fasbjd

Nice, welcome aboard. The League Formally Known as Pac12 sure have been good to us! ...now more shooters please!!! Indiana Hoosiers Scholarship Grid 2024 - 2025 (-3) 2025 - 2026 (-6) 2026 - 2027 (-8) 2027 - 2028 (-11) Trey Galloway Open Open Open Anthony Leal Open Open Open Oumar Ballo Open Open Open Malik Reneau Malik Reneau Open Open Kanaan Carlyle Kanaan Carlyle Kanaan Carlyle Open Gabe Cupps Gabe Cupps Gabe Cupps Open Mackenzie Mgbako Mackenzie Mgbako Mackenzie Mgbako Open Myles Rice Myles Rice Myles Rice Open Jakai Newton Jakai Newton Jakai Newton Jakai Newton Bryson Tucker Bryson Tucker Bryson Tucker Bryson Tucker Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open

For this one, I'm breaking out the new Phone-friendly version of the Scholly Grid. Now...please some shooters!!!! Indiana Hoosiers Scholarship Grid 2024 - 2025 (-4) 2025 - 2026 (-7) 2026 - 2027 (-8) 2027 - 2028 (-11) Trey Galloway Open Open Open Anthony Leal Open Open Open Oumar Ballo Open Open Open Malik Reneau Malik Reneau Open Open Gabe Cupps Gabe Cupps Gabe Cupps Open Mackenzie Mgbako Mackenzie Mgbako Mackenzie Mgbako Open Myles Rice Myles Rice Myles Rice Open Jakai Newton Jakai Newton Jakai Newton Jakai Newton Bryson Tucker Bryson Tucker Bryson Tucker Bryson Tucker Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open

Nice. We've got a semblance of a team now! Indiana Hoosiers Scholarship Grid 2024 - 2025 (-5⊕) 2025 - 2026 (-7) 2026 - 2027 (-8) 2027 - 2028 (-11) 2028 - 2029 (-13) Trey Galloway Open Open Open Open Anthony Leal Open Open Open Open Malik Reneau Malik Reneau Open Open Open Gabe Cupps Gabe Cupps Gabe Cupps Open Open Mackenzie Mgbako Mackenzie Mgbako Mackenzie Mgbako Open Open Myles Rice Myles Rice Myles Rice Open Open Jakai Newton Jakai Newton Jakai Newton Jakai Newton Open Bryson Tucker Bryson Tucker Bryson Tucker Bryson Tucker Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open (Oversign) (Oversign) (Oversign) (Oversign) (Oversign) Jackson Creel Shaan Burke James Goodis Jordan Rayford Ian Stephens - - James Goodis Jordan Rayford Ian Stephens - - James Goodis Jordan Rayford Ian Stephens - - - - - Italics = walk-ons. = post-redshirt (Name in black for redshirt year). = additional year granted due to pandemic.

I am wondering who you picked to win it all. UConn, Houston, and (..er) Auburn all looked well positioned. My guts says UConn to repeat but there's an interesting tidbit that I've been looking at. I call it the "Cradle of Champions" and its the box w/in Sector 1. 9 of the 15 champions shown came from that box. Both Auburn and Houston this year were in it. Of course, only Houston remains. In total, there have been 37 teams that fit in that box. Excluding this year's Houston, 1/4 of those teams have won the title, 1/3 play in the finals, 44% make the final four, and 2/3 the elite eight. Factoring that in, it would be hard to bet against Houston or (...er) Auburn.

IU was around where Yale was (Sector 4). They had ~equal aOE but IU had a slightly better aDE - so just below them on the chart

Here's how the field looks going into the Sweet 16. Sector 1 has 31.25% of the remaining field (historically makes up 24.6% of the S16), 31.25% also for Sector 2 (historically contains 42.9% of S16 teams), only 12.5% are from Sector 3 (historically 20.8%), and a robust 25% from Sector 4 (historically only contains 10% of S16 teams). All the remaining Sector 4 teams have "championship-level" offenses (all better than 3 champions since '08) but have suboptimal defenses. In fact, all the remaining teams except for San Diego State could be considered "championship-level" offenses. Defensively though, there is clearly a divide. In general, it's safe to say that "championship-level" defense could be defined as an aDE of 94 or less (that would leave only 1 outlier champion - the 2018 Villanova team that had the best offense of any tourney team since '08). Using that definition, the remaining team with "championship-level" defense would include UConn, Arizona, Houston, UNC, Tennessee, Iowa State, and San Diego State (listed in order of best to worst offense). Purdue's offense is amongst the all-time elite (5th best amongst tourney teams since '08) and their defense falls just between "championship-level" and 2018's Villanova's team, so it would be unreasonable to discount them as well. I would suspect that given the quality of offenses left in the field, the defensive liabilities of the non-"championship-level" defenses will be exposed and lead to their elimination.

