5 seeds have advanced to Title Game for odds of (41.66-1)
• 02 of 128 #6 seeds have advanced to Title Game for odds of (63-1)
• 01 of 128 #7 seeds have advanced to Title Game for odds of (127-1)
• 03 of 128 #8 seeds have advanced to Title Game for odds of (41.66-1)

Edit* This is for the 32 NCAA Tournaments since it was first expanded to 64 teams in 1985

 

[IU Scott]

1) the big ten title is diminished by not having a true round robin. You can throw around all the stats you want, but the five seed proves that it's not just the haters who think the title has been diminished

2) I don't care if it's the recruiting or the coaching,

3) meh

I think the 5 seed had to do more with OOC schedule and the strength of it than it did the strength of the conference. If it is about the conference tournament then why did UK get a lower seed than did Texas A&M even though UK won both the regular season the tournament.

 

[Shirtsandskins]

I think the 5 seed had to do more with OOC schedule and the strength of it than it did the strength of the conference. If it is about the conference tournament then why did UK get a lower seed than did Texas A&M even though UK won both the regular season the tournament.

I think you are proving my point. And where did I mention the conference tournament?

Titles don't mean as much as they used too. Especially with the NCAAT. They are looking at who you played, not which trophies you won

 

[Paterfamilias]

I think the 5 seed had to do more with OOC schedule and the strength of it than it did the strength of the conference. If it is about the conference tournament then why did UK get a lower seed than did Texas A&M even though UK won both the regular season the tournament.

The Big Ten was pretty bad! IU went 15-3 without beating a team that ultimately received a top 4 seeding.

Interesting fact: IU's last four wins over teams who ultimately earned a top 4 seed in the NCAA Tournament

• #4 Kentucky in 2016 NCAA Tournament
• #4 Maryland in 2014-15 regular season
• #2 Michigan in 2013-14 regular season
• #2 Mich. St. in 2013-14 regular season

 

[IU Scott]

I think you are proving my point. And where did I mention the conference tournament?

Titles don't mean as much as they used too. Especially with the NCAAT. They are looking at who you played, not which trophies you won

MSU got a 2 seed playing in the same conference and had a little weaker conference schedule than we did. I feel that MSU got a 2 seed because of the OOC schedule they had compared to ours. As a fan I just think winning the conference regular season is more meaningful than winning the BTT.

 

[Shirtsandskins]

Well, getting a good seed is the point, and quite difficult to do if you don't win the conference. MSU managed to pull off a high seed this past year without winning the conference, but that didn't turn out to good. Here's something that shows the importance of a good seed if you want to make a deep tourney run.

• 30 of 128 #1 seeds have advanced to Title Game for odds of (3.26-1)
• 13 of 128 #2 seeds have advanced to Title Game for odds of (8.85-1)
• 09 of 128 #3 seeds have advanced to Title Game for odds of (13.22-1)
• 03 of 128 #4 seeds have advanced to Title Game for odds of (41.66-1)
• 03 of 128 #5 seeds have advanced to Title Game for odds of (41.66-1)
• 02 of 128 #6 seeds have advanced to Title Game for odds of (63-1)
• 01 of 128 #7 seeds have advanced to Title Game for odds of (127-1)
• 03 of 128 #8 seeds have advanced to Title Game for odds of (41.66-1)

Edit* This is for the 32 NCAA Tournaments since it was first expanded to 64 teams in 1985

That's kinda my point, the indicator isn't the title, it's the seed. Of course One usually goes with the other

Winning an unbalanced schedule title isn't as meaningful as winning a true round robin title...they're both nice accomplishments but they aren't equal....diminished does not mean irrelevant

 

[Shirtsandskins]

MSU got a 2 seed playing in the same conference and had a little weaker conference schedule than we did. I feel that MSU got a 2 seed because of the OOC schedule they had compared to ours. As a fan I just think winning the conference regular season is more meaningful than winning the BTT.

I haven't said anything about the BTT, why do you keep replying to me about it?

 

[Paterfamilias]

That's kinda my point, the indicator isn't the title, it's the seed. Of course One usually goes with the other

Winning an unbalanced schedule title isn't as meaningful as winning a true round robin title...they're both nice accomplished but they aren't equal....diminished does not mean irrelevant

I agree about the difference between unbalanced vs round robin, but it's been like a quarter of a century since the Big Ten has played a true round robin. The first I've really heard about the title being diminished from anyone is immediately after IU wins one. Come to think of it, nobody talked about this after the 2012-13 title. I think it's the weak Big Ten and IU's favorable schedule that has people viewing this one particular title in a diminished way.

 

[Shirtsandskins]

I agree about the difference between unbalanced vs round robin, but it's been like a quarter of a century since the Big Ten has played a true round robin. The first I've really heard about the title being diminished from anyone is immediately after IU wins one. Come to think of it, nobody talked about this after the 2012-13 title. I think it's the weak Big Ten and IU's favorable schedule that has people viewing this one particular title in a diminished way.

