WHY Crean is not going to make IU "Elite" again

[SuperHoosierFan]

We’ve gone back and forth on here several times this past year – really, since the Syracuse loss 3 years ago – on whether Tom Crean is the right coach for Indiana.


Some of you think he’s doing a great job. Others, while hoping for better results, were pretty satisfied with this past season.


Me? Most of you know by now my feelings on Tom Crean. It’s not that I want to feel this way; in fact, I was thrilled when he was hired in 2008 (thought he should have been in 2006 instead of Sampson).


But after the past 8 years – especially the last three – I’ve had to face a sobering reality: what we’ve seen from Tom Crean-led teams up to this point (and throughout his head coaching career) is what we’re gonna get. It just is. I’ve been privileged to get to know a lot of coaches both in HS and AAU in the past decade, and they’ve helped open my eyes to WHY Tom Crean teams fair as they do.

As I’ve said before many times, Crean wants to play a fast-paced style (like UNC or UK) but his teams don’t do the things necessary to have success on an elite level consistently. That is the key here – consistently.


Take a look at some stats with me. I shared some of the following in another thread, but want to go more into detail here. This link looks at how teams statistically perform each year – it goes all the way back to the 1997-98 season. You can look up almost every conceivable stat, but the ones that are the strongest indicators of how successful a team is/isn’t are offensive efficiency, defensive efficiency, turnovers and rebounds. (You can choose which stat link you wish at the top).


Why these stats? Obviously, scoring more points than the other team is the objective. But just HOW do you do that? Just by simply shooting the ball well? That helps, obviously - but what happens when you run into a really good defensive team in a tournament format (either BTT or NCAA)? You have to (and I’ve had numerous coaches tell me this over the past 10 years) maximize possessions. You can shoot at a lower percentage than your opponent IF you get more attempts. And to do that, you have to do the other things besides shooting the ball well.


Let’s take a look at this past season. I’ve said on here numerous times this year that the 2015-16 Hoosiers were overly reliant on offense for their success, and that Crean wants to play like North Carolina and Kentucky. Let’s see a statistical comparison between those three teams, starting with offense:

2016        Tom Crean      Roy Williams  John Calipari

Off. Eff    1.169 (1)      1.153 (4)      1.127 (11)

IU led the nation in offensive efficiency – ahead of both the Tar Heels and Wildcats. In 17 years as a Head Basketball Coach, his teams have been Top 10 5 times, Top 5 four times and led the nation twice (2016,2003). Conversely, Roy Williams has had 7 season with Top 5 offenses since 1997-98 (the link provided only goes back to that season) and John Calipari has had 2 top 10 offensive teams (he did, however, have 11th rated teams in both 2015 and 2016). So, no doubt, Crean is capable of coaching offense with either of these two guys.


But what is the old adage? “Defense wins championships”. Let’s take a look at how each team fared defensively in 2015-16:

2016        Tom Crean      Roy Williams  John Calipari

Def. Eff    .989 (106)    .976 (82)      .965 (51)

On the surface, that doesn’t look too bad, does it? Crean appears to be close to both Williams and Calipari in producing an adequate defense.


But over 17 years as a coach, the past season was Crean’s 6th best defensive team. Since 1998, Williams has had FIFTEEN teams that were better defensively (6 in top 25, one of those as high as 3rd), while Calipari since 2000-01 (16 seasons) has had ELEVEN better teams than the #51 team of this past year – six of which were top 10 defenses with two #1’s and two #2’s.


Let’s take a look at a real problem this past year for IU – Turnovers. Check out these 2015-16 numbers:

2016        Tom Crean      Roy Williams  John Calipari

TO / gm    13.4 (258)    10.8 (29)      11.2 (49)

IU averaged almost 3 turnovers more per game than UNC, a little over 2 more than UK. Again (as I was told by a certain coach) you can’t give possessions away and hope to achieve at a high level. This has killed some of Crean’s better teams (they averaged 13.0 a game in 2013; not surprisingly, his best team (2003) averaged 12.5 on the way to the Final Four. Calipari teams at Memphis and UK have averaged 12.7/yr since 2001, while the 10.8 was an all-time low for Williams (and look at what the result was – national runner-up). Williams teams since 1998 have averaged 14.2 turnovers, slightly higher Crean (although his numbers are trending better the last 7-8 years than he did in the early 2000’s).


Now comes the real separation between Crean and the other two – rebounding:


2015-16

2016        Tom Crean      Roy Williams  John Calipari

Reb / gm    36.8 (119)    40.6 (15)      38.8 (50)

IU lost out on nearly 4 more possessions per game this past season than UNC, exactly two more per game than UK.


And Calipari and Williams didn’t even have some of their better rebounding teams this year. Since 1998 (19 seasons), Roy Williams has had 15 of his teams finish in the top 10 in the nation in rebounding; 12 of those teams were top 5, with 4 #1’s, 2 #2’s and 2 #3’s. That’s right, EIGHT teams in the top 3!! He has produced 11 teams that averaged 40 or more rebounds. Calipari has had 6 top 10 rebounding teams (2 top 5) and produced 6 teams that averaged 40 or more.


Tom Crean? In 17 years as a head coach, Crean has not had a SINGLE TEAM either in the top 10 OR a team to average 40 rebounds.


Wanna know what is the worst? Take a look at the Strength of Schedules – both overall and Non-Conference:

Year    IU / Crean        UNC/RW        UK/Cal  

        SOS   NC-SOS   SOS  NC-SOS    SOS   NC-SOS

2016    64    265      6    106       39    62

2015    65    322      1    15        31    100

2014    58    335      19   126       3     62

2013    17    293      19   183       71    138

2012    16    273      35   85        28    177

2011    27    323      8    39        15    52

2010    61    321      10   170       53    223

2009    3     76       15   126       70    56

2008    39    286      3    109       67    59

2007    53    268      7    88        109   86

2006    18    205      22   173       85    31

2005    102   235      1    73        91    147

2004    108   265      1    68        63    112

2003    46    178      2    54        86    105

2002    90    251      10   26        101   206

Tom Crean-led teams – as demonstrated in the stats above – have consistently performed worse than the teams/coaches whose style of play he wants to emulate, all while playing a MUCH WORSE schedule than either of them.


Again, I don’t want to say this. But when you take a look at how his team performs, and take into account whom they’ve been playing, how can you say Tom Crean is the right coach and say in the same breath your goal is to be elite (as Fred Glass did at the end of last season)? There is a direct correlation between how these team perform statistically and how they fare(d) in the NCAA Tournament.


Numbers don't lie. Tom Crean isn’t going to get us there, folks. The eye test in games like Duke, Michigan St, Syracuse in 2013, etc . . .gives an indication of that. The stats confirm it.

I was about this "thrilled" when we hired Crean.

 

[Tasmanian Devil]

Great post and information. I hadn't read it yet. I appreciate the time and effort.

When I posted this last spring someone (can't remember who) said I should re-post this midway thru the year. Thought with the current discussions going on regarding our coach it would be appropriate.

I really don't care if people agree with me. If someone has a opposite viewpoint, that's fine - but at least be able to tell us why. The results we've had aren't an accident or a coincidence. As the stats I provided indicate, they are a result of how we are coached and play.

 

[T.M.P.]

I guess he does not really understand the meaning of medicore. Medicore is average or right in the middle so if we finished 6th to 8th every year in the conference that would be mediocre or below average.

Depends on perspective and expectations. Maybe this is great for a Marquette level program, but for a program with IU's legacy the last few years are nothing but mediocre.

 

[burncycle911]

I think Crean should go. Great post. Will I think it will happen before 2020? Doubtful. Glass doesn't have the nerve to pull the trigger just yet. I boil down Crean's shortcomings with this statement:

No discipline.

 

[jsig]

I think these types of stats are used a lot in the NBA especially the TO rate and offensive efficiency numbers in evaluating players.

Mediocre? Crean has finished in the bottom half of the conference 5 of 8 years. If you want to give him a mulligan in the 1st 2 years then it becomes 3 of 6. His average finish in his 8 years is 8th almost 9th. With the 2 year mulligan it is 5th pushing 6th.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

I think these types of stats are used a lot in the NBA especially the TO rate and offensive efficiency numbers in evaluating players.

Mediocre? Crean has finished in the bottom half of the conference 5 of 8 years. If you want to give him a mulligan in the 1st 2 years then it becomes 3 of 6. His average finish in his 8 years is 8th almost 9th. With the 2 year mulligan it is 5th pushing 6th.

You can always go back and look at his season by season record at Marquette. Take away the FF run season and it's nothing all that special. He couldn't even dominate CUSA, who in the hell thought he would dominate the Big Ten?

