POTB 163: The current state of the Hoosiers and what’s next

  • 02/14/2017 10:15 am in

Podcast on the Brink is back for a new episode with host Jerod Morris of The Assembly Call. The show is available weekly during the season.

In this edition of the show, Morris and Inside the Hall editor Alex Bozich are joined by Rick Bozich of WDRB.com, to discuss where things stand for Indiana and what’s next. Among the topics discussed:

· Where things have gone wrong for Indiana
· How defense and turnovers have defined the season
· How big the loss of Collin Hartman was for Indiana
· Indiana’s stretch of play in late December and early January
· Tom Crean’s comments following the loss against Michigan
· Positives, if there are any, coming out of the last six games
· The development of Thomas Bryant
· What’s next for Indiana?
· A fair standard to expect for Indiana basketball
· The current state of the Big Ten
· What to expect the rest of the way for the Hoosiers

And much, much more. As always, feel free to drop the show a note at [email protected].

Listen in the audio player below, download the episode, subscribe via iTunes or subscribe to the RSS feed.

Filed to:

  • Arch Puddington

    These are points I have been making here for years. Here is the only stat that matters in the Syracuse game: 38-0. That is the number of points that their back court — which consisted of a 6’6″ PG who would go on to be ROY the next season, and a 6’4″, 215 lb. SG — outscored ours. It was a terrible matchup.

    The other thing that people who imagine we were better than that forget: that team lost more times as the #1 ranked team than any team ever had before. Because the preconceived notion was that they were actually that good, people were quite put off when they kept losing and then got bounced by Syracuse. It was as though because Sports Illustrated ranked them #1 pre-season, that meant it was a scientific fact. I never saw them as a true #1 for all of the reasons you describe, and made the point all season that maybe the reason we kept losing as a #1 team is that we weren’t actually a #1 team. Maybe we were losing because we were more like a top 5-8 team with great upside, but a couple of obvious missing pieces.

    I think if we had had almost any other draw that year, we would have made the Elite 8 or even the Final Four, but it would have taken a bit of a miracle for that team to win it all. Sooner or later they were going to run into a team with the kind of rugged back court that we were not equipped to cope with, and we just got a bit unlucky and did so in the Sweet 16.

  • sarge

    The offense is consistently great by Kenpom standards. We haven’t changed our approach based off of the available personnel. We need to focus more on the post play and getting the ball on the low block to play inside out. The defense has been subpar all season for a team with title hopes and it has shown in tough games.

  • He’s been accused by some others (not me) of posting here primarily to promote his site — and right now, the best way to get traction posting here is to be incessantly negative.

    If that’s true (and I’m not saying it is), then he’s something like a troll. If that’s not true, then my apologies for calling him a troll.

    But in response to his actual argument, he’s just created a straw man. Nobody is saying, that I’m aware of, that CH’s “5 points a game” would have made all the difference this season. That’s pure silliness. Rather, people are saying that having a senior leader with CH’s overall abilities on the floor would have made a significant difference — and that’s only common sense.

    Anybody who would point at a player’s PPG as the only metric of his value to a team deserves some of the grief he’s going to get.

  • IdahoHoosier

    I really dislike the entire idea of “rankings”. They are meant as speculation, but treated like fact.

  • I am 5-10 and have a better understanding of positioning and post play than our bigs. Which I 100% blame on the coaching. Bryant and Davis often post up at 15 feet instead of on the block and they get easily pushed away from the block. So it gets hard to play inside. And our guards, especially RJ, can’t make an entry pass to save their lives.

  • I am not here to promote my site. Which Ole Man thinks is a betting site somehow. This would be an awful name for a betting site. I am a lifelong Indiana fan, born and raised, and tired of this god awful basketball I’ve had to watch over my life.

  • sarge

    None of the guards can throw an entry pass, that we can both agree on. I don’t think Davis or Bryant have been easily pushed away. In fact, they are having to push around to get to the post because we can’t get them the ball on the block. This might have worked well with the original roster, but now having to lean on our post guys, they should be getting the ball lower in the post. Our post positioning allows double teams to come and disrupt our offensive flow, and we aren’t hitting the outside shots to force them off the double.

