Reality sets in

Shocked? I’m not.

Concerned? I am.

What you saw against Western Kentucky and Murray State compared to Saturday’s game with Ball State was not a different IU team.

Actually, the Hoosiers were quite the same. Rather, the difference is in the quality of the opponent.

And the contrasts were drastically evident.

IU’s colossal victories in weeks one and two amounted to fan appreciation days.
In other words, Western Kentucky and Murray State posed as tune-up contests showcasing stellar IU performances uncommon to the Hoosier eye.

You saw running backs thrive in the ground game. You saw the IU defense allow a combined 92 yards rushing in two games. You saw Bill Lynch’s team relinquish only one touchdown.

However, the truth is this: The Hoosier running backs cannot be the ones to carry the offensive burden. The defense is notorious for its inability to stop the run. And you and I both know the Hoosiers allow way too many points on the board.

So, what’s the problem with scheduling two cupcake opponents? False pretenses.

Spectators prematurely judged the Hoosiers as contenders when they pounded an FCS opponent 45-3, but as soon as they played a competitive foe they appeared to be only pretenders. IU would have learned more in a 10-point loss than in a 40-point victory before playing Ball State.

And it makes my head spin when FBS schools pay six figures to lackluster teams just to get the ‘W.’

The real Hoosiers showed themselves in Ball State’s 42-20 shellacking Saturday night.

From start to finish, it was just downright ugly. The IU offense never clicked from snap one and as far as how the defense fared – well, let’s just say it flat out stunk.

BSU running back MiQuale Lewis ran circles around the IU defense from the line to the secondary. Lewis netted 166 rushing yards and four touchdowns. And if you thought IU could stop the run even if the opposing running back was listed at 5-foot-6, think again.

Following Ball State’s thrashing performance against the Hoosiers, Lewis said, “I didn’t think (IU) respected us at all. Now they will.”

MiQuale Lewis’ counterpart under center was just as dominant. Quarterback Nate Davis put the Hoosier secondary to shame largely due to his offensive line and mobility. The Cardinal line gave Davis all the time in the world to either pass or run.

Even after Ball State’s No. 1 wide receiver Dante Love was seriously hurt, Davis was able to make backup wide outs appear as first-stringers.

“Offensively, (Ball State) had great balance when they ran the ball,” Lynch said. “The biggest thing is we missed so many tackles.”

It was a good night to take notes on how not to defend the opposition. I have to stick with my original thought that IU was not well prepared for Ball State because of their schedule.

Sure, playing Western Kentucky and Murray State will show up in the win column, but not on the gridiron.

Reality is, the Hoosiers are a sub-par team. Yes, they will have some explosive plays here and there, but the inconsistency in the end hinders their performance.

IU quarterback Kellen Lewis told me after the game that in rivalry games “everyone steps it to another level.”

So, let me ask you a question, Hoosiers. Why didn’t you step up? This was the game to make a statement to your future Big Ten enemies.

If you thought Ball State was tough, wait until you see what your conference foes have to offer.