Forgive the self-bump. Getting this more readily available for some big spring updating.

Hey all, it's that time again for this year's version of the Arc of Champions. Unfortunately, not including our Hoosiers (to visualize where we would stand, we would be just below where Yale is in Sector 4 - similar aOE with slightly better aDE). As a reminder, this is based on data from Bart Torvik's T-rank site and uses his pre-tournament adjusted efficiencies. This data has been available since '08 and when plotted and compared to team finishes in the tournament, provides additional insight in predicted finishes for teams. For instance, this year, teams like Illinois and Kentucky that seem poised for a long run, are actually quite vulnerable due to inadequate defenses...and Auburn (seeded 4) is in a prime position to win it all. [Click on image to enlarge] "Brief" summary of Sectors: Along with Auburn, there are 5 other teams that make up the Sector 1 grouping: Houston, UConn, Purdue, Arizona, and Iowa State. Teams in this sector have an 18.1% chance of winning it all and 37.5% chance of making the Final 4. Over 86% of eventual champions come from this grouping (despite it only representing ~7% of the field historically). The rest of the championships came from the Sector 2 grouping (~13% of champions and 1/3 of finalists). Overall, this is a larger group, historically making up ~24% of the field (though this year, it only accounts for ~13% of the field) - so your chance of winning it all if you're from this group is <1%. Nearly 41% of the Elite 8 come from this grouping with each team from this group having just over a 20% chance of making the elite 8. This year's 9 Sector 2 teams are Tennessee, UNC, Marquette, St Mary's, Kansas, Michigan St, Creighton, Duke...and Nebraska! Sector 3 is also a historically large group (~24% of the field, 22% of this year's field). This grouping accounts for the last 7% of finalists and account for ~21% of the Elite 8. That said, these team's most likely finish is the round of 64 (~46% chance) and this is the first grouping where your chances of finishing in each subsequent round go down (~33% chance of Round 32 finish, ~13% chance Sweet 16, ~4% chance Elite 8, 2.5% chance of Final 4, and <1% chance of being a finalist). Sector 4 has accounted for the final 5% of Final Four participants but only 10% of the Sweet Sixteen, despite accounting for 22% of the field historically (this year has over 29% of the field). Notable teams that fall into this grouping this year include UK, Illinois, Alabama, Texas A&M, and South Carolina. These team's chances of making the Sweet 16 hover ~7% and the Final 4 1.4%. The barrier between Sector 4 and Sector 5 has been named in honor of one Sector 5's greatest participants: Saint Peter's Gate - and it only seems fitting that Saint Peters again sits in the outskirts of this sector, waiting to pounce!

Nice!!! Great player to build around! Now let's get the Boogie Queens. Indiana Hoosiers Scholarship Grid 2023 - 2024 (-1) 2024 - 2025 (-2⊕/-4) 2025 - 2026 (-5) 2026 - 2027 (-9) 2027 - 2028 (-12) Xavier Johnson Liam McNeeley Liam McNeeley Liam McNeeley Liam McNeeley Anthony Walker Open Open Open Open Trey Galloway Trey Galloway Open Open Open Anthony Leal Anthony Leal Open Open Open Payton Sparks Payton Sparks Open Open Open Kaleb Banks Kaleb Banks Kaleb Banks Open Open CJ Gunn CJ Gunn CJ Gunn Open Open Malik Reneau Malik Reneau Malik Reneau Open Open Kel'el Ware Kel'el Ware Kel'el Ware Open Open Gabe Cupps Gabe Cupps Gabe Cupps Gabe Cupps Open Mackenzie Mgbako Mackenzie Mgbako Mackenzie Mgbako Mackenzie Mgbako Open Jakai Newton Jakai Newton Jakai Newton Jakai Newton Open Open Open Open Open Open (Oversign) (Oversign⊕/Open) (Oversign) (Oversign) (Oversign) (Oversign) (Oversign⊕/Open) (Oversign) (Oversign) (Oversign) Jackson Creel Shaan Burke James Goodis Jordan Rayford Ian Stephens Jackson Creel Shaan Burke James Goodis Jordan Rayford Ian Stephens - Shane Burke James Goodis Jordan Rayford Ian Stephens - - James Goodis Jordan Rayford Ian Stephens Italics = walk-ons. = post-redshirt (Name in black for redshirt year). = additional year granted due to pandemic. Grid is made to reflect the additional year of availability granted due to COVID-19. The ⊕ indicates the scholarship availability if all players were to utilize the additional year.

