ADVERTISEMENT

#1 Scoring center according to BR...

Bigs are nice....but until I see guard play, I will wait on declaring these men B1G champs let alone a FF caliber team. Last year, nearly every great team put it to us. Will need to make a jump to actually beat some teams that matter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SNU0821
Bigs are nice....but until I see guard play, I will wait on declaring these men B1G champs let alone a FF caliber team. Last year, nearly every great team put it to us. Will need to make a jump to actually beat some teams that matter.

This is accurate. Really good guard play is huge and essential to even be considered a top tier team. We have the talent. Put it together on the court CMP.
 
We finished 4th in the league and at least on paper, lost the least and added the most. If we don't win the B1G, we should be right there in the hunt. I also think if everyone stays healthy, a FF should be attainable.
 
We finished 4th in the league and at least on paper, lost the least and added the most. If we don't win the B1G, we should be right there in the hunt. I also think if everyone stays healthy, a FF should be attainable.
Actually, Purdue was tied for third.
 
We finished 4th in the league and at least on paper, lost the least and added the most. If we don't win the B1G, we should be right there in the hunt. I also think if everyone stays healthy, a FF should be attainable.

The conference is Maryland's to lose. But we will be right there till the end assuming we don't have any 2011-2013 chemistry issues.
 
Bigs are nice....but until I see guard play, I will wait on declaring these men B1G champs let alone a FF caliber team. Last year, nearly every great team put it to us. Will need to make a jump to actually beat some teams that matter.

I agree that guard play is very important, but I think there is a tendency these days to discount the importance of bigs and I think that would be a mistake. The three best teams in the NCAA last season, including the champ and runner-up, were the teams with the three best front lines. I don't think anyone would argue against Duke, Wisconsin, and Kentucky having the best bigs. Meanwhile, good teams without the bigs, like Nova and UVa, went out early in the NCAA tourney. Purdue will be built around its front line this season and I think that's a good thing.

Guard play needs to improve, providing spacing, limiting turnovers, and containing dribble penetration, but Purdue's identity does not need to change.
 
The conference is Maryland's to lose. But we will be right there till the end assuming we don't have any 2011-2013 chemistry issues.
Agree with this. Maryland should be top tier. MSU, IU, PU and UM are all on the second tier right behind Maryland. I could see any team in the second tier finish in any order. I think all four teams are going to be very good and very close in standings when it's all said and done.
 
Agree with this. Maryland should be top tier. MSU, IU, PU and UM are all on the second tier right behind Maryland. I could see any team in the second tier finish in any order. I think all four teams are going to be very good and very close in standings when it's all said and done.

I know what the so-called experts are saying, but I don't buy it. I just can't get behind either UM or IU being in that second tier. UM has yet to show me the kind of play that would justify landing in your (and the pendants) second shelf with Purdue and MSU. I expect it to be a 3 team race (Maryland, Purdue and MSU) to the finish, with the other teams spoiling one or two of the contender's records on any given night. However, neither UM nor IU have shown the team development, consistency, and talent that you see in the top 3.

Even now, I have some nagging doubts about MSU. The only two teams that have played together last year, and made an impact were Purdue and MU. MSU has a completely new set of pieces to be crafted into a team. We go on only the faith in Izzo that he can craft them into a contender. I don't share that same faith when it comes to Beilein or Crean.

Let's face it, both IU and UM are a tough sell. 7th place IU adds a 5 star post, just like all the teams above them, and suddenly they are top 3 team? 9th place Michigan gets some kids back from injuries (serious ones) and these kids are expected to pick up where they left off? Doesn't usually work that way with injuries. Sorry, but here is another deal just like those two. I've got some land in Florida for you, real cheap...

:cool:
 
Last edited:
I know what the so-called experts are saying, but I don't buy it. I just can't get behind either UM or IU being in that second tier. UM has yet to show me the kind of play that would justify landing in your (and the pendants) second shelf with Purdue and MSU. I expect it to be a 3 team race (Maryland, Purdue and MSU) to the finish, with the other teams spoiling one or two of the contender's records on any given night. However, neither UM nor IU have shown the team development, consistency, and talent that you see in the top 3.

Even now, I have some nagging doubts about MSU. The only two teams that have played together last year, and made an impact were Purdue and MU. MSU has a completely new set of pieces to be crafted into a team. We go on only the faith in Izzo that he can craft them into a contender. I don't share that same faith when it comes to Beilein or Crean.

Let's face it, both IU and UM are a tough sell. 7th place IU adds a 5 star post, just like all the teams above them, and suddenly they are top 3 team? 9th place Michigan gets some kids back from injuries (serious ones) and these kids are expected to pick up where they left off? Doesn't usually work that way with injuries. Sorry, but here is another deal just like those two. I've got some land in Florida for you, real cheap...

:cool:

Yeah I think Purdue is in tier 1B this year behind Maryland with like 2 other teams from the Iowa, MSU, Wisky, IU, UM, OSU group. From there, there are probably another 3 teams that are tier 2 and then the pretenders.
 
I know what the so-called experts are saying, but I don't buy it. I just can't get behind either UM or IU being in that second tier. UM has yet to show me the kind of play that would justify landing in your (and the pendants) second shelf with Purdue and MSU. I expect it to be a 3 team race (Maryland, Purdue and MSU) to the finish, with the other teams spoiling one or two of the contender's records on any given night. However, neither UM nor IU have shown the team development, consistency, and talent that you see in the top 3.

Even now, I have some nagging doubts about MSU. The only two teams that have played together last year, and made an impact were Purdue and MU. MSU has a completely new set of pieces to be crafted into a team. We go on only the faith in Izzo that he can craft them into a contender. I don't share that same faith when it comes to Beilein or Crean.

Let's face it, both IU and UM are a tough sell. 7th place IU adds a 5 star post, just like all the teams above them, and suddenly they are top 3 team? 9th place Michigan gets some kids back from injuries (serious ones) and these kids are expected to pick up where they left off? Doesn't usually work that way with injuries. Sorry, but here is another deal just like those two. I've got some land in Florida for you, real cheap...

