The FACTS about IU and the 1940 and 1953 NCAA Championships...

[jimmygoiu]

It is time to set the record straight. Too many times the IU championships of 1940 and 1953 have been attempted to be minimized as a less than true championship. Here is the info on the two NCAA championships that mathboy and other broilees plus at least one uniformed IU fan, have tried to minimize and demean over the years:

1940 NIT:
The 1940 NIT had 6 teams in the tournament. Those teams were Colorado, Duquesne, Oklahoma A&M., Long Island, St. John's and DePaul. Colorado defeated Duquesne 51-40 to win the tournament.

The 1940 NCAA:
The 1940 NCAA tournament had 8 teams, including the 1940 NIT champion and runnerup in the tournament. Colorado(17-2), Duquesne(19-2), Indiana(17-3), Kansas(17-5), Springfield(16-2), Rice(21-2), WesternKy(24-5), and USC(19-2).

Note that the 1940 NIT champion(Colorado) and runnerup(Duquesne) are also both in the 1940 NCAA tournament. Indiana beat Duquesne in its opening game, 39-30. USC beat Colorado 38-32 in the second round. Rice then beat Colorado in the consolation game. The 1940 NIT champion, Colorado, finished fourth in the 1940 NCAA tournament. The runnerup in the NIT Dusquesne, lost handily to the NCAA Champion - Indiana. Indiana beat blueblood Kansas in the championship game 60-42.

Mathboy and other broilees are also way off on the 1953 Indiana National Championship:

The 1953 NIT Tournament:
The 1953 NIT had 12 entries, dominated by New York and east coast schools. The participants were Duquesne, Georgetown, LaSalle, Manhattan, Niagara, St. John's, Seton Hall, BYU, Louisville, St.Louis, Tulsa and Western Kentucky. Seton Hall beat another NYC team, St. John's 58-52, to win the NIT.

The 1953 NCAA Tournament had 22 teams, including Indiana, Kansas, LSU, Washington, Notre Dame, Oklahoma A&M, and DePaul. Indiana defeated Kansas for the championship, after defeating DePaul, Notre Dame and LSU along the way

The mathematically based Premo-Porretta Power Poll published in the ESPN College Basketball Encyclopedia retroactively ranked teams for each season prior to 1949, with the NIT champion finishing ahead of the NCAA champion in 1939 and 1941. The NCAA champion was ranked ahead of the NIT champ in all other years. Between 1939 and 1970, when teams could compete in either tournament, only DePaul (1945), Utah (1947),San Francisco (1949) and Holy Cross (1954) [30] claim or celebrate national championships for their teams based solely on an NIT championship.

I guess it's fun for some to somehow minimize IU's first two championships. It is clear that the NCAA tournament was the prestigious tournament in 1940 and 1953. IU won on the court, beating the best in the nation. No bakery shop declared it seven years after the season -IU won it on the court. FYI, the 1953 IU team ENTERED the tourney as the #1 ranked team in the nation by both the AP and UPI polls. #1, prior to the tourney start, so I'm of the opinion that IU was thought to be and PROVED that it was the best team in the country in 1953.

In 1940, both the NIT Champion and the runnerup also played in the NCAA. IU beat the runnerup in the opening game. The NIT champ was beaten twice in the NCAA tourney and ended up in fourth place in the NCAA tourney. The 1953 IU team began the NCAA tournament as the #1 ranked team in the country, by both the AP and UPI polls, and preceded to live up to their ranking by winning the 1953 NCAA Championship. It is evident that all FIVE of IU's championships were proved on the court, against the best teams in the country.

 

[TR32]

No questions.

 

[arcb102000]

It is time to set the record straight. Too many times the IU championships of 1940 and 1953 have been attempted to be minimized as a less than true championship. Here is the info on the two NCAA championships that mathboy and other broilees plus at least one uniformed IU fan, have tried to minimize and demean over the years:

1940 NIT:
The 1940 NIT had 6 teams in the tournament. Those teams were Colorado, Duquesne, Oklahoma A&M., Long Island, St. John's and DePaul. Colorado defeated Duquesne 51-40 to win the tournament.

The 1940 NCAA:
The 1940 NCAA tournament had 8 teams, including the 1940 NIT champion and runnerup in the tournament. Colorado(17-2), Duquesne(19-2), Indiana(17-3), Kansas(17-5), Springfield(16-2), Rice(21-2), WesternKy(24-5), and USC(19-2).

