2012 NCAA Tournament thread

[Smack]

Go Pack! I guess I'm the resident NC State fan here. But to be honest, that is the same way here in NC. Seems to be about 80% UNC fans, 19% Duke fans, with an occasional state or wake fan scattered amongst us. It's funny to me because nearly all UNC fans would be ridiculed if they stepped foot on UNC's campus...

 

The wolfpack are talented, but they believe they are better than they are. And they are playing with that mentality thanks to Gottlieb. Win or lose, I've never been more excited or proud to be an NC state fan. With 3 McDonalds All-Americans coming in next year the future seems bright.

 

CJ Leslie is as athletic and talented as anyone in the ACC if he plays within his means. Brown isn't a true PG but he manages the game well and he adds a great composure and leadership element. Scott Wood is as good of a shooter as there is in the country if he is on. They aren't deep and foul trouble ([expletive] off ACC refs) can completely dismantle them, but I hope and think it will be a good game.

 

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk

 

You have my vote! My boss is an ECU grad too, though he cheers for UNC basketball.

[Vanilla Ice]

The wolfpack are talented, but they believe they are better than they are. And they are playing with that mentality thanks to Gottlieb. Win or lose, I've never been more excited or proud to be an NC state fan. With 3 McDonalds All-Americans coming in next year the future seems bright.

I ridiculed State hiring Gottfried this summer, but he could not have had a better first year. The difference between this year's and last year's CJ Leslie is incredible.

 

What's the latest on Torian Graham?

[Exile on Waveland]

Are all Purdue fans as cocky about their team based on wins from literally 70 years ago, or is it just the ones on this board? Indiana is 73-59 against Purdue since 1940

 

It's always like this. IU fans can't mention their "dusty banners" because 1987 is too remote in time. However, stuff that happened before World War 2, before the NCAA Tournament even existed, is not too remote in time. It's, um, interesting.

[Smack]

Are all Purdue fans as cocky about their team based on wins from literally 70 years ago, or is it just the ones on this board? Indiana is 73-59 against Purdue since 1940

 

It's always like this. IU fans can't mention their "dusty banners" because 1987 is too remote in time. However, stuff that happened before World War 2, before the NCAA Tournament even existed, is not too remote in time.

 

Haha, and the dusty banners count, but the dusty old wins and conference championships don't...

 

In head to head competition and conference competition Purdue has been more succesful.

 

In postseason tournament competition IU has been more succesful.

 

That's what it boils down to.

 

I still say Tom Crean as the face of IU basketball is an embarassment.

[SouthSideRyan]

You had a [expletive] timeout left, Bo. What the hell were you thinking?

 

Wisconsin is like the new Purdue. Cool regular season team, one hell of a dog in March.

 

They lost to a team that lost 2 times all year by 1 point. Not the end of the world.

 

That isn't really the point. For all the success Bo has had, Wisconsin has only advanced past the round of 16 once under his watch.

 

Are they suppose to be in the Final 4 every year?

 

Once might be nice.

[woodchip2153]

I think sitting Berggren for the final 12 minutes of the first half was a bigger error by Bo Ryan than not calling a timeout before that final possession.

[snoodmonger]

Are all Purdue fans as cocky about their team based on wins from literally 70 years ago, or is it just the ones on this board? Indiana is 73-59 against Purdue since 1940

 

It's always like this. IU fans can't mention their "dusty banners" because 1987 is too remote in time. However, stuff that happened before World War 2, before the NCAA Tournament even existed, is not too remote in time.

 

Haha, and the dusty banners count, but the dusty old wins and conference championships don't...

 

In head to head competition and conference competition Purdue has been more succesful.

 

In postseason tournament competition IU has been more succesful.

 

That's what it boils down to.

 

I still say Tom Crean as the face of IU basketball is an embarassment.

 

Smack is pushing hard for honorary "Bum" status. Seriously, no sane fan would trade IU's success for Purdue's.

[Exile on Waveland]

Are all Purdue fans as cocky about their team based on wins from literally 70 years ago, or is it just the ones on this board? Indiana is 73-59 against Purdue since 1940

 

It's always like this. IU fans can't mention their "dusty banners" because 1987 is too remote in time. However, stuff that happened before World War 2, before the NCAA Tournament even existed, is not too remote in time.

 

Haha, and the dusty banners count, but the dusty old wins and conference championships don't...