Whoop whoop. Awesome day. One more to go! Indiana Hoosiers Scholarship Grid 2023 - 2024 (-1) 2024 - 2025 (-3⊕/-5) 2025 - 2026 (-6) 2026 - 2027 (-10) 2027 - 2028 (-13) Xavier Johnson Open Open Open Open Anthony Walker Open Open Open Open Trey Galloway Trey Galloway Open Open Open Anthony Leal Anthony Leal Open Open Open Payton Sparks Payton Sparks Open Open Open Kaleb Banks Kaleb Banks Kaleb Banks Open Open CJ Gunn CJ Gunn CJ Gunn Open Open Malik Reneau Malik Reneau Malik Reneau Open Open Kel'el Ware Kel'el Ware Kel'el Ware Open Open Gabe Cupps Gabe Cupps Gabe Cupps Gabe Cupps Open Mackenzie Mgbako Mackenzie Mgbako Mackenzie Mgbako Mackenzie Mgbako Open Jakai Newton Jakai Newton Jakai Newton Jakai Newton Open Open Open Open Open Open (Oversign) (Oversign⊕/Open) (Oversign) (Oversign) (Oversign) (Oversign) (Oversign⊕/Open) (Oversign) (Oversign) (Oversign) Hogan Orbaugh Shaan Burke Ian Stephens Hogan Orbaugh Shaan Burke Ian Stephens - Shaan Burke Ian Stephens - - Ian Stephens Italics = walk-ons. = post-redshirt (Name in black for redshirt year). = additional year granted due to pandemic.

Indiana Hoosiers Scholarship Grid 2024 - 2025 (-2) 2025 - 2026 (-6) 2026 - 2027 (-8) 2027 - 2028 (-11) Trey Galloway Open Open Open Anthony Leal Open Open Open Oumar Ballo Open Open Open Luke Goode Open Open Open Malik Reneau Malik Reneau Open Open Kanaan Carlyle Kanaan Carlyle Kanaan Carlyle Open Gabe Cupps Gabe Cupps Gabe Cupps Open Mackenzie Mgbako Mackenzie Mgbako Mackenzie Mgbako Open Myles Rice Myles Rice Myles Rice Open Jakai Newton Jakai Newton Jakai Newton Jakai Newton Bryson Tucker Bryson Tucker Bryson Tucker Bryson Tucker Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open

Indiana Hoosiers Scholarship Grid 2024 - 2025 (-5) 2025 - 2026 (-7) 2026 - 2027 (-8) 2027 - 2028 (-11) 2028 - 2029 (-13) Trey Galloway Open Open Open Open Anthony Leal Open Open Open Open Malik Reneau Malik Reneau Open Open Open Gabe Cupps Gabe Cupps Gabe Cupps Open Open Mackenzie Mgbako Mackenzie Mgbako Mackenzie Mgbako Open Open Myles Rice Myles Rice Myles Rice Open Open Jakai Newton Jakai Newton Jakai Newton Jakai Newton Open Bryson Tucker Bryson Tucker Bryson Tucker Bryson Tucker Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Jackson Creel Shaan Burke James Goodis Jordan Rayford Ian Stephens / / James Goodis Jordan Rayford Ian Stephens / / James Goodis Jordan Rayford Ian Stephens Italics = walk-ons. = post-redshirt.

Welcome Aboard! Looks good in Crimson! Few more spots to fill: Indiana Hoosiers Scholarship Grid 2023 - 2024 (-3⊕/-4) 2024 - 2025 (-4⊕/-6) 2025 - 2026 (-7) 2026 - 2027 (-11) 2027 - 2028 (-13) Xavier Johnson Open Open Open Open Trey Galloway Trey Galloway Open Open Open Anthony Leal Anthony Leal Open Open Open Payton Sparks Payton Sparks Open Open Open Kaleb Banks Kaleb Banks Kaleb Banks Open Open CJ Gunn CJ Gunn CJ Gunn Open Open Malik Reneau Malik Reneau Malik Reneau Open Open Kel'el Ware Kel'el Ware Kel'el Ware Open Open Gabe Cupps Gabe Cupps Gabe Cupps Gabe Cupps Open Jakai Newton Jakai Newton Jakai Newton Jakai Newton Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open (Oversign) (Oversign⊕/Open) (Oversign) (Oversign) (Oversign) (Oversign) (Oversign⊕/Open) (Oversign) (Oversign) (Oversign) Hogan Orbaugh Shaan Burke Hogan Orbaugh Shaan Burke - Shaan Burke Italics = walk-ons. = post-redshirt (Name in black for redshirt year). = additional year granted due to pandemic.