Note that the 1940 NIT champion(Colorado) and runnerup(Duquesne) are also both in the 1940 NCAA tournament. Indiana beat Duquesne in its opening game, 39-30. USC beat Colorado 38-32 in the second round. Rice then beat Colorado in the consolation game. The 1940 NIT champion, Colorado, finished fourth in the 1940 NCAA tournament. The runnerup in the NIT Dusquesne, lost handily to the NCAA Champion - Indiana. Indiana beat blueblood Kansas in the championship game 60-42.

Mathboy and other broilees are also way off on the 1953 Indiana National Championship:

The 1953 NIT Tournament:
The 1953 NIT had 12 entries, dominated by New York and east coast schools. The participants were Duquesne, Georgetown, LaSalle, Manhattan, Niagara, St. John's, Seton Hall, BYU, Louisville, St.Louis, Tulsa and Western Kentucky. Seton Hall beat another NYC team, St. John's 58-52, to win the NIT.

The 1953 NCAA Tournament had 22 teams, including Indiana, Kansas, LSU, Washington, Notre Dame, Oklahoma A&M, and DePaul. Indiana defeated Kansas for the championship, after defeating DePaul, Notre Dame and LSU along the way

I guess it's fun for some to somehow minimize IU's first two championships. It is clear that the NCAA tournament was the prestigious tournament in 1940 and 1953. IU won on the court, beating the best in the nation. No bakery shop declared it seven years after the season -IU won it on the court. FYI, the 1953 IU team ENTERED the tourney as the #1 ranked team in the nation by both the AP and UPI polls. #1, prior to the tourney start, so I'm of the opinion that IU was thought to be and PROVED that it was the best team in the country in 1953.

In 1940, both the NIT Champion and the runnerup also played in the NCAA. IU beat the runnerup in the opening game. The NIT champ was beaten twice in the NCAA tourney and ended up in fourth place in the NCAA tourney. The 1953 IU team began the NCAA tournament as the #1 ranked team in the country, by both the AP and UPI polls, and preceded to live up to their ranking by winning the 1953 NCAA Championship. It is evident that all FIVE of IU's championships were proved on the court, against the best teams in the country.

Sorry, it is far from clear that "...the NCAA was the most prestigious tournament in 1940 and 1953. The fact that the victor of one tournament did not win a second does not demonstrate the superiority of the second. Respective fields should be compared; seedings as well, not counting fatigue, injury, etc. You have stated an opinion, not facts. Do not confuse the two.

The #1 ranked team entering a tournament does not always win it. That doesn't mean that they weren't the best team. In a one event and out a bad game can cost you. In the NBA, MLB, NHL, they play a series, not a single game. A recent example is Duke, they were almost a unanimous #1 for most of the year. They did not make the FF, but most people would regard them as the best team this year.

 

[brianiu]

Sorry, it is far from clear that "...the NCAA was the most prestigious tournament in 1940 and 1953. The fact that the victor of one tournament did not win a second does not demonstrate the superiority of the second. Respective fields should be compared; seedings as well, not counting fatigue, injury, etc. You have stated an opinion, not facts. Do not confuse the two.

The #1 ranked team entering a tournament does not always win it. That doesn't mean that they weren't the best team. In a one event and out a bad game can cost you. In the NBA, MLB, NHL, they play a series, not a single game. A recent example is Duke, they were almost a unanimous #1 for most of the year. They did not make the FF, but most people would regard them as the best team this year.

The 1940 tournament had the NIT champion and runner up. Indiana won that tournament. Those facts, presented in the original post, are far from irrelevant.

IU came into the 1953 tournament ranked first in the country and lived up to that ranking. They were the rightful champions in both 40 and 53 and they proved it on the court! I am sorry that this is something Purdue has failed to do but maybe they can one year. Hope springs eternal!

 

[jimmygoiu]

Sorry, it is far from clear that "...the NCAA was the most prestigious tournament in 1940 and 1953. The fact that the victor of one tournament did not win a second does not demonstrate the superiority of the second. Respective fields should be compared; seedings as well, not counting fatigue, injury, etc. You have stated an opinion, not facts. Do not confuse the two.

The #1 ranked team entering a tournament does not always win it. That doesn't mean that they weren't the best team. In a one event and out a bad game can cost you. In the NBA, MLB, NHL, they play a series, not a single game. A recent example is Duke, they were almost a unanimous #1 for most of the year. They did not make the FF, but most people would regard them as the best team this year.

IU, the #1 team entering the tourney, DID WIN. Your 1940 opinion/excuse is also laughable, but is a true example of the purdue mentality.