 

In head to head competition and conference competition Purdue has been more succesful.

 

In postseason tournament competition IU has been more succesful.

 

That's what it boils down to.

 

I still say Tom Crean as the face of IU basketball is an embarassment.

 

That's not even remotely what I said. It all counts. Purdue has a huge lead in the head-to-head series against IU and has two more Big Ten regular season championships (and one more Big Ten Tournament championship). IU has been easily more successful nationally. Those are the inarguable facts; however, what one cannot do is invent speciously different expiration dates for regular season wins and national championships.

[Smack]

Are all Purdue fans as cocky about their team based on wins from literally 70 years ago, or is it just the ones on this board? Indiana is 73-59 against Purdue since 1940

 

It's always like this. IU fans can't mention their "dusty banners" because 1987 is too remote in time. However, stuff that happened before World War 2, before the NCAA Tournament even existed, is not too remote in time.

 

Haha, and the dusty banners count, but the dusty old wins and conference championships don't...

 

In head to head competition and conference competition Purdue has been more succesful.

 

In postseason tournament competition IU has been more succesful.

 

That's what it boils down to.

 

I still say Tom Crean as the face of IU basketball is an embarassment.

 

Smack is pushing hard for honorary "Bum" status. Seriously, no sane fan would trade IU's success for Purdue's.

 

What? Obviously I would be happy if Purdue had more championships than IU.

[SouthSideRyan]

Are all Purdue fans as cocky about their team based on wins from literally 70 years ago, or is it just the ones on this board? Indiana is 73-59 against Purdue since 1940

 

It's like arguing the Cubs have the upper hand in the Cubs Cardinals rivalry because they lead the all time series due to a bunch of wins they had when they were actually good between 1900-1945.

 

To be fair, Indiana fans still try and gloat about BANNERS from before the game was segregated.

[Smack]

That's not even remotely what I said. It all counts. Purdue has a huge lead in the head-to-head series against IU and has two more Big Ten regular season championships (and one more Big Ten Tournament championship). IU has been easily more successful nationally. Those are the inarguable facts; however, what one cannot do is invent speciously different expiration dates for regular season wins and national championships.

 

Both sides of the rivalry do this.

 

edit: oh, and how did Tom Crean as an embarassment to humanity turn into a discussion on IU's championships? He's still an embarassment...

Edited March 23, 2012 by Smack

[SouthSideRyan]

Personally, I give Indiana one title that matters ('87), and Purdue the award for worst Big Ten campus.

[Exile on Waveland]

Are all Purdue fans as cocky about their team based on wins from literally 70 years ago, or is it just the ones on this board? Indiana is 73-59 against Purdue since 1940

 

It's like arguing the Cubs have the upper hand in the Cubs Cardinals rivalry because they lead the all time series due to a bunch of wins they had when they were actually good between 1900-1945.

 

To be fair, Indiana fans still try and gloat about BANNERS from before the game was segregated.

 

IU was the first Big Ten school to integrate and did before winning their second banner (Bill Garrett, only the third African-American player ever drafted by the NBA, graduated from IU in 1951 and IU won its second title in 1953). The game wasn't fully integrated when IU won its second championship in 1953; but through no fault of IU's.

[Formerly Snayke]

However, stuff that happened before World War 2, before the NCAA Tournament even existed, is not too remote in time. It's, um, interesting.

 

Probably learned it from Kansas.

[Exile on Waveland]

That's not even remotely what I said. It all counts. Purdue has a huge lead in the head-to-head series against IU and has two more Big Ten regular season championships (and one more Big Ten Tournament championship). IU has been easily more successful nationally. Those are the inarguable facts; however, what one cannot do is invent speciously different expiration dates for regular season wins and national championships.

 

Both sides of the rivalry do this.

 

I've seen little to no evidence of this; mainly, because it would be almost impossible for IU fans to do this. I assume you're talking about IU fans wanting to ignore the pre-1940 records (or whatever cut-off date). Well, you can disagree with that logic -- and, frankly, I do too -- but it's not specious. Separating eras into "modern" and "historical/whatever" is not specious and occurs in various settings -- history, politics, music, sports, etc. Pre- and Post-NCAA Tournament -- or whatever cutoff you want here, integration, Bird/Magic game, 64(+) team tournament -- is a logical starting point. It is specious, however, to count games from 1902 but not 1987. There can be no logical rationale for that.

