Morton to PU

[ufo33]

I've never been the one who said it was only about championships. If I did then I misspoke. That's been IU fans saying that so they don't have to admit Purdue has been very successful recently. If I would say painter has been to more sweet sixteens in the last dozen years than IU has tournaments then I'd have someone respond about how it wasn't a championship or you with your 40 year final four comment. That's a dumb way to think because there's plenty of successful teams every year. Sure there's 1 champion but that doesn't make 300+ other teams unsuccessful. Really a dumb way to think. You think IU is gonna win it all next year? No? Guess you don't need to watch their unsuccessful year then.

But what you do want to to do is turn around and say IU is like those several football powers and their tradition. Those teams in a different sport where your regular season impacts postseason much more than basketball have regularly had big success in every decade. IU basketball who has missed the field of "68" more times than they've made it recently is nothing like those football teams who have consistently been playing in big time bowl games but only get the chance to win it all if they are the top "2". That's a weak argument.

If anyone is moving goalposts its you when you go from IU basketball has championship tradition to if IU doesn't then these powerhouse football teams don't have tradition either.

Correct. Every NCAA Team, MLB Team, NFL Team, NBA Team is a loser but 1. You don't say the Buffalo Bills are a tradional power even though they made multiple Super Bowl Championship games. Why? Because they never won. The New York Yankees consider every season a failure if they did not win another World Series Championship. 27 times the Yankees were successful, they have a tradition of winning, they are a power. You do not play to just have a good regular season record and make the Sweet 16, or Elite 8. You play to win National Championships. 1 goal. Purdue is the Buffalo Bills of college basketball. Never won. Never will.

 

[ufo33]

What do you think about the fact PU has no tradition in basketball? Sour grapes. If you don't care about the banners, talk about something else: nobody has a gun to your head.

Purdue fans are bitter and delusional.
They actually think they can win.

 

[brianiu]

If you did a little research you would know that the NCAA primarily involved conference champions while most of the Eastern schools were independents. The was no Big East, A10, etc. As such, the NIT did invite a lot of Northeast schools. You dismiss the power of the Northeast schools in those days. For example, CCNY, the only school to win both tournament in the same year did not give athletic scholarships, or any scholarships for that matter. The reason: CCNY was part of the City University of NY (CUNY) and at that time and until the 1980s CUNY charged no tuition.

There were conferences. CCNY, St John’s, and Long Island all won NIT titles while in the Metropolitan New York conference. The only other team in the New York area to win a title between the tournament’s inception in 38 and 1950 was Temple, and they were in a conference as well. LaSalle and Seton Hall won the NIT in 52 and 53 respectively as independents, but the NCAA was clearly the superior tournament by then

 

[YOTHN]

did you really just reply to a post I made Friday that you had already replied to before? I suppose that comment really struck a nerve with you. Take some deep breaths and maybe a nap. It'll be ok I promise. I know you can't wait to fire off that predictable response though so go ahead.

This is your reply? You didn't make one comment in regards to what I said. Go ahead and try again....

 

[OhioBoiler51]

Correct. Every NCAA Team, MLB Team, NFL Team, NBA Team is a loser but 1. You don't say the Buffalo Bills are a tradional power even though they made multiple Super Bowl Championship games. Why? Because they never won. The New York Yankees consider every season a failure if they did not win another World Series Championship. 27 times the Yankees were successful, they have a tradition of winning, they are a power. You do not play to just have a good regular season record and make the Sweet 16, or Elite 8. You play to win National Championships. 1 goal. Purdue is the Buffalo Bills of college basketball. Never won. Never will.

Lol I hope you aren't calling IU basketball the Yankees and i know you don't believe what you're saying or you wouldn't be defending your current head coach at all. I see people talk about how he's reached an elite 8 at Dayton and how other good coaches didn't make the tournament until year 3. Neither of those statements match with how you are defining success right now. You change your opinion to fit what side you are on.

 

[HoosierJimbo89]

Lol I hope you aren't calling IU basketball the Yankees and i know you don't believe what you're saying or you wouldn't be defending your current head coach at all. I see people talk about how he's reached an elite 8 at Dayton and how other good coaches didn't make the tournament until year 3. Neither of those statements match with how you are defining success right now. You change your opinion to fit what side you are on.

Do you have a job? Shoot, I'd settle for a productive hobby.

