So, just to confirm, was UNC a top 4 team in the country or do you agree with the iu guy above that they had an improbable run? But yes, a 25 game regular season tells you more about a team than a 64 team single elimination tournament, unless you believe the best team wins every tournament.
"Indy Classic" announced , to replace Crossroads Classic...
- Thread starter jimmygoiu
- Start date
I believe Purdue has choked away said 64 team tournament since it came to existence around 40 years ago….
Well not really accurate. You telling me Baylor wasn’t the best team in 2021 or UK in 2012? What was a fluke was PUke at #1.
So two times in 10 years? Or 20% of the time? My point exactly.
The best team doesn't always win, but any program that hasn't won it is an irrelevant program. Been 40+ years since you've even been to the Final 4.
Ok. I really don't give a shit about 40 years. I haven't seen iu do much more than Purdue in my life of paying attention. So not sure your point is relevant to me or most younger people. Purdue as much national coverage as anyone last year. Not bad for irrelevance.
Yes, with all of that "National Coverage", you were able to score a game with Davidson in an event that also has Ball St and Illinois State... LOL. Face it, no one cares about Purdue. That game may not even make it on TV with how crappy that field is. Meanwhile, IU will be playing the national marquee game of the day in primetime.
Hard to believe Purdue got onto the Phil knight legacy tourney over iu.
Lol I can't believe you are using this as an excuse. Just goes to show how truly stupid you are. IU isn't eligible for that tournament, dumbass. It's only Nike schools. You know, because Phil Knight is the NIKE founder?
JFC.
Good grief. Also if you go back 90% of Ncaa champions were ranked in the top 5 and had defensive efficiency of 89 or better. Offense efficiency of 116 or better. Very few won despite those numbers.
Last edited:
I forgot iu was Adidas. Mostly because idc. One mistake.
Where are the rest in the past ten years. And why didn't rangers have the teams ranked appropriately going into the tourney?
Here you go. Using rankings as an argument makes you look goofy. Too 5 teams generally have the best chance regardless of seed.
Here's where recent national champions were ranked on January 1
Let's project forward to the 2022 NCAA Tournament by looking back at recent national champions and where they stood on Jan. 1.
www.ncaa.com
No it’s because you are a troll with flimsy arguments. You had no idea it was a Nike only tournament.
I don't use top 25 subjective rankings to determine the best teams either.Here you go. Using rankings as an argument makes you look goofy. Too 5 teams generally have the best chance regardless of seed.
Here's where recent national champions were ranked on January 1
Let's project forward to the 2022 NCAA Tournament by looking back at recent national champions and where they stood on Jan. 1.
No. I did. I forgot iu wasn't Nike. Heck, I sometimes forget Purdue is Nike. Because it's literally the most worthless thing to know. But congrats on the assumptions. Gotta go. No reason to stay anyways since you've assume random stuff about me because it makes you feel better. Good day.
Well UK was 3rd because they lost to Vandy. Everyone knew they were the best team regardless.
At least you admit you said something idiotic.
Who doesn't know the PK85 tournament is Nike only? You spend all day on various message boards and apparently you don't learn shit. What an embarrassing thing to say.
you say you "don't care", yet you posted NINETEEN times on this thread alone. silly broileeN, sillier broilees.
now 20, see below
Last edited:
Then why would you think IU would be eligible? There is no doubt that if IU were eligible, they would be in it. Same with Kansas and Louisville.
now that IUBB is back (yes, much to your chagrin, this year will cement that), you're about to find out just how irrelevant you PUkes really are
If you don’t determine the best team by playing the games or rankings then how do you determine the best team?
Last edited:
Rankings in college athletics has always been imperfect. But at the end of the day, you either won the championship or you didn’t.
If you looked good all year, but didn’t bring it at the end, then you aren’t the best team when it mattered most.
I wonder if UK fans are getting upset about the current construction of the program. It's got to be strange seeing a bunch of new guys every year and no championships to show for it at least for quite a few years.
That would be double what they brought to the CC. Why would they suddenly show up for a game against Davidson but not ND or Butler?
The prices will be significantly cheaper ($6-$10?) so more Purdue fans will go. Either way, it will be very disappointing
They were both. I live in NC and date a Tar Heel so I watched a lot of them last year. Even when they were struggling early you could see they weren't deep but had a really solid starting 5. But, they were adjusting to a new HC and even though Hubert had been on staff, I have a feeling his style is very different from Roy. Plus they were adding new pieces in Brady Manek and Dawson Garcia, and then Garcia left (which many point to as a key; I just thought it was more the tumblers finally aligning, but he didn't seem to fit their rotation... maybe competing and playing differently than Manek?) and they started figuring it out. But as I watched them struggle early in the year, I kept telling my GF that I thought there was a pretty good starting five there. But, I don't think it was a "hot streak". They had solid individuals and a good starting 5 all along, and it just took them 3/4 of the season to get it figured out.
Similar threads