  • We would hit more 3’s if everything went through the post. A pass from the post is a shooters absolute favorite. But it has to get there first. I don’t see why Crean even recruits guys like Bryant or Davis when they are 4th fiddle to guards.

  • Arch Puddington

    I don’t dislike them as much as I gather you do, but in the case of the 2013 team, the rankings sure worked against them politically. Yes, that team had some real talent, but it had some real holes as well, and people really had hard time accepting that once they were ranked #1. I was a member of the premium forum back then, and took a lot of heat for going against the party line that they were properly seen as a #1 team.

  • sarge

    Then stop being so dismissive of players, especially those who can’t play. That is why I took offense to your original post.

  • IdahoHoosier

    Ouch. The rankings are fine they just don’t really help anyone. It is a guess at how “good” a team is, but often taken literally. So we have fans basing the “success” of a season on rankings (a pure guess) at the start of the season? Rankings are a fun exercise just shouldn’t be misused the way they are.

  • sarge

    Guard oriented offenses still need a post presence for the same reason. We have always played a 3 guard lineup, and it appears that will never change. But we can’t keep making our big guys put the ball on the floor from +15′. It only makes our turnover situation worse.

  • It’ll never change under this coaching regime. It is okay to go perimeter oriented if you have Steph Curry, Kevin Durant and Klay Thompson. But Steve Kerr is smart to know how to make it work.

  • sarge

    It helps that he was the best shooter of his day too.

  • kennygeorge

    I know Sarge called me a fair weather fan and I probably am sometimes. I just get frustrated and open my mouth before my brain kicks in, but I agree with Sarge on Chris Hartman. I,sincerely feel that if Chris would have played this year, we would have done better. Most likely would have done better, based on viewing him the past 3 years. I believe the opportunities and results would have been better. I played biddy basketball as a child and dreamed of being a hoosier, but parents move, things change except my height, 5’4″ isn’t going to cut it even back then, but the heart bleeds cream and crimson. SSN, sorry but I gotta go with Sarge on this one.

  • pcantidote

    Yogi was at Park Tudor in 2011-12 but I assume you already knew that.

  • pcantidote

    The ’13 team was just like a lot of other CTC teams — loads of talent but it ran into smart coaches that knew how to shut us down in the half court….and that was it. It wasn’t just Syracuse. Look at the OSU, Wisconsin and Temple games in March. The CTC offense in the half court is not real difficult to stop if you have good athletes that are disciplined. This has been seen over and over.

  • Pman

    A team is more than a sum of its parts. Hartman may not be a star, but I think he would have made a big difference on this team.

  • WhatsUpKnight2.0

    arch, you gotta remember the UNC game (albeit at home) and the OSU game. i would argue they were the best team in the country on either of those days. and let’s not forget the sweep of a mighty good MSU. didn’t they beat scUM twice too? on the other hand, i try to forget the butler, wiscy, and exCUSE games

    yes, cuse was a matchup nightmare, but that happens to a lot of good teams. if talent alone won the nc, you’d see pUKe, dook, jerKS, and UNC win it every year (instead of most years).

  • JethroTroll

    That’s buying into the argument of how most fans only see their team at their best, and totally neglect the reality of all the other games.
    And as for your second point, the really good teams find ways to win when they aren’t playing their best, or when facing a team that presents a particularly tough matchup. Which leads us right back to that IU team, which was flawed and had trouble against teams that made them grind out positions and teams with good overall length.

  • WhatsUpKnight2.0

    i simply made the argument that they played like the best team in the country on several occasions. i wasn’t implying they were anywhere as dominant as the ky team that nearly went undefeated. and in my defense, i did mention the games where the more disciplined teams made them look very pedestrian.

    regarding the point you made on my second point, there have been multiple occasions where coach k, armed with a team overflowing with burger boys, didn’t find a way to get out of the first or second rounds of the tournament. look it up yourself if you don’t believe me. cal with his undefeated team couldn’t find a way to beat wiscy. in the era of the one and done, pretty much all teams are flawed, that’s just the reality of cbb today

  • Aaron

    I appreciate you guys finally addressing Crean’s status Sunday in Michigan postgame show and to a lesser extent on podcast today. Just remember what you guys say on show only matters so much and only if fans like us voice our frustrations to the administration will changes be made. Really what donors and boosters think is what matters more than anything. Thanks for all the great shows and podcasts you do!