 

[IUINSB]

Sorry, it is far from clear that "...the NCAA was the most prestigious tournament in 1940 and 1953. The fact that the victor of one tournament did not win a second does not demonstrate the superiority of the second. Respective fields should be compared; seedings as well, not counting fatigue, injury, etc. You have stated an opinion, not facts. Do not confuse the two.

Well, it's clearly more prestigious than a national championship awarded by a manufacturer of cupcakes.

 

[arcb102000]

In 1940, the NCAA was held in KC, iirc. Back then, even much more so than now, NYC was the media capital of America. There was no TV to speak of. MSG was the site of boxing championship fights as LV did not exist. To pretend that KC got greater focus and was considered a superior venue is silly.

Even today, NYC area broadcasting rights are huge compared to KC rights. Those rights are the reason Rutgers is in the B1G. When teams were looking for recognition, they went to MSG. That was much more true in the past then today where television is everywhere.

MSG is always referred to as the most important arena in the USA. There is a reason for that. It was more the case in the past than today because of the diversification of media centers. But back in the day, NYC was it.

 

[HoosierJimbo89]

In 1940, the NCAA was held in KC, iirc. Back then, even much more so than now, NYC was the media capital of America. There was no TV to speak of. MSG was the site of boxing championship fights as LV did not exist. To pretend that KC got greater focus and was considered a superior venue is silly.

Even today, NYC area broadcasting rights are huge compared to KC rights. Those rights are the reason Rutgers is in the B1G. When teams were looking for recognition, they went to MSG. That was much more true in the past then today where television is everywhere.

MSG is always referred to as the most important arena in the USA. There is a reason for that. It was more the case in the past than today because of the diversification of media centers. But back in the day, NYC was it.

5-0

 

[brianiu]

In 1940, the NCAA was held in KC, iirc. Back then, even much more so than now, NYC was the media capital of America. There was no TV to speak of. MSG was the site of boxing championship fights as LV did not exist. To pretend that KC got greater focus and was considered a superior venue is silly.

Even today, NYC area broadcasting rights are huge compared to KC rights. Those rights are the reason Rutgers is in the B1G. When teams were looking for recognition, they went to MSG. That was much more true in the past then today where television is everywhere.

MSG is always referred to as the most important arena in the USA. There is a reason for that. It was more the case in the past than today because of the diversification of media centers. But back in the day, NYC was it.

So the NIT was more prestigious because it was in New York? Guess it was more prestigious this year as well since Final Four was in Minneapolis. You should read the op and just admit that it is correct and move on back to gbi

 

[Tasmanian Devil]

. . . this is something Purdue has failed to do but maybe they can one year.

Not choking away an Elite 8 game with 14 seconds left might be the first place to start . . .

 

[arcb102000]

So the NIT was more prestigious because it was in New York? Guess it was more prestigious this year as well since Final Four was in Minneapolis. You should read the op and just admit that it is correct and move on back to gbi

No, the NCAA was originally for conference champions and a very few independents. However, back in the 30s-50s, the East Coast schools were independents, which was not favored by the NCAA. The NIT was actually owned, until recently, by a consortium of metro NY schools. Back then, teams like CCNY, LIU, NYU, Columbia were basketball powers. In the 1950s, there was a point-shaving scandal involving a number of NYC area colleges. That was the death of NYC basketball as a major power center. The NCAA gained, but was not a real event as it is today. In 1063, the Championship Game, won by Loyola of Chicago, was not even broadcast live on TV in Chicago. That is quite different from the March Madness of today.

It was different then from what it is today.

 

[arcb102000]

So the NIT was more prestigious because it was in New York? Guess it was more prestigious this year as well since Final Four was in Minneapolis. You should read the op and just admit that it is correct and move on back to gbi

A totally irrelevant and silly comment. I suggest that you look up the Al McGuire Rule re the NCAA tournament. That might help explain some things to you.

 

[arcb102000]

5-0

Nobody is disputing 5 NCAA Tournament Championships so I don't know what you think that proves. The question is the early tournaments vs the NIT. Your comment is not germane to the discussion, but then again, that is typical.

 

[HoosierJimbo89]

Nobody is disputing 5 NCAA Tournament Championships so I don't know what you think that proves. The question is the early tournaments vs the NIT. Your comment is not germane to the discussion, but then again, that is typical.