:cool:
That's fine you don't agree. I can follow your same logic and offer you a reason that Purdue shouldn't be in the second tier. Who were your best wins last year? IU twice, OSU and Iowa. Best win out of conference was NC State. No real contenders there. Now all of a sudden you're going to be at the top of the B10 and a Final Four contender? Pardon me for wanting to see it to believe it.

As for UM, they actually were playing pretty well toward the end of the year. They had some new players really step up and play well. They get LeVert and Walton back along with some big guy who is supposed to be pretty tough. I don't really understand the hesitation for them either. Yes they didn't play well at the beginning of the season, but neither did Purdue. UM returns almost as much as IU and Purdue. They will be a tough team. They may finish at the end of that second tier, but they certainly belong up there. It's not a coincidence that people have them ranked.

As for IU, I'll chalk it up as just being a homer as to why you can't even see IU in the second tier. IMO (along with plenty of others around the country) we'll have a very solid team. The fact that you point out development and talent as to why you can't see IU (specifically) at the top is just being a Purdue homer, nothing more. Consistency for IU specifically is accurate as we were pretty far from it last year. Defense would have been another reason for hesitation that I could be on board with. Taking a wait and see approach for those two reasons are valid. Development and talent? Absolutely laughable. We fill our only hole in our roster with a McDonald's All American. Why is it that Swanigan is going to make an impact right away but anyone else who have good freshman won't see this same type of impact? Homer? I think so. And I think you're too caught up on what happened last year carrying it forward to this year without considering who people lost, who they return and who they bring in. So Purdue doesn't lose anyone outside of a PG, brings in some good talent and they're a contender? IU doesn't lose anyone of significant value, brings in some good talent and yet we're not going anywhere? Oh, ok. Again we had better wins and not as bad losses as Purdue did. Both teams are going to be good. I don't understand what's so hard to admit about that. Both teams aren't going to win the league and will be in the Top Four/Five of the league. Both are second tier teams.

PU made an impact last year? You were 21-13 and lost in the first round of the NCAA Tournament. Did IU make an impact then? We had better wins, not as bad of losses and one seed lower than you in the tournament and also lost in the first round. Not really that much of an impact from either team. MSU didn't make an impact? Did their Final Four just disappear? More homer comments. MSU returns Valentine who could be a 1st Team All B10 guy. They bring in a 5* forward who can replace Dawson and bring in an elite scorer in Harris. If Harris isn't an issue in the locker room, he'll be a huge get for them. Harris will take some pressure off of Valentine which will be a good thing for MSU.

I hope you're just trolling me here and don't honestly believe the things you wrote or can at least admit is very skewed to the homer perspective. If you think you've got a legit perspective, come to the main rivals basketball board and post this in a B10 thread. See how many people think your post holds any water, at all.I did it for you Methboy. Come share your opinion and see how many people are even close to your line of thinking...

http://forums.rivals.com/threads/another-b10-prediction-thread.145077/

If IU and UM are such a tough sell, then why has every ranking that's come out so far had BOTH teams in there? Oh I forgot, they're just doing it because we're popular basketball schools right? To drum up readers? GTFO.
 
Last edited:
Yeah I think Purdue is in tier 1B this year behind Maryland with like 2 other teams from the Iowa, MSU, Wisky, IU, UM, OSU group. From there, there are probably another 3 teams that are tier 2 and then the pretenders.
I don't know about OSU. They have some talent but they're young. Until Purdue shows they can consistently beat the top teams in the B10, it's hard to just automatically put them right behind Maryland. That's why I lump them in the group of MSU, IU and UM. I think it's pretty certain Purdue (and IU for that matter) will finish in the top four or five of the B10. I'm just not sure exactly where. Anything below fifth for either team would be a huge disappointment IMO.
 
Michigan lost 8 of their last 11 games last year, including losses to Northwestern, Illinois and a home blowout to Iowa. Two of those three wins were against Rutgers and Illinois. Not sure how that is considered "playing well".
Fair, but they PLAYED a ton better than they did earlier in the year. Not sure I'd throw out "quality victories" as a reason to hold someone down. Purdue didn't really beat a bunch of good teams....
 
Fair, but they PLAYED a ton better than they did earlier in the year. Not sure I'd throw out "quality victories" as a reason to hold someone down. Purdue didn't really beat a bunch of good teams....

True, we sucked.

Instead of being happy to sweep IU, we should be ashamed that we actually had to stoop low enough to play with the Gloomington ladies
 
  • Like
Reactions: SNU0821
That's fine you don't agree. I can follow your same logic and offer you a reason that Purdue shouldn't be in the second tier. Who were your best wins last year? IU twice, OSU and Iowa. Best win out of conference was NC State. No real contenders there. Now all of a sudden you're going to be at the top of the B10 and a Final Four contender? Pardon me for wanting to see it to believe it.

As for UM, they actually were playing pretty well toward the end of the year. They had some new players really step up and play well. They get LeVert and Walton back along with some big guy who is supposed to be pretty tough. I don't really understand the hesitation for them either. Yes they didn't play well at the beginning of the season, but neither did Purdue. UM returns almost as much as IU and Purdue. They will be a tough team. They may finish at the end of that second tier, but they certainly belong up there. It's not a coincidence that people have them ranked.

As for IU, I'll chalk it up as just being a homer as to why you can't even see IU in the second tier. IMO (along with plenty of others around the country) we'll have a very solid team. The fact that you point out development and talent as to why you can't see IU (specifically) at the top is just being a Purdue homer, nothing more. Consistency for IU specifically is accurate as we were pretty far from it last year. Defense would have been another reason for hesitation that I could be on board with. Taking a wait and see approach for those two reasons are valid. Development and talent? Absolutely laughable. We fill our only hole in our roster with a McDonald's All American. Why is it that Swanigan is going to make an impact right away but anyone else who have good freshman won't see this same type of impact? Homer? I think so. And I think you're too caught up on what happened last year carrying it forward to this year without considering who people lost, who they return and who they bring in. So Purdue doesn't lose anyone outside of a PG, brings in some good talent and they're a contender? IU doesn't lose anyone of significant value, brings in some good talent and yet we're not going anywhere? Oh, ok. Again we had better wins and not as bad losses as Purdue did. Both teams are going to be good. I don't understand what's so hard to admit about that. Both teams aren't going to win the league and will be in the Top Four/Five of the league. Both are second tier teams.

