Greg Doyel

[TheSpa]

Duke from 86-2006
3 championships 10 final fours
IU history
5 championships 8 final fours

If you're arguing with yourself, that might be a clue for you.

 

[DCDAVID]

Duke from 86-2006
3 championships 10 final fours
IU history
5 championships 8 final fours

You are correct and as I noted earlier 10 years ago Duke, not IU
, would have been the 4th Mt Rushmore team. We would have been close, and a "blue blood", but we had sadly been passed by Duke at that point.

On a side note...IU Scott, I would like you to post that "today is Saturday" just to see if Spa would disagree with your statement.

 

[becauseIknow]

Was that before or after you were a Marquette fan Jim?

Give it a rest with your conspiracy theories. We all understand you are cranky after the Notre Dame suspensions and a player kicked off. Then losing to Texas last week, but you can take that crap elsewhere.

In Nov and Dec when I was here saying this team would be fine, would do very well, was I not a fan? Remember what some of you guys said back then to me and others? That's right, we were called illogical and unintelligent fans then, because we weren't buying what you and others were serving. Guess who had it right? We did.

 

[TheSpa]

You are correct and as I noted earlier 10 years ago Duke, not IU
, would have been the 4th Mt Rushmore team. We would have been close, and a "blue blood", but we had sadly been passed by Duke at that point.

On a side note...IU Scott, I would like you to post that "today is Saturday" just to see if Spa would disagree with your statement.

The point that neither you nor Scott seem capable of comprehending is that these designations have always depended upon the time for which the evaluation occurred. Maybe Scott could compare the two programs for the period of 1973 to 1993 and let us know how the mountain looks than.

By the way, of Scott said it was Saturday, I'd probably check the calendar.

 

[DCDAVID]

The point that neither you nor Scott seem capable of comprehending is that these designations have always depended upon the time for which the evaluation occurred. Maybe Scott could compare the two programs for the period of 1973 to 1993 and let us know how the mountain looks than.

By the way, of Scott said it was Saturday, I'd probably check the calendar.

Actually we do comprehend that the time makes a difference.
In 1993 IU would have clearly been one of the 4 on Mt Rushmore.
In 2006 Duke had replaced us.
You seem to be the one with the problem comprehending.

 

[IU Scott]

You are correct and as I noted earlier 10 years ago Duke, not IU
, would have been the 4th Mt Rushmore team. We would have been close, and a "blue blood", but we had sadly been passed by Duke at that point.

On a side note...IU Scott, I would like you to post that "today is Saturday" just to see if Spa would disagree with your statement.

He stalks me around to try to start arguments but for most part I ignore him. Some people just can't take the truth and it seems like their self worth comes from IU basketball.

 

[IU Scott]

Actually we do comprehend that the time makes a difference.
In 1993 IU would have clearly been one of the 4 on Mt Rushmore.
In 2006 Duke had replaced us.
You seem to be the one with the problem comprehending.

Also Bsmitty used the 2006 year so that is where I used the 86-2006 period for Duke.

 

[TheSpa]

Actually we do comprehend that the time makes a difference.
In 1993 IU would have clearly been one of the 4 on Mt Rushmore.
In 2006 Duke had replaced us.
You seem to be the one with the problem comprehending.

No, I just understand the history of the program better than either of you.

 

[TheSpa]

He stalks me around to try to start arguments but for most part I ignore him. Some people just can't take the truth and it seems like their self worth comes from IU basketball.

You really do yourself no favors posting here, Scott. Stalking? The truth? You wouldn't know the truth if it sat in your lap, Scott, and you don't know the first thing about basketball.

 

[IU Scott]

You really do yourself no favors posting here, Scott. Stalking? The truth? You wouldn't know the truth if it sat in your lap, Scott, and you don't know the first thing about basketball.

Back to ignore for you and do everyone a favor and go back under the rock you came from. You have not proven one time that you know one thing about the game because all you do is try to be the message board tough guy. You never bring any knowledge to the game and all you do is try to demean other posters. I know for a fact that you have been warned about your attitude on here so hopefully they will just ban you and do us all a big favor.

 

[TheSpa]

Back to ignore for you and do everyone a favor and go back under the rock you came from. You have not proven one time that you know one thing about the game because all you do is try to be the message board tough guy. You never bring any knowledge to the game and all you do is try to demean other posters. I know for a fact that you have been warned about you attitude on here so hopefully they will just ban you and do us all a big favor.

