Doesn't look good for IU to get in NIT

[IUPaterade724]

I guess I still don't understand your point. Your saying the position he was put in to unfairly was that of fan's expectations?

Sorry if it came off that way, but yea kind of I really do. Many fans on here expected huge things for RJ and I just didn't see how that was going to happen.

Let's put it this way, he would have to have made +6 3 pointers a game for us to even have a chance to make March Madness. We just didn't have the horses, and this horse (RJ) fans relied on was merely a role player and never going to be the go to guy. Lets move o and look forward to the future. I really like RJ, I just think he is exactly the player I thought he was.

Now, the length and athleticism coming in can't be taught. Excited for the defensive end of the floor and for these young men to grow into a system that demands intelligence every play.

 

[Davehack]

Our NIT bubble has burst.

I wonder if we were in the "first four out".

 

[kkott]

He played 3 years with no traditional role on the team. He was not held accountable his entire college career until Archie came around and changed the culture. When you are use to running sets and playing wing positions that a very non-traditional compared to what Archie runs, he is going to have good and bad games like everyone else. I did not expect him to explode his Sr year like many thought he would. I wish I was wrong.

I guess I would agree with that to an extent, but I was very disappointed in RJ's overall play this year. In fairness I thought RJ was our best perimeter defender and did well there. And I can understand how a new system might lead to some turnovers or missed plays due to the newness of the system, but Archie nor his system didn't change the distance of the FT line or 3 pt line, and while I understand some TO's, RJ had more than his share of bad TO's imo; more than were justified for what you'd expect out of a senior leader.

 

[Courtsensetwo]

The NIT com felt that Hampton, UNC Ash, SE LA, And Wagner, were better selections than IU while ND was the top seed.

 

[PatKline]

Perhaps the NIT committee is not happy with the way IU handled things last year.

 

[Davehack]

Perhaps the NIT committee is not happy with the way IU handled things last year.

Right. They would have preferred boos raining down during the game in Bloomington last year. Would have been good for the tourney.

 

[cshartle123]

I guess I would agree with that to an extent, but I was very disappointed in RJ's overall play this year. In fairness I thought RJ was our best perimeter defender and did well there. And I can understand how a new system might lead to some turnovers or missed plays due to the newness of the system, but Archie nor his system didn't change the distance of the FT line or 3 pt line, and while I understand some TO's, RJ had more than his share of bad TO's imo; more than were justified for what you'd expect out of a senior leader.

RJ had a good year. He was by himself in the backcourt. He was an effective defender, and scored in the same way that he has for the previous three seasons. If you were expecting him to learn how to create space and handle the ball between his junior and senior year then the fault is on you. He would have been much more efficient with a reliable point guard, and playing 28 minutes a game rather than 34. Archie put a lot on him, and he held up mentally and physically all season.

 

[IU Scott]

The NIT com felt that Hampton, UNC Ash, SE LA, And Wagner, were better selections than IU while ND was the top seed.

Because they all won their conference regular season and did not win their conference tournament. They got automatics bids to the NIT and that has been the case since the NCAA took over the NIT.

 

[PatKline]

Right. They would have preferred boos raining down during the game in Bloomington last year. Would have been good for the tourney.

You’re right. Wagner is more appealing than IU.

 

[Courtsensetwo]

Because they all won their conference regular season and did not win their conference tournament. They got automatics bids to the NIT and that has been the case since the NCAA took over the NIT.

I did not know that...

 

[Davehack]

You’re right. Wagner is more appealing than IU.

We were both talking about last years situation right?

 

[PatKline]

We were both talking about last years situation right?

Right, IU’s behavior might have turned the committee off. When someone offers you a tourney home game, you don’t turn it down.

 

[Courtsensetwo]

Right, IU’s behavior might have turned the committee off. When someone offers you a tourney home game, you don’t turn it down.

I suppose that is possible, but one would hope not. Plus, the NIT has bills to pay and IU sells seats and ratings.

 

[cd_hoosiers]

If it's same as women's nit (haven't looked ) we would have been the B1G automatic qualifer had Nebraska gotten in the ncaa tourney. Because we finished ahead of Penn St in the regular season

 

[PatKline]

Plus, the NIT has bills to pay and IU sells seats and ratings.

IU sold little more than zero seats last year when they were asked to sell 17k.

To the committee, it was: Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, won't get fooled again.

 

[Courtsensetwo]

IU sold little more than zero seats last year when they were asked to sell 17k.

To the committee, it was: Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, won't get fooled again.

A. They would never be "asked" to sell 17K seats, if anyone could do it, IU could, but that is a stretch for NIT games.

B. Your claim about the committee's position here would require them to believe that IU would turn them down this season. I don't believe they would. What do you have to back this up?

 

[PatKline]

A. They would never be "asked" to sell 17K seats, if anyone could do it, IU could, but that is a stretch for NIT games.

B. Your claim about the committee's position here would require them to believe that IU would turn them down this season. I don't believe they would. What do you have to back this up?

Don't put words in my posts. Didn't claim anything. I speculated that the committee might hold a grudge against IU.

 

[Courtsensetwo]

Don't put words in my posts. Didn't claim anything. I speculated that the committee might hold a grudge against IU.

Reread the second portion of your post. You stated it as fact. Speculation would have required a conditional word such as perhaps, maybe, I think or even probably.

You're welcome.

 

[PatKline]

Reread the second portion of your post. You stated it as fact. Speculation would have required a conditional word such as perhaps, maybe, I think or even probably.

You're welcome.

Try reading the thread next time.

 

[Courtsensetwo]

Try reading the thread next time.

Reread my post, it is spot on. You stated your "speculation" as fact. Period.

 

[PatKline]

Reread my post, it is spot on. You stated your "speculation" as fact. Period.

Hogwash

 

[Courtsensetwo]

Hogwash

Reread your post.

 

[rikki-tikka-tava]

Don't have a dog in this one but use of "was" and "were" alleges actual events and therefore is an assertion of fact. Not saying what is or isn't true, only that the two items were indeed presented as having occurred/fact.

CS - 2, PK - 0