rogue3542

Wtf refs?

This what really makes it hard to watch: the first half officiating really wasn’t bad at all, but it’s been absolute bs this half

That key “screen” was the most egregious missed call in a half full of swallowed whistles

Am I missing something with the Ohio State love fest on this Fox broadcast?

I don’t get it

1 minute ago, BGleas said:

Getting outscored 15-3 at the 3pt line. 

They’ve made three more than we’ve TAKEN

18 minutes ago, iuthruandthru said:

Man it’s an OSU love fest on the Fox pregame.

They gotta know who their viewer base is by sport.  Football - feature OSU every day, but not basketball.

I guarantee the basketball viewership for this game is at least, AT LEAST 2:1 in favor of IU.

7 minutes ago, BGleas said:

Goodman goes at Woodson a little mode directly if you listen to the audio. 

 

I’m not saying he’s wrong in this instance, but you couldn’t pay me to give two seconds of my time to listen to anything he says. Guy has had an axe to grind since Archie got fired.

Horns Down!

Rooting for Penix

54 minutes ago, Proud2BAHoosier said:

Good thing Michigan is representing the B1G, otherwise it would be a dismal bowl season...

Big Ten is 5-4.   I think SEC is the same.  

2 hours ago, 5fouls said:

North Alabama has a better KenPom (225) than Notre Dame or Vanderbilt.  

Notre Dame lost at home to The Citadel 65-45 on Tuesday. So…at least we won our game.

23 minutes ago, BGleas said:

It's funny, I now hope that the 8:30/9PM games are on Peacock. 

You don't have to worry about missing the first 5-10 minutes of the game because for some reason TV networks can't figure out how to space these game. 

I've been watching solely through the respective apps for years.  You don't have to watch the end of some blowout eating into 5 minutes of the first half.  ESPN, Fox Sports, Peacock apps and you're pretty much set.

You can sign into all of them (except for Peacock) with your cable subscription account info (or a family member's lol).

27 minutes ago, NCHoosier32 said:

isn't it kind of mind blowing that we can't beat anyone easily?  i mean spurts vs Auburn and UConn along with the Kansas game show we can be good right?  

Yeah, they've been really bad about playing to perceived level of competition.  It's ridiculous that they can get up on Kansas by double digits for nearly the whole game, but also get down double digits to Morehead State for most of the game.

7 hours ago, BruceDouglas said:

This is exactly the opposite of what happened. In 2020, the NCAA stopped using margin of victory:

https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/ncaa-announces-changes-to-simplify-formula-for-college-basketballs-net-ratings/

Winning percentage, adjusted winning percentage and scoring margin will no longer be components in the NCAA Evaluation Tool (NET) used to judge Division I basketball teams, the NCAA announced Monday. The changes will "increase accuracy and simplify" the NET system, according to the NCAA announcement.

The NET will now use just two factors in its evaluation: team value index (TVI) and adjusted net efficiency rating. Team value index is "a result-based feature that rewards teams for beating quality opponents, particularly away from home," while adjusted net efficiency rating accounts for "strength of opponent and location across all games played."

Now the "net efficiency rating" will most certainly be impacted by blowouts because the analytics around this suggest there is predictive value even in that "garbage time" result.

The stuff about playing teams in the 100-200 range sounds like the way programs used to "game" the old RPI formula and it did work. But fortunately RPI is no longer used.

My point I guess is that even though they removed the formal scoring margin factor, there’s even more incentive to beat the other team by as much as possible, because in this current iteration of the metric that seems to correlate to the biggest boost in net rankings. Hence, schedule a bunch of cupcakes and beat them by 30, and you’re sitting pretty.

I’m not necessarily saying IU is a lot better than their net (they are at least somewhat better, though), but there’s teams in the top 50 that have no business being there, even ~12 games into the season.

1 hour ago, KoB2011 said:

I'm not saying we shouldn't ever play MR and KW together, but I firmly believe our best lineup right now is Gabe, Trey, MM, AW, and KW. That is a good defensive lineup, good rebounding lineup, and honestly a lineup that takes pretty good care of the ball.

When X gets back I think you can have a serious discussion about if the best lineup is three guards, MM, KW... but he isn't back and the space and pace we get with this lineup makes things work so much better. 