You really do yourself no favors posting here, Scott. For someone who claims you've watched IU for 40 years, your lack of knowledge is appalling. Please go away.

 

[Stuffshot]

Here is where the debate will come in and why IU was not considered then (10 years ago) to be on Mt. Rushmore. It may because you are too young to understand this, but here goes.

IU had the national titles, but didn't have the Final Fours, meaning they didn't have the consistency of playing for the big prize on a more consistent basis. When we got there, we tended to win it all, but too many times we couldn't get there. That was the knock and a legitimate one. The other consideration was when we won some of our titles. The NIT was considered the true mark of the best team in the country for many years. The NCAA tournament started in 1939, with our first NCAA title in 1940. The 1953 title, the same thing.

Basketball historians mark the flipping point of when the NCAA surpassed the NIT in the mid 1950's, specifically 1957 when UNC beat Kansas in triple OT. IU won their second NCAA title in 1953.

That year (1957) is about the time within 2-3 years that television really took off in the US. Another milestone would be when the first network (NBC I think) announced in the early 1960's that it would broadcast everything in color that was possible.

I'm hypothesizing that there might well be some non-basketball factors that affected how the NCAA overtook the NIT.

 

[becauseIknow]

Actually we do comprehend that the time makes a difference.
In 1993 IU would have clearly been one of the 4 on Mt Rushmore.
In 2006 Duke had replaced us.
You seem to be the one with the problem comprehending.

In agreement here. In 2009 one publication did a Mt. Rushmore top 4 all time. That's 7 years ago, IU didn't make it. I assume we would have been in the second grouping, which is where I would put us. Very very good, just not on the Mount.

 

[DCDAVID]

No, I just understand the history of the program better than either of you.

Your knowledge truly is amazing and we are in awe.
One of the biggest regrets in my life is not naming my son "Spa" in your honor.
Please note: my comments might seem sarcastic but they are actually very sincere.

 

[Stuffshot]

not sure what state populations have to do with anything. is there a direct correlation between pop and D1 talent? not really

seriously, look up the rosters of the teams Ryan, Izzo, Matta (or even Beilein) made all those deep tourney runs with. lots more instate kids and kids from neighboring states than our guy is getting.

Give me a break.

It's quite a bit easier for either Matta or Izzo to create a starting five with those beloved "in-state" players than any coach in Indiana, because Michigan and Ohio are more populous. Matta and Izzo only need to find five, right?

Indiana may (or may not) have better high school coaches but I think, for purposes of discussing the merits of 3-stars vs. 5-stars, that genetics and natural athleticism might be at least as important since we're talking about high school seniors who haven't yet gone through a college conditioning program. I'd think it's easier to find those 5-star players for a starting five in a more populous state especially if we assume (rightly or wrongly) that high school players tend to play college ball in their home states.

 

[McNutt76]

That's fine....some people don't like it. I have coached for 15 years and I like the guys that play with some attitude. Guys like Coverdale, Fife, Michael Lewis all had some attitude and so does Bryant.

Kent Benson, Scott May, Bobby Wilkerson and Quinn Buckner didn't have attitudes when they were at IU. I knew them and they were nice guys. In fact, they were very modest individuals.

 

[bsmitty08]

Kent Benson, Scott May, Bobby Wilkerson and Quinn Buckner didn't have attitudes when they were at IU. I knew them and they were nice guys. In fact, they were very modest individuals.

Quinn Buckner played with an attitude.

 

[Paterfamilias]

In agreement here. In 2009 one publication did a Mt. Rushmore top 4 all time. That's 7 years ago, IU didn't make it. I assume we would have been in the second grouping, which is where I would put us. Very very good, just not on the Mount.

If Baseball can deny Shoeless Joe, Charlie Hustle, Slammin' Sammy and Big Red, I'm gonna go ahead and deny Big Blue from my Mt. Rushmore

 

[becauseIknow]

If Baseball can deny Shoeless Joe, Charlie Hustle, Slammin' Sammy and Big Red, I'm gonna go ahead and deny Big Blue from my Mt. Rushmore

I like where you head is at. Kentucky has three titles I believe during the point shaving era they were accused of, and they were in the NIT era of dominance.

Wait, I assume you are talking about Kentucky, and not Michigan for football?

 

[hondo314]

Give me a break.

