March Watch: It’s never too early to talk seeding

  • 01/09/2013 8:59 am in

IUJackITH0004Selection Sunday is a little more than nine weeks away and Indiana is roughly at the midway point of their schedule, so it’s time for our first 2013 edition of March Watch and a look at where the Hoosiers stand in terms of the NCAA Tournament.


Indiana’s lone blemish is an 88-86 overtime loss to Butler at Bankers Life Fieldhouse and their RPI and strength of schedule numbers should both begin to trend upward as Big Ten play rolls along. With a strong pool of favorable 2nd and 3rd round venues in terms of proximity, the Hoosiers will likely be able to take advantage of the pod system and land at a site like Dayton or Lexington.

IU currently sits at No. 6 on ESPN bracketologist Joe Lunardi’s s-curve, trailing Duke, Michigan, Arizona, Louisville and Kansas.

Nitty Gritty Profile

· Record: 14-1 (2-0 Big Ten)
· RPI: 16
· SOS: 43
· Home Record: 10-0
· Away Record: 2-0
· Neutral Court Record: 2-1
· vs. RPI Top 50: 3-1
· vs. RPI Top 51-100: 1-0

As Lunardi wrote Tuesday at ESPN Insider ($), IU’s non-conference schedule is currently working against the Hoosiers in seeding exercises. The overall strength of schedule is still respectable, but eight guarantee games could be viewed as a bit on the heavy side by the selection committee. Of course that nitpicking of the schedule will be totally irrelevant if Indiana wins the Big Ten, as a No. 1 seed would become a lock.

Bracket Projections

· ESPN Bracketology (Joe Lunardi): 2 seed vs. Vermont in Lexington
· CBS Sports (Jerry Palm): 2 seed vs. College of Charleston in Lexington
· Sports Illustrated (Andy Glockner): 2 seed vs. Detroit in Lexington

Indiana may get a game at Rupp Arena after all, it just won’t be against Kentucky. Right now, all three of the brackets we’re tracking have the Hoosiers in Lexington for 2nd and 3rd round games. But after that, getting a chance to play through the midwest regional in Indianapolis could prove tougher than originally expected. Michigan and Louisville are currently the primary competition for the No. 1 seed in the midwest and both are currently ahead of IU in all three projections. Again, it’s super early, but winning the Big Ten likely puts Indiana as the No. 1 in the midwest ahead of both the Cardinals and Wolverines. Indiana could even play through Indianapolis as a No. 2 if Louisville grabs the No. 1, but it seems unlikely that Indiana and Michigan would both land in the midwest as the No. 1 and No. 2 seed. Bottom line: The head-to-head games with Michigan could be crucial.

Tournament Sites

· First round: Dayton
· Second, third round: Auburn Hills, Austin, Dayton, Kansas City, Lexington, Philadelphia, Salt Lake City, San Jose
· Regional: Arlington, Indianapolis, Los Angeles, Washington D.C.
· Final Four: Atlanta

Filed to:


    Insert rim shot here

    ding ding ding we have a winner ladies and gentleman.

  • marcusgresham

    I did word that backwards, didn’t I?

  • mike

    forget it guys, IU will NOT win either the B10 or the whole thing. Can’t defend the perimeter with 2 tiny guards, end of discussion. As if it wasn[‘t already proven by Gtown and Butler! But alas, Coach Crean has not noticed. All he’d have to do is stick with Vic at the 2, Will at the 3, and then, THEN, you’ve got a champtionship team

  • Knight said many things during his career, but I don’t ever remember him saying that. Would he bench players and risk a lose to prove a point? Yes. But losing as a teaching tool? No.
    “The only thing losing teaches you is how to lose.” – RMK

  • Benhyoung14

    He talked about it in his book with Bob Hammel. I think it was against Wisconsin, or Minnesota, and was one of the worst, if not the worst losses in Coach Knights history. Lost by over 50 I think.

  • Kevinwaters

    If Knight left the starters in that Minnesota game, the Hoosiers would have lost by 25 anyway…so he let them rest and gave the back ups some PT
    That particular game was going to be a bad L no matter what.
    This year, I don’t see any scenario similar to that one.

  • plane1972

    RMK never talked about intentionally losing because he never intended to lose a game. However, he had no problem starting 3-5 inferior players ahead of his gamers to send a message, even if it meant losing a game. Saw it countless times.