The grid did a little flexing last night. Feel bad for Dusty but the grid gives no quarter! As for the finalists, an interesting juxtaposition. Both are 2nd sector teams but similarities end there. UConn, at first glance, looks like the better positioned team (they seem to have more company of former champions in their general area)...but if they win, they will do so with the second worst defensive efficiency for a champion in grid history (since '08) with the only team worse than them being the team with the best offensive efficiency in grid history (Villanova '18). In fact, they would only rank as the 10th best in aOE of the 15 represented champs, just behind the current average for champion's aOE (120.2 vs 119.8). SDSU, on the other hand, would have the second worst offensive efficiency of any champion in grid history with the only team worse being one of the 2-3 best defensive teams in grid history (Louisville '13). SDSU would have the 7th best defense to win the title with an aDE right at the average of current champions (90.6). As such, neither team would be a surprise. My heart will be pulling for SDSU just to keep UConn behind us in the banner count!

The Final Four Arc Grid: Two contenders that are playing by the rules and two that are trying their best to break the grid and ruin my life's work 😜. Miami is the first team from Sector 5 to make the Final Four. FAU is the 5th from Sector 4. Sector 4 had 2 teams make the Finals including UNC last year. None have won it all. On the other hand, Sector 2 has had now 13 teams in the Final Four, about 8% of the teams. 7 of the prior 11 made the Finals and 3 won it all. The safe bets go to UConn and SDSU...but nothing has been safe this tourney so lets see how the grid holds up!

An updated Scholarship grid as of 3/30 as we await decision from JHS, decision regarding X, and more portalling to come.

The Final 8 - both sector 1 teams eliminated (won't shed a tear for either of those coaches!). Mutiple strong contenders still standing. Miami / Gonzaga / FAU remain the outliers per the grid - but all playing well, so a new standard may be set.

They do have something to look forward to. They are in the running for the Ultimate Bracket Loser. That's the team that loses to a team that then loses in the next round to a team that loses in the following round...all the way to the runner up. At present there are 18 teams in the running (due to 2 ties that will happen due to the First Four). Here are the teams (listed with the team that they need to win next round to be knocked out of the running): South: WVU (Alabama) v Virginia (SDSU) UCSB (Creighton) v Utah St (Princeton) - East: Purdue / Texas Southern (Fla Atlantic) v Oral Roberts (Tennessee) Providence (Kansas St) v Vermont (Michigan St) - Midwest: Iowa (Houston) v Kent St (Miami FL) Iowa St / Mississippi St (Xavier) v Texas A&M (Texas) - West: Howard (Arkansas) v VCU (UConn) Nevada (Gonzaga) v Boise St [who won the honor last year] (UCLA)

Well...here's how the grid stands going into the sweet 16 (again click on the image for better resolution). Field tightening up quite a bit with 2 outliers...Princeton and, unfortunately, Miami. As I said in the original post, Miami worried me the most of the 3 teams in our section of the bracket even though their position on the grid would suggest it's a team we should beat. I didn't like their positioning among Iowa and Penn State (teams we showed vulnerability to). Despite all the chaos of the first 2 rounds, 9 of the 16 top 4 seeds remain. Taken seed-by-seed, the survivors make sense: 1: Houston and Alabama looked to be superior to Purdue and Kansas. 2: UCLA and Texas looked better than Arizona and Marquette 3: Kansas St and to a lesser extent Xavier (whose highest seed faced was a First Four 11 seed) and Gonzaga looked superior to Baylor 4: Tennessee and UConn look to be amongst the elite where Virginia and, unfortunately, IU were not

Yeah...I looked back and they were the worst defense by adjusted efficiency that has made the tournament since '08 per T-rank...should say at least '08 since that's the first year of data on his site).

Good thought..unfortunately with 1000s of data points, won't be an easy task!

Here's the updated version for the round of 32 (click for better resolution): Only one sector 1 or 2 team gone in first round...and I'm alright with that!

I think the computer numbers overall are down - some close wins and less close losses that dilute out the big wins that led to our seeding. Torvik's numbers are more critical of the offense where he has us ranked 34th where KenPom has at 27th. The defensive rankings are comparable (KemPom 43 to Torvik 46) and overall Torvik has us at 33 and KenPom at 30, so not far off.

