IU basketball’s losses in the 2025-26 season came down to the margins

IU basketball at the Big Ten tournament.

It may be hard to remember, but Indiana opened the season scoring 98, 100 and 101 points in its first three games. It also hit 100 or more in three of its first seven contests.

Back then, IU’s offense put defenses in a bind. Key too hard on Indiana’s shooters, and they’d back-cut you for easy looks at the rim thanks to spacing and crisp passing. Don’t key hard enough? They’d shoot quick threes and knock ’em down.

But as the season went along — and Indiana faced more talent, size and athleticism, along with better scouting that took away its initial actions — the offense didn’t flow as easily. Good looks became harder to come by.

Its interior deficiencies also became more pronounced. While Sam Alexis eventually became a reliable, high-efficiency scorer and flashed some rim-protection skills, Indiana lacked consistent offensive rebounding and the size and physicality to match up with the Big Ten’s best.

The interior struggles are well-trodden. It was a concern before the season, on paper, and proved true in reality, too. Even Darian DeVries admitted as much late in the year, vowing to put a premium on bigs this upcoming portal season.

In IU’s 14 losses, opponents rebounded 32.5 percent of their misses, compared to just 21.4 percent for Indiana. The Hoosiers were outscored 163-97 on second-chance points, consistently giving opponents extra opportunities while failing to generate their own. Beyond one-time easy putbacks, Indiana’s opposition sometimes tracked down multiple rebounds within a possession before scoring, which can demoralize a team’s spirit. IU’s overall offensive rebounding for the season finished 301st in the country (26.9%). IU’s defense also started to crack once league play heated up after the turn of the year, eventually finishing 14th in the Big Ten in defensive efficiency.

But the issues went beyond the glass. A deeper dive into IU’s statistical profile reveals a team that didn’t just miss extra, easier opportunities on the offensive boards. It reveals a team that missed them in transition, too, making them too reliant on a struggling half-court offense.

Indiana was outscored 123-62 in fast-break points in its 14 losses. Here’s why. First up, the Hoosiers had one of the lowest steal percentages in the country (6.9%, 350th) and the third lowest in conference play (6.0%), which means opportunities for runouts off steals were rare. This bled into an opponent turnover percentage that was below average. The Hoosiers turned opponents over on 15.1 percent of possessions this season, ranking 281st. That number in conference play was 14.4 percent (13th). The Hoosiers also had a defensive free-throw rate of 37.4 in conference play, third worst in the league. Keeping opponents off the line was also a struggle for this team this year.

It all compounded. A low steal percentage, a low defensive turnover percentage and a high opponent free-throw rate meant fewer, easier transition opportunities and more play against a set defense that knew Indiana’s tricks.

Despite all this, the Hoosiers were supposed to have the ultimate equalizer in their bag: the 3-point shot. It could allow them to shoot their way out of other troubles. Get hot one night on the road, and you can beat anybody.

But across their 14 losses, that wasn’t the case. The Hoosiers had some serious clunkers from deep, like their 6-of-24 performance at Illinois, a 5-of-18 mark at Ohio State and going 10-of-35 twice (at USC, home against MSU). The Hoosiers made just 30.9 percent (117-of-379) of their 3-pointers in their losses this season. They never shot well enough to compensate. And with Tayton Conerway falling out of favor down the stretch in favor of a steadier Conor Enright, Indiana also lacked a true north-south threat to get to the basket.

As the fourth team out of the NCAA tournament, another win against a Quad 1 team or, heck, even beating Northwestern both times, might have been enough to get the Hoosiers into the Big Dance.

But, they lost the extra opportunity and easier points battles handily, the very areas that could have relieved pressure on an offense that was often forced into late-clock, contested shots.

They couldn’t make the game easy on themselves, and it proved fatal.

(Photo credit: IU Athletics)

See More: Commentary