 

[OhioBoiler51]

This is your reply? You didn't make one comment in regards to what I said. Go ahead and try again....

Nah you're a one trick pony. I only responded to you at all to call you out for being so desperate to get attention that you'd respond to something a few days old that you already responded to and I ignored.

Nothing you say will make me think Purdue isn't currently successful and in a good spot moving forward. Nothing I say will make you think the IU traditon today isn't like it was during the years that brought the banners hanging in assembly hall. If that's the case then we are done here. Go ahead and tell me about Purdue's lack of championships again because it won't bother me and it'll make you feel better about the current situation in men's basketball.

 

[OhioBoiler51]

Do you have a job? Shoot, I'd settle for a productive hobby.

Sure I do. Aren't you the one that other IU posters here said pretended to be a lawyer?

 

[ufo33]

I'm not 100% sure those jeans came with the rip in them

At MSU the answer would be yes.

Lol I hope you aren't calling IU basketball the Yankees and i know you don't believe what you're saying or you wouldn't be defending your current head coach at all. I see people talk about how he's reached an elite 8 at Dayton and how other good coaches didn't make the tournament until year 3. Neither of those statements match with how you are defining success right now. You change your opinion to fit what side you are on.

Good is different than Great.
Archie was good not great at Dayton.
Painter is good not great at Purdue.
Keady was good not great at Purdue.
Bob Knight was great at IU.
You have to win to be considered great.

 

[ufo33]

Nah you're a one trick pony. I only responded to you at all to call you out for being so desperate to get attention that you'd respond to something a few days old that you already responded to and I ignored.

Nothing you say will make me think Purdue isn't currently successful and in a good spot moving forward. Nothing I say will make you think the IU traditon today isn't like it was during the years that brought the banners hanging in assembly hall. If that's the case then we are done here. Go ahead and tell me about Purdue's lack of championships again because it won't bother me and it'll make you feel better about the current situation in men's basketball.

Why are you on an IU board whining because Purdue has never won?

 

[arcb102000]

There were conferences. CCNY, St John’s, and Long Island all won NIT titles while in the Metropolitan New York conference. The only other team in the New York area to win a title between the tournament’s inception in 38 and 1950 was Temple, and they were in a conference as well. LaSalle and Seton Hall won the NIT in 52 and 53 respectively as independents, but the NCAA was clearly the superior tournament by then

Here is the issue: in 1953, Manhattan College won the Metropolitan NY Conference. However, if you look at the roster of the 1953 NCAA Tournament, Manhattan did not get invited. If the Metropolitan NY Conference was an NCAA recognized conference, then how do you explain that they were not in the field?

Also, Temple is not in the NYC area. It is in Philadelphia, which is quite a bit away. West Lafayette and Bloomington are closer to Indy than is Philadelphia to NYC. I do not think people would claim either place as Indy area.

 

[arcb102000]

At MSU the answer would be yes.

Good is different than Great.
Archie was good not great at Dayton.
Painter is good not great at Purdue.
Keady was good not great at Purdue.
Bob Knight was great at IU.
You have to win to be considered great.

I guess being 7 time CoY in the Big and second all-time in conference wins doesn't make you a great coach. Who knew?

 

[OhioBoiler51]

At MSU the answer would be yes.

Good is different than Great.
Archie was good not great at Dayton.
Painter is good not great at Purdue.
Keady was good not great at Purdue.
Bob Knight was great at IU.
You have to win to be considered great.

Kevin Ollie at Uconn isn't great and he won. Brad Stevens is great and hasn't won a thing. Beilien was in the same boat. Only one of those three can be considered successful by the standards of some here and it's the worst coach of the three by far.

I think our definition of success is probably something we just won't agree on. I'm fine with that.

 

[HoosierJimbo89]

Sure I do. Aren't you the one that other IU posters here said pretended to be a lawyer?

I am an attorney. Why do you have so much time to post during the day? I'm skeptical, I think you outed yourself.

When your resume isn't better than Crean, you aren't a great coach. All sorts of job security at PU. Shoot, you have fans that don't want tradition and don't care about winning championships.

 

[brianiu]

Here is the issue: in 1953, Manhattan College won the Metropolitan NY Conference. However, if you look at the roster of the 1953 NCAA Tournament, Manhattan did not get invited. If the Metropolitan NY Conference was an NCAA recognized conference, then how do you explain that they were not in the field?