5-0

 

[brianiu]

No, the NCAA was originally for conference champions and a very few independents. However, back in the 30s-50s, the East Coast schools were independents, which was not favored by the NCAA. The NIT was actually owned, until recently, by a consortium of metro NY schools. Back then, teams like CCNY, LIU, NYU, Columbia were basketball powers. In the 1950s, there was a point-shaving scandal involving a number of NYC area colleges. That was the death of NYC basketball as a major power center. The NCAA gained, but was not a real event as it is today. In 1063, the Championship Game, won by Loyola of Chicago, was not even broadcast live on TV in Chicago. That is quite different from the March Madness of today.

It was different then from what it is today.

You are correct, the NIT was more of a regional tournament than the NCAA. Certainly there were likely years the NIT champion was superior, including the Long Island teams coached the the legendary Clair Bee. However, this thread concerns the 40 and 53 NCAA champion Indiana Hoosiers. In those years, as pointed out in the first post, IU was clearly the best team in the country. Also, as I posted in the other thread where this topic is being discussed, from 43 to 45 the NCAA and NIT champions met in a champions championship of sorts and the NCAA champion won every year. Those are facts, not someone’s opinion. The NCAA tournament champion may not have been superior every year in the 40s but in 40, 43, 44 and 45 they most certainly were.

 

[arcb102000]

43 to 45 were war years, I cam not quite clear what can be inferred from anything during that period. I think that the same can be said of MLB during that time. ND stayed open only because the Navy based trainees there- which is why ND plays Navy every year.

Again, as has been pointed out, in a one loss and you're out, the best team doesn't always win, e.g. Duke this year.

 

[HoosierJimbo89]

43 to 45 were war years, I cam not quite clear what can be inferred from anything during that period. I think that the same can be said of MLB during that time. ND stayed open only because the Navy based trainees there- which is why ND plays Navy every year.

Again, as has been pointed out, in a one loss and you're out, the best team doesn't always win, e.g. Duke this year.

Every other major sport determines a championship by a playoff system. If you don't like it, start your own league.

5-0

 

[brianiu]

43 to 45 were war years, I cam not quite clear what can be inferred from anything during that period. I think that the same can be said of MLB during that time. ND stayed open only because the Navy based trainees there- which is why ND plays Navy every year.

Again, as has been pointed out, in a one loss and you're out, the best team doesn't always win, e.g. Duke this year.

Yeah but that is still how we determine an NCAA champion so... not sure what your point is.

Either way, IU won a tournament with the NIT champ and runner up in it in 1940. They went into the 53 tournament number one in the country and defeated Phog Allen coached Kansas in the title game. They were the best team in the country those years. They proved it on the court just Virginia did this year.

 

[arcb102000]

5-0

Repeating an irrelevant comment does not make it any more relevant or add to the discussion. It just makes you look foolish.

 

[mathboy]

Every other major sport determines a championship by a playoff system. If you don't like it, start your own league.

5-0

True today, but not in the past. For years, the NCAA football championship was determined by a vote.

 

[HoosierJimbo89]

Repeating an irrelevant comment does not make it any more relevant or add to the discussion. It just makes you look foolish.

5-0

 

[mathboy]

5-0

...never mind. I was going to share a funny thought, but no need to. This is funny enough.

 

[HoosierJimbo89]

...never mind. I was going to share a funny thought, but no need to. This is funny enough.

A PU fan so obsessed with IU that he posts on their message board? A program with no championships? No FF's in 40 years? Nojel Eastern is your best player? Crapping on the tradition of other schools when you can't accomplish anything?

LOL. Go start an IU sucks chant, loser.

 

[arcb102000]

Yeah but that is still how we determine an NCAA champion so... not sure what your point is.

Either way, IU won a tournament with the NIT champ and runner up in it in 1940. They went into the 53 tournament number one in the country and defeated Phog Allen coached Kansas in the title game. They were the best team in the country those years. They proved it on the court just Virginia did this year.[/QUOTE

The early NCAA was scheduled AFTER the NIT so teams could choose to play in both. The NCAA did not want to have a mutually exclusive choice. That tells you all that you need to know about the relative perception of importance. In the 1950s. NCAA passed a rule requiring conference champs participate. That was an attack on the NIT and diminished its importance.

 

[brianiu]

^^^ that had nothing to do with what I posted. IU was the best team in 40 and 53. They proved it on the court. That is the argument; not who selected teams first, which by the way proves nothing.

Also you should learn how to use quotes correctly.

 

[jimmygoiu]

In 1940, the NCAA was held in KC, iirc. Back then, even much more so than now, NYC was the media capital of America. There was no TV to speak of. MSG was the site of boxing championship fights as LV did not exist. To pretend that KC got greater focus and was considered a superior venue is silly.