[illiniguy]

However, stuff that happened before World War 2, before the NCAA Tournament even existed, is not too remote in time. It's, um, interesting.

 

Probably learned it from Kansas.

Oh come on, they were voted on as champs years after the season happened. Those should count. :roll: The Helms committee is so dumb. I get schools like Purdue and even Illinois embracing them. It's all we got. But Kansas has real championships, why the need to claim fake ones?

[Smack]

That's not even remotely what I said. It all counts. Purdue has a huge lead in the head-to-head series against IU and has two more Big Ten regular season championships (and one more Big Ten Tournament championship). IU has been easily more successful nationally. Those are the inarguable facts; however, what one cannot do is invent speciously different expiration dates for regular season wins and national championships.

 

Both sides of the rivalry do this.

 

I've seen little to no evidence of this; mainly, because it would be almost impossible for IU fans to do this. I assume you're talking about IU fans wanting to ignore the pre-1940 records (or whatever cut-off date). Well, you can disagree with that logic -- and, frankly, I do too -- but it's not specious. Separating eras into "modern" and "historical/whatever" is not specious and occurs in various settings -- history, politics, music, sports, etc. Pre- and Post-NCAA Tournament -- or whatever cutoff you want here, integration, Bird/Magic game, 64(+) team tournament -- is a logical starting point. It is specious, however, to count games from 1902 but not 1987. There can be no logical rationale for that.

 

Purdue won every game for three years, when that was brought up IU fans would 'point to the banners'. Purdue fans would say... that was nearly 30 years ago... and if you want to bring those up why not talk about the all-time series? Hell, there is a whole generation of IU fans in high shool and college that don't remember IU being a blue blood in anything but name. When do those banners lose some relevance? 40 years after the last championship? 50?

 

Do I think IU will beat Purdue for the foreseeable future as someone suggested? Nope. Next year, assuming Zeller stays it will be difficult for Purdue to win one. After Zeller is gone things will be more even, based on the 2012/2013 recruiting classes.

 

I also think Tom Crean is an embarrasment to humanity. Compare him to other blue blood coaches in appearance and public behavior.

[SouthSideRyan]

That's not even remotely what I said. It all counts. Purdue has a huge lead in the head-to-head series against IU and has two more Big Ten regular season championships (and one more Big Ten Tournament championship). IU has been easily more successful nationally. Those are the inarguable facts; however, what one cannot do is invent speciously different expiration dates for regular season wins and national championships.

 

Both sides of the rivalry do this.

 

I've seen little to no evidence of this; mainly, because it would be almost impossible for IU fans to do this. I assume you're talking about IU fans wanting to ignore the pre-1940 records (or whatever cut-off date). Well, you can disagree with that logic -- and, frankly, I do too -- but it's not specious. Separating eras into "modern" and "historical/whatever" is not specious and occurs in various settings -- history, politics, music, sports, etc. Pre- and Post-NCAA Tournament -- or whatever cutoff you want here, integration, Bird/Magic game, 64(+) team tournament -- is a logical starting point. It is specious, however, to count games from 1902 but not 1987. There can be no logical rationale for that.

 

It's shot clock era, and black and white era.

[SouthSideRyan]

However, stuff that happened before World War 2, before the NCAA Tournament even existed, is not too remote in time. It's, um, interesting.

 

Probably learned it from Kansas.

Oh come on, they were voted on as champs years after the season happened. Those should count. :roll: The Helms committee is so dumb. I get schools like Purdue and even Illinois embracing them. It's all we got. But Kansas has real championships, why the need to claim fake ones?

 

Except we don't embrace it.

[Exile on Waveland]

That's not even remotely what I said. It all counts. Purdue has a huge lead in the head-to-head series against IU and has two more Big Ten regular season championships (and one more Big Ten Tournament championship). IU has been easily more successful nationally. Those are the inarguable facts; however, what one cannot do is invent speciously different expiration dates for regular season wins and national championships.

 

Both sides of the rivalry do this.

 

I've seen little to no evidence of this; mainly, because it would be almost impossible for IU fans to do this. I assume you're talking about IU fans wanting to ignore the pre-1940 records (or whatever cut-off date). Well, you can disagree with that logic -- and, frankly, I do too -- but it's not specious. Separating eras into "modern" and "historical/whatever" is not specious and occurs in various settings -- history, politics, music, sports, etc. Pre- and Post-NCAA Tournament -- or whatever cutoff you want here, integration, Bird/Magic game, 64(+) team tournament -- is a logical starting point. It is specious, however, to count games from 1902 but not 1987. There can be no logical rationale for that.

