Indiana
3 takeaways from Wisconsin’s overtime loss to Indiana, aside from officiating
Nolan Winter comments on Wisconsin Badgers’ progress in overtime games
Wisconsin forward Nolan Winter commented on how the Badgers have shown progress in overtime games after UW’s 78-77 loss to Indiana.
BLOOMINGTON, IN – Wisconsin’s John Blackwell was visibly in disbelief, with his hands on the back of his head before appearing to plead with an official following a game-changing foul call in the final seconds.
The stinging moment – one that sent Blackwell to the bench with five fouls and one of Indiana’s better free-throw shooters to the line for the game-tying and go-ahead points – and another controversial call before that may stick in the craw of many UW fans long after the Feb. 7 trip to Assembly Hall.
But for as much as those final 15 seconds may prompt Wisconsin fans to say “what if,” the Badgers also had other shortcomings that led to a 78-77 overtime loss.
“We put ourselves in that position by not coming out strong,” Wisconsin forward Nolan Winter said. “We didn’t execute our offense. We were lost on defense early on. And then to put in the refs’ hands if you’re going to win or lose a game – that’s not what we should be doing.”
Box score | UW schedule | Standings
Here are three takeaways from the Badgers’ loss:
Indiana’s physicality put Wisconsin in challenging position
In a game where the officiating crew let each team play – without a free throw attempted until the second half – Indiana had a clear advantage in interior physicality.
The Hoosiers finished with 44 points in the paint – tied for the most by any UW opponent this season. (The Badgers’ other game with 44 points allowed in the paint was their 30-point loss to then-No. 22 Nebraska on Dec. 10.)
Indiana’s ability to score down low with ease masked the Hoosiers’ unwieldy 23% 3-point shooting. IU finished the game with 73.1% of its scoring coming either from the paint or the free-throw line.
Wisconsin coach Greg Gard said the Badgers needed to be better both in one-on-one situations and in their ability to “squeeze better and send some help.”
“We could have done a better job of keeping the dribble out of the paint,” Gard said. “We got beat off the dribble. We got spread out at times. … We needed to be better and more physical.”
Wisconsin showed some improvement in its physicality in the second half although Indiana still scored 29 of its 36 second-half points either in the paint or at the free-throw line. The Hoosiers’ only made field goal in overtime was in the paint as well.
“We were more physical for stretches in the second half, specifically the back half of that second half,” Gard said. “We had figured out some things – where we could help from, where we couldn’t. We just played more physical. I think that was the biggest thing.”
Nolan Winter offered consistency for Badgers’ otherwise-inconsistent offense
Wisconsin’s offense, which has experienced plenty of highs and lows in 2025-26, had another roller-coaster afternoon in the Badgers’ loss to Indiana.
UW opened the game with 3-of-16 (18.8%) shooting, as the Badgers struggled to score from seemingly any area on the court. UW bookended the loss with missing three of its four shot attempts in overtime.
But the Badgers also had a nine-minute stretch in the second half with 7-of-10 shooting.
Nick Boyd, the team’s leading scorer this season, made his first two shots before missing his next six attempts. Boyd ended up shooting 2 of 13 from 2-point range and 5 of 6 from 3-point range. John Blackwell, UW’s second-leading scorer this season, had two first-half points on 1-of-8 shooting before finishing with 18 points.
Andrew Rohde suffered from unusually cold shooting throughout the day, going 2 of 10. Braeden Carrington similarly was 2 of 8.
Seemingly the one constant on the offensive end was Nolan Winter, who finished with a team-high 26 points on 9-of-13 shooting. (The rest of the Badgers shot 31% from the field and 29% from 3-point range.)
He scored 10 of those points in the final eight-plus minutes of the first half, helping the Badgers shrink their deficit from 14 to six at halftime.
His three 3-pointers made were second on UW behind Boyd’s five. Some of Winter’s scoring also was the result of UW taking advantage of how Indiana switched on ball screens.
“We found him,” Gard said. “I thought we could have found him more. I thought we missed him a lot in the first half. But he found himself in a good position, and obviously he made plays.”
Wisconsin was in prime position to ‘shut the door’ in regulation
Wisconsin’s resilience was again on display in the second half as it came back from a 11-point deficit with fewer than 10 minutes remaining in regulation to take its first lead with fewer than two minutes remaining.
“Obviously we put ourselves in some situations early on where it was going to be tough to come back, and we came together and we did it,” Winter said.
That followed a month of January that featured a 14-point comeback against then-No. 1 Michigan, 20 and 11-point comebacks against Minnesota and an 11-point comeback against Ohio State.
Blackwell’s fadeaway jumper gave UW a 69-68 lead, and then Winter hit a 3-pointer on the subsequent possession to expand the lead to 72-68. The college basketball analytics site KenPom gave Wisconsin an 85.5% chance of winning after Winter’s timely shot.
But then Lamar Wilkerson quickly got to the line and made a pair of free throws to make it a 72-70 game. Rohde missed an open 3-point look, and Wilkerson drew another foul and made the game-tying free throws.
There was enough time for UW to draw up a play that gave Blackwell a chance at another game-winner. His fadeaway attempt was off the mark, though, leading to an overtime period that ended with two controversial foul calls and two more consequential Wilkerson free throws.
“We had ourselves in a position where we needed to shut the door on this thing, and it didn’t happen,” Gard said.
Gov. Mike Braun asked state regulators to reconsider their decision to greenlight a $71 million rate increase for AES Indiana, doubling down on his condemnation of a move that could leave Indianapolis residents with higher electrical bills for years.
Braun wrote in a June 18 news release that he had asked Indiana Utility Counselor Abby Gray, who heads the office representing ratepayers in proceedings before the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, to petition for a rehearing of the AES rate case.
Gray indicated in the release that her office would submit the petition shortly. No petition had been posted on the IURC’s online docket as of this story’s publication.
The rate increase, which was approved by the IURC on June 17, was substantially less than the $192 million increase that AES initially requested. It was also less than the amount proposed in a settlement last October between AES and major electricity consumers.
But the Office of Utility Consumer Counselor, which Gray leads, came out strongly against any increase to AES’s base rates. In September, the OUCC called for a $21 million reduction instead.
As the Republican Party grapples with rising discontent over affordability, Braun has used opposition to rising utility rates to telegraph that he’s committed to keeping costs down for Indiana residents. He signed a law in February that allows the state to make rate-setting decisions that reward or penalize utilities based on metrics including affordability.
In March, he told reporters that he would take on Indiana’s five investor-owned utilities, describing himself as the “new sheriff in town.”
And after the IURC voted 3-1 to approve the AES rate increase, he wrote in a post to X that he was “deeply disappointed.”
Braun wrote in the June 18 news release that he had appointed Gray, a longtime OUCC lawyer and judge, to her current post because he knew she “would help me fight for Hoosiers.”
According to AES’s estimates, the rate increase will cost households an additional $5 per month for every 1,000 kilowatt hours of electricity they use, beginning in July. A second hike will take effect in January.
Tilly Robinson is a Pulliam fellow for the Indianapolis Star. She can be reached at tilly.robinson@indystar.com.
The Protect College Sports Act, legislation meant to introduce and codify sweeping reforms related to college athletics, passed out of the Senate Commerce Committee on Thursday morning.
It now heads to the Senate floor.
The bill passed out of committee by a 19-9 vote. Indiana Republican Sen. Todd Young voted no, his decision reflecting Big Ten concerns over the bill.
A spokesman for Sen. Young told IndyStar, “Senator Young hopes that additional changes can be made to the bill to address concerns raised by the Big Ten.”
Co-sponsored by Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Maria Cantwell (D-Washington), the Protect College Sports Act represents Congress’ most substantial success so far in a yearslong effort to bring legislative reform to college athletics. Since before the COVID-19 pandemic, leaders in college sports — including the NCAA, member conferences and schools, and other major players — have lobbied for national solutions to what have become state and regional problems.
Several pieces of legislation have been introduced across the last several years, only to fizzle long before reaching the floor of either chamber. The SCORE Act, introduced last year in the House of Representatives, gained some traction and passed out of committee, but was never brought to the floor.
Which makes Thursday’s news meaningful. Moving the Protect College Sports Act to the Senate floor, while not a guarantee of any outcome, potentially takes the bill past a threshold no other such piece of reformative legislation has yet been able to cross.
Cruz told Yahoo! Sports’ Ross Dellenger on Thursday that Cruz believes Sen. Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) is committed to introducing the bill to the Senate floor soon.
The bill provides a legal framework for a host of potential reforms and protections for college sports. It grants limited antitrust protection to the NCAA, places limits on certain things including potential conference realignment, builds safeguards meant to protect non-revenue and Olympic sports, addresses potential broadcast rights reforms, and more.
It enjoys significant backing, and not just among leaders in college sports. This week, the NFL, its players’ association, the National Basketball Players Association and Major League Baseball all voiced their support for the bill.
Two key constituencies not in lockstep on the bill voiced their own concerns Thursday.
In a joint statement issued just after 10 a.m. Thursday, the Big Ten and SEC — far and away the two most powerful conferences and arguably two greatest power centers, full stop, in college athletics — suggested they still hold significant reservations over the bill.
“From the outset, we identified a set of essential revisions to the PCSA necessary for the long-term sustainability of college athletics,” the statement read. “We have worked with both majority and minority staff to advance those revisions, which focus on better supporting student-athletes and stabilizing the college sports environment. We continue to believe revisions are needed to secure our support for the bill.
“Despite our sustained engagement and good faith efforts, these critical revisions have not been accepted.”
The statement went on to note the “several Commerce Committee members that share our concerns and support these recommendations.”
Young is one of several members of the committee representing a Big Ten state, including one of three Republicans. He is the only Republican member of the committee whose state contains multiple schools in the conference.
Allowing for those reservations, Thursday’s news is still significant. It marks the first time a bipartisan bill on the subject has reached this point in the Senate and, should it be brought to the floor, it would be the first such legislation to reach that stage, in either chamber.
The bill could be brought to the Senate floor as early as July, though that timeline remains fluid.
(INDIANA CAPITAL CHRONICLE) – The Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission voted 3-1 Wednesday to approve a $71 million electricity rate increase for AES Indiana customers.
That is about 37% of what the utility initially requested and lower than a settlement agreement proposed in October.
Neither Gov. Mike Braun nor consumer advocates are happy with the outcome.
“My top priority is affordability, which is why I am deeply disappointed by the IURC’s approval of another AES rate increase,” he said. “Hoosiers have spent years tightening their belts and making tough financial decisions. It’s time for utility companies to do the same.”
Members of the commission didn’t explain their votes Wednesday. IURC Chair Andy Zay focused his remarks on the process.
“There’s a lot of eyes on this order and what we’re doing today,” he said. “What is before you on the floor is a nearly a year’s worth of work, evidence, deliberations, and considerations that bring us to this moment in this decision. None of this was taken lightly. I want to thank my colleagues for the patience and working through this amongst the auspice of affordability, which is certainly a hot topic now, as well as the resiliency, reliability that we see in this increased demand in electricity.”
The Office of Utility Consumer Counselor last year recommended that state regulators deny AES Indiana’s request for a $193 million base rate increase — instead proposing a $21 million reduction in current rates.
“The AES rate order issued today is an outrage and Hoosiers deserve better!” Counselor Abby Gray said in a statement Wednesday. “Governor Braun has made it clear that ratepayer affordability is a priority, far more than just a ‘hot topic’ as described by the chairman of the IURC today. This order fails the governor’s call to overhaul how utilities are regulated in order to lower bills for ratepayers.”
Gray’s office represents Hoosier ratepayers in regulatory cases.
“The order approves a substantial profit margin for shareholders in addition to a rate increase for customers,” she continued. “It even requires ratepayers to pay approximately $3 million to AES lawyers and experts.”
AES Indiana provides electricity service to about 490,000 homes and businesses in Indianapolis and some nearby areas.
The utility originally sought $193 million in rate increases. The previously proposed settlement agreement dropped that to $91 million, while the final, approved settlement agreement lands at $71 million.
Three IURC members supported the increase: Zay, David Veleta and David Ziegner.
Commissioner Bob Deig voted no. A fifth member, Anthony Swinger, recused himself because he worked on the case previously when he was on the consumer counselor’s office staff.
Ben Inskeep, program director for ratepayer advocacy group Citizens Action Coalition, said utilities across the country often ask for a larger increase than they need, knowing that regulators will disallow “roughly half” of it.
“The latest AES Indiana fuel adjustment clause proceeding shows AES Indiana is actually not only earning all of their allowed profit but over-earning by $19 million their return amount,” he said. “They’re already extremely financially successful at this moment in time, so it’s rather bizarre to even get an extra $71 million dollars approved here.”
Inskeep also noted that the increases will fall disproportionately on residential customers over commercial and industrial users.
Brandi Davis-Handy, president of AES Indiana, said the company has maintained some of the lowest rates in the state for more than a decade “through disciplined planning and a focus on efficiency. We applied the same approach here by working closely with stakeholders to make balanced decisions that keep the system reliable, limit customer impact, and align with the state’s energy pillars.”
AES said for a typical residential customer using 1,000 kilowatt-hours per month, the increase will be less than $5 per month per phase. Phase one rates will be implemented in July 2026 and phase two rates will be implemented in January 2027.
The final order says the utility “will not seek to implement a change in basic rates and charges as a result of its next base rate case before January 1, 2030.”
A new law, however, requires all utilities to file a multi-year rate case in 2029, though implementation wouldn’t happen until 2030.
-
New York1 hour agoVideo: Knicks Fans Celebrate With Ticker-Tape Parade
-
Los Angeles, Ca1 hour agoArmed, dangerous CHP pursuit suspect tied to double homicide in Pomona
-
Detroit, MI1 hour agoFirst responders honored after rescuing 12 people from capsized sailboats near Belle Isle
-
San Francisco, CA2 hours agoOakland man faces hate crime charges for Castro District attack
-
Dallas, TX2 hours agoAt least 4 injured after vehicle drives into Dallas crowd, driver arrested
-
Miami, FL2 hours agoMiami Central students prepare for life changing trip to Zimbabwe amid funding challenges
-
Boston, MA2 hours agoGiannis to Boston is a possibility. Should the Knicks be worried?
-
Denver, CO2 hours agoDenver Public Schools’ decline in enrollment continues to reshape district