  • JethroTroll

    LOL Im not looking to get into a long semantics discussion. I just disagree that one of the best teams doesn’t usually win it every year. Having a team of loaded with McD’s All Americans doesn’t always equate to championships, thank god. Butler went to back to back FFs on the strength of experienced, well coached players. There’s more than one way to put together good/great teams, that’s what makes this sport so special. But that’s a discussion for another time.
    Sure, good teams lose for a variety of reasons. It happens, and that’s what sports is about. But, even in the one and done scenario, the best teams generally find ways to ‘survive and advance’. And pertinent to this discussion, IU was flawed and vulnerable to certain types of matchups, which Syracuse was able to exploit. And why they struggled with Temple the game before. And why Wisky gave them trouble. It’s really been a theme throughout Crean’s tenure at IU, unfortunately.

  • WhatsUpKnight2.0

    it wasn’t my intent to defend CTC’s resume, and i agree 100% he’s not a particularly good strategist. is he susceptible to being outcoached? absolutely. i simply gave credit where credit was due. when that team was firing on all cylinders it was mighty darn good.

    admittedly, i brought up some very specific examples to defend my point. but i will contend that with very few exceptions (if any. you’re welcome to name as many as you like), a program will not have sustained success (which i define as FF, or at least E8 appearances and consistent top 15 or higher ranking) without consistent elite recruiting classes. cite wiscy and butler all you want, just compare the # of FF’s and NC’s they’ve made to the teams with annual top 5 recruiting classes.

    anyway, glad i could give you a chuckle

  • Arch Puddington

    I remember it all. Those losses you mention are exactly my point: that team was not well equipped for certain types of matchups. As good as it was, it had fatal flaws. On their best night, against the right teams — teams that like to run, like Michigan and UNC — they were great. But against more physical teams or those that liked to slow things down — Butler, Wisconsin, Minnesota — they just weren’t that great. People forget that even before the Syracuse game, we struggled terribly against Temple. A guard named Khalif Wyatt went off for 32 points, Yogi and Jordy combined for just 5, and we only won 58-52.

    That team just was not complete enough, especially in the backcourt, to matchup with certain opponents. That is exactly why I never saw them as a true #1.

  • WhatsUpKnight2.0

    no, they definitely didn’t know how to win ugly. and they just couldn’t get comfortable against the teams that refused to let em control the tempo. and that’s certainly a CTC flaw, he’s still yet to figure those types teams out. far as the temple game and the tournament in general, i think they were absolutely gassed at that point, both physically and emotionally. they relied on their superior talent to squeak past temple, but just didn’t have enough left in the tank for syracuse. admittedly, i’m not sure they would have won even if they did.

  • JethroTroll

    No, what you’re calling ‘gassed’ is what Arch and I are calling ‘flaws’. The team was flawed. In lower possession, grinder games they can be beat, and often were.
    That’s been pretty much the point of this entire thread.

  • WhatsUpKnight2.0

    no, what i’m calling gassed was how differently they looked post conference. they looked a step slower, and the offense just wasn’t flowing as smoothly. c’mon man, it’s not like this hasn’t been discussed ad nauseum, the fact that CTC tended to over practice and wear out his teams. even he himself has admitted that he’s made late season practices less intense.

    and you’re trying to make it sound like a rarefied instance that good teams have flaws or styles they don’t match up against particularly well. again, i’m not defending CTC, but you gotta have some perspective. you’re pretty much guilty of exactly what you’ve accused me of doing, which is seeing things from an iu fan pov instead of big picture. anyway, i’ll let you have the last word if you want to explain to me further what i’m actually saying. i’m all ears.

  • HoosierOne

    You are correct…..forgive me as I had my years mixed up!

  • JethroTroll

    No, I totally disagree with everything you just said, including me making it sound like a rarified instance that good teams have flaws. You’ve obviously just completely missed the point of this entire thread. And I’ll leave it at that.