I'll say it; we shouldn't ever play MR and KW together.  They are our two best players and both worthy of being starters, but we are much better defensively and offensively when only one is on the floor.

Sub them in for each other and give them the same number of minutes.  MR really plays like a center; having two centers in together creates floor spacing issues on offense.

21 hours ago, Kdug said:

The committee doesn’t look at the version of NET on 12/19. They use the version at the end of the year after 30+ games have been played. Any metric is going to be incredibly noisy with only 10 or so games played by each team, a lot of them being against bad competition. The whole reason all other advanced metrics have a preseason component that’s still baked in is to help reduce that noise and make the metric more accurate. The NET doesn’t do that because it’s not used until the end of the season anyway.

The issue for me is this:

Just a couple years ago, blowing out a ~300 ranked team by 40 did nothing to help you in this metric; in fact, if you weren't playing your cupcakes in the 100-200 range, it significantly hurt your sos, and at the end of the season, it hurt your NET ranking along with the perception that you purposely played a significantly easier schedule than teams that beat better mid-majors by 10.

Now, we have a fair number of those better mid-majors scheduled to play that game, and it turns out we should have been scheduling the 200-300 teams this season so we could mercilessly beat them into the ground to artificially inflate our NET ranking.

Even by the end of the year, whatever changes they've made to it for this season are proving to render the NET nearly meaningless.

45 minutes ago, Hoosierinbham said:

Could the same thing happen at IU? Rourke>Jackson>Cherry?

I'd put money on it that's the plan for the next 3-4 years

Just now, KoB2011 said:

Yes. No recent examples in college sports where that wasn’t true. 

This team lives it’s life a quarter mile at a time

It doesn’t matter whether you win by a quarter inch or a mile; winning’s winning.

Or something like that lol

We will be lucky not to lose by double digits at this rate

13 minutes ago, SawatchHoosier said:

Too bad Keady couldn’t work that hard on his hairline. 

He did…..on the combover and gel helmet

5 hours ago, Stlboiler23 said:

Ahh that’s fair. 

I'll also add that Carsen Edwards is the type of player you really need to make a deep run.  Edey will likely (and deservedly) win player of the year, but guard play is what wins the tournament.

I remember watching that game against UVA and thinking, "how the hell does he keep making this s**t!?  He's just launching from near half court, and it just keeps going in."

24 minutes ago, Stlboiler23 said:

Never improves? I’ll agree with the last few seasons they’ve peaked earlier in the year but saying they never improve isn’t remotely accurate. The team that was a fluke away from a F4 absolutely were a better team later in the year and weren’t good at all in November/December. Unless you’re only talking about the last few years, it’s a bad take IMO. 

I thought it was clear but can see how it wasn’t; I was only talking about the Edey era so to speak.

4 minutes ago, Boiler Sam said:

I think it’s less regressing, and more that the last few Purdue teams have returned mostly intact from the previous year.

 

And conversely,  90% of other teams have lots of new players. It takes them a few months to gel and become the best version of themselves , whereas Purdue is much closer to a finished product at the beginning of the season than almost everyone else. 

 

Just my two cents. 
 

Oh and the 2 freshmen definitely hit the wall In February last year. Hopefully that doesn’t happen this season.

First, I meant never improves within the season. They just don’t. They’re always playing their best in November.
 

Again, they’ll need to prove it in March this year. They’re the kings of November, but other teams surpass Purdue as they improve throughout the season and Purdue doesn’t.

16 hours ago, cthomas said:

Being as unbiased as possible for a 65+ years IU guy, Purdue has a really good team, maybe championship good team. I also really like Painter because he knows who he is and builds good teams without chasing 5 star, one and done guys. I love that. Obviously I don't know him, but he has always seemed like a class act. 

Purdue's going to have to prove they've got it in the late season first.  Over the last few seasons, they've played their best basketball in Nov-Dec, but always slide at the end of the season.  Purdue never improves, and sometimes regresses in Feb-March, while other teams spend the whole season getting better.

On 12/15/2023 at 1:58 PM, 5fouls said:

I'm trying to fathom how that is possible.  

- maintain similar or even slightly less talented roster.

- insert a higher level of competence in many spots on the coaching staff.

= More wins.  No?

 

 

I think we will be better; however, it’s a massive change, and CCC has a much different style.

Just trying to keep expectations in check because it could take a few years before we see a really good team.