Sorry, i'm watching the game and should have been more clear. All the games of the tournament were not nationally televised in the 60's and 70's.
It would be as improbable today as it was then, but it in no way was indicative of how much less competitive college basketball was then. That’s really unfounded and totally ignorant. Can’t believe you didn’t realize tournament games were on television. Wow.
Oh, I am, and they’re playing well. But you probably should stop posting about stuff that you don’t understand or know anything about.
Yeah and this team is a can't make a basket case, can't play defense case, etc., etc.
I don't need posting advice from someone who's been banned a dozen times. Still, I'll be clearer next time.
And we don’t need posts from someone who obviously doesn’t have a clue about the subject matter, which you don’t. No television?! And then an attempt to clarify that was just as dumb? Nice.
*Nostradumbass ...
So you would have missed every game of the ‘75 and ‘76 regular seasons. I think your logic is very flawed.
In a 21 season span from the 56 season to the 76 season, there were 7 undefeated seasons. Why? Is it because those decades produced more talent? Or is it because there was no ESPN, no million dollar NBA contracts, no billion dollar March Madness TV contracts, no billion dollar shoe industry pumping it all up by way of the AAU system. All these factors push MORE talent into the game, chasing their piece of the pie and the glory. As a result, there is more talent in the ranks below the best teams, and more parity.
I think you have no idea how to perform in a big game. I would imagine in a gym with no defense any of our guards and at least Anderson and Hunter would slaughter you even if you are as good of shooter as you claim. It is amazing how easy big time sports to know it alls sitting on their couch.
Ah, a stats guy who obviously never played the game. It’s why you’re so easily dismissed.
So, to recap, you're a 50 something smoker who thinks they could compete with D1 college kids because you'd just shoot long threes? Am I summarizing that right? I don't want to misquote you.
Two of the greatest college players of the last 50 years were Lew Alcindor and Bill Walton. Both highly skilled, well coached, extremely focused and highly competitive. Both would be dominant in today’s college game.
Agree on those two and most of the true greats. But the undeniable fact is that the average player today is much better than 30 years ago. I am an old guy too and can wax nostalgic with the best but in reality I didn't walk 10 miles each way uphill in the snow to school and there are far more great athletes with skill on the floor than years ago.
I don’t disagree, but I would argue that that today’s players are better in large part due to weight training / conditioning and nutritional advantages that are light years ahead of where things were 30, 40, 50 years ago, and more. From a skill standpoint, dribbling and passing are no better, even with the erosion of rules and the lax enforcement of them. You could argue that shooting as a function of the size of the player is better, even as shooting percentages have declined (the perimeter game, the advent of the 3, the “small ball” phenomenon, high ball screens rather than the motion game that was predicated on screening away from the ball, the lane arc, scoring off the dribble rather than as a function of team play, etc. are all contributors). It’s a different game, but I’m not sure those differences have made it more “competitive”.
That's not delusional. That's awesome. The signature of a true athlete...at some point in his life. love it!
Please tell us of your amazing life accomplishments, I for one, cannot wait to hear.
I agree with all of this except the shooting percentages. Look at people like Maravich and you will be surprised at how low a percentage some of them shot
I agree that they were very good and would be very good today too. But they would face stiffer competition. Their teams wouldn't go undefeated, and neither would the 76 IU team, as great as they were.
They were great players. Would have been one and dones though if they had the rules and circumstances the players have now.
We have already been through Kelvin Sampson. We do not want to go through Bruce Pearl. If IU hires Bruce Pearl, I'll send my money and support somewhere else.