  • Steven Brown

    I appreciate the fact that Tom Crean came to Indiana and turned a failing program into something that is fairly respectable. He deserves a lot of credit for that. The fact of the matter is that as IU fans we are tremendously spoiled, and a fairly respectable team is not good enough.
    A few years ago with Zeller, et al. We had a NCAA #1 team who lost to a Syracuse team deploying a zone defense that could not be attacked. The truth was that IU was not prepared to play a zone defense and win. It was “deer in the headlights” time for IU. Several other examples of key game failures exist.
    Crean has never made it to the Final 4 except for one year that Dwayne Wade carried them to the Semi-Finals. Frankly, I don’t think Crean can coach a team to the Finals. With a little dumb luck, Mike Davis took IU to the Finals. The truth was that this was Knight’s team.
    After Knight’s firing, I was convinced that IU will never obtain another NCAA Championship. We have seen the promised land only never to return, a bitter pill, but one that is deserved by the IU Administration, past and present. If you want to blame someone, start with these guys. They deserve the heat.
    Meanwhile we have a Butler team with 7 of 13 players from the Indiana, Ohio, or Kentucky area that is projected to be in the Sweet 16 this year.
    Something is wrong in Hoosier Land

  • John D Murphy

    By the end of Knight’s tenure, it was embarrassing to be an IU fan. Also, Mike Davis did a nice job in a position he was completely unprepared for. The defense on that team was extraordinary (which is why Knight brought him in). I do completely agree that TC coached will never go to the Final 4.

  • John D Murphy

    Also, the person I blame is the AD that hired Kelvin Sampson (forget his name and don’t really care what it is).

  • cbags05

    If you think points are all that matter, you don’t understand the game. This team needs a psychological leader and CH could have lifted other guys…maybe. Just maybe.

  • cbags05

    It’s a stupid question.

  • Kwang

    I am so sorry I read this whole stupid conversation. Of course Collin would have been a great help to this team, he’s awesome, but that doesn’t mean this team would have done much better for a variety of reasons. You two just strike me as guys who like to argue.

  • Hoosier Brews62

    Good points Sidelines only mentions CH ppg there are many other stats to consider as well of what CH would have brought I truly believe that his stats would have increased this year except for turnovers

  • vicbert caladipo

    OG averaged about 12 a game and before the injury was projected as high as 10 in mock drafts. Vic averaged 13 a game and went number 2 and is having a good NBA career. Not saying CH is of their caliber, but saying pts per game don’t mean squat. CH would have been our only senior and has been thru the rigors of the big ten many times. He is FAR MORE VALUABLE than his stats. Suppose you would dog on Max cuz his stats weren’t stellar. If you think guys like Max and Collin aren’t valuable enough to change a season than you are dumber than Sarge thinks you are

  • vicbert caladipo

    Sideline and Donald spend too much time listening to low grade talk radio. Sometimes paying attention and watching are more important than checking out stats of games you don’t even watch.

  • 13 a game is pretty good in college. Derrick Rose averaged about that and went #1 and won an MVP in the NBA.

  • I was paid 104000 bucks in 2016 by working on-line a­­n­­d I was able to do it by w­o­r­k­i­n­g part time f­o­r several hrs /day. I’m using a money making opportunity I found online and I am amazed that i made so much extra income. It’s beginner-friendly a­n­d I’m just so thankful that I found out about this. Here is what i did… STATICTAB.COM/gpfvgtj

  • MK

    I see what you are saying, but I disagree. With Hartman starting, that allows everyone to slide back a slot in the rotation. We don’t have to play guys like Mcroberts or one of our freshman pgs (of course assuming OG doesn’t hurt). I completely changes the makeup of our team and we are much better defensively, and bigger. I think he makes a huge difference. You can’t just look at one stat and say it is the only way he would affect the game.

  • IU_theoracle

    I’ve said all along and said this at the start of the 2012-13 season that Crean should have never played Yogi and Hulls together in the back court. Yogi shouldn’t shoot at that time and both were under 6’0 so it really hurt IU on defense. We would have been better off starting Sheehey instead of either Hulls or Yogi then bringing the other off the bench. Also, Crean was absolutely horrible that season against anyone who knew how to play defense which were Wisconsin and Syracuse.

  • I profited 104 thousand dollars last year by doing an on-line job at home and I manage to earn that much by wor­king in my own time f­o­r few hours a day. I was following a money making model I found on-line and I am amazed that i was able to make so much money. It’s very newbie friendly and I’m so thankful that I found out about it. Here’s what I do… STATICTAB.COM/owgxpdb