It's quite a bit easier for either Matta or Izzo to create a starting five with those beloved "in-state" players than any coach in Indiana, because Michigan and Ohio are more populous. Matta and Izzo only need to find five, right?

Indiana may (or may not) have better high school coaches but I think, for purposes of discussing the merits of 3-stars vs. 5-stars, that genetics and natural athleticism might be at least as important since we're talking about high school seniors who haven't yet gone through a college conditioning program. I'd think it's easier to find those 5-star players for a starting five in a more populous state especially if we assume (rightly or wrongly) that high school players tend to play college ball in their home states.

huh? 120 years of IU basketball with tons of Indiana players but now we've run out? hehehehehe good stuff. anything to protect martyr tom

 

[hondo314]

Here is where the debate will come in and why IU was not considered then (10 years ago) to be on Mt. Rushmore. It may because you are too young to understand this, but here goes.

IU had the national titles, but didn't have the Final Fours, meaning they didn't have the consistency of playing for the big prize on a more consistent basis. When we got there, we tended to win it all, but too many times we couldn't get there. That was the knock and a legitimate one. The other consideration was when we won some of our titles. The NIT was considered the true mark of the best team in the country for many years. The NCAA tournament started in 1939, with our first NCAA title in 1940. The 1953 title, the same thing.

Basketball historians mark the flipping point of when the NCAA surpassed the NIT in the mid 1950's, specifically 1957 when UNC beat Kansas in triple OT. IU won their second NCAA title in 1953.

i'm trying to understand you, brother!

I feel like the theme of all your posts, in general, is to diminish IU's history of accomplishments to somehow rationalize our current just-in-the-top-25 program status. we're still 8 in FF appearances? not bad considering we've been once in a long time.

okay, so we're not top 5 but just outside it? and i do mean just.

so we're like the 7th best program ever? paying top 8 money but now spend a lot of time unranked.

not sure what is driving you, my man!

 

[becauseIknow]

i'm trying to understand you, brother!

I feel like the theme of all your posts, in general, is to diminish IU's history of accomplishments to somehow rationalize our current just-in-the-top-25 program status. we're still 8 in FF appearances? not bad considering we've been once in a long time.

okay, so we're not top 5 but just outside it? and i do mean just.

so we're like the 7th best program ever? paying top 8 money but now spend a lot of time unranked.

not sure what is driving you, my man!

I'm driving at truth and honesty. Why is that hard to figure out? How is saying we are one of the top 10 programs ever equate to diminishing our accomplishments? Because I don't fake it and pretend we are one of the top 4 or 5? Too bad. That doesn't make this any less of a blue blood or historically great program. However, there is a difference between the ultra elite and the next step. If you view that as diminishing, then view it that way. I just refuse to get caught up in super fan commentary that isn't grounded in the data or facts that prove it out.

 

[Tasmanian Devil]

I'm driving at truth and honesty . . . I just refuse to get caught up in super fan commentary that isn't grounded in the data or facts that prove it out.

Like the Big 10 banners?

How about that rape charge? Since "you know"?

 

[IU Scott]

I'm driving at truth and honesty. Why is that hard to figure out? How is saying we are one of the top 10 programs ever equate to diminishing our accomplishments? Because I don't fake it and pretend we are one of the top 4 or 5? Too bad. That doesn't make this any less of a blue blood or historically great program. However, there is a difference between the ultra elite and the next step. If you view that as diminishing, then view it that way. I just refuse to get caught up in super fan commentary that isn't grounded in the data or facts that prove it out.

This is what I have been saying as well. It is like the baseball HOF where you have guys like Ruth and Mays compared to a players like Barry Larkin.

 

[hondo314]

I'm driving at truth and honesty. Why is that hard to figure out? How is saying we are one of the top 10 programs ever equate to diminishing our accomplishments? Because I don't fake it and pretend we are one of the top 4 or 5? Too bad. That doesn't make this any less of a blue blood or historically great program. However, there is a difference between the ultra elite and the next step. If you view that as diminishing, then view it that way. I just refuse to get caught up in super fan commentary that isn't grounded in the data or facts that prove it out.

who is saying we are 4 to 5? lol

and why can't a top 10 program ever expect to be in the top 10 regularly?

grounded in data? seems both sides are abusing the data the way domesticated primates tend to. lol. but it doesn't take a statistician to see that we have a history of winning more big games than we do now even with the two big ten titles. that can't be refuted.