PU made an impact last year? You were 21-13 and lost in the first round of the NCAA Tournament. Did IU make an impact then? We had better wins, not as bad of losses and one seed lower than you in the tournament and also lost in the first round. Not really that much of an impact from either team. MSU didn't make an impact? Did their Final Four just disappear? More homer comments. MSU returns Valentine who could be a 1st Team All B10 guy. They bring in a 5* forward who can replace Dawson and bring in an elite scorer in Harris. If Harris isn't an issue in the locker room, he'll be a huge get for them. Harris will take some pressure off of Valentine which will be a good thing for MSU.

I hope you're just trolling me here and don't honestly believe the things you wrote or can at least admit is very skewed to the homer perspective. If you think you've got a legit perspective, come to the main rivals basketball board and post this in a B10 thread. See how many people think your post holds any water, at all.I did it for you Methboy. Come share your opinion and see how many people are even close to your line of thinking...

http://forums.rivals.com/threads/another-b10-prediction-thread.145077/

If IU and UM are such a tough sell, then why has every ranking that's come out so far had BOTH teams in there? Oh I forgot, they're just doing it because we're popular basketball schools right? To drum up readers? GTFO.

Until a Tom Crean coached team can prove they can finish a season strong, I wouldn't put any money on them to be 1 or 2 in the conference.

The loss of HMP will be bigger than what people are saying. While he never lived up to potential, he did have some flashes last year. He would be a very good backup to Bryant. Also, Bryant will more than likely have to deal with a lot of foul trouble this year. Once he is out, your only hole in the roster has reappeared. The bigger bodies that are coming in this year will eat up whoever has to take his spot.

I will give Purdue the doubt on development and talent. Many teams had more experience than Purdue, but a team that at times put four freshman on the court at the time held almost every team in the B10 below their season average in scoring. IIRC the only two that scored above were Rutgers (still don't understand that one) and Wisconsin in the BTT.

Your last paragraph really doesn't hold too much merit. Most people picked us in the bottom 3 and we know how that ended up. Once again, this was a team with a lot of freshmen and sophomores. When writers discuss where teams are going to end up 8 months from now, it is to drum up readers. Now you GTFO.
 
Until a Tom Crean coached team can prove they can finish a season strong, I wouldn't put any money on them to be 1 or 2 in the conference.

The loss of HMP will be bigger than what people are saying. While he never lived up to potential, he did have some flashes last year. He would be a very good backup to Bryant. Also, Bryant will more than likely have to deal with a lot of foul trouble this year. Once he is out, your only hole in the roster has reappeared. The bigger bodies that are coming in this year will eat up whoever has to take his spot.

I will give Purdue the doubt on development and talent. Many teams had more experience than Purdue, but a team that at times put four freshman on the court at the time held almost every team in the B10 below their season average in scoring. IIRC the only two that scored above were Rutgers (still don't understand that one) and Wisconsin in the BTT.

Your last paragraph really doesn't hold too much merit. Most people picked us in the bottom 3 and we know how that ended up. Once again, this was a team with a lot of freshmen and sophomores. When writers discuss where teams are going to end up 8 months from now, it is to drum up readers. Now you GTFO.
Well they did win the conference outright a couple years ago when the conference was pretty strong.
 
Well they did win the conference outright a couple years ago when the conference was pretty strong.

Yes they did. They were an unlucky roll around the rim by Michigan to avoid a tie. Then they proceeded to lay an egg in the BTT, almost dropped a 1/9 game to Temple, and we all know how that Syracuse game went.
 
Yes they did. They were an unlucky roll around the rim by Michigan to avoid a tie. Then they proceeded to lay an egg in the BTT, almost dropped a 1/9 game to Temple, and we all know how that Syracuse game went.
Yeah but your comment was about Crean being able to finish a season strong within the conference. My point was he's done that.
 
That's fine you don't agree. I can follow your same logic and offer you a reason that Purdue shouldn't be in the second tier. Who were your best wins last year? IU twice, OSU and Iowa. Best win out of conference was NC State. No real contenders there. Now all of a sudden you're going to be at the top of the B10 and a Final Four contender? Pardon me for wanting to see it to believe it.

As for UM, they actually were playing pretty well toward the end of the year. They had some new players really step up and play well. They get LeVert and Walton back along with some big guy who is supposed to be pretty tough. I don't really understand the hesitation for them either. Yes they didn't play well at the beginning of the season, but neither did Purdue. UM returns almost as much as IU and Purdue. They will be a tough team. They may finish at the end of that second tier, but they certainly belong up there. It's not a coincidence that people have them ranked.

As for IU, I'll chalk it up as just being a homer as to why you can't even see IU in the second tier. IMO (along with plenty of others around the country) we'll have a very solid team. The fact that you point out development and talent as to why you can't see IU (specifically) at the top is just being a Purdue homer, nothing more. Consistency for IU specifically is accurate as we were pretty far from it last year. Defense would have been another reason for hesitation that I could be on board with. Taking a wait and see approach for those two reasons are valid. Development and talent? Absolutely laughable. We fill our only hole in our roster with a McDonald's All American. Why is it that Swanigan is going to make an impact right away but anyone else who have good freshman won't see this same type of impact? Homer? I think so. And I think you're too caught up on what happened last year carrying it forward to this year without considering who people lost, who they return and who they bring in. So Purdue doesn't lose anyone outside of a PG, brings in some good talent and they're a contender? IU doesn't lose anyone of significant value, brings in some good talent and yet we're not going anywhere? Oh, ok. Again we had better wins and not as bad losses as Purdue did. Both teams are going to be good. I don't understand what's so hard to admit about that. Both teams aren't going to win the league and will be in the Top Four/Five of the league. Both are second tier teams.