Back again with this years version of the Arc of Champions. Brief review, the Arcs are based on analytic data from Bart Torvik's T-rank. This is a little different from last year, which used Ken Pom, and is basically due to a number of factors both functional and practical. Most importantly, it led to a graph with stronger correlation to tourney results. It also has the advantage of ease of separating data on the website while being free to use. It includes data since the '08 season. The main difference in the two sites is how they adjust for SOS. Now to the Arcs - the graph is broken down into 6 sectors. The data below is from the '08-'22 seasons The 1st Sector is the Arc of Champions. Just over 6% of teams fall within this sector (average ~4/year). Of those, 71% of champions since '08 have come from this sector - 47% of finalists, and 38% of Final Four teams. Their average seeding is 1.7 and they average 3.2 tourney wins / team. If your team is located here, their chances of winning the title is 17.2%. If you are a 1 seed in sector 1, your chances of winning the title are 24.3% (versus 19.6% of all 1 seeds). Sector 2 is a larger sector - over 16% of teams come from this sector. The average seed is 4.1, including 17 (now 19 including this year) 1 seeds, and houses a majority of the 2 and 3 seeds. On average, they win 1.9 tourney games / team - on average, finishing in the Sweet Sixteen. 21% of champions come from this sector, along with 36% of the finalists and Final Four teams (including Duke and Villanova from last year). If your teams is located in this sector, their chances of winning the title is 1.9% (just slightly higher than that of a 2 or 3 seed) and making the Final Four is 7%. Sector 3 arc is labelled the Final Four Arc because outside this arc, your chances of a Final Four finish is only 2.8%. Sector 3 houses 21.8% of teams with an average seed of 6.4. The average just under 1 tourney win/team and teams in this arc have a 0.5% chance of winning the title and (despite the name) only ~4% chance of a Final Four. Indiana was located in Sector 3 last year as were Elite Eight team Arkansas and Sweet Sixteen Texas Tech. Sector 4 is where we find the current Indiana team - earlier in the year, we were strongly in the 3, nearly 2, Sector but the defense fell off - in large part correlating with the loss of Xavier Johnson. Historically, 22.5% of teams are from this sector, with an average seeding of 9.3. They average 0.7 tourney wins/team. A champion has never came from this Sector but 2 finalists have, including last year's UNC. Other notable Sector 4 teams from last year include Sweet Sixteen teams Providence (who were also a 4 seed), Michigan, and Iowa State. The final two sectors house the rest of the field - 23.1% of the teams and have never produced a Final Four team. Sector 5 teams have a 3% chance of Elite Eight and ~7% chance of Sweet Sixteen. Sector 6 has produced only 1 Elite Eight team - last year's darling St. Peters. This years Arc is displayed with some color coding - teams in white 1-4 seeds, yellow 5-8 seeds, orange 9-12 seeds, and the rest in pink. Indiana and our first opponent Kent State are highlighted. This year's arc shows 2 clear front runners for the title in Houston (though another Sasser injury may play a role here) and Alabama. As opposed to year's past, there seems to be quite a falling off after those two - 4 seed UConn along with Purdue seem to be the next closest (though both would have to win it with defenses worse than only than the '18 champions Villanova who had a far superior offense) along with 2 seed UCLA. Although there has been a strong call for Kansas to be the top 1 seed, per these analytics, they appear to be the least likely 1 seed to win it this year. As far as Indiana, clearly the defense has to be better to make a splash in the tournament. In addition, the offense is better than only the '13 championship Louisville team that had a crazy good defense. In the short term though, in our block of teams for the road to the Sweet Sixteen, our defense in very comparable to both Kent State and Drake. Offensively, we are quite a bit better than both (particularly Kent State). Miami, however, is a different animal. Defensively, they fall between Penn State and Iowa - amongst the worse in the field. Offensively, they also fall between Penn State and Iowa - amongst the fields most efficient. Not teams we particularly want an opponent compared too! Luckily, they only rank 250th in point distribution from 3 pointers - with a similar 3p shooting % to ours while taking about a third of their shots from long range (ranking 268th where Iowa ranks 182 and Penn State 10).

I’m not sure if there is any attempt to put a schedule together that tries to balance out level of competition (ie try to make the above number as close to 50% for each team). Clearly, it would be an impossible task as there would be no way of seeing NW being this good and OSU this bad. In reality, the best thing for the conference as a whole is to try to get all the top tier, NCAA tourney quality teams to play each other twice. It would boost their NET and give additional opportunities for Quad 1/2 wins. Though the schedule as it is, helps Rutgers’ conference record and seeding in the BTT, it does their overall portfolio an injustice - which puts extra pressure on them to win that game at Mackey.