 

Purdue won every game for three years, when that was brought up IU fans would 'point to the banners'. Purdue fans would say... that was nearly 30 years ago... and if you want to bring those up why not talk about the all-time series? Hell, there is a whole generation of IU fans in high shool and college that don't remember IU being a blue blood in anything but name. When do those banners lose some relevance? 40 years after the last championship? 50?

 

Do I think IU will beat Purdue for the foreseeable future as someone suggested? Nope. Next year, assuming Zeller stays it will be difficult for Purdue to win one. After Zeller is gone things will be more even, based on the 2012/2013 recruiting classes.

 

I also think Tom Crean is an embarrasment to humanity. Compare him to other blue blood coaches in appearance and public behavior.

 

For me, the banners never lose relevance; just the same as Purdue's series lead never loses relevance. Regardless, this seems less of a specious time-splitting than desperate fans clinging to anything worthy of a comeback. In hard times, IU fans will always point to the banners because they exist; just as Purdue fans will point to the series lead because it exists.

 

I certainly don't agree that Purdue won't beat IU for the foreseeable future. That evinces a fundamental misunderstanding of the rivalry and the historical outcomes -- Purdue has always managed to win games against IU, even when IU was much, much better. That will surely continue. It also evinces an ignorance of the recruiting successes Purdue has had for the next couple classes (though IU is still recruiting at a higher level for 2012-14).

[Exile on Waveland]

That's not even remotely what I said. It all counts. Purdue has a huge lead in the head-to-head series against IU and has two more Big Ten regular season championships (and one more Big Ten Tournament championship). IU has been easily more successful nationally. Those are the inarguable facts; however, what one cannot do is invent speciously different expiration dates for regular season wins and national championships.

 

Both sides of the rivalry do this.

 

I've seen little to no evidence of this; mainly, because it would be almost impossible for IU fans to do this. I assume you're talking about IU fans wanting to ignore the pre-1940 records (or whatever cut-off date). Well, you can disagree with that logic -- and, frankly, I do too -- but it's not specious. Separating eras into "modern" and "historical/whatever" is not specious and occurs in various settings -- history, politics, music, sports, etc. Pre- and Post-NCAA Tournament -- or whatever cutoff you want here, integration, Bird/Magic game, 64(+) team tournament -- is a logical starting point. It is specious, however, to count games from 1902 but not 1987. There can be no logical rationale for that.

 

It's shot clock era, and black and white era.

 

Fair enough; those are logical starting points. I'm not sure I would agree -- it's hard for me to not consider guys like Michael Jordan or Isiah Thomas or Patrick Ewing "modern" (albeit I never saw them play in college).

[illiniguy]

However, stuff that happened before World War 2, before the NCAA Tournament even existed, is not too remote in time. It's, um, interesting.

 

Probably learned it from Kansas.

Oh come on, they were voted on as champs years after the season happened. Those should count. :roll: The Helms committee is so dumb. I get schools like Purdue and even Illinois embracing them. It's all we got. But Kansas has real championships, why the need to claim fake ones?

 

Except we don't embrace it.

I'm aware, thank god we don't. Just saying it would make more sense for us to than them.

[snoodmonger]

However, stuff that happened before World War 2, before the NCAA Tournament even existed, is not too remote in time. It's, um, interesting.

 

Probably learned it from Kansas.

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v604/snoodmonger1/cf77b335.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v604/snoodmonger1/87de72a9.jpg

[snoodmonger]

However, stuff that happened before World War 2, before the NCAA Tournament even existed, is not too remote in time. It's, um, interesting.

 

Probably learned it from Kansas.

Oh come on, they were voted on as champs years after the season happened. Those should count. :roll: The Helms committee is so dumb. I get schools like Purdue and even Illinois embracing them. It's all we got. But Kansas has real championships, why the need to claim fake ones?

 

Except we don't embrace it.

 

It's a recruiting tool you dumbasses. Who cares if the fans of schools who've never won anything get all indignant over it?

[Guest]

Thankfully we have our 2007 National Championship in football to console us.