Also, Temple is not in the NYC area. It is in Philadelphia, which is quite a bit away. West Lafayette and Bloomington are closer to Indy than is Philadelphia to NYC. I do not think people would claim either place as Indy area.

Philly isn’t too far from NYC. I just used it because it was the next closest team to New York that won the NIT in the given time period. Other NIT champions between 38 and 50 who were members of a conference include Kentucky, Utah, Colorado, West Virginia and Saint Louis. DePaul and San Francisco were independents who won the NIT and I think the second LIU team may have been independent as well

St John’s was invited to play and did play in several NCAA tournaments prior to 53. Same with CCNY. I don’t know why you don’t think the conference was recognized by the NCAA but clearly they invited teams from that conference to prior tournaments and teams from that conference played in prior tournaments. Maybe the NCAA wasn’t that impressed with Manhattan that year, who knows. But it was a real conference with the best teams in NYC

 

[jimmygoiu]

If you did a little research you would know that the NCAA primarily involved conference champions while most of the Eastern schools were independents. The was no Big East, A10, etc. As such, the NIT did invite a lot of Northeast schools. You dismiss the power of the Northeast schools in those days. For example, CCNY, the only school to win both tournament in the same year did not give athletic scholarships, or any scholarships for that matter. The reason: CCNY was part of the City University of NY (CUNY) and at that time and until the 1980s CUNY charged no tuition.

Please review the data that several of us have provided regarding the strength of the two tourneys. Once again, I only care about 1940 and 1953, and there is no question that the NCAA and IU was the stronger tourney and IU the national champion.

In doing research, HoosierJimbo, brianiu and I found and provided data supporting the NCAA as the tourney with more top ranked teams in it. 1939 and 1941 were the only years that the data showed the NIT was conclusively the stronger tourney.. The fact that local teams got proportionately more invites actually hurt the strength of the NIT, although it certainly ensured more New York media coverage.

In regards to CCNY they absolutely did win both the NIT and NCAA in 1950. But our data showed that the NCAA Tournament had the overall strongest teams that year, per the AP season ending poll. CCNY was clearly the best team in the country that year. Sadly, we all know that the CCNY players had other ways that they were paid besides the free tuition.

 

[OhioBoiler51]

I am an attorney. Why do you have so much time to post during the day?.

You should've picked a different profession or chose a different one to pretend to be in.

I'm skeptical, I think you outed yourself.

Lol

When your resume isn't better than Crean, you aren't a great coach. All sorts of job security at PU. Shoot, you have fans that don't want tradition and don't care about winning championships.

 

[HoosierJimbo89]

You should've picked a different profession or chose a different one to pretend to be in.


Lol

What is the difference between Mike Davis, Tom Cream and Gene Keady, Matt Painter? Mike Davis and Tom Crean have been to a Final Four! 0-40

 

[arcb102000]

Philly isn’t too far from NYC. I just used it because it was the next closest team to New York that won the NIT in the given time period. Other NIT champions between 38 and 50 who were members of a conference include Kentucky, Utah, Colorado, West Virginia and Saint Louis. DePaul and San Francisco were independents who won the NIT and I think the second LIU team may have been independent as well

St John’s was invited to play and did play in several NCAA tournaments prior to 53. Same with CCNY. I don’t know why you don’t think the conference was recognized by the NCAA but clearly they invited teams from that conference to prior tournaments and teams from that conference played in prior tournaments. Maybe the NCAA wasn’t that impressed with Manhattan that year, who knows. But it was a real conference with the best teams in NYC

The fact that teams from the conference were invited does not mean that the conference was recognized by the NCAA.

FYI, LIU won the conference in 1939; they were not invited to the NCAA. In 1948, NYU won; they were not invited. There seems to be a consistent pattern of champions of the conference not being invited. It would seem that the NCAA did not recognize it as the tournament was designed to be conference champions plus select independents.

Also, people in NYC and Philly do not consider the two cities all that close. You do not know the East Coast well.

 

[brianiu]

The fact that teams from the conference were invited does not mean that the conference was recognized by the NCAA.

FYI, LIU won the conference in 1939; they were not invited to the NCAA. In 1948, NYU won; they were not invited. There seems to be a consistent pattern of champions of the conference not being invited. It would seem that the NCAA did not recognize it as the tournament was designed to be conference champions plus select independents.