PU made an impact last year? You were 21-13 and lost in the first round of the NCAA Tournament. Did IU make an impact then? We had better wins, not as bad of losses and one seed lower than you in the tournament and also lost in the first round. Not really that much of an impact from either team. MSU didn't make an impact? Did their Final Four just disappear? More homer comments. MSU returns Valentine who could be a 1st Team All B10 guy. They bring in a 5* forward who can replace Dawson and bring in an elite scorer in Harris. If Harris isn't an issue in the locker room, he'll be a huge get for them. Harris will take some pressure off of Valentine which will be a good thing for MSU.

I hope you're just trolling me here and don't honestly believe the things you wrote or can at least admit is very skewed to the homer perspective. If you think you've got a legit perspective, come to the main rivals basketball board and post this in a B10 thread. See how many people think your post holds any water, at all.I did it for you Methboy. Come share your opinion and see how many people are even close to your line of thinking...

http://forums.rivals.com/threads/another-b10-prediction-thread.145077/

If IU and UM are such a tough sell, then why has every ranking that's come out so far had BOTH teams in there? Oh I forgot, they're just doing it because we're popular basketball schools right? To drum up readers? GTFO.

Let's keep this simple, and just focus in on IU and UM for the moment. We can leave Purdue initially, so you don't get confused and start calling things "homer". You seem to justify your position based a lot on what others say, but I think that is a flawed approach, especially in a basketball forum such as this. You need to make your own judgments, and I can understand if your judgments are different than mine. I prize independent thinking and rarely find it among those who parrot what the talking heads say.

UM finished 9th in the conference, losing most of their BIG games. They finished up losing 8 of 11 games at the end of the year. That is not playing well at the end of the year. I don't know where you get that opinion you stated as your lead argument on this matter. They had some kids "step up" because somebody gets the basketball and has to shoot it. The kids playing weren't terrible by any means, but they weren't great either. They might return as much as IU or Purdue, but they return a 9th place team, so WTF? Furthermore, I don't mean to imply they can't contend or improve next year. They might, but nothing has shown me they can. I just don't buy the hype for them. There is nothing to justify a top tier prediction, except that UM fans buy a lot of junk that says UM is great. Trust me on this, they are some of the neediest fans of any BIG team.

As for IU, you got to be kidding me, right? You ask me why I discount your 5-star while promoting mine? Well, I didn't do either. Did I mention Purdue's 5-star recruit, even once in my post? I think you have a dialog going in your head, and responded to that. I just contend that IU does not return a team that can be a contender. I don't disrespect your 5-star. I just don't think he'll make the impact you imagine.

Let's break this down. Purdue finishes in 3rd place, and returns almost the same team this year, but adds a 5-star center. Maryland, UW, MSU, & OSU all add 5-star players. IU returns a 7th place team and adds a 5-star player. What makes you think your 5-star player is going to boost you over all the teams in front of you next year who recruited as well or better than IU did? Again, I am not buying the hype. IU has not shown me anything to think they will be a second tier contender next year.

Please re-watch the two Purdue-IU games from last year and you will quickly see the difference in the teams. It goes deeper than what shows on the score board. In the second game there were some great heroics by some of the IU players, but even that can't overcome fundamental problems with the way the IU team plays basketball. You return that same team. Adding a freshman center, and removing HMP in either of those game would not have changed the outcome, and the defeats would have been worse. You will note, so far my contention about these games does not require any puffery about Purdue's incoming freshmen class, the two best basketball players in the state of Indiana. I just don't see how IU or UM can be placed in the same level as MSU, Purdue and MU. Heck, given OSU's spectacular recruiting, I would place them ahead of IU for next year, if we were just going on rankings of individual players.

By the way, I see that like many of your basketball players, you confuse Meth with Math.

:cool:
 
  • Like
Reactions: BoilerDeac
Let's keep this simple, and just focus in on IU and UM for the moment. We can leave Purdue initially, so you don't get confused and start calling things "homer". You seem to justify your position based a lot on what others say, but I think that is a flawed approach, especially in a basketball forum such as this. You need to make your own judgments, and I can understand if your judgments are different than mine. I prize independent thinking and rarely find it among those who parrot what the talking heads say.

UM finished 9th in the conference, losing most of their BIG games. They finished up losing 8 of 11 games at the end of the year. That is not playing well at the end of the year. I don't know where you get that opinion you stated as your lead argument on this matter. They had some kids "step up" because somebody gets the basketball and has to shoot it. The kids playing weren't terrible by any means, but they weren't great either. They might return as much as IU or Purdue, but they return a 9th place team, so WTF? Furthermore, I don't mean to imply they can't contend or improve next year. They might, but nothing has shown me they can. I just don't buy the hype for them. There is nothing to justify a top tier prediction, except that UM fans buy a lot of junk that says UM is great. Trust me on this, they are some of the neediest fans of any BIG team.

As for IU, you got to be kidding me, right? You ask me why I discount your 5-star while promoting mine? Well, I didn't do either. Did I mention Purdue's 5-star recruit, even once in my post? I think you have a dialog going in your head, and responded to that. I just contend that IU does not return a team that can be a contender. I don't disrespect your 5-star. I just don't think he'll make the impact you imagine.

Let's break this down. Purdue finishes in 3rd place, and returns almost the same team this year, but adds a 5-star center. Maryland, UW, MSU, & OSU all add 5-star players. IU returns a 7th place team and adds a 5-star player. What makes you think your 5-star player is going to boost you over all the teams in front of you next year who recruited as well or better than IU did? Again, I am not buying the hype. IU has not shown me anything to think they will be a second tier contender next year.

Please re-watch the two Purdue-IU games from last year and you will quickly see the difference in the teams. It goes deeper than what shows on the score board. In the second game there were some great heroics by some of the IU players, but even that can't overcome fundamental problems with the way the IU team plays basketball. You return that same team. Adding a freshman center, and removing HMP in either of those game would not have changed the outcome, and the defeats would have been worse. You will note, so far my contention about these games does not require any puffery about Purdue's incoming freshmen class, the two best basketball players in the state of Indiana. I just don't see how IU or UM can be placed in the same level as MSU, Purdue and MU. Heck, given OSU's spectacular recruiting, I would place them ahead of IU for next year, if we were just going on rankings of individual players.