 

[Tasmanian Devil]

You can always go back and look at his season by season record at Marquette. Take away the FF run season and it's nothing all that special. He couldn't even dominate CUSA, who in the hell thought he would dominate the Big Ten?

That's what really leaves me laughing . . . his record speaks for itself.

When MU moved to the Big East there could have been an expected drop, but drop from WHERE? In 6 years playing in the CUSA they finished 4th, 3rd, 2nd, 1st, 5th and 6th.

 

[Harpo Marxist]

The problem isn't Crean...a lot of mid-level programs would take him....Teams which like "getting into the tournament" would buy into his level of coaching.....He will get a team into the dance. The problem is with the BOT expectations and standards for IU basketball. Those standards are not in line with a Kansas or even a Louisville, let alone Duke, etc...Crean's resume' would not survive at those programs over 8 years. They have different expectations.

I would suggest that Crean is meeting the expectations that he has been given. That's why he is still here...and not particularly worried about his job.

 

[Squarepants]

and not particularly worried about his job.

You know this?

 

[Harpo Marxist]

You know this?

you'll notice I am "suggesting"....I have no more inside knowledge than one else. OTOH...since Crean is apparently meeting expectations, why would he be?

 

[Squarepants]

you'll notice I am "suggesting"....I have no more inside knowledge than one else. OTOH...since Crean is apparently meeting expectations, why would he be?

Just wondered. Everyone on here seems to have unlimited access to players and coaches (high school, college, AAU), and administrators…all their thoughts, opinions, and their futures.

I apologize for not seeing the "suggested", even though I would "suggest" that you were not "suggesting" that part of your statement.

Nevermind.

 

[Harpo Marxist]

Just wondered. Everyone on here seems to have unlimited access to players and coaches (high school, college, AAU), and administrators…all their thoughts, opinions, and their futures.

I apologize for not seeing the "suggested", even though I would "suggest" that you were not "suggesting" that part of your statement.

Nevermind.

You've nothing to apologize for....I live here rent free.....Maybe you should give equal weight to the rest of the statement....Why should Crean be worried about his job?

 

[Squarepants]

You've nothing to apologize for....I live here rent free.....Maybe you should give equal weight to the rest of the statement....Why should Crean be worried about his job?

I couldn't speak to that. I am not privy to conversations between the AD and CTC. Ask Bailey. He obviously is in on all the high level meetings were those kinds of decisions are made.

 

[bailey777]

You know this?

I smell a contract extension

 

[Bobsnotbucks]

The problem isn't Crean...a lot of mid-level programs would take him....Teams which like "getting into the tournament" would buy into his level of coaching.....He will get a team into the dance. The problem is with the BOT expectations and standards for IU basketball. Those standards are not in line with a Kansas or even a Louisville, let alone Duke, etc...Crean's resume' would not survive at those programs over 8 years. They have different expectations.

I would suggest that Crean is meeting the expectations that he has been given. That's why he is still here...and not particularly worried about his job.

Why do you believe that IU's Trustees are setting standards and expectations for the performance of the basketball coach? I don't think you understand how they function or what their primary focus is on.

 

[Harpo Marxist]

Why do you believe that IU's Trustees are setting standards and expectations for the performance of the basketball coach? I don't think you understand how they function or what their primary focus is on.

IU basketball is the cash cow at IU in athletics....That would have considerations for just about everybody from the head coach on up...to and including the BOT. Its all about the benjamins...eventually.

 

[Bobsnotbucks]

IU basketball is the cash cow at IU in athletics....That would have considerations for just about everybody from the head coach on up...to and including the BOT. Its all about the benjamins...eventually.

The basketball program and athletic department are solidly in the black, and that's where the Trustees expectations and standards lie. Beyond that, they have an athletic director to look after coaches, they're happy to let him do his job, and they're plenty happy with his performance. That's the reality of how they see this.

 

[Harpo Marxist]

The basketball program and athletic department are solidly in the black, and that's where the Trustees expectations and standards lie. Beyond that, they have an athletic director to look after coaches, they're happy to let him do his job, and they're plenty happy with his performance. That's the reality of how they see this.

 

[Harpo Marxist]

I would agree with you....and so do the benjamins...There is apparently plenty of happiness to go around...which is why I posed the question: Why would Crean be worried about his job? I haven't had any takers yet.

 

[dbmhoosier]

I would agree with you....and so do the benjamins...There is apparently plenty of happiness to go around...which is why I posed the question: Why would Crean be worried about his job? I haven't had any takers yet.

We'll according to the most in the know poster on the other site, and maybe this one as well, the boosters are having talks about removing Crean. Apparently if we had lost to ND last season Crean would've been gone. His seat is very warm if not on fire.

 

[Hoosier in Tokyo]

We’ve gone back and forth on here several times this past year – really, since the Syracuse loss 3 years ago – on whether Tom Crean is the right coach for Indiana.


Some of you think he’s doing a great job. Others, while hoping for better results, were pretty satisfied with this past season.


Me? Most of you know by now my feelings on Tom Crean. It’s not that I want to feel this way; in fact, I was thrilled when he was hired in 2008 (thought he should have been in 2006 instead of Sampson).


But after the past 8 years – especially the last three – I’ve had to face a sobering reality: what we’ve seen from Tom Crean-led teams up to this point (and throughout his head coaching career) is what we’re gonna get. It just is. I’ve been privileged to get to know a lot of coaches both in HS and AAU in the past decade, and they’ve helped open my eyes to WHY Tom Crean teams fair as they do.

As I’ve said before many times, Crean wants to play a fast-paced style (like UNC or UK) but his teams don’t do the things necessary to have success on an elite level consistently. That is the key here – consistently.


Take a look at some stats with me. I shared some of the following in another thread, but want to go more into detail here. This link looks at how teams statistically perform each year – it goes all the way back to the 1997-98 season. You can look up almost every conceivable stat, but the ones that are the strongest indicators of how successful a team is/isn’t are offensive efficiency, defensive efficiency, turnovers and rebounds. (You can choose which stat link you wish at the top).


Why these stats? Obviously, scoring more points than the other team is the objective. But just HOW do you do that? Just by simply shooting the ball well? That helps, obviously - but what happens when you run into a really good defensive team in a tournament format (either BTT or NCAA)? You have to (and I’ve had numerous coaches tell me this over the past 10 years) maximize possessions. You can shoot at a lower percentage than your opponent IF you get more attempts. And to do that, you have to do the other things besides shooting the ball well.


Let’s take a look at this past season. I’ve said on here numerous times this year that the 2015-16 Hoosiers were overly reliant on offense for their success, and that Crean wants to play like North Carolina and Kentucky. Let’s see a statistical comparison between those three teams, starting with offense:

2016        Tom Crean      Roy Williams  John Calipari

Off. Eff    1.169 (1)      1.153 (4)      1.127 (11)

IU led the nation in offensive efficiency – ahead of both the Tar Heels and Wildcats. In 17 years as a Head Basketball Coach, his teams have been Top 10 5 times, Top 5 four times and led the nation twice (2016,2003). Conversely, Roy Williams has had 7 season with Top 5 offenses since 1997-98 (the link provided only goes back to that season) and John Calipari has had 2 top 10 offensive teams (he did, however, have 11th rated teams in both 2015 and 2016). So, no doubt, Crean is capable of coaching offense with either of these two guys.


But what is the old adage? “Defense wins championships”. Let’s take a look at how each team fared defensively in 2015-16:

2016        Tom Crean      Roy Williams  John Calipari

Def. Eff    .989 (106)    .976 (82)      .965 (51)

On the surface, that doesn’t look too bad, does it? Crean appears to be close to both Williams and Calipari in producing an adequate defense.


But over 17 years as a coach, the past season was Crean’s 6th best defensive team. Since 1998, Williams has had FIFTEEN teams that were better defensively (6 in top 25, one of those as high as 3rd), while Calipari since 2000-01 (16 seasons) has had ELEVEN better teams than the #51 team of this past year – six of which were top 10 defenses with two #1’s and two #2’s.


Let’s take a look at a real problem this past year for IU – Turnovers. Check out these 2015-16 numbers:

2016        Tom Crean      Roy Williams  John Calipari

TO / gm    13.4 (258)    10.8 (29)      11.2 (49)

IU averaged almost 3 turnovers more per game than UNC, a little over 2 more than UK. Again (as I was told by a certain coach) you can’t give possessions away and hope to achieve at a high level. This has killed some of Crean’s better teams (they averaged 13.0 a game in 2013; not surprisingly, his best team (2003) averaged 12.5 on the way to the Final Four. Calipari teams at Memphis and UK have averaged 12.7/yr since 2001, while the 10.8 was an all-time low for Williams (and look at what the result was – national runner-up). Williams teams since 1998 have averaged 14.2 turnovers, slightly higher Crean (although his numbers are trending better the last 7-8 years than he did in the early 2000’s).