Also, people in NYC and Philly do not consider the two cities all that close. You do not know the East Coast well.

Please provide proof the conference was not recognized by the NCAA. Wiki lists it’s association as NCAA. Your speculation holds no weight.

It is not a consistent pattern as St John’s was in the NCAA in 51 and 52 when they won the league and CCNY in 50 when they won the league. NYU was in the 43, 45 and 46 tournament. A consistent pattern exist only in your mind. Other champions may have declined invites preferring a tournament closer to home or the NCAA may have prioritized other teams. There is zero evidence that they did not recognize the conference however.

Matter of perspective. NYC is 90 miles from Philly. I live 90 miles from Indy and consider it close. That isn’t the point of any of my posts in this thread so I’m not sure why you are choosing to belabor it. Though it is certainly a more cogent argument than your ridiculous fantasy that the NCAA did not recognize the Metro New York conference

 

[ovaltine]

Please review the data that several of us have provided regarding the strength of the two tourneys. Once again, I only care about 1940 and 1953, and there is no question that the NCAA and IU was the stronger tourney and IU the national champion.

In doing research, HoosierJimbo, brianiu and I found and provided data supporting the NCAA as the tourney with more top ranked teams in it. 1939 and 1941 were the only years that the data showed the NIT was conclusively the stronger tourney.. The fact that local teams got proportionately more invites actually hurt the strength of the NIT, although it certainly ensured more New York media coverage.

In regards to CCNY they absolutely did win both the NIT and NCAA in 1950. But our data showed that the NCAA Tournament had the overall strongest teams that year, per the AP season ending poll. CCNY was clearly the best team in the country that year. Sadly, we all know that the CCNY players had other ways that they were paid besides the free tuition.

So your data is the AP poll.

In other words, your data is based on the opinions of sportswriters - and in the 1940’s/early 1950’s, they couldn’t even see the schools outside of their immediate area play because television was a very limited platform.

Which is why the era discussion is so important, vs selectively limiting the seasons you’re addressing.

But you put all credence in the sportswriters’ opinions, while discounting the opinions of a trio of HoF coaches and a player that actually played at the highest levels of college basketball and categorically stated that the NIT was the preeminent tournament of that era.

This just keeps getting better and better.

 

[ovaltine]

Please provide proof the conference was not recognized by the NCAA. Wiki lists it’s association as NCAA. Your speculation holds no weight.

It is not a consistent pattern as St John’s was in the NCAA in 51 and 52 when they won the league and CCNY in 50 when they won the league. NYU was in the 43, 45 and 46 tournament. A consistent pattern exist only in your mind. Other champions may have declined invites preferring a tournament closer to home or the NCAA may have prioritized other teams. There is zero evidence that they did not recognize the conference however.

Matter of perspective. NYC is 90 miles from Philly. I live 90 miles from Indy and consider it close. That isn’t the point of any of my posts in this thread so I’m not sure why you are choosing to belabor it. Though it is certainly a more cogent argument than your ridiculous fantasy that the NCAA did not recognize the Metro New York conference

Philly ain’t New York, and vice versa. Not even close. That’s just embarrassing.

 

[CriticArisen]

I guess being 7 time CoY in the Big and second all-time in conference wins doesn't make you a great coach. Who knew?

Everyone

 

[arcb102000]

Everyone

Really, I guess the College Basketball Hall of Fame disagrees with you because they inducted Keady in 2013. The inductees are selected by the members of the National Association of Basketball Coaches, but I guess you think they don't know much either.

 

[arcb102000]

Please provide proof the conference was not recognized by the NCAA. Wiki lists it’s association as NCAA. Your speculation holds no weight.

It is not a consistent pattern as St John’s was in the NCAA in 51 and 52 when they won the league and CCNY in 50 when they won the league. NYU was in the 43, 45 and 46 tournament. A consistent pattern exist only in your mind. Other champions may have declined invites preferring a tournament closer to home or the NCAA may have prioritized other teams. There is zero evidence that they did not recognize the conference however.

