Indiana plays ‘young’ in humbling 94-74 defeat to No. 4 Louisville

  • 12/10/2014 8:31 am in

Indiana knew it would get severely challenged on Tuesday night against No. 4 Louisville in Madison Square Garden.

It knew the Cardinals attack the boards and force turnovers. The Hoosiers were going to do all they could to combat it.

It was not enough as Louisville (8-0) defeated Indiana (7-2) by a 94-74 score. The Cardinals rebounded 52.0 percent of their misses. They also forced 19 Hoosiers turnovers and an Indiana season-high 24.6 turnover percentage.

“They deserved to win, they did a great job and I’m sure we’ll find some bright things on it from the tape,” Indiana coach Tom Crean said. “Right now I don’t see it that way, but we’ve got to be much more competitive on the glass and we have to play with a higher level of intelligence and a higher level of toughness in other areas to improve and get better and to be able to challenge teams like that and be able to play in our league the way we need to play.”

For the first half and opening five minutes of the second half, the Hoosiers actually proved to be competitive against the Cardinals — a team that came into the game ranked No. 2 in defense in the country.

From the start, the Hoosiers struggled with turnovers and allowing offensive rebounds. But their shooting kept them in it.

In the first half alone, Indiana shot 7-of-10 on three-pointers and posted a 67.2 effective field goal percentage. The Cardinals led at one point, 44-31, but the lead quickly evaporated via two straight three-pointers from Nick Zeisloft and a layup from James Blackmon Jr.

By halftime, the Cardinals led by only a 46-41 score.

“We can be really good,” Blackmon said. “I think we showed that. But the turnovers and the rebounding, that hurt us.”

Through the first few minutes of the second half, Indiana even gained a four-point lead, at its maximum besting Louisville by a 52-48 margin. But a 21-4 run quickly evaporated that lead.

The Cardinals continued to dominate the paint — rebounding more than half their misses, scoring 48 points overall in the paint, another 16 from the free throw line and 25 points from second-chance opportunities — and they continued to capitalize on Hoosiers turnovers, finishing with 19 points off turnovers. All the while, the Hoosiers’ offensive performance deteriorated.

After its first-half explosion, the Hoosiers’ second half consisted of a 1-of-10 rate on three-pointers and a 42.2 effective field goal percentage. The Cardinals put the game out of reach.

“We had some very youthful mistakes going to the basket,” Crean said. “At times we drove to the rim like it was 5-on-0 at practice, forgetting their one of the nation’s leaders in blocked shots and that was not the game plan. The game plan was to keep the dribble alive underneath the basket, keep the game moving, look for cutters and not try to attack and challenge their shot blockers. That’s not the objective for a team like Louisville. The objective is to get good open shots.

“I wouldn’t say we settled, I would say we pre-determined our shot, rather than making the next play. We played young.”

There were positives to take away from the Hoosiers’ performance. The offense forced Louisville into its highest points per possession rate allowed this season (0.96). The Hoosiers shot the best of any team against the Cardinals this season. They also held the Cardinals to below a 50 percent effective field goal rate.

Following the game, Louisville coach Rick Pitino said he did not have any doubts the Hoosiers will be an NCAA tournament team this season. But when Zeisloft was asked whether the Hoosiers believe the same thing, he shrugged the assumption off. He said there is plenty of room to still improve — especially after Tuesday’s game.

“Every day we have a lot of things to do to get to the level we want to be at,” Zeisloft said. “We need to take care of the rebounding, need to take care of every pass, take care of shooting, and especially defense. We’re going to look to get better at that, and that will be our focus is on the defensive end.”

Filed to:

  • Jimmy Johnson

    I don’t think this is unfair. He is not at Marquette any longer and with the exception of Cody’s sophomore year there has been no consistent defensive philosophy rather a hodgepodge of ineffective schemes. If one looks at the championship coaches there is a consistent defensive philosophy that over the course of the year and seasons is consistently ingrained into their players to the point of habit. Every coach from Coach K to Boheim to Izzo and even the hate Calipari have had consistent defensive philosophies. Until Crean is willing to skirt short term success for long term consistency we will continue to be a fringe NCAA team and on occasion make a Sweet 16 run.

  • dwdkc

    But ‘Ville doesn’t play a lot of players. Not sure why that has to be. That stretch after getting the 4 point lead was disturbing–I don’t think they were that tired, but they let up mentally I think. Maybe were so pleased with the big run they’d had. That is immaturity.

  • hagster

    Stop right there. Officials had absolutely nothing to do with the outcome of that game. Indiana played no defense and failed to block out the cards. End of story David

  • David Macer

    Hags, good to hear from you. But nowhere was I complaining about the officiating. Thought the game was well called for 99% of the time. But the shot Yogi took was pretty bad, at least from the angle on TV. Might have a different opinion if I was in attendance.

  • David Macer

    How long have you been following IU ?? Me, since the 60’s. Grandfather, Dad, Mom, Uncle and Brother are all grads like me. I have high expectations of ALL IU teams and love when we have NCAA winning programs.

    But my expectations are tempered with a bit of reality too. I have never used the term “elite” even when IU was in it’s hey day. The grass is not always greener on the other side. We are not far away and did take a step backwards last year.

    I will use one example…Coach K and Duke. It took Coach K 11 seasons to win the NCAA and they won it 2 consecutive years, 91 and 92. Then in 1995 they had a losing season. They have lost in the round of 64 twice in the past three years with amazing talent to such big name schools as Mercer and Lehigh !!! It takes much, much more than talent and coaching. It takes a little bit of luck too !!