By the way, I see that like many of your basketball players, you confuse Meth with Math.

:cool:
The bold statement is easy to answer. If you can't or couldn't see the disadvantage we were in for the majority of the year without a legit big man, then there isn't any reason to discuss this with you as you aren't smart enough to grasp the concept. Is it just everyone is being a homer saying that the only thing IU was missing last year was a legit big man? What did we get? A legit big man. Weird, huh? Crean's roster mismanagement cost of several games last year including one to you guys.

The second par t I'll respond to is the game in Bloomington. Yes you won the game but lets not act like it was a similar game to the one at Purdue. It was a 3 point game with a few seconds left and that's without a legit big man. Bryant will be an upgrade from Perea from day one.

Again, come over to the main board. Express your views. You had a fellow Purdue troll do so and he didn't get very far. There are fans from all teams there. Plenty of people who will look at Purdue and IU objectively (which you're incapable of doing). Don't you find it odd that I'm saying BOTH teams will be good next year (regardless of the huge question marks Purdue has and IU for that matter) and you are incapable of even thinking IU will be good? Even with pretty much everyone else around the country outside of West Laffy can see that IU will have a very solid team next year. I stand by my comments of Maryland being on a level of their own followed by a group of MSU, IU, UM and Purdue.
 
The bold statement is easy to answer. If you can't or couldn't see the disadvantage we were in for the majority of the year without a legit big man, then there isn't any reason to discuss this with you as you aren't smart enough to grasp the concept. Is it just everyone is being a homer saying that the only thing IU was missing last year was a legit big man? What did we get? A legit big man. Weird, huh? Crean's roster mismanagement cost of several games last year including one to you guys.

The second par t I'll respond to is the game in Bloomington. Yes you won the game but lets not act like it was a similar game to the one at Purdue. It was a 3 point game with a few seconds left and that's without a legit big man. Bryant will be an upgrade from Perea from day one.

Again, come over to the main board. Express your views. You had a fellow Purdue troll do so and he didn't get very far. There are fans from all teams there. Plenty of people who will look at Purdue and IU objectively (which you're incapable of doing). Don't you find it odd that I'm saying BOTH teams will be good next year (regardless of the huge question marks Purdue has and IU for that matter) and you are incapable of even thinking IU will be good? Even with pretty much everyone else around the country outside of West Laffy can see that IU will have a very solid team next year. I stand by my comments of Maryland being on a level of their own followed by a group of MSU, IU, UM and Purdue.
It's really hard to predict how good IU will be because their season is so dependent on Bryant, and I can only guess how ready Bryant will be as a freshman.

Likewise, it is hard to predict how good Purdue will be until we know if someone will step up and thrive at the point guard position. There are a lot of candidates and I can imagine any one of several of them emerging, but until someone does it is hard to know if the pg position will hold Purdue back from contending for the conference title.
 
It's really hard to predict how good IU will be because their season is so dependent on Bryant, and I can only guess how ready Bryant will be as a freshman.

Likewise, it is hard to predict how good Purdue will be until we know if someone will step up and thrive at the point guard position. There are a lot of candidates and I can imagine any one of several of them emerging, but until someone does it is hard to know if the pg position will hold Purdue back from contending for the conference title.
I'm not sure a solid PG will be enough to overcome Maryland over the course of the season either way (not sure anyone will be able to). They are going to be nasty. I do think Purdue has less question marks than IU does. I don't think Bryant has to be an All B10 type player as a freshman. He just needs to play defense without fouling, rebound and be able to score in one on one situations. I get the big question there is can he stay on the court. It's been done before, so I wouldn't be shocked to see it happen. I know there will be games where he's in foul trouble, too.

Either way,
 
Let's keep this simple, and just focus in on IU and UM for the moment. We can leave Purdue initially, so you don't get confused and start calling things "homer". You seem to justify your position based a lot on what others say, but I think that is a flawed approach, especially in a basketball forum such as this. You need to make your own judgments, and I can understand if your judgments are different than mine. I prize independent thinking and rarely find it among those who parrot what the talking heads say.

UM finished 9th in the conference, losing most of their BIG games. They finished up losing 8 of 11 games at the end of the year. That is not playing well at the end of the year. I don't know where you get that opinion you stated as your lead argument on this matter. They had some kids "step up" because somebody gets the basketball and has to shoot it. The kids playing weren't terrible by any means, but they weren't great either. They might return as much as IU or Purdue, but they return a 9th place team, so WTF? Furthermore, I don't mean to imply they can't contend or improve next year. They might, but nothing has shown me they can. I just don't buy the hype for them. There is nothing to justify a top tier prediction, except that UM fans buy a lot of junk that says UM is great. Trust me on this, they are some of the neediest fans of any BIG team.

As for IU, you got to be kidding me, right? You ask me why I discount your 5-star while promoting mine? Well, I didn't do either. Did I mention Purdue's 5-star recruit, even once in my post? I think you have a dialog going in your head, and responded to that. I just contend that IU does not return a team that can be a contender. I don't disrespect your 5-star. I just don't think he'll make the impact you imagine.

Let's break this down. Purdue finishes in 3rd place, and returns almost the same team this year, but adds a 5-star center. Maryland, UW, MSU, & OSU all add 5-star players. IU returns a 7th place team and adds a 5-star player. What makes you think your 5-star player is going to boost you over all the teams in front of you next year who recruited as well or better than IU did? Again, I am not buying the hype. IU has not shown me anything to think they will be a second tier contender next year.

Please re-watch the two Purdue-IU games from last year and you will quickly see the difference in the teams. It goes deeper than what shows on the score board. In the second game there were some great heroics by some of the IU players, but even that can't overcome fundamental problems with the way the IU team plays basketball. You return that same team. Adding a freshman center, and removing HMP in either of those game would not have changed the outcome, and the defeats would have been worse. You will note, so far my contention about these games does not require any puffery about Purdue's incoming freshmen class, the two best basketball players in the state of Indiana. I just don't see how IU or UM can be placed in the same level as MSU, Purdue and MU. Heck, given OSU's spectacular recruiting, I would place them ahead of IU for next year, if we were just going on rankings of individual players.