Even today, NYC area broadcasting rights are huge compared to KC rights. Those rights are the reason Rutgers is in the B1G. When teams were looking for recognition, they went to MSG. That was much more true in the past then today where television is everywhere.

MSG is always referred to as the most important arena in the USA. There is a reason for that. It was more the case in the past than today because of the diversification of media centers. But back in the day, NYC was it.

silly broilee, who the heck cares about media coverage? IU won the NCAA championship in 1940, and the NIT champs and runnerup BOTH got beat in the NCAA tourney the same year. IU, the #1 ranked team in the country by both the AP and UPI, WON the NCAA championship in1953. Who cares how many reporters were at the game? What the heck does boxing have to do with national basketball champs? What do broadcasting $$ have to do with IU winning these 2 national championships. MSG is a nice venue and NYC is a great city. What was your point?

 

[jimmygoiu]

No, the NCAA was originally for conference champions and a very few independents. However, back in the 30s-50s, the East Coast schools were independents, which was not favored by the NCAA. The NIT was actually owned, until recently, by a consortium of metro NY schools. Back then, teams like CCNY, LIU, NYU, Columbia were basketball powers. In the 1950s, there was a point-shaving scandal involving a number of NYC area colleges. That was the death of NYC basketball as a major power center. The NCAA gained, but was not a real event as it is today. In 1063, the Championship Game, won by Loyola of Chicago, was not even broadcast live on TV in Chicago. That is quite different from the March Madness of today.

It was different then from what it is today.

In 1940, 2 NYC teams, Long Island U and St. Johns were in the NIT, and both got beat in their openers. The NIT champion, Colorado, played in the NCAA and lost TWO games, finishing fourth. The NIT runnerup, Duquesne, lost their NCAA opening game to Indiana,39-30. Indiana went on the win the NCAA tournament. The best teams in the NIT both got BEAT in the NCAA. The 2 NYC teams got beat in their opening games in the NIT. IU WON. Indiana beat Kansas by 18 points, 60-42 for the win.

In 1953, #1 ranked IU won the NCAA tournament, and were unanimous choice as the #1 team in the country. (including the Helms Bakery award,lol). IU beat blueblood Kansas, again,to win the championship.

What do you not understand about the championships in the years 1940 and 1953? It seems so obvious...

 

[arcb102000]

The second tournament has the issue of fatigue, key injury in the first, etc.

Re 40 and 53, they might have been the best team, but that is not the topic of discussion. If the winner of the most prestigious tournament is the National Champion (as has been inferred in this discussion) then the NIT Champ was the National Champ using that standard. Obviously, the importance and dominance has reversed over time. But let's remember, the argumeny was not which was the best team, but rather which tournament winner was National Champion.

 

[jimmygoiu]

43 to 45 were war years, I cam not quite clear what can be inferred from anything during that period. I think that the same can be said of MLB during that time. ND stayed open only because the Navy based trainees there- which is why ND plays Navy every year.

Again, as has been pointed out, in a one loss and you're out, the best team doesn't always win, e.g. Duke this year.

But IU, ranked #1, DID WIN, in 1953.

The war years, the NCAA champ beat the NIT champ all 3 years. Who cares.

 

[arcb102000]

In 1940, 2 NYC teams, Long Island U and St. Johns were in the NIT, and both got beat in their openers. The NIT champion, Colorado, played in the NCAA and lost TWO games, finishing fourth. The NIT runnerup, Duquesne, lost their NCAA opening game to Indiana,39-30. Indian went on the win the NCAA tournament. The best teams in the NIT both got BEAT in the NCAA. The 2 NYC teams got beat in their opening games in the NIT. IU WON.

In 1953, #1 ranked IU won the NCAA tournament, and were unanimous choice as the #1 team in the country. (including the Helms Bakery award,lol).

What do you not understand about the championships in the years 1940 and 1953? It seems so obvious...

Teams get upset late in a season, fatigue sets in, etc. You can replay a tournament with the same teams and get an entirely different result. While the results that you cited were correct, the inferences that you are drawing from the data do not necessarily follow. That is a fact that you seem to be oblivious to.

 

[jimmygoiu]

The second tournament has the issue of fatigue, key injury in the first, etc.

Re 40 and 53, they might have been the best team, but that is not the topic of discussion. If the winner of the most prestigious tournament is the National Champion (as has been inferred in this discussion) then the NIT Champ was the National Champ using that standard. Obviously, the importance and dominance has reversed over time. But let's remember, the argumeny was not which was the best team, but rather which tournament winner was National Champion.

lol, AP, UPI and even the Helms Donut Shop named IU national champions in 1940 and 1953. But most importantly, and the only thing that matters-IU won it on the basketball court.

 

[jimmygoiu]

Teams get upset late in a season, fatigue sets in, etc. You can replay a tournament with the same teams and get an entirely different result. While the results that you cited were correct, the inferences that you are drawing from the data do not necessarily follow. That is a fact that you seem to be oblivious to.

That is why they play the tournaments. The champions overcome fatigue, upsets, and WIN. No excuses, "you play to win the game".

 

[jimmygoiu]

The second tournament has the issue of fatigue, key injury in the first, etc.

Re 40 and 53, they might have been the best team, but that is not the topic of discussion. If the winner of the most prestigious tournament is the National Champion (as has been inferred in this discussion) then the NIT Champ was the National Champ using that standard. Obviously, the importance and dominance has reversed over time. But let's remember, the argumeny was not which was the best team, but rather which tournament winner was National Champion.

" re 40 and 53, they might have been the best team" is ABSOLUTELY the topic of discussion. Who is the national champion, proving it on the court, is the topic-and IU proved to be the best team.

 

[brianiu]

The second tournament has the issue of fatigue, key injury in the first, etc.

Re 40 and 53, they might have been the best team, but that is not the topic of discussion. If the winner of the most prestigious tournament is the National Champion (as has been inferred in this discussion) then the NIT Champ was the National Champ using that standard. Obviously, the importance and dominance has reversed over time. But let's remember, the argumeny was not which was the best team, but rather which tournament winner was National Champion.

Actually it is the topic of the thread.

 

[BigTimeAt69]

Everyone but Indiana fans could care less about championships won in the 40s and 50s....

I'm turning 32 soon and IU hasn't won a championship in my lifetime. Had a really nice run in 2002 tho which I actually rooted for them in.

But come on if the only thing you have to fall back on is bragging about 5 championships won over a span of 30 to 70 years ago.... Then I would be worried and upset with the current state of the program.

This movie came out a few months after your last banner

 

[brianiu]

The 53 NCAA tournament was absolutely the bigger tournament. Lets take a look at the AP rankings heading into the tournaments

NCAA
1 Indiana
2 Washington
5 Kansas
6 Oklahoma St
7 LSU
12 Wake Forest
14 Seattle
16 Wyoming
17 Notre Dame

NIT
3 LaSalle
4 Seton Hall
9 Western Kentucky
14 Louisville
20 St John’s
20 Manhattan

Indiana was still number one after the tournament and Holy Cross (13), Santa Clara (16) and DePaul (19) jumped into the poll. No new NIT participants made the new poll. Clearly the AP writers viewed the 53 NCAA tournament more favorably than the NIT

 

[brianiu]

Everyone but Indiana fans could care less about championships won in the 40s and 50s....

I'm turning 32 soon and IU hasn't won a championship in my lifetime. Had a really nice run in 2002 tho which I actually rooted for them in.

But come on if the only thing you have to fall back on is bragging about 5 championships won over a span of 30 to 70 years ago.... Then I would be worried and upset with the current state of the program.

This movie came out a few months after your last banner

You care so little you posted about it on an IU message board and searched for an internet meme to bolster your point

 

[HoosierJimbo89]

Everyone but Indiana fans could care less about championships won in the 40s and 50s....

I'm turning 32 soon and IU hasn't won a championship in my lifetime. Had a really nice run in 2002 tho which I actually rooted for them in.

But come on if the only thing you have to fall back on is bragging about 5 championships won over a span of 30 to 70 years ago.... Then I would be worried and upset with the current state of the program.

This movie came out a few months after your last banner

And, PU has never won anything: ever. It is ok for schools to enjoy their tradition. Tearing down the tradition of others when you have none is sad. If IU's tradition doesn't matter, then don't come over to an IU message board and talk about it: nobody has a gun to your head.

 

[IUINSB]

Repeating an irrelevant comment does not make it any more relevant or add to the discussion. It just makes you look foolish.

Perhaps you should take your own advice.

 

[All4You]

Sorry, it is clear that...mathboy and I are disgruntled PUkes

Fixed your post

And leave it to a PUke to try and marginalize IU's national championships using supposition and convoluted logic. They seem to go to great lengths to minimize those "dusty old banners" they claim that they and nobody else cares about.