Hoosier Brunch


As always, my IU review.

The Hoosiers held onto their spot in the top 25, despite a bad loss in Iowa City, Dustin wrote.

Ten years after its improbable run to the Big Ten title game, the 2002 IU women’s team still constitute the ties that bind the IU women’s program together, Jeremy wrote.


Larry Lage of the AP says the Big Ten is set for a very interesting finish with at least five teams within striking distance.

In Joe Lunardi’s Bracketology on ESPN, the Hoosiers fell to a No. 5 seed, now playing in Albuquerque for the first round.

Ryan Corazza of Inside the Hall looks at Matt Gatens’ bevy of 3-point shots in this week’s Film Session.


Nerlens Noel, the No. 1 recruit in the country, talked about his recruitment in a blog post for ESPN.com. If you ask me, it sounds like Kentucky.


  1. If Joe Lanardi’s predictions hold IU goes up against a very good BYU team and their point gaurd, Matt Carlino. That game scares me, I’ve seen BYU and they are very active, motion offense, and play very good defense.

  2. Doesn’t every match-up scare you? We are capable of beating anyone, and capable of losing to anyone. This is a program that is still learning how to be successful and consistent.

  3. oregon, don’t you know the rules?

    Unless you think IU is a LOCK for the Final Four, you’re not a REAL fan.

    And NO ONE is allowed to have doubts about the team except Geoff because it’s HIS “job” to point out the flaws.

    Everyone is supposed to be a sheep so we can be lectured by Geoff.

    And why shouldn’t every match-up “scare” us? We lost to IOWA and let them shoot 80% in a half.

  4. Laffy, it’s my job to point out realities, not flaws. Good things and bad things…

    Like the reality of the Iowa game where they shot 80% in the second half… We were up 17 at the half, and when we took our starters out with 2 minutes to go we were up 21. That means we played +4 basketball. Go back and read my write-up about Grinnell to provide some perspective.

    I don’t lecture everyone, just the ones who clearly need it.

  5. Again with the “it’s my JOB” crapola.

    Seriously…..get over yourself.

    Are you getting paid to “point out realities”?

    Well, it’s my “job” to call it like I see it.

    I’m really tired of people calling others “non-fans” to those who don’t just look at the win total and actually look at how we’re playing.

    Yes, we know. Those who “clearly need it” are those that don’t agree with YOU.


  6. I’ve never called anyone a non-fan… So I assume that’s pointed at someone else.

    I’m also pretty sure that no one here would accuse me of just looking at the win total and not digging deeper… That’s sorta my reputation. So that’s not pointed at me either.

    And I am not necessarily looking for agreement. Their are plenty of people here that I don’t agree with all the time, but I don’t call out. Or I will acknowledge the parts that are quite sound of thought. What I am looking for is an acknowledgment of reality.

Comments are closed.