By the way, I see that like many of your basketball players, you confuse Meth with Math.

:cool:


Please re-watch the two Purdue-IU games from last year and you will quickly see the difference in the teams. It goes deeper than what shows on the score board.

This^^. Yogi was the best player on the floor. He kept IU alive...the kid is a hell of a college player. Purdue, as a unit, was superior.

Also, Bryant is a 4 star by both ESPN and Rivals.
 
I'm not sure a solid PG will be enough to overcome Maryland over the course of the season either way (not sure anyone will be able to). They are going to be nasty. I do think Purdue has less question marks than IU does. I don't think Bryant has to be an All B10 type player as a freshman. He just needs to play defense without fouling, rebound and be able to score in one on one situations. I get the big question there is can he stay on the court. It's been done before, so I wouldn't be shocked to see it happen. I know there will be games where he's in foul trouble, too.

Either way,
I don't know if solid point guard play is enough to overcome Maryland either, but it is probably the single biggest wild card right now in knowing how good Purdue will be. It's hard to imagine Purdue even in the championship discussion is point guard play isn't at least adequate. On the other hand, I really like how Purdue is positioned, 2-5. If someone surprises at point guard, I think Purdue will be greatly improved over last season and a legitimate conference title threat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SNU0821
I'm not sure a solid PG will be enough to overcome Maryland over the course of the season either way (not sure anyone will be able to). They are going to be nasty. I do think Purdue has less question marks than IU does. I don't think Bryant has to be an All B10 type player as a freshman. He just needs to play defense without fouling, rebound and be able to score in one on one situations. I get the big question there is can he stay on the court. It's been done before, so I wouldn't be shocked to see it happen. I know there will be games where he's in foul trouble, too.

Either way,
I don't know a ton about Bryant but I get the feeling IU fans are expecting too much from him. He's the #27 player in his class, not #15 (Zeller) nor #8 (Vonleh).

Last year's 25-29 - Kam Chatman, Keita Bates-Diop, Joel Berry, Grayson Allen, Devin Booker

None of those guys appeared ready to start and play heavy minutes except maybe Booker (and it's hard to tell what his contribution would have beeen if he had).
 
I don't know a ton about Bryant but I get the feeling IU fans are expecting too much from him. He's the #27 player in his class, not #15 (Zeller) nor #8 (Vonleh).

Last year's 25-29 - Kam Chatman, Keita Bates-Diop, Joel Berry, Grayson Allen, Devin Booker

None of those guys appeared ready to start and play heavy minutes except maybe Booker (and it's hard to tell what his contribution would have beeen if he had).
We don't need a ton from him. Like I said earlier, defense, rebounding and the occasional basket in a one on one situation. He doesn't have to be Zeller for us. We have enough scoring 1-4, that should take some of the pressure off of him. He will be expected to produce on the defensive end immediately, so I agree with you if that's what you were meaning. Offensively though, I don't think we're expecting too much.

Grayson Allen proved to be a pretty damn good player. I think he would have been able to get some minutes on most teams outside of UK and a few others. Booker was pretty damn good as well. KBD had flashes. I expect he'll be a tough one this year. Biggest disappointment was Chatman. He looked completely lost from day one.
 
Let's keep this simple, and just focus in on IU and UM for the moment. We can leave Purdue initially, so you don't get confused and start calling things "homer". You seem to justify your position based a lot on what others say, but I think that is a flawed approach, especially in a basketball forum such as this. You need to make your own judgments, and I can understand if your judgments are different than mine. I prize independent thinking and rarely find it among those who parrot what the talking heads say.

UM finished 9th in the conference, losing most of their BIG games. They finished up losing 8 of 11 games at the end of the year. That is not playing well at the end of the year. I don't know where you get that opinion you stated as your lead argument on this matter. They had some kids "step up" because somebody gets the basketball and has to shoot it. The kids playing weren't terrible by any means, but they weren't great either. They might return as much as IU or Purdue, but they return a 9th place team, so WTF? Furthermore, I don't mean to imply they can't contend or improve next year. They might, but nothing has shown me they can. I just don't buy the hype for them. There is nothing to justify a top tier prediction, except that UM fans buy a lot of junk that says UM is great. Trust me on this, they are some of the neediest fans of any BIG team.

As for IU, you got to be kidding me, right? You ask me why I discount your 5-star while promoting mine? Well, I didn't do either. Did I mention Purdue's 5-star recruit, even once in my post? I think you have a dialog going in your head, and responded to that. I just contend that IU does not return a team that can be a contender. I don't disrespect your 5-star. I just don't think he'll make the impact you imagine.

Let's break this down. Purdue finishes in 3rd place, and returns almost the same team this year, but adds a 5-star center. Maryland, UW, MSU, & OSU all add 5-star players. IU returns a 7th place team and adds a 5-star player. What makes you think your 5-star player is going to boost you over all the teams in front of you next year who recruited as well or better than IU did? Again, I am not buying the hype. IU has not shown me anything to think they will be a second tier contender next year.

Please re-watch the two Purdue-IU games from last year and you will quickly see the difference in the teams. It goes deeper than what shows on the score board. In the second game there were some great heroics by some of the IU players, but even that can't overcome fundamental problems with the way the IU team plays basketball. You return that same team. Adding a freshman center, and removing HMP in either of those game would not have changed the outcome, and the defeats would have been worse. You will note, so far my contention about these games does not require any puffery about Purdue's incoming freshmen class, the two best basketball players in the state of Indiana. I just don't see how IU or UM can be placed in the same level as MSU, Purdue and MU. Heck, given OSU's spectacular recruiting, I would place them ahead of IU for next year, if we were just going on rankings of individual players.

By the way, I see that like many of your basketball players, you confuse Meth with Math.