Now comes the real separation between Crean and the other two – rebounding:


2015-16

2016        Tom Crean      Roy Williams  John Calipari

Reb / gm    36.8 (119)    40.6 (15)      38.8 (50)

IU lost out on nearly 4 more possessions per game this past season than UNC, exactly two more per game than UK.


And Calipari and Williams didn’t even have some of their better rebounding teams this year. Since 1998 (19 seasons), Roy Williams has had 15 of his teams finish in the top 10 in the nation in rebounding; 12 of those teams were top 5, with 4 #1’s, 2 #2’s and 2 #3’s. That’s right, EIGHT teams in the top 3!! He has produced 11 teams that averaged 40 or more rebounds. Calipari has had 6 top 10 rebounding teams (2 top 5) and produced 6 teams that averaged 40 or more.


Tom Crean? In 17 years as a head coach, Crean has not had a SINGLE TEAM either in the top 10 OR a team to average 40 rebounds.


Wanna know what is the worst? Take a look at the Strength of Schedules – both overall and Non-Conference:

Year    IU / Crean        UNC/RW        UK/Cal  

        SOS   NC-SOS   SOS  NC-SOS    SOS   NC-SOS

2016    64    265      6    106       39    62

2015    65    322      1    15        31    100

2014    58    335      19   126       3     62

2013    17    293      19   183       71    138

2012    16    273      35   85        28    177

2011    27    323      8    39        15    52

2010    61    321      10   170       53    223

2009    3     76       15   126       70    56

2008    39    286      3    109       67    59

2007    53    268      7    88        109   86

2006    18    205      22   173       85    31

2005    102   235      1    73        91    147

2004    108   265      1    68        63    112

2003    46    178      2    54        86    105

2002    90    251      10   26        101   206

Tom Crean-led teams – as demonstrated in the stats above – have consistently performed worse than the teams/coaches whose style of play he wants to emulate, all while playing a MUCH WORSE schedule than either of them.


Again, I don’t want to say this. But when you take a look at how his team performs, and take into account whom they’ve been playing, how can you say Tom Crean is the right coach and say in the same breath your goal is to be elite (as Fred Glass did at the end of last season)? There is a direct correlation between how these team perform statistically and how they fare(d) in the NCAA Tournament.


Numbers don't lie. Tom Crean isn’t going to get us there, folks. The eye test in games like Duke, Michigan St, Syracuse in 2013, etc . . .gives an indication of that. The stats confirm it.

You put a lot of effort into this. The only thing is it's not the current or latest analysis.

What do you think will happen the rest of this season? Do you think Crean not given an extension last year (not 14-15) as rumor has it means anything? Would you take a few more years of Crean if it sets IU up for Stevens or would you rather see IU with a better coach but see Stevens go elsewhere in college basketball?

 

[Stuffshot]

Mid-season review of what I posted last spring. Still as true now as it was then.

Well, at least this time you'll have to admit you put this post at the top of the thread.

 

[Tasmanian Devil]

You put a lot of effort into this. The only thing is it's not the current or latest analysis.

What do you think will happen the rest of this season? Do you think Crean not given an extension last year (not 14-15) as rumor has it means anything? Would you take a few more years of Crean if it sets IU up for Stevens or would you rather see IU with a better coach but see Stevens go elsewhere in college basketball?

Here is the follow-up I posted to the “Crean's not gonna make us elite” thread back in the spring. The thread got deleted because some of the arguments going back and forth, but I had this saved in Word because it was a pain in the butt to format to get all the columns to line up.


I added the results so far for 2017. While IU is doing the best they’ve ever done in rebounding under Crean, they have played a horrible schedule (which is the norm). Again, I pick these stats because they directly correlate to the 4 key stats I talked about here in the Romeo Langford ... thread.

What will happen the rest of the season? My worries before this season were leadership, PG play and defense. Our defense against UNC was the best of the year, and if we played at least with that level of intensity the remainder of the season this team could still do well. Based on what I've seen so far (and with lack of PG), I believe we're looking at 3rd-4th place in the conference and a 2nd round NCAA loss - at best.


Here is the original post - THE COMPARISON.


Some of you may have read another thread I created (Why Crean is not going to make IU “Elite” again) where I have introduced stats to provide substance to what I have stated.


Within that thread was this query:


“Using your logic, based on what Bob Knight did his first 15 years, he should have continued to do it moving forward, because that was the baseline. Or are you saying this only applies to Crean? You have no idea what will happen in the future with Crean or any coach at IU. Using your logic, if you evaluated John Wooden's first 15+ years, you would say he would never win a national title.”


I have never said IU won’t win a title under Crean. It’s true I don’t that for a fact.


What I HAVE said is this:

As I’ve said before many times, Crean wants to play a fast-paced style (like UNC or UK) but his teams don’t do the things necessary to have success on an elite level consistently. That is the key here –consistently.

Again, if you look at what Crean has done over the entirety of his career as a head coach – and you look at how his teams have performed statistically – you begin to understand that the results aren’t just a coincidence.1, 2 or so years could be labeled as such. Not 15+ years.


I’ve heard replies ranging from “I feel CTC s improving in all facets of coaching” to “To say Crean cannot teach defense is not the whole truth” to “The SOS has been improving”. All of the above gave no evidence whatsoever to bolster such claims, and ignored what information I had provided.


So as much as a pain in the butt as it was to format, here is the Full Monte - A comparison of Tom Crean and teams he has had as a head coach against 5 other coaches: the afore-mentioned Roy Williams (going as far back as our link will take us, 1997-98 season, when he was at Kansas) and John Calipari (the link doesn’t take us back to his days at UMASS, but we have from 2001-present from both Memphis and UK); Tom Izzo, who has (in my opinion) done more with less than any coach over the last 20 years; Jay Wright, who just got done leading Villanova to the NCAA title (and was brought up in discussions on my previous thread); and Thad Matta, who was also discussed. We’ll show Izzo’s results from 1997-98; for Wright, his last three years at Hofstra (1997-2001) and 2001-present at Villanova; and Matta from Butler (2001), Xavier (2001-04) and Ohio St (2004-present).


As before, this link takes us to the stats, with the exception of the Strength of Schedule. I used Kenpom’s because it lists both the Strength of Schedule (SOS) and the Non-Conference Strength of Schedule (NC-SOS) at the same time. Look for others if you wish, but you’ll be hard pressed to find a noticeable improvement in IU’s numbers vs these other 5 teams.


Ok, here we go:


Offensive efficiency / ranking

Year    IU / Crean    UNC/RW        UK/Cal

2017    1.162 (10)   1.128 (23)   1.163 (9)

2016    1.169 (1)    1.153 (4)    1.127 (11)

2015    1.124 (10)    1.086 (27)    1.124 (11)

2014    1.022 (168)   1.060 (80)    1.101 (32)

2013    1.133 (2)    1.034 (74)    1.054 (41)

2012    1.131 (5)     1.092 (18)    1.141 (4)

2011    1.041 (73)    1.041 (75)    1.100 (16)

2010    .951 (246)    .999 (159)    1.095 (17)

2009    .894 (314)    1.152 (1)     1.071 (31)

2008    1.073 (37)    1.137 (3)     1.112 (9)

2007    1.045 (102)   1.152 (2)     1.105 (25)

2006    1.049 (60)    1.073 (32)    1.068 (36)

2005    1.036 (66)    1.138 (3)     1.023 (94)

2004    1.046 (62)    1.070 (31)    1.083 (21)

2003    1.171 (1)     1.114 (4)     1.036 (72)

2002    1.069 (34)    1.119 (4)     1.064 (40)

2001    1.003 (131)   1.073 (28)    1.014 (108)

2000    .959 (191)    1.008 (102)   N/A

1999    N/A           .983 (138)    N/A

1998    N/A          1.095 (18)    N/A

Year    MSU/Izzo      NOVA/JW       OSU/Matta

2017    1.010 (151)  1.172 (5)    1.050 (85)

2016    1.155 (2)    1.134 (7)    1.001 (207)

2015    1.070 (38)    1.134 (7)    1.106 (15)

2014    1.107 (24)    1.104 (28)    1.032 (150)

2013    1.027 (86)    .964 (219)    1.066 (31)

2012    1.076 (27)    1.003 (145)   1.100 (14)

2011    1.003 (152)   1.060 (55)    1.175 (1)

2010    1.060 (51)    1.101 (12)    1.113 (9)

2009    1.054 (59)    1.071 (33)    1.044 (75)

2008    1.078 (30)    1.025 (116)   1.037 (90)

2007    1.050 (92)    1.070 (60)    1.127 (10)

2006    1.075 (28)    1.078 (24)    1.083 (18)

2005    1.134 (7)     1.066 (38)    1.039 (61)

2004    1.078 (23)    1.014 (104)   1.057 (45)

2003    1.018 (107)   .993 (173)    1.093 (15)

2002    1.041 (73)    .995 (151)    1.052 (53)

2001    1.129 (5)     1.000 (136)   1.074 (27)

2000    1.100 (8)    1.066 (28)   N/A

1999    1.089 (9)    .989 (116)    N/A

1998    1.047 (58)    .972 (167)    N/A

As discussed before, Crean can hold his own coaching offense. If we look at what would be considered his 4 best teams (2003,2012,2013,2016), they were all top 5 in offensive efficiency.

