Exile on Waveland

Fixed, sorry. Posting fail.

Ha, yeah. The Colts pick is a mortal, ahem, Luck . . . boooooooooo Ha ha. That was intended as a groaner.

Who are you talking about? A few yokels/trolls? I certainly don't recall anyone here saying so. It's pretty difficult to say with a new coach, but Illinois should be pretty good (and I'm assuming Meyers Leonard leaves). (Though, in the yokels/trolls defense, Illinois went 6-12 last year in the Big Ten, figures to lose an NBA Lottery pick, and does not have much of a recruiting class. While it may be likely that the talented young players improve and Groce is an upgrade over Weber, neither of those things are a certainty.)

IIRC, there is no testing the waters anymore. If he declares, he's gone. He does get to get some advice before he officially declares, but that's it. It would hurt 2012 if Watford left, but it would help 2013 so I'm not too concerned about it. It might not even make that big of a difference next year if some of the freshmen play well. I don't know that it would hurt 2012 that much. Christian is kind of a wildly inconsistent player. I do think the 2012 kids could make up for it overall. Plus Watford going pro would conveniently solve the scholarship crunch for 2012. :-" It's going to hurt a lot. You simply do not lose quality 6-foot-9, (would-be) four-year starters and not have it hurt. Both Jeremy Hollowell and Hanner Perea may/should be better than Watford in the future at some point, but I seriously, seriously doubt that point in the future is next year.

Ha, yeah. The Colts pick is a mortal, ahem, Luck . . .

Kansas isn't going to win the title. I really doubt they beat Ohio State, for that matter. You were right, however, that their region got blown up -- because of Marshall's injury. (And I'm not a Kansas hater at all, I have nothing against them, they're just almost certainly not going to win this title. Heck, I hope they do win the title -- because "Kansas" is not spelled "Kentucky.")

Anderson was quietly very good for the Colts last year.

You think that now; you should have seen him in high school. I'm not sure I even saw him dribble. As soon as he caught the ball a shot was going up.

Stevens would be an absolute home-run. He'd win a national championship at Illinois.

Agreed. I still marvel at the job Knight did in 1989. Illinois was ridiculous that year; so was Michigan. Both clearly, obviously had better rosters than IU (one won the title, another made the Final Four).

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).

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

Happy not to see Manning pick the Titans and stay in the division (sorry dew). Best of luck to him. Go Broncolts (. . . no?).

At least Robinson doesn't have to worry about Kelsey Barlow's nuts in his face. :-" I wonder how many times Sullinger had to rinse to get rid of that flavor? Man that was an awesome dunk. Gone from the team 10 days later. I sat about ten feet from Barlow at the Indianapolis Tech sectional game between Cathedral and Roncalli a couple weeks ago. I want to say I feel bad for the kid, but Painter gave him a lot of chances. Were people asking him about it? From what I could tell no one did. A few people, that I assumed knew him from high school, stopped by to wish him well.

Oh no! They're my main (only?) hope to beat Kentucky.

At least Robinson doesn't have to worry about Kelsey Barlow's nuts in his face. :-" I wonder how many times Sullinger had to rinse to get rid of that flavor? Man that was an awesome dunk. Gone from the team 10 days later. I sat about ten feet from Barlow at the Indianapolis Tech sectional game between Cathedral and Roncalli a couple weeks ago.

These NBA guys are utterly clueless about college ball, frustratingly so.

I cannot imagine Perea coming anywhere close to having a Zeller-like impact. He'll help because of his size and ridiculous athleticism, but he's not a high-skill player and will need developing. I'm worried IU fans have too high of expectations for him; he's likely to have some good games and some games where he looks completely hopeless and fouls out.

Meh, Georgetown isn't that great . . . that result is hardly surprising. Kansas still has North Carolina in its region. Yeah, but the next two round are in St. Louis, right? Yes, that's a big advantage but it hasn't changed. North Carolina is the only team in that region that if they beat Kansas, it wouldn't qualify as a pretty big surprise. I really don't think there is that much difference between NC State and Georgetown. I also think Purdue has a chance today.

Meh, Georgetown isn't that great . . . that result is hardly surprising. Kansas still has North Carolina in its region.

Really? I would love to see that. I guess Hollowell would get his minutes? I hope I'm wrong, obviously. Losing Watford would really hurt; it would severely limit IU's frontcourt/size. Hollowell is going to be a very good player -- and has a higher upside than Watford -- but it would obviously be preferable to have a four-year starter (which Watford would be).