:cool:
Oh, one last question. Your whole logic revolves around bringing back the same players along with bringing in some good talent, and linking that to where they finished the prior year. Right? You say UM returns a lot of people from a 9th place team or whatever. IU returns everyone from a 7th place team or whatever. So how did that same Purdue team that finished close to the bottom, two years ago, return a good portion of their team, adding in a few good pieces magically jump to a tie for third? Pretty much contradicts your logic. You returned Hammons, Davis, Smotherman, Stephens, and Scott while bringing in Haas, Edwards and Mathias.

Hmmmmm. Me thinks your whole thought process is a bunch of crap. Lets face it. You don't want to think IU could be good. You don't want to think UM could be good. UM played the majority of the B10 season without their two best players. Yeah, real tough to think they'll be much improved with those guys back. We've gone over IU, everyone else around the country who understands basketball sees what I see. It's pretty much ONLY Purdue fans who disagree (real shocker). It's funny you can't see how dumb your post is. It's nothing more than what you hope happens.
 
Oh, one last question. Your whole logic revolves around bringing back the same players along with bringing in some good talent, and linking that to where they finished the prior year. Right? You say UM returns a lot of people from a 9th place team or whatever. IU returns everyone from a 7th place team or whatever. So how did that same Purdue team that finished close to the bottom, two years ago, return a good portion of their team, adding in a few good pieces magically jump to a tie for third? Pretty much contradicts your logic. You returned Hammons, Davis, Smotherman, Stephens, and Scott while bringing in Haas, Edwards and Mathias.

Hmmmmm. Me thinks your whole thought process is a bunch of crap. Lets face it. You don't want to think IU could be good. You don't want to think UM could be good. UM played the majority of the B10 season without their two best players. Yeah, real tough to think they'll be much improved with those guys back. We've gone over IU, everyone else around the country who understands basketball sees what I see. It's pretty much ONLY Purdue fans who disagree (real shocker). It's funny you can't see how dumb your post is. It's nothing more than what you hope happens.
Well first off SNU, I really don't think anyone from here was over on IU's or UM's forums this time last year saying that Purdue was a sure thing to tie for third. If they had they would have been rightly laughed off those boards.

Second, I work with a lot of different people representing a lot of different colleges from UM to tO$U to MSU to SMU to ND to KY to even IU and not one of them expects IU to be in the top tier (top three.) Most think that IU will be better potentially, but there were more holes than just a big man and one 4-star freshman is not going to fix that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PurdueInFW
Well first off SNU, I really don't think anyone from here was over on IU's or UM's forums this time last year saying that Purdue was a sure thing to tie for third. If they had they would have been rightly laughed off those boards.

Second, I work with a lot of different people representing a lot of different colleges from UM to tO$U to MSU to SMU to ND to KY to even IU and not one of them expects IU to be in the top tier (top three.) Most think that IU will be better potentially, but there were more holes than just a big man and one 4-star freshman is not going to fix that.
That's fine. Again, come to the main rivals board. Plenty of fans from all teams are there. The majority (including Purdue fans) seem to be closer to what I believe compared to Methboy. I started a prediction thread on that board. Only one person (PU homer) had Purdue higher than 3rd and IU lower than 5th. Most had both teams neck and neck.
 
Oh, one last question. Your whole logic revolves around bringing back the same players along with bringing in some good talent, and linking that to where they finished the prior year. Right? You say UM returns a lot of people from a 9th place team or whatever. IU returns everyone from a 7th place team or whatever. So how did that same Purdue team that finished close to the bottom, two years ago, return a good portion of their team, adding in a few good pieces magically jump to a tie for third? Pretty much contradicts your logic. You returned Hammons, Davis, Smotherman, Stephens, and Scott while bringing in Haas, Edwards and Mathias.

Hmmmmm. Me thinks your whole thought process is a bunch of crap. Lets face it. You don't want to think IU could be good. You don't want to think UM could be good. UM played the majority of the B10 season without their two best players. Yeah, real tough to think they'll be much improved with those guys back. We've gone over IU, everyone else around the country who understands basketball sees what I see. It's pretty much ONLY Purdue fans who disagree (real shocker). It's funny you can't see how dumb your post is. It's nothing more than what you hope happens.
Lots of challenges here. Let's talk about UM first. I didn't say UM can't or wouldn't compete. I just said they have shown me nothing to make me think they will. There will always be teams that jump up higher than expected, and those that disappoint. That is why they play the games. Let me remind you that what we are talking about in this thread is expectations, right? I mean I might win the Power Ball Lottery, but I don't expect to.

My expectation for UM does not put them in the top half of the BIG next year. They played poorly at the end of last year, and by the end of the year, that was even with one of their injured starters returned. Their recruiting was not that great. They bring in a 6'9" PF from Germany. Whoopee! That was their only commitment for 2015 as far as I can tell.

Look, I just don't buy into the hype around UM. Those fans will buy any publication that spouts "UM = Good". If I were trying to sell some crap sports paper, I would sure as heck include some UM=Good fiction just to make some money. That is all it is. Money talks right now, but most of it is straight BS.

You seem very proud to have found a chink in my argument with the performance of the Purdue team last year, so let's look at that. When Purdue jumped from last to third, it was with the addition of 3 players that moved into starting roles. Purdue had a completely different team than we had the year before. I don't see that happening to any of the better teams in our discussion except MSU and OSU. Those two teams will be hard to predict because they have so many new and very talented players.

On the other hand, UM and IU return much of their same components from last year. IU exchanges Bryant for HMP - not much change there as far as I am concerned. UM bring some miscellaneous German guy into a squad that underperformed most of last year. Neither of these two situations raise my expectations of these teams performing better than mid-league next year.

Last year, Purdue finishes the BIG at 12-6, IU at 9-9. That is a significant difference in the respective records. Once again, look at the Purdue IU games. Even the game at AssHall was not as close as the score. Did IU ever lead in that game? If you recall, Jon Octeus fouled out with almost 3 minutes to go, so the Purdue team that beat the IU team at the end of the game is the same one coming back this year. Also, you might also recall that HMP was a more important part of the IU game than you seem to think. Most of your ilk on Peegs dismiss HMP as a lousy player. That is patently wrong. IU had early success going inside with Perea. That is something Bryant might not be able to accomplish next year.