The other 5 were all fairly consistent. Wright had the most teams rated 100 or higher from the bunch (8), and would still be highest even if we count Crean’s first two seasons at IU (we won’t)


Defensive efficiency / ranking

Year    IU / Crean    UNC/RW       UK/Cal

2017    .917 (51)     .895 (28)    .896 (31)

2016    .989 (106)    .976 (82)    .965 (51)

2015    1.041 (275)   .962 (94)    .821 (1)

2014    .956 (39)     .966 (55)    .976 (73)

2013    .895 (19)     .945 (74)    .936 (62)

2012    .972 (125)    .900 (19)    .891 (9)

2011    1.021 (237)   .924 (24)    .932 (34)

2010    1.026 (251)   .964 (101)   .898 (10)

2009    1.060 (309)   .931 (38)    .839 (1)

2008    .916 (19)     .931 (32)    .862 (2)

2007    .945 (35)     .922 (14)    .884 (2)

2006    .990 (155)    .928 (43)    .874 (5)

2005    1.007 (211)   .908 (19)    .939 (46)

2004    1.011 (202)   .974 (114)   .977 (124)

2003    1.036 (254)   .916 (15)    .925 (24)

2002    .887 (5)      .932 (45)    .923 (33)

2001    1.001 (180)   .925 (29)    .931 (39)

2000    .961 (126)    .903 (31)     N/A

1999    N/A           .885 (18)     N/A

1998    N/A           .886 (3)      N/A

Year  MSU/Izzo   NOVA/JW      OSU/Matta

2017    .951 (88)     .911 (44)    .900 (34)

2016 .929 (18)   .925 (14)   .968 (60)

2015 .958 (84)   .903 (12)   .925 (29)

2014 .961 (47)   .941 (24)   .888 (4)

2013 .904 (25)   .932 (55)   .901 (24)

2012 .891 (10)   1.000 (187) .881 (4)

2011 .973 (107)  .960 (81)   .909 (12)

2010 .942 (53)   .980 (138)  .924 (33)

2009 .932 (41)   .939 (55)   .968 (108)

2008 .947 (56)   .978 (116)  .935 (39)

2007 .923 (15)   .966 (68)   .938 (26)

2006 1.003 (184) .928 (42)   .934 (48)

2005 .945 (50)   .911 (22)   .937 (44)

2004 1.021 (233) .988 (147)  .939 (53)

2003 .922 (21)   .972 (108)  .931 (31)

2002 .961 (18)   .931 (44)   .909 (15)

2001 .902 (15)   .855 (1)    .938 (52)

2000 .876 (11)   .905 (33)    N/A

1999 .903 (31)   .942 (69)    N/A

1998 .913 (21)   .904 (32)    N/A

Here is where we start to see a big difference in the numbers. Even when leaving off 2008-10, Crean has had 10 teams ranked 100 or higher in defensive efficiency, 5 of them greater than 200. Meanwhile, the other 5 coaches have a COMBINED 11 seasons that have had a defense 100 or higher, with only 1 of those eleven higher than 200 (Izzo, 2004 at 233).


Did the defensive efficiency improve this year over 2015? Yes – but it was STILL over 100. And look at his numbers over his entire career vs the other coaches. This is certainly a weakness for him.


Turnovers / ranking

Year    IU / Crean    UNC/RW        UK/Cal

2017    15.9 (321)    13.3 (155)    11.2 (28)

2016    13.4 (258)    10.8 (29)     11.2 (49)

2015    11.5 (79)     12.7 (196)    10.4 (17)

2014    15.1 (335)    11.9 (135)    12.0 (145)

2013    13.0 (154)    12.4 (97)     13.0 (155)

2012    12.7 (117)    11.9 (59)     11.3 (33)

2011    12.7 (118)    13.3 (177)    10.6 (14)

2010    15.3 (297)    15.0 (281)    14.3 (237)

2009    17.2 (335)    12.5 (79)     12.4 (68)

2008    12.7 (63)     14.3 (191)    11.6 (16)

2007    14.5 (163)    13.8 (113)    13.2 (78)

2006    14.5 (173)    16.4 (285)    15.4 (225)

2005    13.8 (127)    15.9 (263)    14.4 (175)

2004    13.7 (116)    15.3 (229)    12.2 (29)

2003    12.5 (32)     14.3 (140)    13.6 (94)

2002    13.7 (75)     16.1 (238)    14.4 (112)

2001    13.6 (49)     16.2 (238)    13.7 (55)

2000    15.4 (142)    17.2 (259)    N/A

1999    N/A           15.6 (129)    N/A

1998    N/A           16.0 (167)    N/A

Year    MSU/Izzo      NOVA/JW       OSU/Matta

2017    14.5 (245)    10.9 (15)     13.6 (178)

2016    11.8 (98)     11.0 (36)     12.9 (200)

2015    11.3 (67)     10.6 (29)     11.3 (68)

2014    11.6 (103)    11.9 (132)    11.7 (114)

2013    13.3 (184)    15.6 (326)    10.4 (6)

2012    12.8 (131)    13.8 (225)    11.7 (45)

2011    13.3 (177)    11.7 (45)     10.0 (6)

2010    13.7 (185)    13.1 (134)    11.3 (30)

2009    13.2 (101)    13.5 (169)    13.1 (130)

2008    13.8 (189)    14.1 (177)    13.3 (102)

2007    14.9 (200)    13.4 (88)     11.3 (12)

2006    13.8 (127)    11.0 (6)      11.8 (16)

2005    13.5 (103)    12.6 (42)     11.6 (13)

2004    14.1 (140)    15.6 (250)    12.2 (31)

2003    13.9 (111)    15.8 (249)    12.8 (40)

2002    14.8 (144)    18.1 (308)    13.6 (61)

2001    13.6 (52)     16.4 (248)    11.8 (11)

2000    14.6 (92)     13.4 (36)     N/A

1999    14.2 (41)     14.4 (47)     N/A

1998    15.4 (128)    15.6 (146)    N/A

Turnovers were a big problem this year for Crean and IU. Historically his teams have not been as bad as others (Williams had a 7-year stretch where his team averaged less than 15/gm just once), but the other 5 have been trending better since 2011 – especially Williams/UNC. Matta-led teams since he started his head coaching career at Butler have averaged 12 or less TO/gm ten times.



Rebounds / ranking

Year    IU / Crean    UNC/RW      UK/Cal

2017    44.1 (4)      44.8 (2)   42.7 (8)

2016    36.8 (119)    40.6 (15)   38.8 (50)

2015    36.2 (69)     40.5 (3)    38.0 (23)

2014    38.9 (14)     39.8 (8)    40.4 (6)

2013    38.6 (22)     38.8 (8)    37.9 (36)

2012    34.6 (144)    45.0 (1)    38.7 (15)

2011    32.8 (268)    42.6 (2)    37.4 (43)

2010    35.1 (166)    42.0 (3)    41.6 (5)

2009    30.5 (315)    42.0 (2)    39.1 (20)

2008    37.0 (67)     43.4 (1)    40.5 (12)

2007    38.7 (68)     42.9 (4)    42.2 (9)

2006    35.5 (121)    39.9 (8)    41.3 (2)

2005    36.9 (109)    42.7 (5)    41.2 (13)

2004    35.4 (131)    39.4 (12)   36.1 (91)

2003    32.2 (132)    37.3 (8)    37.4 (7)

2002    32.9 (142)    41.7 (1)    38.7 (5)

2001    31.4 (198)    39.5 (3)    36.2 (23)

2000    33.1 (126)    40.9 (1)    N/A

1999    N/A           36.9 (23)   N/A

1998    N/A           39.8 (2)    N/A

Year    MSU/Izzo     NOVA/JW       OSU/Matta

2017    38.5 (75)     35.2 (218) 39.6 (48)

2016    41.5 (5)     34.6 (234)    38.1 (69)

2015    37.4 (35)    34.3 (155)    35.4 (102)

2014    36.9 (59)    37.3 (44)     35.3 (134)

2013    37.5 (46)    36.4 (92)     35.5 (134)

2012    37.9 (24)    39.2 (12)     36.9 (44)

2011    37.2 (57)    37.1 (62)     34.8 (163)

2010    38.6 (30)    38.5 (34)     33.3 (237)

2009    39.1 (21)    37.9 (39)     31.0 (296)

2008    36.9 (72)    36.0 (104)    35.4 (128)

2007    36.6 (164)   38.7 (67)     37.6 (111)

2006    35.5 (123)   36.3 (89)     34.0 (189)

2005    37.2 (99)    39.3 (34)     33.9 (245)

2004    29.7 (312)   35.6 (112)    35.7 (108)

2003    32.1 (137)   33.9 (59)     36.3 (14)

2002    33.3 (129)   34.9 (65)     33.8 (102)

2001    39.4 (4)     34.7 (63)     26.2 (314)

2000    36.3 (23)    33.8 (96)     N/A

1999    33.4 (97)    32.3 (163)    N/A

1998    37.2 (9)     34.3  (68)    N/A

As I had mentioned before, rebounding is where real separation comes between Williams/Calipari and Crean. Since 1998 (19 seasons), Roy Williams has had15of his teams finish in the top 10 in the nation in rebounding; 12 of those teams were top 5, with 4#1’s, 2#2’sand 2#3’s. a total of 8teams in the top 3!! He has producedELEVENteams that averaged 40 or more rebounds. Calipari has had 6 top 10 rebounding teams (2 top 5) and produced 6 teams that averaged 40 or more.


Tom Crean? In 17 years as a head coach, Crean has not had aSINGLE TEAMeither in the top 10ORa team to average 40 rebounds. Crean did fair better against the other three, trailing Izzo (36.5 reb/gm average over 19 seasons) and Wright (36.1 reb/gm, 19 seasons) with an average of 35.4 reb/gm over 15 seasons (again, sans 2008-10). Matta’s teams averaged 34.5 over 16 seasons since 2001.


But now comes the sobering reality that, once you look at the numbers, there is nowhere to hide from and no way you can spin it if you’re a Crean supporter – Strength of Schedule. Take a look.


SOS / NC-SOS Ranking

Year    IU / Crean        UNC/RW           UK/Cal

        SOS   NC-SOS      SOS    NC-SOS    SOS   NC-SOS

2017    304   312         29    34       55    75

2016    64    265         6      106       39    62

2015    65    322         1      15        31    100

2014    58    335         19     126       3     62

2013    17    293         19     183       71    138

2012    16    273         35     85        28    177

2011    27    323         8      39        15    52

2010    61    321         10     170       53    223

2009    3     76          15     126       70    56

2008    39    286         3      109       67    59

2007    53    268         7      88        109   86

2006    18    205         22     173       85    31

2005    102   235         1      73        91    147

2004    108   265         1      68        63    112

2003    46    178         2      54        86    105

2002    90    251         10     26        101   206

Year    MSU/Izzo         NOVA/JW          OSU/Matta

        SOS    NC-SOS    SOS    NC-SOS    SOS   NC-SOS

2017    19     38         61      78       268   304

2016    63     197       11     73        67    255

2015    5      160       42     158       57    328

2014    6      157       46     89        31    282

2013    1      171       11     142       8     280

2012    2      185       7      112       5     244

2011    1      41        18     198       22    248

2010    21     181       13     159       55    242

2009    2      61        27     298       30    243

2008    25     122       21     217       38    63

2007    25     198       5      100       12    154

2006    21     174       6      77        52    246

2005    37     236       14     186       63    237

2004    14     19        15     74        32    90

2003    10     76        7      28        83    79

2002    21     138       54     261       83    82

Are you kidding me?!?!?!?

Crean has ONE less year (12) of having a non-conference schedule ranked 200+ than the OTHER FIVE TEAMS COMBINED! That’s right – in twelve of a possible 13 years Tom Crean has had a non-conference 200 or higher with 3 over 300. Not a single year from the other 5 teams was over 300, and Matta was responsible for 10 of the 13 over 200. At least he had a couple of years with a top 10 schedule, everyone did but Crean. No, remember, we’re not counting 2008-09 or 2009-10. So the #3 SOS and #76 NC-SOS aren’t part of this.

It’s is interesting to note, however, that first year in Bloomington for Crean – 2008-09. The schedule was already set for the most part by the time Tom Crean was hired in April 2008. Let’s take a look at what IU SOS & NC-SOS was from 2002 to 2008 BEFORE Crean:

Year    IU  Pre-Crean

        SOS   NC-SOS

2008    78    235

2007    22    119

2006    16    117

2005    10    24

2004    12    14

2003    5     21

2002    1     5

When you look at the entirety of each man’s career – how they’ve performed in the various aspects of the game and whom they’ve played to achieve those results, it’s not hard to understand why each of the 5 have had better success over the long haul than Tom Crean.

Ah – success. Let’s look at the NCAA Tournament and how each team was seeded and faired in the tournament. The N/A code below designates that a head coach didn’t have a team; NA and DNP refers to a team missing the NCAA altogether and not having a seed/finish.

NCAA Tournament

        IU / Crean        UNC/RW            UK/Cal

Year    Seed    Finish    Seed    Finish    Seed    Finish

2016    5       SW16      1       RU        4       Rd32

2015    10      1stRd     4       SW16      1       FF

2014    NA      DNP       6       Rd32      8       RU

2013    1       SW16      8       Rd32      NA      DNP

2012    4       SW16      1       E8        1       NC

2011    NA      DNP       2       E8        4       FF

2010    NA      DNP       NA      DNP       1       E8

2009    NA      DNP       1       NC        2       SW16

2008    6       Rd32      1       FF        1       RU

2007    8       1stRd     1       E8        2       E8

2006    7       1stRd     3       Rd32      1       E8

2005    NA      DNP       1       NC        NA      DNP

2004    NA      DNP       6       Rd32      7       Rd32

2003    3       FF        2       RU        7       1stRd

2002    5       1stRd     1       FF        NA      DNP

2001    NA      DNP       2       Rd32      NA      DNP

2000    NA      DNP       8       Rd32      N/A     N/A

1999    N/A     N/A       6       Rd32      N/A     N/A

1998    N/A     N/A       1       Rd32      N/A     N/A

        MSU/Izzo         NOVA/JW           OSU/Matta

Year    Seed   Finish    Seed    Finish    Seed    Finish

2016    2      1stRd     2       NC        NA      DNP

2015    7      FF        1       Rd32      10    Rd32

2014    4      E8        2       Rd32      6     1stRd

2013    3      SW16      9       1stRd     2     E8

2012    1      SW16      NA      DNP       2     FF

2011    10     1stRd     9       1stRd     1     SW16

2010    5      FF        2       Rd32      2     SW16

2009    2      FF        3       FF        8     1stRd

2008    5      SW16      12      SW16      NA    DNP

2007    9      Rd32      9       1stRd     1     RU

2006    6      1stRd     1       E8        2     Rd32

2005    5      FF        5       SW16      NA    DNP

2004    7      1stRd     NA      DNP       7     E8

2003    7      E8        NA      DNP       3     Rd32

2002    10     1stRd     NA      DNP       7     Rd32

2001    1      FF        13      1stRd     10    Rd32

2000    1      NC        14      1stRd     N/A   N/A

1999    1      FF        NA      DNP       N/A   N/A

1998    4      SW16      NA      DNP       N/A   N/A

There is a direct correlation to how the 6 teams above statistically perform to how they finish in a tournament setting. Again, the numbers don’t lie.


And this get back to Fred Glass’ comments at the end of the 2014-15 season:


"My goals for this program are to perennially contend for and to win multiple Big Ten championships, regularly go deep in the NCAA tournament and win our next national championship," Glass said. "Be elite, if you will.”


That was a direct quote Glass made to the Indianapolis Star. Again, I can’t guarantee Crean won’t go farther than a Sweet 16 this coming season, possibly even get to a Final Four.


But I watch the play on the court, see how they perform statistically (which is where your CONSISTENCY will come from) and know that Tom Crean is not going to make us elite.

 

[IUfanBorden]

While you spent a lot of time with a lot of stats . . . and they are interesting.

But you never really told me what your qualifications are to be an "elite" team.

And, I feel CTC s improving in all facets of coaching. So, although CTC may not performing to the levels of UNC & UK in some areas, I am not in agreement that CTC can not or will not do better.

What makes you think this? What has Crean done since 2012,that indicates you he can do better? None of his teams are capable of overcoming a bad night offensively. Not against high level competition. And on the occasion that they do, its basically because the other team was just as bad(offensively). Take away Indiana's ability to run, and you've basically beaten them. Thats why his teams are so inconsistent. That and defensively Indiana just not very disciplined. And that sir is coaching. And it's been going on since Day one.

Just curious. What have you seen that makes you feel he cannot or will not do better?

 

[snarlcakes]

Here is the follow-up I posted to the “Crean's not gonna make us elite” thread back in the spring. The thread got deleted because some of the arguments going back and forth, but I had this saved in Word because it was a pain in the butt to format to get all the columns to line up.


I added the results so far for 2017. While IU is doing the best they’ve ever done in rebounding under Crean, they have played a horrible schedule (which is the norm). Again, I pick these stats because they directly correlate to the 4 key stats I talked about here in the Romeo Langford ... thread.

What will happen the rest of the season? My worries before this season were leadership, PG play and defense. Our defense against UNC was the best of the year, and if we played at least with that level of intensity the remainder of the season this team could still do well. Based on what I've seen so far (and with lack of PG), I believe we're looking at 3rd-4th place in the conference and a 2nd round NCAA loss - at best.


Here is the original post - THE COMPARISON.


Some of you may have read another thread I created (Why Crean is not going to make IU “Elite” again) where I have introduced stats to provide substance to what I have stated.


Within that thread was this query:


“Using your logic, based on what Bob Knight did his first 15 years, he should have continued to do it moving forward, because that was the baseline. Or are you saying this only applies to Crean? You have no idea what will happen in the future with Crean or any coach at IU. Using your logic, if you evaluated John Wooden's first 15+ years, you would say he would never win a national title.”


I have never said IU won’t win a title under Crean. It’s true I don’t that for a fact.


What I HAVE said is this:





Again, if you look at what Crean has done over the entirety of his career as a head coach – and you look at how his teams have performed statistically – you begin to understand that the results aren’t just a coincidence.1, 2 or so years could be labeled as such. Not 15+ years.


I’ve heard replies ranging from “I feel CTC s improving in all facets of coaching” to “To say Crean cannot teach defense is not the whole truth” to “The SOS has been improving”. All of the above gave no evidence whatsoever to bolster such claims, and ignored what information I had provided.


So as much as a pain in the butt as it was to format, here is the Full Monte - A comparison of Tom Crean and teams he has had as a head coach against 5 other coaches: the afore-mentioned Roy Williams (going as far back as our link will take us, 1997-98 season, when he was at Kansas) and John Calipari (the link doesn’t take us back to his days at UMASS, but we have from 2001-present from both Memphis and UK); Tom Izzo, who has (in my opinion) done more with less than any coach over the last 20 years; Jay Wright, who just got done leading Villanova to the NCAA title (and was brought up in discussions on my previous thread); and Thad Matta, who was also discussed. We’ll show Izzo’s results from 1997-98; for Wright, his last three years at Hofstra (1997-2001) and 2001-present at Villanova; and Matta from Butler (2001), Xavier (2001-04) and Ohio St (2004-present).


As before, this link takes us to the stats, with the exception of the Strength of Schedule. I used Kenpom’s because it lists both the Strength of Schedule (SOS) and the Non-Conference Strength of Schedule (NC-SOS) at the same time. Look for others if you wish, but you’ll be hard pressed to find a noticeable improvement in IU’s numbers vs these other 5 teams.


Ok, here we go:


Offensive efficiency / ranking

Year    IU / Crean    UNC/RW        UK/Cal

2017    1.162 (10)   1.128 (23)   1.163 (9)

2016    1.169 (1)    1.153 (4)    1.127 (11)

2015    1.124 (10)    1.086 (27)    1.124 (11)

2014    1.022 (168)   1.060 (80)    1.101 (32)

2013    1.133 (2)    1.034 (74)    1.054 (41)

2012    1.131 (5)     1.092 (18)    1.141 (4)

2011    1.041 (73)    1.041 (75)    1.100 (16)

2010    .951 (246)    .999 (159)    1.095 (17)

2009    .894 (314)    1.152 (1)     1.071 (31)

2008    1.073 (37)    1.137 (3)     1.112 (9)

2007    1.045 (102)   1.152 (2)     1.105 (25)

2006    1.049 (60)    1.073 (32)    1.068 (36)

2005    1.036 (66)    1.138 (3)     1.023 (94)

2004    1.046 (62)    1.070 (31)    1.083 (21)

2003    1.171 (1)     1.114 (4)     1.036 (72)

2002    1.069 (34)    1.119 (4)     1.064 (40)

2001    1.003 (131)   1.073 (28)    1.014 (108)

2000    .959 (191)    1.008 (102)   N/A

1999    N/A           .983 (138)    N/A

1998    N/A          1.095 (18)    N/A

Year    MSU/Izzo      NOVA/JW       OSU/Matta

2017    1.010 (151)  1.172 (5)    1.050 (85)

2016    1.155 (2)    1.134 (7)    1.001 (207)

2015    1.070 (38)    1.134 (7)    1.106 (15)

2014    1.107 (24)    1.104 (28)    1.032 (150)

2013    1.027 (86)    .964 (219)    1.066 (31)

2012    1.076 (27)    1.003 (145)   1.100 (14)

2011    1.003 (152)   1.060 (55)    1.175 (1)

2010    1.060 (51)    1.101 (12)    1.113 (9)

2009    1.054 (59)    1.071 (33)    1.044 (75)

2008    1.078 (30)    1.025 (116)   1.037 (90)

2007    1.050 (92)    1.070 (60)    1.127 (10)

2006    1.075 (28)    1.078 (24)    1.083 (18)

2005    1.134 (7)     1.066 (38)    1.039 (61)

2004    1.078 (23)    1.014 (104)   1.057 (45)

2003    1.018 (107)   .993 (173)    1.093 (15)

2002    1.041 (73)    .995 (151)    1.052 (53)

2001    1.129 (5)     1.000 (136)   1.074 (27)

2000    1.100 (8)    1.066 (28)   N/A

1999    1.089 (9)    .989 (116)    N/A

1998    1.047 (58)    .972 (167)    N/A

As discussed before, Crean can hold his own coaching offense. If we look at what would be considered his 4 best teams (2003,2012,2013,2016), they were all top 5 in offensive efficiency.

The other 5 were all fairly consistent. Wright had the most teams rated 100 or higher from the bunch (8), and would still be highest even if we count Crean’s first two seasons at IU (we won’t)


Defensive efficiency / ranking

Year    IU / Crean    UNC/RW       UK/Cal

2017    .917 (51)     .895 (28)    .896 (31)

2016    .989 (106)    .976 (82)    .965 (51)

2015    1.041 (275)   .962 (94)    .821 (1)

2014    .956 (39)     .966 (55)    .976 (73)

2013    .895 (19)     .945 (74)    .936 (62)

2012    .972 (125)    .900 (19)    .891 (9)

2011    1.021 (237)   .924 (24)    .932 (34)

2010    1.026 (251)   .964 (101)   .898 (10)

2009    1.060 (309)   .931 (38)    .839 (1)

2008    .916 (19)     .931 (32)    .862 (2)

2007    .945 (35)     .922 (14)    .884 (2)

2006    .990 (155)    .928 (43)    .874 (5)

2005    1.007 (211)   .908 (19)    .939 (46)

2004    1.011 (202)   .974 (114)   .977 (124)

2003    1.036 (254)   .916 (15)    .925 (24)

2002    .887 (5)      .932 (45)    .923 (33)

2001    1.001 (180)   .925 (29)    .931 (39)

2000    .961 (126)    .903 (31)     N/A

1999    N/A           .885 (18)     N/A

1998    N/A           .886 (3)      N/A

Year  MSU/Izzo   NOVA/JW      OSU/Matta

2017    .951 (88)     .911 (44)    .900 (34)

2016 .929 (18)   .925 (14)   .968 (60)

2015 .958 (84)   .903 (12)   .925 (29)

2014 .961 (47)   .941 (24)   .888 (4)

2013 .904 (25)   .932 (55)   .901 (24)

2012 .891 (10)   1.000 (187) .881 (4)

2011 .973 (107)  .960 (81)   .909 (12)

2010 .942 (53)   .980 (138)  .924 (33)

2009 .932 (41)   .939 (55)   .968 (108)

2008 .947 (56)   .978 (116)  .935 (39)

2007 .923 (15)   .966 (68)   .938 (26)

2006 1.003 (184) .928 (42)   .934 (48)

2005 .945 (50)   .911 (22)   .937 (44)

2004 1.021 (233) .988 (147)  .939 (53)

2003 .922 (21)   .972 (108)  .931 (31)

2002 .961 (18)   .931 (44)   .909 (15)

2001 .902 (15)   .855 (1)    .938 (52)

2000 .876 (11)   .905 (33)    N/A

1999 .903 (31)   .942 (69)    N/A

1998 .913 (21)   .904 (32)    N/A

Here is where we start to see a big difference in the numbers. Even when leaving off 2008-10, Crean has had 10 teams ranked 100 or higher in defensive efficiency, 5 of them greater than 200. Meanwhile, the other 5 coaches have a COMBINED 11 seasons that have had a defense 100 or higher, with only 1 of those eleven higher than 200 (Izzo, 2004 at 233).