Its also probably a reaction to the selection committee completely dismissing conference titles

Seasons are increasingly becoming just a series of games, non conference/in conference, it doesn't matter. They are all just games, judged equally. it's who you play, who you beat, and who you lose too not which trophies you collect along the way

 

[Tasmanian Devil]

Do you know of a better indicator of talent?

This truly depends on how you use this an an indicator.

Here is Grant Gelon's 247 composite ranking. National comp of 322.

Here is Jordan Hull's 247 composite ranking. National comp of 137.

Here is Derek Elston's 247 composite ranking. National comp of 109.

247 rates any kid from an 89 to 80 as a 3 Star - regardless of whether or not their overall comp falls 101 or 381. So to say a kid is a "3 Star" when their overall rating is 300+ doesn't give a true evaluation of their ability as a player.

New Albany won the 4A state title this past spring. Liberty Christian won the 1A state title. So are we going to say New Albany and Liberty Christian are on the same level - or even imply they are close - because they are both "state champions"? Hell no - at least I hope not!

What I would like to see (if someone can provide a link) is the rankings from ALL the services that make up a RSCI ranking. Anyone have that info?

 

[Paterfamilias]

I think the 5 seed had to do more with OOC schedule and the strength of it than it did the strength of the conference. If it is about the conference tournament then why did UK get a lower seed than did Texas A&M even though UK won both the regular season the tournament.

Quality wins is what separated Texas A&M and Kentucky imo

Kentucky beat

• Louisville
• A&M
• Vandy
• Duke

Texas A&M beat

• Texas
• Gonzaga
• Baylor
• Iowa St.
• Vandy
• Kentucky

Kentucky also had 1 extra loss to a non-Tourney team. It was an easy call and no conspiracy imo

 

[Paterfamilias]

Its also probably a reaction to the selection committee completely dismissing conference titles

Seasons are increasingly becoming just a series of games, non conference/in conference, it doesn't matter. They are all just games, judged equally. it's who you play, who you beat, and who you lose too not which trophies you collect along the way

This is a really good point. I still think that winning the conference is the best route, but the committee is no longer overlooking bad scheduling and a down year in a power conference the way it once did. Getting 1's and 2 seeds are still the way to go though and nothing puts you in the running for one of those coveted spots like a conference championship.

 

[Tasmanian Devil]

I haven't said anything about the BTT, why do you keep replying to me about it?

Probably because of the arguments he's gotten from a number of us that last year's Big 10 RS championship, while nice, wasn't a big, big deal. Nothing like 2013.

Here is the seeds for the NCAA teams from the conference in 2016:
Indiana (5)
Michigan St. (2)
Maryland (5)
Purdue (5)
Iowa (7)
Wisconsin (7)

Here is the seeds for the NCAA teams from the conference in 2013:
Indiana (1)
Michigan St. (3)
Ohio St (2)
Michigan (4)
Wisconsin (5)
Illinois (7)
Minnesota (11)

Clearly, a better conference in 2013 than last year. Winning 2013 was something to be really proud of. This past title was nothing to hang your hat on - unless you've got nothing else.

 

[IU Scott]

I haven't said anything about the BTT, why do you keep replying to me about it?

Because that is what this whole discussion has been about whether the conference championship is more meaningful than BTT championship.

 

[Shirtsandskins]

Because that is what this whole discussion has been about whether the conference championship is more meaningful than BTT championship.

That's not the topic, you are the only one who mentioned the BTT

The topic was about the regular season title being diminished in some peoples eyes

 

[IU Scott]

That's not the topic, you are the only one who mentioned the BTT

The topic was about the regular season title being diminished in some peoples eyes

Maybe right now but the discussion has been all weekend about what is more important.

 

[Shirtsandskins]

Maybe right now but the discussion has been all weekend about what is more important.

Then reply in those discussions

 

[Paterfamilias]

Here's another way of looking at this that I think is pretty cool. Since the goal is to get the highest seed possible, I just looked at the last 10 years of the Power 6 (counting the Big East) to see how often a RS Non- Conference Champ received a higher seed than the RS Conference Champion. Here are the times it has happened.

2015-16 RS Big Ten Champ Indiana was seeded lower than RS Non- Champ Michigan St.
2010-11 RS ACC Champ No. Carolina was seeded lower than RS Non- Champ Duke
2011-12 RS PAC 12 Champ Washington didn't make the Tournament, but Cal & Colorado did

So, over 10 years these 6 conferences crowned 71 Regular Season Champions and only 3 of those Champions saw a Regular Season Non-Champion seeded higher. That means that nearly 96% of the time it has been better for seeding purposes to win the Regular Season Conference Championship. We just happened to see one of those times effect IU.

*I realize the wording of this is strange. Hopefully it makes sense anyway. RS Non- Champion just refers to any team that did not win the regular season conference championship.

 

[cheyennemtnman]

Then reply in those discussions

My my.. look who wants to control the forum....you are a silly "man"