Wait Chattanooga is better than Michigan? Someone should tell the selection committee because UM is an 11 seed and Chattanooga is a 12.
Stephen A Picked IU to Final Four
- Thread starter S.O.B.1983
- Start date
Wait Chattanooga is better than Michigan? Someone should tell the selection committee because UM is an 11 seed and Chattanooga is a 12.
WOW, did you start your morning off with a bowl of arrogance or is that just your natural state. Just because you have stated the same old tired opinion for the "millionth' time doesn't make it any more true now as the first time.
Why does most national media list IU when talking about the blue blood programs?
Are we supposed to believe you over them and our history?
IU has made BAD coaching hires and the last 20 years is to show for it but the point he was trying to make which seemed to elude you, is that since Crean is being made top ten money we should expect consistent top ten results on the national scene.
I think the issue is you really never know what you're going to end up with. We thought we'd see Vandy and Kansas in the Maui invitational. Had that happened our pre-conference SOS would've been on the higher end. Kansas, Duke, Notre Dame, Vandy, Creighton, IPFW. To that, you never know how a mid-major will be and you can schedule them far enough ahead not to know. Next year IPFW brings back their leading scorer who went out with an injury back in January (Mo Evans) and add Bryson Scott who transferred from Purdue. IU goes to FW to play them next year so that just so happens to be a game that will be tough but you just never know what you're going to get.
Maybe the loss at IU by Iowa Is what sent them into their tailspin. Maybe they realized IU was a better team.
We certainly could lose to Chatanooga, but Mich is MUCH better than Chattanooga. Mich has 4 wins against ranked teams, and no losses outside the top 150. Chattanooga has no wins against ranked opponents and 3 losses outside the top 150.
See this is where my issue comes in. So Iowa looks great against other competition therefore most people would assume that when their team beats that team that it convinces them that their team is good. For some portion of the Indiana fan base, a win like that only shows the other team is no good. It means nothing for IU. Why couldn't that win over Iowa at Iowa show IU is just that good?
Show me in our history where we have had the same sustain success over many years like a UK or Duke. We might have a 3 or 4 year run like 73-76 and 91-94 besides that we have an elite season here and there.
huh? no, we knew our bottom barrel home games would be bottom barrel. crean et al. do that by design.
Huh? What? Crean knew teams would go from top 150 down to under 250? He should be a psychic then.
lol. no one says we are better but we are in the conversation. our expectations should be high based on history, resources, and what we pay our friggin coach. but you think we are Iowa. cool.
Last edited:
worst non-conf sos sched in the major conferences the last 3 years. you'd think he'd figure it out.
hahahha nice try though!
Of our pre-conference schedule, Austin Peay, Duke, Notre Dame are all in the NCAA tourney. Creighton, IPFW, Eastern Illinois and Morehead State are all playing in the post season this year. Wake Forest, UNLV and St. Johns are all a part of large conferences. So aside from those 10, we played 3 teams that were cake walks. To that, Crean expected Vandy and Kansas over St. Johns and UNLV. It wasn't that Crean didn't try to have a good schedule because it looked like a daunting one coming into the season.
With all of that, Duke was on the road, ND, Kansas and Vandy would've been neutral sites.
With all of that, Duke was on the road, ND, Kansas and Vandy would've been neutral sites.
That is YOUR definition of blue blood? The point being YOUR definition. Obviously many, MANY other people think differently including many sportswriters and basketball people. Hell, even this year when Crean was on the hotseat, I read an article about how IU was an elite job and it would be a sought after position.
I will give you some advice. Let us who believe that IU is a historic blue blood program, revel in our own delusion and you can save your fingers from all that typing trying to convince us otherwise. Deal?
Just to answer your question. IU has won five NCAAs under two different coaches over a 40+ year span. Been to FF under three different coaches. Still garners good numbers when their games are nationally broadcast. Still is a draw to great talent. Still makes news when things happen within the program. That is MY definition of a blue blood program.
I think we are way better than Iowa but just not at the level of UK, Duke, UNC or Kansas.
Team that competes for their conference every year and are ranked at least in the top 10 most years. Teams that makes multiple final fours in a 10 year span and winning championships. Duke went to 6 final fours in 7 years or UK going 3 out of 4 years.
The MAC doesn't want to play us. I think something like 5 MAC teams didn't play a single power conference team, and another 3 only played one in an exempt tournament. The MAC gets decent football money, so they don't need to go out and schedule pay day games like most mid major schools.
And as for MVC, I think only 3 teams played an away game this side of the Rockies, again football money, and when they do play, they play the PAC12
Our biggest problem was that many of the teams we played from quality conferences finished in the bottom half of their league, or worse (Wake, UNLV, Creighton, St Johns) and the same for decent conferences (A Peay, E Ill, Morehead)
He is very strict on his Blue Blooded programs which is fine. That's a high standard. I think we all know where IU has been as a program and it's merely different ideas of where the line is drawn from a blue blooded program to a great program. Most would consider blue bloods to be teams that have historically been great overall, not just within the last decade or two. But to each their own.
I think you are kidding but if not I would say an 11 and 12 seed are pretty equal lol. Which is what I said, they are as good and Michigan and if we mail it in again they will most likely lose.
I completely agree with you and your definition of a blue blood program. IU, UK, Kansas, UCLA, NC.....It's a historical perspective, or at least to some degree, in my opinion and in most people's opinions as well. You can't just forget the past and what a program has achieved.
So by his definition, a team can fall in and out of being a blue blood program. Doesn't make sense to me.
Last edited:
Right. I think winning titles is a must but also pulling in Final Four appearances as a really good identifier. Here are the clear blue bloods in my opinion:
Indiana (8 FF, 5 NC)
Kentucky (17 FF, 8 NC)
North Carolina (18 FF, 5 NC)
UCLA (17 FF, 11 NC)
Duke (16 FF, 5 NC)
Connecticut (5 FF, 4 NC)
Kansas (14 FF, 3 NC)
Michigan State (9 FF, 2 NC)
Ohio State (10 FF, 1 NC)
Louisville (10 FF, 3 NC)
UConn has 4 championships and are one 3 week run from tying Indiana and North Carolina in national titles but are closer to joining than Kansas. But with only 5 total final fours (compared to 8 for IU and 18 for UNC) they're still one more title or a few more final fours from stepping into the big boy table. Kansas has a lot of Final Fours but they're lacking the most important part of having success when you get there. So to me its more clear cut than what people give it credit for.
While Kansas is tied for 7th in titles, they are 3rd in title game appearances. They have the most runner-up finishes
Duke , UNC, UK and Kansas has been great for longer than a decade. It just like how now everyone is considered a HOFer and the people they let in the hall of fame. To me the HOF is for the very best and not just a HOF for the very good.
We had a lot of ordinary years in that time frame where we didn't even make the tournament
The funny part of the "we're not a blue blood" conversation is that IU is one title run away from being third on the all time list with six. If everyone around the program from the admin down to the $10 donors would stop embracing mediocrity it could happen. But, this stopped being an all or nothing deal with IU, and twenty years later we have to debate and rationalize five seeds, sweet sixteen flameouts, and missing the tourney all together. Anything less than a final four appearance THIS year is a complete and utter failure in my opinion.
All this IU / UK talk, I thought IU and UK both had a game before then.
If we put in the performance we did against Michigan we lose Thursday.
If we put in the performance we did against Michigan we lose Thursday.
If making the final four is the only thing that makes a season a success then we have failed 68 out of 76 years of the tournament
The tournament was much smaller during the first half of that span, with only Kentucky and UNC making it almost every year. With the current size of the tournament, we'd likely have been in with something like a 7 seed most of those years.
Might be broken but it is the truth. Why is it so important to you guys to think we are an elite program. and seems offended when people actually shows you what the history really says. I would put us around the 7 or 8th best program of all time and that is very good but I just would not put us up where some of you think we are.
I showed the stats of making the final four since 1985 when they expanded to 64 teams and we are not even close to those other programs. That is taking account that RMK was coach for half of that time frame.
The weak schedule rationale has been debunked ad nauseam. Anyone still using it is willfully ignorant. It makes less than a game difference for teams at the top level of the conference.
Makes as much sense as any other pick, I guess. Going through the brackets, it seems fairly wide open.
okay, then as the 5th or 6th best school all-time, can we ask to compete in March? can we ask to win more than 4 tourney games in 6 years?
again, no one said we were Duke. NO ONE. That was another one of your straw man arguments because you really, really like to argue. lol. but we can be 85% of Duke considering our vast resources. that is what folks mean. you are too literal to be real
Similar threads