Did the defensive efficiency improve this year over 2015? Yes – but it was STILL over 100. And look at his numbers over his entire career vs the other coaches. This is certainly a weakness for him.


Turnovers / ranking

Year    IU / Crean    UNC/RW        UK/Cal

2017    15.9 (321)    13.3 (155)    11.2 (28)

2016    13.4 (258)    10.8 (29)     11.2 (49)

2015    11.5 (79)     12.7 (196)    10.4 (17)

2014    15.1 (335)    11.9 (135)    12.0 (145)

2013    13.0 (154)    12.4 (97)     13.0 (155)

2012    12.7 (117)    11.9 (59)     11.3 (33)

2011    12.7 (118)    13.3 (177)    10.6 (14)

2010    15.3 (297)    15.0 (281)    14.3 (237)

2009    17.2 (335)    12.5 (79)     12.4 (68)

2008    12.7 (63)     14.3 (191)    11.6 (16)

2007    14.5 (163)    13.8 (113)    13.2 (78)

2006    14.5 (173)    16.4 (285)    15.4 (225)

2005    13.8 (127)    15.9 (263)    14.4 (175)

2004    13.7 (116)    15.3 (229)    12.2 (29)

2003    12.5 (32)     14.3 (140)    13.6 (94)

2002    13.7 (75)     16.1 (238)    14.4 (112)

2001    13.6 (49)     16.2 (238)    13.7 (55)

2000    15.4 (142)    17.2 (259)    N/A

1999    N/A           15.6 (129)    N/A

1998    N/A           16.0 (167)    N/A

Year    MSU/Izzo      NOVA/JW       OSU/Matta

2017    14.5 (245)    10.9 (15)     13.6 (178)

2016    11.8 (98)     11.0 (36)     12.9 (200)

2015    11.3 (67)     10.6 (29)     11.3 (68)

2014    11.6 (103)    11.9 (132)    11.7 (114)

2013    13.3 (184)    15.6 (326)    10.4 (6)

2012    12.8 (131)    13.8 (225)    11.7 (45)

2011    13.3 (177)    11.7 (45)     10.0 (6)

2010    13.7 (185)    13.1 (134)    11.3 (30)

2009    13.2 (101)    13.5 (169)    13.1 (130)

2008    13.8 (189)    14.1 (177)    13.3 (102)

2007    14.9 (200)    13.4 (88)     11.3 (12)

2006    13.8 (127)    11.0 (6)      11.8 (16)

2005    13.5 (103)    12.6 (42)     11.6 (13)

2004    14.1 (140)    15.6 (250)    12.2 (31)

2003    13.9 (111)    15.8 (249)    12.8 (40)

2002    14.8 (144)    18.1 (308)    13.6 (61)

2001    13.6 (52)     16.4 (248)    11.8 (11)

2000    14.6 (92)     13.4 (36)     N/A

1999    14.2 (41)     14.4 (47)     N/A

1998    15.4 (128)    15.6 (146)    N/A

Turnovers were a big problem this year for Crean and IU. Historically his teams have not been as bad as others (Williams had a 7-year stretch where his team averaged less than 15/gm just once), but the other 5 have been trending better since 2011 – especially Williams/UNC. Matta-led teams since he started his head coaching career at Butler have averaged 12 or less TO/gm ten times.



Rebounds / ranking

Year    IU / Crean    UNC/RW      UK/Cal

2017    44.1 (4)      44.8 (2)   42.7 (8)

2016    36.8 (119)    40.6 (15)   38.8 (50)

2015    36.2 (69)     40.5 (3)    38.0 (23)

2014    38.9 (14)     39.8 (8)    40.4 (6)

2013    38.6 (22)     38.8 (8)    37.9 (36)

2012    34.6 (144)    45.0 (1)    38.7 (15)

2011    32.8 (268)    42.6 (2)    37.4 (43)

2010    35.1 (166)    42.0 (3)    41.6 (5)

2009    30.5 (315)    42.0 (2)    39.1 (20)

2008    37.0 (67)     43.4 (1)    40.5 (12)

2007    38.7 (68)     42.9 (4)    42.2 (9)

2006    35.5 (121)    39.9 (8)    41.3 (2)

2005    36.9 (109)    42.7 (5)    41.2 (13)

2004    35.4 (131)    39.4 (12)   36.1 (91)

2003    32.2 (132)    37.3 (8)    37.4 (7)

2002    32.9 (142)    41.7 (1)    38.7 (5)

2001    31.4 (198)    39.5 (3)    36.2 (23)

2000    33.1 (126)    40.9 (1)    N/A

1999    N/A           36.9 (23)   N/A

1998    N/A           39.8 (2)    N/A

Year    MSU/Izzo     NOVA/JW       OSU/Matta

2017    38.5 (75)     35.2 (218) 39.6 (48)

2016    41.5 (5)     34.6 (234)    38.1 (69)

2015    37.4 (35)    34.3 (155)    35.4 (102)

2014    36.9 (59)    37.3 (44)     35.3 (134)

2013    37.5 (46)    36.4 (92)     35.5 (134)

2012    37.9 (24)    39.2 (12)     36.9 (44)

2011    37.2 (57)    37.1 (62)     34.8 (163)

2010    38.6 (30)    38.5 (34)     33.3 (237)

2009    39.1 (21)    37.9 (39)     31.0 (296)

2008    36.9 (72)    36.0 (104)    35.4 (128)

2007    36.6 (164)   38.7 (67)     37.6 (111)

2006    35.5 (123)   36.3 (89)     34.0 (189)

2005    37.2 (99)    39.3 (34)     33.9 (245)

2004    29.7 (312)   35.6 (112)    35.7 (108)

2003    32.1 (137)   33.9 (59)     36.3 (14)

2002    33.3 (129)   34.9 (65)     33.8 (102)

2001    39.4 (4)     34.7 (63)     26.2 (314)

2000    36.3 (23)    33.8 (96)     N/A

1999    33.4 (97)    32.3 (163)    N/A

1998    37.2 (9)     34.3  (68)    N/A

As I had mentioned before, rebounding is where real separation comes between Williams/Calipari and Crean. Since 1998 (19 seasons), Roy Williams has had15of his teams finish in the top 10 in the nation in rebounding; 12 of those teams were top 5, with 4#1’s, 2#2’sand 2#3’s. a total of 8teams in the top 3!! He has producedELEVENteams that averaged 40 or more rebounds. Calipari has had 6 top 10 rebounding teams (2 top 5) and produced 6 teams that averaged 40 or more.


Tom Crean? In 17 years as a head coach, Crean has not had aSINGLE TEAMeither in the top 10ORa team to average 40 rebounds. Crean did fair better against the other three, trailing Izzo (36.5 reb/gm average over 19 seasons) and Wright (36.1 reb/gm, 19 seasons) with an average of 35.4 reb/gm over 15 seasons (again, sans 2008-10). Matta’s teams averaged 34.5 over 16 seasons since 2001.


But now comes the sobering reality that, once you look at the numbers, there is nowhere to hide from and no way you can spin it if you’re a Crean supporter – Strength of Schedule. Take a look.


SOS / NC-SOS Ranking

Year    IU / Crean        UNC/RW           UK/Cal

        SOS   NC-SOS      SOS    NC-SOS    SOS   NC-SOS

2017    304   312         29    34       55    75

2016    64    265         6      106       39    62

2015    65    322         1      15        31    100

2014    58    335         19     126       3     62

2013    17    293         19     183       71    138

2012    16    273         35     85        28    177

2011    27    323         8      39        15    52

2010    61    321         10     170       53    223

2009    3     76          15     126       70    56

2008    39    286         3      109       67    59

2007    53    268         7      88        109   86

2006    18    205         22     173       85    31

2005    102   235         1      73        91    147

2004    108   265         1      68        63    112

2003    46    178         2      54        86    105

2002    90    251         10     26        101   206

Year    MSU/Izzo         NOVA/JW          OSU/Matta

        SOS    NC-SOS    SOS    NC-SOS    SOS   NC-SOS

2017    19     38         61      78       268   304

2016    63     197       11     73        67    255

2015    5      160       42     158       57    328

2014    6      157       46     89        31    282

2013    1      171       11     142       8     280

2012    2      185       7      112       5     244

2011    1      41        18     198       22    248

2010    21     181       13     159       55    242

2009    2      61        27     298       30    243

2008    25     122       21     217       38    63

2007    25     198       5      100       12    154

2006    21     174       6      77        52    246

2005    37     236       14     186       63    237

2004    14     19        15     74        32    90

2003    10     76        7      28        83    79

2002    21     138       54     261       83    82

Are you kidding me?!?!?!?

