DISQUS

If by wins, you mean gets the #1 seed in the Big Ten Tournament, then if IU and PU tie, IU is #1; if PU and Wisc tie, PU is #1; if IU and Wisc tie, Wisc is #1; and if all three tie PU is #1, Wisc is #2, and IU is #3. Tie breakers are based on head to head if 2 teams tie, or overall record against the other 2 teams if all 3 tie (PU would be 2-1, Wisc 2-2, and IU 1-2 in that case).

Teams that tie in overall record share the Big Ten title, so the tie breakers are only important for the Big Ten Tournament.

You're off in a few ways here about UK and UCLA. First, Rupp and Wooden have been retired for over 30 years. Second, each retired, rather than being dismissed. So Wooden and Rupp each decided that his career was over at the school, rather than leaving a lingering distaste with the ending. Third, both Kentucky (with trying to bring back Billy Donovan) and UCLA (with Ben Howland) either tried to or did bring in a coach with previous ties to the school with their most recent hire, although neither was a disciple of their long-retired coaching greats.

All that said, having an IU connection is important to me only in breaking ties between otherwise equally qualified candidates. I wish people would quit bringing up Knight, too. It only makes it tougher for this team and the new coach going forward.

I agree that Crawford shouldn't be arguing with the ref, but it sounded on TV like a whistle might have blown some on the play. Even the OSU guy stopped in the middle of the lane and stood there for a second before he passed the ball off. Did anyone else hear that, or am I just losing my mind?

Having gone 44-73 in his last head coaching position at Houston (before being "reassigned") probably has something to do with it. He was successful at Ball St., though. Anyone know what happened to make him leave? Was the pull to leave his alma mater to coach Houston that strong?

Not sure if he would but . . .
1) He would be moving from a football school to a basketball school where he can be the focus of attention practically year round. Pearl seems to have a bottomless appetite for media coverage. He's practically overshadowed by women's basketball at UT, too.

2) I know Tennessee is #1 right now, but my biased opinion says he would be better able to compete every year at the highest level at IU rather than Tennessee.

3) He was an Iowa assistant and head man at UW-Milwaukee, so he's got some midwest and Big Ten background.

4) IU can probably get him more money long term through salary tie-ins.

We've seen coaches make similar moves recently - Self from Illinois to Kansas, Williams from Kansas to UNC (although there was much more history there), Gillespie from A&M to Kentucky.

Again, it's a total flier, but it's worth a back channel contact. Plus, it's about the only thing that could make Illinois fans hate us even more, which would be kind of fun.

I like that Tony Bennett has had success in one of the major conferences, which Sean Miller kind of has (I consider the A-10 enough of a major conference), but that Anthony Grant and Brad Brownell lack to different degrees. The downsides to Bennett are the lack of experience and tournament success. As a 3 seed last year, WSU was upset in the second round by Vandy.

If WSU and Bennett have a good run this year in the tourney, he solidifies himself as a top candidate in my mind.

I still think the first move should be to contact some successful coaches at traditional football schools on the off chance they want to make a move - someone like Rick Barnes or Bruce Pearl. If they aren't interested, both sides pretend like the conversation never happened and you move on to guys like Bennett or Miller.

You'd think that since Northwestern only has one good player (Coble), you'd make sure he's the guy who doesn't get left alone. Ellis already has 3 bad plays tonight in under 5 minutes.

The black out is probably a name of a kid still under 18 and, therefore, a minor. I doubt if the Gordon's have the pull to just get a name redacted when the names of other IU commitments, such as Devin Ewbanks, appear on the report.