Matter of perspective. NYC is 90 miles from Philly. I live 90 miles from Indy and consider it close. That isn’t the point of any of my posts in this thread so I’m not sure why you are choosing to belabor it. Though it is certainly a more cogent argument than your ridiculous fantasy that the NCAA did not recognize the Metro New York conference

NYU was in the '43, 45 and 46 NCAA tournament. But that presents a problem. The reason why is that in 41-42 and 44-45 the Metropolitan New York Conference did not play. So how NYU can be the conference representative of a conference that Did Not Play (as it was WW2) is somewhat questionable in my mind. Perhaps you would care to explain how that worked. Also, St. John's won in 43 but NYU was in the tournament and SJU not. So how that works as a recognized conference is somewhat questionable. Also, NYU won the conference in 48 but was not in the NCAA. That also hurts it was a recognized conference theory.

You also might want to know that the NCAA moved its early tournaments to MSG because they wanted the media exposure that the NIT got. In other words, the NCAA was considered the second fiddle and they moved to get more publicity. That kind of creates problems for your "..the NCAA was the better tournament.." theory.

 

[HoosierJimbo89]

Really, I guess the College Basketball Hall of Fame disagrees with you because they inducted Keady in 2013. The inductees are selected by the members of the National Association of Basketball Coaches, but I guess you think they don't know much either.

Looks like Mike Davis and Tom Crean are Hall of Famers.

1940: IU is the undisputed national champion. It was settled on the court. End of story.
1953: the NCAA Tournament was the premier tournament, IU was the national champion. End of story.

PU: go do something in the tournament. That way, you don't have to take a dump on the tradition of others and look like a bunch of cry babies. Notre Dame, Michigan, and Penn State football also have "dusty banners." Mix it up a little bit and go take a dump on their tradition. Maybe take a dump on Henry Iba, Adolph Rupp, and Bill Russell. Kentucky won 4 banners during the 40's and 50's: feel free to take a dump on their tradition.

 

[brianiu]

Philly ain’t New York, and vice versa. Not even close. That’s just embarrassing.

Never said it was. You would do well to work on your reading skills

 

[brianiu]

NYU was in the '43, 45 and 46 NCAA tournament. But that presents a problem. The reason why is that in 41-42 and 44-45 the Metropolitan New York Conference did not play. So how NYU can be the conference representative of a conference that Did Not Play (as it was WW2) is somewhat questionable in my mind. Perhaps you would care to explain how that worked. Also, St. John's won in 43 but NYU was in the tournament and SJU not. So how that works as a recognized conference is somewhat questionable. Also, NYU won the conference in 48 but was not in the NCAA. That also hurts it was a recognized conference theory.

You also might want to know that the NCAA moved its early tournaments to MSG because they wanted the media exposure that the NIT got. In other words, the NCAA was considered the second fiddle and they moved to get more publicity. That kind of creates problems for your "..the NCAA was the better tournament.." theory.

I do know the NCAA moved some of their earlier tournaments to New York. I also know that for three years this allowed the champions to play and every year the NCAA champ won. I also knew that New York teams were in conferences. You were unaware of this and then made up a theory that the NCAA did not recognize the conference. No proof of course. NYU won the 46 conference title and appeared in the NCAA tourney.

I never said the NCAA was the better tourney every year. I said it was better in 40 and 50-53. I said it was a wash in 48 and 49. I pointed out the NCAA champ beat the NIT champ in 43, 44 and 45. I posted data supporting this. You didn’t respond to any of that.

 

[mathboy]

Looks like Mike Davis and Tom Crean are Hall of Famers.

1940: IU is the undisputed national champion. It was settled on the court. End of story.
1953: the NCAA Tournament was the premier tournament, IU was the national champion. End of story.

PU: go do something in the tournament. That way, you don't have to take a dump on the tradition of others and look like a bunch of cry babies. Notre Dame, Michigan, and Penn State football also have "dusty banners." Mix it up a little bit and go take a dump on their tradition. Maybe take a dump on Henry Iba, Adolph Rupp, and Bill Russell. Kentucky won 4 banners during the 40's and 50's: feel free to take a dump on their tradition.

Take it easy Jimbo. Nobody wants to "take a dump" on tradition. Be proud of yours just like I'm proud of mine. You should value those banners. Me, I like to count the P's and the I's on the Old Oaken Bucket.

It is important to recognize that while tradition is important to us fans, the things that brought about those championships are no longer with us. Nobody associated with those championships is now connected to your school. That is why new recruits may not value traditions the way us fans do. That may also be true of younger fans. If they didn't see Bobby Knight coach a bunch of Indiana kids to three championships, they may not have the same feelings for them. I am not sure any argument on these message boards can change that.

 

[ovaltine]

Never said it was. You would do well to work on your reading skills

"Matter of perspective. NYC is 90 miles from Philly. I live 90 miles from Indy and consider it close."

 

[brianiu]

Philly ain’t New York, and vice versa. Not even close. That’s just embarrassing.

"Matter of perspective. NYC is 90 miles from Philly. I live 90 miles from Indy and consider it close."

Please explain where I said Philly was New York.

 

[HoosierJimbo89]

Take it easy Jimbo. Nobody wants to "take a dump" on tradition. Be proud of yours just like I'm proud of mine. You should value those banners. Me, I like to count the P's and the I's on the Old Oaken Bucket.

It is important to recognize that while tradition is important to us fans, the things that brought about those championships are no longer with us. Nobody associated with those championships is now connected to your school. That is why new recruits may not value traditions the way us fans do. That may also be true of younger fans. If they didn't see Bobby Knight coach a bunch of Indiana kids to three championships, they may not have the same feelings for them. I am not sure any argument on these message boards can change that.

Of course, you would compare a national championship to a rivalry game. Go talk about it on the football board. PU has no tradition, and IU does. Instead of going out and getting your own, you have to take a dump on IU's and obsess over it. Now, you are trying to be "clever" and pretending that isn't what you are doing: that's just a lie.

The bottom line: 5-0. PU hasn't been to a FF in 40 years. Don't like it? Do something about it! Don't whine about it or try to belittle what you haven't accomplished: it is pathetic. Take a dump somewhere else.

Oh, and what recruits can do right now? Watch Oladipo tearing it up in the pros and Romeo going in the lottery. The Romeo's, Zeller's, and Eric Gordon's still go to IU and don't give PU the time of day. Why? Tradition!

 

[mathboy]

Of course, you would compare a national championship to a rivalry game. Go talk about it on the football board. PU has no tradition, and IU does. Instead of going out and getting your own, you have to take a dump on IU's and obsess over it. Now, you are trying to be "clever" and pretending that isn't what you are doing: that's just a lie.

The bottom line: 5-0. PU hasn't been to a FF in 40 years. Don't like it? Do something about it! Don't whine about it or try to belittle what you haven't accomplished: it is pathetic. Take a dump somewhere else.

Obsession is like, making 40-50 posts about it. Kind of like what you have been doing over the past two days. Frankly I backed off when I realized how controversial this topic was. I'm not interested in stirring up animosities here.

Please read my post again. I did not "compare" our rivalry game to national championships. I just said that is what I reflect on when thinking of traditions for my school. No, it is not a natty. Be proud of yours, and exhibit a little more class toward others. It won't hurt a bit.

 

[fpeaugh]

Of course, you would compare a national championship to a rivalry game. Go talk about it on the football board. PU has no tradition, and IU does. Instead of going out and getting your own, you have to take a dump on IU's and obsess over it. Now, you are trying to be "clever" and pretending that isn't what you are doing: that's just a lie.

The bottom line: 5-0. PU hasn't been to a FF in 40 years. Don't like it? Do something about it! Don't whine about it or try to belittle what you haven't accomplished: it is pathetic. Take a dump somewhere else.

Oh, and what recruits can do right now? Watch Oladipo tearing it up in the pros and Romeo going in the lottery. The Romeo's, Zeller's, and Eric Gordon's still go to IU and don't give PU the time of day. Why? Tradition!

None of those guys came to IU because of our dusty banners. Surely you know that we offer a lot more than just “tradition” right?

 

[HoosierJimbo89]

Obsession is like, making 40-50 posts about it. Kind of like what you have been doing over the past two days. Frankly I backed off when I realized how controversial this topic was. I'm not interested in stirring up animosities here.

Please read my post again. I did not "compare" our rivalry game to national championships. I just said that is what I reflect on when thinking of traditions for my school. No, it is not a natty. Be proud of yours, and exhibit a little more class toward others. It won't hurt a bit.

Obsession is a PU fan taking dumps on IU's tradition on an IU message board to feel better about their own lack of tradition. I don't go over to the PU boards and pull this crap because it is pathetic. You would get the same reaction if you went to Notre Dame, Penn St., or Michigan football boards and took dumps on their tradition.