Crean has ONE less year (12) of having a non-conference schedule ranked 200+ than the OTHER FIVE TEAMS COMBINED! That’s right – in twelve of a possible 13 years Tom Crean has had a non-conference 200 or higher with 3 over 300. Not a single year from the other 5 teams was over 300, and Matta was responsible for 10 of the 13 over 200. At least he had a couple of years with a top 10 schedule, everyone did but Crean. No, remember, we’re not counting 2008-09 or 2009-10. So the #3 SOS and #76 NC-SOS aren’t part of this.

It’s is interesting to note, however, that first year in Bloomington for Crean – 2008-09. The schedule was already set for the most part by the time Tom Crean was hired in April 2008. Let’s take a look at what IU SOS & NC-SOS was from 2002 to 2008 BEFORE Crean:

Year    IU  Pre-Crean

        SOS   NC-SOS

2008    78    235

2007    22    119

2006    16    117

2005    10    24

2004    12    14

2003    5     21

2002    1     5

When you look at the entirety of each man’s career – how they’ve performed in the various aspects of the game and whom they’ve played to achieve those results, it’s not hard to understand why each of the 5 have had better success over the long haul than Tom Crean.

Ah – success. Let’s look at the NCAA Tournament and how each team was seeded and faired in the tournament. The N/A code below designates that a head coach didn’t have a team; NA and DNP refers to a team missing the NCAA altogether and not having a seed/finish.

NCAA Tournament

        IU / Crean        UNC/RW            UK/Cal

Year    Seed    Finish    Seed    Finish    Seed    Finish

2016    5       SW16      1       RU        4       Rd32

2015    10      1stRd     4       SW16      1       FF

2014    NA      DNP       6       Rd32      8       RU

2013    1       SW16      8       Rd32      NA      DNP

2012    4       SW16      1       E8        1       NC

2011    NA      DNP       2       E8        4       FF

2010    NA      DNP       NA      DNP       1       E8

2009    NA      DNP       1       NC        2       SW16

2008    6       Rd32      1       FF        1       RU

2007    8       1stRd     1       E8        2       E8

2006    7       1stRd     3       Rd32      1       E8

2005    NA      DNP       1       NC        NA      DNP

2004    NA      DNP       6       Rd32      7       Rd32

2003    3       FF        2       RU        7       1stRd

2002    5       1stRd     1       FF        NA      DNP

2001    NA      DNP       2       Rd32      NA      DNP

2000    NA      DNP       8       Rd32      N/A     N/A

1999    N/A     N/A       6       Rd32      N/A     N/A

1998    N/A     N/A       1       Rd32      N/A     N/A

        MSU/Izzo         NOVA/JW           OSU/Matta

Year    Seed   Finish    Seed    Finish    Seed    Finish

2016    2      1stRd     2       NC        NA      DNP

2015    7      FF        1       Rd32      10    Rd32

2014    4      E8        2       Rd32      6     1stRd

2013    3      SW16      9       1stRd     2     E8

2012    1      SW16      NA      DNP       2     FF

2011    10     1stRd     9       1stRd     1     SW16

2010    5      FF        2       Rd32      2     SW16

2009    2      FF        3       FF        8     1stRd

2008    5      SW16      12      SW16      NA    DNP

2007    9      Rd32      9       1stRd     1     RU

2006    6      1stRd     1       E8        2     Rd32

2005    5      FF        5       SW16      NA    DNP

2004    7      1stRd     NA      DNP       7     E8

2003    7      E8        NA      DNP       3     Rd32

2002    10     1stRd     NA      DNP       7     Rd32

2001    1      FF        13      1stRd     10    Rd32

2000    1      NC        14      1stRd     N/A   N/A

1999    1      FF        NA      DNP       N/A   N/A

1998    4      SW16      NA      DNP       N/A   N/A

There is a direct correlation to how the 6 teams above statistically perform to how they finish in a tournament setting. Again, the numbers don’t lie.


And this get back to Fred Glass’ comments at the end of the 2014-15 season:


"My goals for this program are to perennially contend for and to win multiple Big Ten championships, regularly go deep in the NCAA tournament and win our next national championship," Glass said. "Be elite, if you will.”


That was a direct quote Glass made to the Indianapolis Star. Again, I can’t guarantee Crean won’t go farther than a Sweet 16 this coming season, possibly even get to a Final Four.


But I watch the play on the court, see how they perform statistically (which is where your CONSISTENCY will come from) and know that Tom Crean is not going to make us elite.

Thanks for doing all the heavy lifting. After going trough the numbers, I am not sure Crean is any better than Davis. If you factored in sos, they would have very similar winning percentages (Throwing out Crean's 1st two years).

 

[Tasmanian Devil]

Thanks for doing all the heavy lifting. After going trough the numbers, I am not sure Crean is any better than Davis. If you factored in sos, they would have very similar winning percentages (Throwing out Crean's 1st two years).

Doing the heavy lifting (looking up the stats) wasn't the hard part - formatting the columns on the tables to read somewhat aligned was a pain in the butt.

If you look at all of those coaches best years and down years, there is a direct correlation to how they perform statistically to their overall success. Things happen for a reason. I wish it were different and that we could hope for a breakthrough with Crean, but the reality is it's not likely to happen.

 

[fpeaugh]

We'll according to the most in the know poster on the other site, and maybe this one as well, the boosters are having talks about removing Crean. Apparently if we had lost to ND last season Crean would've been gone. His seat is very warm if not on fire.

I've been saying this for the last year. I'm not just pulling it out of my a&$

 

[Harpo Marxist]

I've been saying this for the last year. I'm not just pulling it out of my a&$

can't even google any confirmation on this....he was on the hot seat a year and a half ago...or appeared to be. This guy is making Top 10 coaching money. His recruiting budget is obscene comparitavely speaking...and look at recruiting....above average, nationally..but not elite.

 

[ORG]

What makes you think this? What has Crean done since 2012,that indicates you he can do better? None of his teams are capable of overcoming a bad night offensively. Not against high level competition. And on the occasion that they do, its basically because the other team was just as bad(offensively). Take away Indiana's ability to run, and you've basically beaten them. Thats why his teams are so inconsistent. That and defensively Indiana just not very disciplined. And that sir is coaching. And it's been going on since Day one.

Just curious. What have you seen that makes you feel he cannot or will not do better?

I think you may have misread my post. I did not say CTC can not or will not do better. I said I disagree with the statement that CTC can not or will not do better and I partially base that opinion on what he did last year.

 

[jaypay23]

Doing the heavy lifting (looking up the stats) wasn't the hard part - formatting the columns on the tables to read somewhat aligned was a pain in the butt.

If you look at all of those coaches best years and down years, there is a direct correlation to how they perform statistically to their overall success. Things happen for a reason. I wish it were different and that we could hope for a breakthrough with Crean, but the reality is it's not likely to happen.

Crean does not know what he's doing out there and its reflecting to the players as they look confused and out of sync. And they always seem to get really confused going up against solid defensive teams and it will probably be exposed tonight again.

 

[snarlcakes]

I think you may have misread my post. I did not say CTC can not or will not do better. I said I disagree with the statement that CTC can not or will not do better and I partially base that opinion on what he did last year.

A couple of things to consider. IU's Big Ten SOS was the easiest in the league and the BIg Ten conference was the 5th rated conference overall. It played a part in the 15-3 conference record. Also, based on preseason expectations, last years team performed about what most people predicted. It just looked better at the end of the year because IU was so awful to start the season, which is on Crean.

 

[bailey777]

Crean does not know what he's doing out there and its reflecting to the players as they look confused and out of sync. And they always seem to get really confused going up against solid defensive teams and it will probably be exposed tonight again.

I still cannot believe you amount of money we are paying for these results. We could pay a guy a third of what we are paying now. Thanks Fred.

 

[IUfanBorden]

I think you may have misread my post. I did not say CTC can not or will not do better. I said I disagree with the statement that CTC can not or will not do better and I partially base that opinion on what he did last year.

I did. My apologies.

 

[biggio7]

I did. My apologies.

I will say it he can't do better