All in all, your bluster filled arguments don't seem to have the substance to push me off my position. I still think next year is a 3 team race: Maryland, Purdue, and MSU. The only reason I put MSU in there is because of Izzo's track record of building teams, and knowing that he has the talented components of a good team next year. Neither IU nor UM have made any significant changes to rosters that finished in the back half of the BIG, so no dice that they miraculously become competitive.

:cool:
 
Lots of challenges here. Let's talk about UM first. I didn't say UM can't or wouldn't compete. I just said they have shown me nothing to make me think they will. There will always be teams that jump up higher than expected, and those that disappoint. That is why they play the games. Let me remind you that what we are talking about in this thread is expectations, right? I mean I might win the Power Ball Lottery, but I don't expect to.

My expectation for UM does not put them in the top half of the BIG next year. They played poorly at the end of last year, and by the end of the year, that was even with one of their injured starters returned. Their recruiting was not that great. They bring in a 6'9" PF from Germany. Whoopee! That was their only commitment for 2015 as far as I can tell.

Look, I just don't buy into the hype around UM. Those fans will buy any publication that spouts "UM = Good". If I were trying to sell some crap sports paper, I would sure as heck include some UM=Good fiction just to make some money. That is all it is. Money talks right now, but most of it is straight BS.

You seem very proud to have found a chink in my argument with the performance of the Purdue team last year, so let's look at that. When Purdue jumped from last to third, it was with the addition of 3 players that moved into starting roles. Purdue had a completely different team than we had the year before. I don't see that happening to any of the better teams in our discussion except MSU and OSU. Those two teams will be hard to predict because they have so many new and very talented players.

On the other hand, UM and IU return much of their same components from last year. IU exchanges Bryant for HMP - not much change there as far as I am concerned. UM bring some miscellaneous German guy into a squad that underperformed most of last year. Neither of these two situations raise my expectations of these teams performing better than mid-league next year.

Last year, Purdue finishes the BIG at 12-6, IU at 9-9. That is a significant difference in the respective records. Once again, look at the Purdue IU games. Even the game at AssHall was not as close as the score. Did IU ever lead in that game? If you recall, Jon Octeus fouled out with almost 3 minutes to go, so the Purdue team that beat the IU team at the end of the game is the same one coming back this year. Also, you might also recall that HMP was a more important part of the IU game than you seem to think. Most of your ilk on Peegs dismiss HMP as a lousy player. That is patently wrong. IU had early success going inside with Perea. That is something Bryant might not be able to accomplish next year.

All in all, your bluster filled arguments don't seem to have the substance to push me off my position. I still think next year is a 3 team race: Maryland, Purdue, and MSU. The only reason I put MSU in there is because of Izzo's track record of building teams, and knowing that he has the talented components of a good team next year. Neither IU nor UM have made any significant changes to rosters that finished in the back half of the BIG, so no dice that they miraculously become competitive.

:cool:
Lol. Alright bro. There is so much wrong with your posts it's just insane. Why don't you post your thoughts on the main board. See what type of response you get. I would doubt anyone really agrees. Hell, even the Purdue posters over there acknowledge that both UM and IU will have pretty tough teams next year. But I know you wouldn't stick around because deep down you know you'd get laughed off the board.
 
The second par t I'll respond to is the game in Bloomington. Yes you won the game but lets not act like it was a similar game to the one at Purdue. It was a 3 point game with a few seconds left and that's without a legit big man. Bryant will be an upgrade from Perea from day one.
The 4* 6'9" freshman Bryant will be an upgrade from the 4* 6'8" junior Perea? Perea was the only reason IU stayed in the game the first half. He scored 8 of your first 13 points. After he picked up his 2nd foul at the 12 minute mark, you guys scored a whopping 13 more points to finish the half. He finished with 10 points and 2 blocks. Your new 4* won't average those numbers. We played over 1/4 of the game without Octeus without any drop off. The game was at IU! We add the 2 best Indiana high school players to our team. You replace one 4* undersized big with another 4* undersized big.
 
Well fellows, it's been fun. I am taking a one week well needed vacation, and won't be able to help SNU see the light. You will have to cover for me. You all have a nice 4th of July, and remember, be kind to your neighbors. Some of them are not as fortunate, lucky or as bright as those here.

:cool:
 
Bryant is the same size as J Taylor. How is a guy the size of our fourth largest player plugging gaping hole in IUs defense? A tall person does not fix the weakness IU had on defense. They need to learn how to play defense in general. It doesn't matter who is in the middle. If no one on the perimeter can keep a guy in front of them, the center is kind of a moot point. I believe they were the worst defensive team (according to KenPom) to ever making the tournament. Mostly the same team back, I doubt defense impotence that much if they never could play it before
 
The 4* 6'9" freshman Bryant will be an upgrade from the 4* 6'8" junior Perea? Perea was the only reason IU stayed in the game the first half. He scored 8 of your first 13 points. After he picked up his 2nd foul at the 12 minute mark, you guys scored a whopping 13 more points to finish the half. He finished with 10 points and 2 blocks. Your new 4* won't average those numbers. We played over 1/4 of the game without Octeus without any drop off. The game was at IU! We add the 2 best Indiana high school players to our team. You replace one 4* undersized big with another 4* undersized big.
You're wasting your time using facts like that. Biggie alone is going to school Bryant let alone what AJH/Haas will do to him.

SNU has the habit of only seeing what he wants to see. I mean don't you realize that by SNU's perception Bryant is going to come in and average 30 points a game and be an unstoppable defensive force in the paint from day one?

IU may beat us when we play them at the hall of calls, but it won't be because of Bryant. There is nothing about this kid that suggests he'll be any better than the similar player Perea (as you noted). But it is funny to watch how quickly SNU will discount our players but think IU's are basically "all world".

I foresee a similar outcome for IU next year, they'll do well pre-B1G but then be middle of the pack and barely squeak in to the tourney. Basically doing just enough to keep crean around.
 
  • Like
Reactions: West James
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT