Standing outside his team’s locker room after a season-ending 73-58 loss to Northwestern, the question was posed to Indiana’s young guard: What did you learn from this season?

“We can be a great rebounding team,” Hulls said. “We came together, we have lots to improve upon, but I feel like we got a lot better as the season went on.”

Down the stretch run last year, during that record-setting losing streak and through the mounting blowouts, it began to feel as though the Hoosiers had maxed out their potential for that season. Overmatched and undermanned every night, Indiana reached a point where players were physically and, perhaps, mentally worn down to such a degree that both the means and the end of each game became thoroughly predictable.

This season looked that way too, for awhile. After a strong December and January, marked by wins over the likes of Pittsburgh, Michigan and Minnesota, the Hoosiers disappeared, losing 11 in a row in mostly-forgettable fashion. Fans wanted to give up. Some of us in the media (me, mostly) wanted to let go. Even players, at times, appeared as if their hearts and heads just couldn’t align well enough to give another win-worthy effort.

The Senior Day win over Northwestern disproved that. And Thursday’s loss, deceptively large, sort of said the same.

I was in this building a year ago when, against a talented-but-not-unstoppable Penn State squad, No. 11-seed Indiana basically rolled over. The Hoosiers just looked too tired, too worn down, too short of confidence to mount a significant challenge against any Big Ten opponent.

What positives could one take from such regular, predictable, heavy losing? I don’t think it’s fair to say that this time around.

I’ll acknowledge that this team has serious problems. We could find most of them, you and I, if we took a trip down Thursday’s final stat sheet … so why don’t we?

Nineteen turnovers to 10 assists, that’s a familiar tune. Seventeen offensive rebounds allowed, although 14 were also collected. Northwestern ending the game on a 37-15 run should also be chucked into this conversation as well.

But these are mistakes that get ironed out with experience — correctable mistakes that, when they’ve played well and flashed future potential, we’ve seen the Hoosiers overcome.

Last season, there was an unspoken understanding that progress was going to, at a given point, grind to a halt from which it could not be retrieved. This season, if at times so slowly, Indiana still kept growing, and though it’s hard to see, it’s in that slight difference that measurable steps can be taken.

Players provided examples:

Christian Watford: “We get real tentative under pressure is one thing. And that happened today also. We had some key turnovers late that cost us the game. With time and with experience, that won’t happen.”

Derek Elston: “In the beginning, a lot of people could have said rebounding. But, you know, we took rebounding to the next level after that, so really, just everybody’s kind of got to work on their own, individually. That’s one thing that I think is the only thing I could really look at right now.”

Obviously, it doesn’t happen with words, and it certainly doesn’t happen in postgame locker rooms following conference tournament losses. But, more often than not, it happens.

Accuse me of being soft on Tom Crean, or soft on this team. Go ahead, I don’t care. Last weekend, I trekked up to Milwaukee for the Notre Dame-Marquette game, and I saw a team two years removed from Crean that still bore his wax seal — they played fast, moved the ball, cracked down on defense, and, as of the writing of this column, have taken a projected 13th-place finish in the Big East and won 22 games and a spot in the NCAA tournament. Buzz Williams obviously deserves plenty of credit, but so does the man who put his team together for him, and not just in recruiting.

I’ll be perfectly honest — I don’t know if Crean’s ceiling as a coach is high enough to return Indiana to where it wants to go, I really don’t. But I do know that two years, given the depth of the task Crean faces, is not enough time to celebrate or condemn his work. Progress has been made, if by no other measure than in wins. (Which also happen to be the simplest in this business.)

Nearly every college basketball season must end in defeat, it’s the natural order of things. And every end-of-season locker room often overflows with talk of next year, of belief, of meaningful, touchable, impactful improvement, and Indiana’s was no different.

But when Jordan Hulls had a chance to speak rhetorically, to spout off the same tired-but-indestructible lines every 10-win basketball team must cling to for survival, he talked about rebounding.

Call me crazy, but that’s progress.

Ready, set, go.

Start here.

Thanks to the Big Ten Geeks, here’s a scatter plot of offensive and defensive efficiency in the Big Ten as of yesterday:

Yes, not only is IU worst in the Big Ten offensively, as its only scoring about .93-.94 points per possession, but its second to last in defensive efficiency, allowing about 1.11 points per possession. If you want to know why IU has lost eight straight Big Ten games, you don’t have to look any further than these two numbers. When you aren’t scoring as much as your opponents, and you aren’t defending them well either, it’s sort of hard to get over the hump, ya dig?

When will they crack 60?

Let’s get visual, visual again. Via Statsheet, here’s IU scoring numbers:

IU has failed to eclipse the 60-point mark in its last four games, and barely did it in its fifth to last game — hitting 61 — in a loss to Northwestern. And pace really has nothing to do with the low amount of points IU is scoring: according to Ken Pomeroy, the Hoosiers’ adjusted pace of 68.6 possessions per game is a touch higher than the national average. They aren’t playing a slow game.

So why then, Ryan, are they specifically having trouble putting the ball in the hole?

There are four factors right now that are hurting the Hoosiers:

1) They’re one of the worst teams in the nation at getting their shots blocked. A staggering 12.9 percent of their shots get swatted, which ranks them 338th out of the 347 Division I teams. Meaning this: for every ten shots they take, it’s likely at least one of them isn’t going to find it’s way anywhere near the hoop. Which makes it that much harder for them to put the ball in the basket.

2) Turnovers. Oh the turnovers. They are averaging 15.2 of them per game. That’s 15 possessions a game that are essentially wasted. Add in four or five blocked shots a game, and the Hoosiers are squandering 20 scoring opportunities per game. That’s a lot.

3) Points in the paint. Let’s be real: IU lacks a low-post scoring threat. They just do. And outside of Jeremiah Rivers, this team also lacks a guy that can beat someone off the dribble and take it to the hole for an easy two. As such, this team just doesn’t take a lot of higher-percentage shots around the rim. And they’re not a particularly skilled shooting team from the outside either. They rank last in the Big Ten in field-goal percentage at 39.0 percent, and second to last in the league in 3-point percentage at 32.3 percent. If this team was able to pump in threes at an effective rate to compensate for the lack of inside scoring, they’d have a better chance of being competitive. But that’s just not the case.

4) This may seem rudimentary, but it’s worth bringing up: teams have seen enough tape on the Hoosiers to know their weaknesses and flaws, and with their inexperience and age, they just aren’t overcoming any of it as of late.

Add all this stuff up, and it’s why you see IU go on ridiculously long scoring droughts game after game.

OK, that about does it for me. As always, feel free to add in anything I missed. I’m sure there’s more.

But seeing as it’s actually pretty compelling right now, I thought it pertinent to get a discussion going here as to just who you all think will take home regular-season honors this season as we hit the stretch run. Just to set the stage:

Five teams are within 1 1/2 games of first place in the league. They are, in order: Michigan State, Purdue, Ohio State, Illinois and Wisconsin. There are still games left to play between said contenders:

+ Michigan State: Ohio State, at Purdue.
+ Purdue: Michigan State, Illinois.
+ Ohio State: at Michigan State, Illinois.
+ Illinois: at Purdue, at Ohio State, Wisconsin.
+ Wisconsin: at Illinois.

Given the remaining schedule and the way things stand right now, a couple of things jump out. First, Wisconsin seems to have the easiest run in, with games left against Minnesota, Indiana and Iowa, but the Badgers are also that team 1 1/2 games out.

Purdue has won eight straight, including at Michigan State and at Ohio State. The Boilers look like a team that’s figuring everything out at just the right time, as we cliched sportswriters tend to say, and their lone remaining top-five conference games are at home.

Bruce Weber and Illinois looked hot — and they were, for a time — but now the Illini have to recover from a 19-point beating at home to the Buckeyes, who likewise will need a quick turnaround from a close home loss to Purdue when they head to East Lansing on Sunday.

It should also be fun to watch the Big Ten Player of the Year race develop down this final run of games, with Evan Turner probably in a comfortable lead but Kalin Lucas healthy, perhaps with something to say about it, and E’Twaun Moore playing better and better at Purdue. It will likely be Turner, but I’m just sayin’.

On its face, the Big Ten appears to be Purdue’s to lose right now. The Boilers are the hottest team in the conference, possess impressive balance and have a favorable remaining schedule. Michigan State’s trip to West Lafayette sets up like a potential regular-season title game.

What’s not likely in all this is for Indiana to have much impact. The Hoosiers only have two games remaining against those five teams, a home game against Wisconsin and the March 3 trip to Purdue.

Anyway, wanted to open this up to you guys, see what you thought. Obviously, it’s not directly Indiana-related, but it should still be a heckuva finish, wanted to get your thoughts.

Now, I’m still not entirely sure what that means, but it’s been rolling around in my head for the last few hours, so I just thought I’d get it out there.

Like most (if not all) of you, I watched at least some portion of the sound beating IU took at Wisconsin on Saturday. I was unable to watch from stem to stern, but I got the gist — not enough offense, not enough defense, not enough points, not enough hustle, not enough of anything for anyone to really find positives in anything but the final buzzer and those brief moments when it slipped from your mind that there was a game yesterday at all.

Now, it’s been suggested, in this space and in others, that I, specifically, am too easy on Tom Crean, too forgiving of the Hoosiers’ plethora of shortcomings as this season slowly turns the way of last.

But the truth is, folks, I understand. I really do. I understand how hard it is to watch this team play, and struggle as it does. There’s a standard Indiana fans expect, and it’s not being met.

And I know that for many of you, that standard isn’t measured solely with banners or wins-per-season averages, but simply with hard work, teamwork and commitment. The majority of you have (at least, I think you have) bought into what Tom Crean is selling — the rebuilding, baby steps approach that celebrates every move forward this team makes, and forgives most of its regressions.

But water will always boil when succumbing to intense heat, and so fans will become displeased when they see performances like the last three IU has managed. I’ve seen part or all of Northwestern, Ohio State and Wisconsin, and this time, I’ll agree with you, Hoosier Nation, your complaints are valid.

Sitting inside Mackey Arena on Saturday, (I cover Purdue for the Times now, too) I recalled IU’s trip to West Lafayette last season, because of something Matt Painter said after the game. I don’t recall, nor can I track down, his exact words, but essentially, Painter sympathized with Tom Crean a little bit.

Every coach that had come through the door after beating Indiana praised the Hoosiers’ hustle, their tenacity, their drive. But Painter had been through the same sort of rebuilding project, albeit on a smaller scale, in his first years at Purdue. So when talking about Indiana, and all those intangible qualities they supposedly offered, Painter also checked himself, saying essentially (and now I’m paraphrasing) that he understood how Indiana felt, that after awhile, you just don’t want to hear about how hard you try if you aren’t winning to go with it.

Painter said he knew Crean didn’t want pity, but respect, and I believed that day that in Painter, Indiana had earned it from the coach of their most-hated rival.

The problem, as I see it, is that Indiana has even lost that. They’ve lost that spunk that at least made them endearing without replacing it with genuine results, at least in the last three games.

Is it fair to judge so harshly on three games? Maybe. Maybe not. But it’s Indiana basketball. The coach is the state’s highest-paid employee, the spotlight is brighter, it comes with the candy-striped warm-ups.

In this team’s defense, which many do think I come to too often, it’s hard to talk about this group and the tradition of Indiana basketball. One former player told me last year that that tradition, as it was passed down from player to player under Bob Knight and at least for a time under Mike Davis, had all but evaporated well before everything fell apart and needed putting back together again.

So what makes us think that this Hoosier pride, as it were, can be restored simply through speeches and t-shirts? What was it that made playing for Indiana so much more special that it was set aside as “tradition” rather than simply the trappings of playing within an elite program? Was it a commitment to honesty? Academic excellence? Hard work? Fair play? All of the above? None of the above?

When Dan Dakich said Saturday on the Big Ten Network’s studio show that Indiana essentially played with no heart against Wisconsin, I’m not sure he was attacking the Hoosiers so much as he was pointing out a significant program-wide mentality that has been lost in recent years.

The questions, of course, are how that is restored, and whether Tom Crean is the man to do it. Is a commitment to the way of those who came before, with an emphasis on playing hard, hustling, out-working everyone no matter the task in front of them? Because those challenges look like maybe they’re starting to fall on deaf ears.

Or is it something else? Is it time for a coach to come in and put his own stamp on Indiana the way Knight did, but independent of Knight’s methods?

Alabama football clung for two decades to the notion of trying to do things exactly as Bear Bryant had done them, and the only coach who was successful in that span was Gene Stallings, himself an incredibly formidable sideline task master.

After Stallings, the program faltered until Nick Saban arrived, with his own way of doing things, with his own plan and his own attitude and no time to look back because it was necessary only to move forward.

Maybe for Indiana, the dogmas of the quiet past (although I’d hardly call it “quiet”) truly are inadequate to the stormy present. Perhaps it’s time to stop holding onto the Bob Knight-instilled way of doing things, and let another coach come in and run the show his way, with his methods and his agenda.

This isn’t condoning the methods of, say, Kelvin Sampson. I think we can all agree that an adherence to the rules is requisite for any program anywhere. (Well, almost anywhere.) But unless these recent performances become an aberration rather than the expected — and given the way the Hoosiers have played and who they have coming up, that seems unlikely — then this will become the latest in nearly a decade’s worth of seasons that ended, at best, in disappointment.

Tom Crean would be the first to tell you, that won’t get it done at Indiana.

Of course, these numbers are not the only determining factors once the ball is tossed up, but they certainly point to Wisconsin being heavily favored.

A couple of things really stand out for the Badgers: First, their turnover percentage is a ridiculous 15.5 percent, good for fourth in the country. The Hoosiers, by comparison, turn it over at a clip of 21.7 percent.

Second, Wisconsin’s defensive rebounding percentage is third nationally. Translation: Good luck getting to the offensive glass. Indiana is doing a respectable job on the offensive boards, but they’re going to need an extraordinary effort in that category to keep this competitive. That means Jeremiah Rivers and Verdell Jones really need to crash the boards.

Pomeroy is calling this a 71-53 win for Wisconsin and puts the chances of an IU win at three percent. Given Bo Ryan’s success at the Kohl Center and the fact that Wisconsin is coming off its first home loss of the season to Illinois, this prediction does not seem far fetched.

In acknowledgment of your fragile state of mind, (and also because I don’t want an angry mob outside my apartment tonight) the references to any certain Super Bowl that may have been played in the last 48 hours will end here. But I did want to touch on the Northwestern loss for a moment, because it sparked within me some food for thought.

By now, I think it’s fair to say that we can generally agree that Verdell Jones looks like a candidate to be considered one of the Hoosiers’ team leaders next season. He’s increased his scoring by almost four points per game, he’s got a better assist-to-turnover ratio and he’s rebounding the ball better compared to last season.

More than that, Jones is one of the few Hoosiers who appears to be comfortable being a vocal leader — shots of him getting in teammates’ faces after fouls or poor decisions, or explaining things in tense situations against Minnesota would be examples of this.

I’ll also throw into the conversation the fact that, at his current pace, Jones will improve in several categories, including scoring, in Big Ten play, when competition is supposed to be tougher. In fact, his top five scoring performances have all come in conference play.

All of this is a precursor to the primary point of the argument: Indiana is starting to look like a team with a future. Not just a future in which something will happen because it must, but a predictable, discernible forward path, with more positives and compartmentalized negatives.

I ask you to look with me past getting handled at Northwestern and another season as the Big Ten’s doormat, and consider the bigger picture.

Imagine a team, next year, that can start Jones and Maurice Creek on either wing, with Jeremiah Rivers at the point and Christian Watford down low. Find ways to get meaningful minutes from some combination of Tom Pritchard, Bawa Muniru, Bobby Capobianco and Derek Elston at the fifth spot, draw solid bench minutes from Jordan Hulls and maybe Matt Roth or one or two of the incoming freshmen, and suddenly, you’ve got a basketball team.

This isn’t to say that there aren’t problems that need fixing, and that others won’t arise along the way. To continue the example, Verdell Jones’ defense needs all kinds of work. Jeremiah Rivers desperately needs to improve his free-throw shooting if he’s going to continue to be a driving point guard that can draw fouls. Tom Pritchard … well, let’s just be honest and say that whole foursome of post players really needs some work.

Slowly but surely, however, a sense of normalcy is returning to Indiana basketball. The catastrophe, the confusion, the utter despair I’m sure some of you felt, it’s quietly subsiding, and we’re actually just left with a regular basketball team with regular basketball team problems, and hope for a better future.

Where this future will take them, I cannot say. Like Verdell Jones, the Hoosiers sit squarely on the fence right now between just possessing some decent talent and actually making legitimate and necessary improvement. But compare that to where this program was four months ago, then tell me how you feel.

It can’t be much worse than last night.

Sources at ESPN and inside the administration at a powerhouse NCAA basketball school told me today that the NCAA basketball tournament going to 96 teams is a “done deal.”

An ESPN source said, “It’s a done deal with the expansion of the tournament. Depending on how soon a (TV) deal is done, the added teams could start next year. The NCAA confirmed that bidders would be interested in 96 teams, so they’re going with it.”

NCAA Vice President Greg Shaheen quickly refuted the notion that any deal for expansion is done, but did admit that the NCAA is talking with parties who have interest. CBS has the rights to the tournament (at over $2 billion) for three more years, but the NCAA has the right to opt out of the contract until August 31. This opens up the possibility of another network, like ESPN, swooping in with a more lucrative deal which includes expansion. More games to televise equals more money for the NCAA and whomever ends up with the broadcasting rights.

But, money aside, is this really the right move for college basketball? The opening weekend of the NCAA Tournament is, in my opinion, the best sports weekend of the year. And as someone who subscribes to idea of “if ain’t broke then don’t try to fix it,” expansion seems like a money grab and well, not much else. It certainly won’t improve the quality of the tournament because 31 borderline teams will be added to the field.

So, where do you stand on this, ITH’ers? Could you live with an expanded tournament? Or is the path to expansion one big mistake?

Titled “Crean’s Hoosiers Still on Roller Coaster,” Snyder dives into Tom Crean’s first 21 months on the job in Bloomington. He mentions the complete overhaul the program underwent and also talks about the up-and-down play this season. Aimed more towards a national audience, none of this would be news to those of you that frequent ITH.

But towards the end, Snyder looks toward the future and makes a few pointed comments that seem to suggest that the honeymoon could come to an end for Crean next season. Here’s a few of them:

Crean will probably continue to receive a free pass as the team skates to its second consecutive season without a post-season game. That will all change next year, however.

There is no reason that the 2011 Hoosiers shouldn’t be a big part of Selection Sunday.

Remember when Crean took the job and, when asked why he took over such a dire situation, kept saying, “It’s Indiana” with a big smile? Well, come next season, the roller coaster isn’t going to be suitable anymore.

Beginning in 2011, the next time Crean doesn’t make the NCAA Tournament will be very problematic. After all, it’s Indiana. We don’t do roller coaster seasons. We do Final Fours.

Look, I think we can all agree that Indiana making the NCAA Tournament next season would be fantastic. But to say it will be “very problematic” if it doesn’t happen? I’m not buying it.

Here are the facts: Yes, next year’s team will be a year older, more confident and more experienced. And yes, next year’s team will (fingers crossed) enjoy the presence of Maurice Creek for a full season.

But let’s not forget that this restoration project is still in its infancy. That’s why Crean has a 10-year contract. Shortcuts aren’t being taken. Rome wasn’t built in a day, folks. To expect a jump from sub .500 this year to a “big part of Selection Sunday” is asking a little much, no?

As someone who’s had the opportunity to watch Crean work both on the recruiting trail and the sidelines, I’m convinced the man is building the program the way it should be built.

And as easy as it might be to look at the quick turnaround at a program like Kentucky, Indiana tried the win-at-all costs solution with Kelvin Sampson. It didn’t work.

Will he make mistakes? Absolutely. Will we analyze those mistakes and second guess decisions that are made? That’s what fans do. But before you go adopting the “After all, it’s Indiana. We don’t do roller coaster seasons. We do Final Fours,” approach, sit back, relax, remember Indiana had been to one Final Four in 16 seasons before his arrival and let the man do his job.

No seriously, remember when he was the next prototype Indiana big man—not big or nimble enough to just dominate, but automatic to the point of getting his numbers every single night. Or at least that’s what he was going to be. Yea, that train has sort of sailed.

In a year that’s been up-and-down for Indiana basketball, Pritchard is like the kid in the last car on the roller coaster, getting the worst of every turn and the least out of every barrel roll.

Bad similes aside, it really has been a forgettable year for the big man from Westlake, Ohio. Pritchard wasn’t jaw-dropping last year, but he was consistent, and he had the distinct advantage of being a productive post player on a team almost completely void of them.

But now he has to share the frontcourt. There are other big bodies that Tom Crean can throw out on the floor, and suddenly Pritchard looks less like the next great hope and more like Sean Kline with two good knees. Minutes are down, fouls are up, points are down, fan displeasure is way, way up, and young Pritchard has too often looked like any combination of lost, timid, weak and confused. I’ll bet it won’t take 10 comments to find those words and more like it used to describe Pritchard following this post.

But is it fair? I mean, is it entirely his fault? Has Pritchard really fallen that far? Short answer: Probably not. Long answer: Glad you asked.

First, let’s be honest. No, Pritchard has not looked good through most of this year.

I got the chance to join the good folks over at the H-T (well, Dustin moreso than Korman [implied]) for their post-at Michigan ScoopTalk episode, and the first question Chris posed to me asked what Pritchard has been missing this year. The first and most obvious answer is confidence, Pritchard just hasn’t looked as assertive or as sure of himself as he did last year. Yes, his production tailed off as 2009 wound down, but that had far more to do with depth and his simply being worn down than with confidence.

And yes, it’s entirely fair to expect Pritchard to improve from one season to the next. That’s the evolution of basketball—of all sports—and Pritchard seems to be defying that process. Where we might run into problems is in the assumption that having extra big men on roster who could hold their own would help Pritchard, when it’s probably hurt him just as much.

I’ll admit, I’m as guilty as anyone. I figured Pritchard would be a mainstay in the IU offense this season. He had a year to get his fitness up, and yes, he was going to have some help down low. All of that = more points, rebounds and minutes from Tom Pritchard.

But in all honesty, I wonder if the sudden competition down low hasn’t hurt Pritchard more than it’s helped. I mean, consider what he’s now working with.

Christian Watford is easily the best of the bunch, although obviously he’s not a died-in-the-wool big. Watford is a comfortable ‘tweener, and the best overall player by some distance, which makes him the most adaptable and prolific in this offense. Then comes Bobby “The Situation” Capobianco, (I don’t understand) who’s probably cut Pritchard’s minutes as much as anybody, and Derek Elston, who has made enough impressive bench cameos to have some fans screaming for more him and less Pritchard.

Well, duh, you say, of course sharing court time with other talented post players will decline Pritchard’s production, and it surely has. But let’s also remember that Pritchard was a three-star prospect whose other offers came from Penn State and Miami (Ohio). He was a Kelvin Sampson project, a down-the-line starter who would have the time and protection-by-depth-chart to stay out of the glare until he was ready for it.

I understand many of you are getting tired of that sort of excuse, and I understand. But that doesn’t change the fact that Pritchard, like his team, is young and still in the midst of growth under most trying circumstances. It’s been a tough year for the big man—and I’m through trying to predict how this team will turn out, it leads me to dark places—but I think Pritchard deserves at least 12 more months to prove his mettle.

Some quotes from coach Tom Crean on his radio show last evening:

We’re getting closer to decision time,” Crean said on his radio show Monday night. “He’s ahead of schedule, what that totally means, we’re getting closer to finding out.”

“We’d really like him back,” Crean said. “And the thing about Matt is not only can he shoot it, but Matt moves the basketball. When that ball stops, and that thought gets out ‘lets see if I have a play before I make the next pass.’ That’s the stuff we’ve gotta go through, and it drives me nuts.”

If you remember back when the injury occurred in Puerto Rico, Crean did indicate that if Roth was still unable to play in February, the team wouldn’t bring him back aboard; instead they’d apply for a medical hardship and give Roth another year of eligibility.

We’re about at the breaking point here: Roth may be ahead of schedule, but if he’s still not good to go very soon, it’s likely he won’t play this season.

But let’s not reach that conclusion just yet. Let’s talk about where Roth fits in with this current incarnation of the Hoosiers. Roth is certainly no NBA talent, but he’s also a guy that can hit the outside shot like few others on this team. When he’s hot, he’s hot. It takes some serious shooting talent to be able to knock down nine threes — tied for an IU record — as a freshman. So where I see him fitting in sans Mo Creek is another option for IU in the corners or out on the wings to knock down treys. Think of him as a Jordan Hulls type, except without the point guard skills. I’m not sure his presence in Crean’s system allows this Hoosiers team another win or two, but who knows: when IU failed to hit a three against Iowa, a hot Roth could have been there to keep it closer at the end of that game. And if Crean is pointing out his passing value as well, he’d probably see some decent minutes off the bench this season.

If I had my druthers, I’d say it’s probably best to get Roth a redshirt season here, and use his shooting prowess down the road when IU is battling to get in the NCAA Tournament. No reason to rush him back now. Though, this decision could muddy up the scholarship situation at some point down the road.

So what say you ITH’ers? Would you want a bump from Matt Roth in the back half of the Big Ten season? Or would you prefer him not to burn a year of eligibility?