 

[ufo33]

I guess being 7 time CoY in the Big and second all-time in conference wins doesn't make you a great coach. Who knew?

Keady overachieved with PU-level talent.
He was a good coach, no denying that.
Keady was not a great coach.
Keady coached a long time with good regular season success.
No Titles.
No Final Fours.
Keady seems like a good guy, and remains very loyal to Purdue, an admirable trait.

 

[ovaltine]

"Matter of perspective. NYC is 90 miles from Philly. I live 90 miles from Indy and consider it close."

Serious question - do you even know what you're typing? Are you actually conscious?

 

[OhioBoiler51]

Obsession is like, making 40-50 posts about it. Kind of like what you have been doing over the past two days. Frankly I backed off when I realized how controversial this topic was. I'm not interested in stirring up animosities here.

Please read my post again. I did not "compare" our rivalry game to national championships. I just said that is what I reflect on when thinking of traditions for my school. No, it is not a natty. Be proud of yours, and exhibit a little more class toward others. It won't hurt a bit.

I pity Jimbo at this point. He's like the old guy high school coaches let be a waterboy because he was the school mascot long ago and he has absolutely nothing else to live for in his old age.

He knows deep down what he's saying is dumb. He will continue to spout off the exact same things though no matter what you say to him. Just let him have his moment. The current landscape of sports is rough on him.

 

[arcb102000]

I do know the NCAA moved some of their earlier tournaments to New York. I also know that for three years this allowed the champions to play and every year the NCAA champ won. I also knew that New York teams were in conferences. You were unaware of this and then made up a theory that the NCAA did not recognize the conference. No proof of course. NYU won the 46 conference title and appeared in the NCAA tourney.

I never said the NCAA was the better tourney every year. I said it was better in 40 and 50-53. I said it was a wash in 48 and 49. I pointed out the NCAA champ beat the NIT champ in 43, 44 and 45. I posted data supporting this. You didn’t respond to any of that.

You know that they moved the early NCAAs to MSG, yet you never acknowledge why they did it. It is because they wanted the publicity and prestige of MSG.

You also fail to explain how as a recognized conference the champ of the conference didn't get an invite but NYU did and how NYU got the invite to a conference that did not play.

You should also be aware that Meyer cited going to the NIT was an economic one for many schools. The NIT paid a lot better than the NCAA. for private schools, heavily based in the East, that made a big difference. Ofcourse, the NIT paid more because they had bigger media and played on a bigger stage.

The key point is that the more important tournament gathered the greater prestige. If an NC is all about perception, which it was in those days, then the NIT was the more prestiious. Again, the NCAA followed the venue to the NIT, not the other way around. That tells you something.

Also, people in NYC do not consider Philadelphia part of their metro area and Philadelphians do not consider NYC a close neighbor.

 

[brianiu]

You know that they moved the early NCAAs to MSG, yet you never acknowledge why they did it. It is because they wanted the publicity and prestige of MSG.

You also fail to explain how as a recognized conference the champ of the conference didn't get an invite but NYU did and how NYU got the invite to a conference that did not play.

You should also be aware that Meyer cited going to the NIT was an economic one for many schools. The NIT paid a lot better than the NCAA. for private schools, heavily based in the East, that made a big difference. Ofcourse, the NIT paid more because they had bigger media and played on a bigger stage.

The key point is that the more important tournament gathered the greater prestige. If an NC is all about perception, which it was in those days, then the NIT was the more prestiious. Again, the NCAA followed the venue to the NIT, not the other way around. That tells you something.

Also, people in NYC do not consider Philadelphia part of their metro area and Philadelphians do not consider NYC a close neighbor.

I already told you I mentioned Temple simply because it was the closer non NYC team to win the NIT between 38 and 53. I also didn’t mention it in the post you quoted so no idea why you are still talking about it. Try talking about 40 and 53 instead

I know why the NCAA started playing games in NYC. You also mentioned it in your previous post.

Again, my argument, which you continue to ignore, is that the NCAA tournament was better in 40, 43, 44, 45 and 50-53. I also argued that 48 and 49 was a wash. I posted that data on a previous page. I totally get why you want to minimize the NCAA tournament in 40 and 53 but all evidence points to it being the superior tournament in those years. You have offered zero evidence to contradict this

NYU won the conference in 46 and appeared in the NCAA tournament that year. No evidence the NCAA didn’t recognize the conference