  • pcantidote

    It is laughable that you called out the one year in the last 30 that Duke did not make the tourney. This is their seeding in the tourney over the last 30 years. This is elite. This should be the standard:

    Years ? ’84 ’85 ’86 ’87 ’88 ’89 ’90 ’91 ’92 ’93 ’94 ’96 ’97 ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04 ’05 ’06 ’07 ’08 ’09 ’10 ’11 ’12 ’13 ’14

    Seeds ? 3 3 1 5 2 2 3 2 1 3 2 8 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 6 2 2 1 1 2 2 3

  • David Macer

    So you want to play that way. Lets look at the entire body of work for both !!!

    Banners – IU 5 Duke 4
    Runner Up – IU 1, Duke 6
    Final Four – IU 8, Duke 15 (since 2000 IU 1, Duke 3)
    Elite 8 – IU 11, Duke 19
    Sweet 16 – IU 21, Duke 27
    NCAA – IU 37, Duke 38

    I would say that’s a pretty fair comparison. IU losing a HOF coach in RMK causes the difference, IMHO. Coach K will continue to coach at Duke for as long as he wants. Lets see what happens to the program when he leaves. It will have similar problems that all big name programs have when you lose a coach of that caliber. All you have to do is look at the following schools: UCLA – Wooden; Indiana – Knight; UNC – Smith; UK – Rupp; UL – Crum; and Ohio State – Taylor.
    The only school not to suffer after a big name coach left is Kansas. Three consecutive HOF coaches ….Brown, Williams and now Self.

    I don’t want to argue with you anymore cause we might cause the entire internet to crash. I just have far more patience than you do !!

  • pcantidote

    So I guess that is what it comes down to…how long do you wait until you believe you have your next HOF coach or not. I think we are teetering on the edge of that decision, and therein lies the debate we and many others are having. You and I are obviously leaning on different sides of it.


    Good comment. I agree that we need TW on the court for his size, but what I have began to wonder is, would we be losing as much as we think we would. When we compare what we are gaining from having “his size” on the floor, to what we gain when he isn’t on the floor turning it over, not taking one of, what is seemingly becoming his shot of choice, the running floater from outside of the lane and / or not making the pass to the open man, is that trade off worth it ? I’m to the point where I think it is worth it to experiment in one or two of the cupcakes that we have left to see if it is beneficial to us, overall, as a team. The guy has some excellent hops but doesn’t seem to be able to harness those good hops in the way of rebounds, at least not like it seems like he should be.


    Exactly. Thanks for saving me the keystrokes.


    Ok Kreskin, quit peering into my brain and typing my most inner IU bball thoughts. lol Agree with every single word of your comment, big upvote given ! We are good enough offensively that we could afford to give up a little bit in that department if we gained ground in the rebounding or defense aspects, either one, let alone both. I would even go as far as to say that, the vast majority of dribble drive teams, play with more than one interior player.


    I’m thinking that it isn’t that so much that he’s a slow learner, but more of a, it worked all through my high school playing days and has worked at IU up till now and they have just gotten lucky blocking my shot, so I’ll show them, I’ll just keep doing it and I will either score or they will foul me trying to stop me. I’d say he got a real, ” film study reality check” the next day. Throwing it down like he did when Harrell tried to block his shot proves he is a more than capable driver and just has to learn to do a better job picking his places to put it on the floor and go to the bucket, but you’re for sure right he was not doing even a average job in that game picking his driving spots.


    Have to disagree with you on this one. I think immaturity was exactly what it was, well that and a certain degree of stubbornness on his part. The UL game very well may have been a first for JBJ in that he probably had never played against another team in AAU or high school that was able to block his shot without fouling him when he drove to the bucket like UL did and it just took awhile for it to sink in and for him to realize it wasn’t luck on their part or him just needing to drive a little bit differently than what he was. I didn’t see the postgame either or hear his postgame with Don Fischer, but after what he said at halftime on TV and after he pulled and chewed out more than one player for doing it, he would be justified in saying that JBJ shouldn’t have done that and that he, and all the other guards, had been told to choose their spots wisely if they were going to drive into the teeth of the UL defense. IMHO, I think Yogi not driving the ball to the hole near as much as he usually does was not a result of him needing to save his energy to be able to get the ball up the court against the press, but rather him showing his maturity by, one, he wasn’t going to do exactly what the coaches had told them not to do, and, two, he understood that, more often than not, that the only thing that was going to be gained by blindly driving the ball into the teeth of UL’s defense was a block or a turnover that resulted in a run out the other way for UL.


    Hopefully with as much time as he spent in Nowheresville he was able to find the on ramp and will remember which exit he took that led him into that town and will make sure he doesn’t take that exit again.


    It’s true that TC has said that, and I agree, but if he was telling him to drive it in there like he did in this game the only thing I can think of was so that when they watched the film he could show him a perfect example of how and when not to drive the ball to the rim and I think we can both agree that that wasn’t the case.




    Think you better include Gtwon in that tough category. Their frontcourt is very big, height wise AND bulk wise, you know, exactly where we aren’t that way. If we are favored in that game I will be very surprised.

  • hagster

    Well they fired the greatest coach in history of Basketball. Bob Knight. You think knight would put up with this junk????

  • hagster

    That stat is not revelant to anything. Sounds like a Purdue analagy.

  • hagster

    David my old friend. Wow what a great respose in that article. I am very impressed