That's some wild imagination you got there... Inside the made up of world of a Purdue fan.. that's a crazy world.
Big Ten Player of the Year- 2 Man Race
- Thread starter IMSKRONG
- Start date
Winning the B10 championship is a big deal. That's why we play the games. Don't minimize it saying only 1 thing matters. When we are B10 champs again....every team in the B10 wanted to be where we are.
But yes, winning the NCAAT is a biggest deal, rare.....and I hope to see the Boilers get in the FF again and play for another NC. Winning a 2nd NC banner would be icing on the cake & a great accomplishment for what has already been a wonderful season.
I think Boiler Andy is dead on in his evaluation of this thread. The fact that you are still pushing posts here is the definitive action that tells me you are looking for some sort of validation. Probably not for your team or for TJD, but just validation of "your importance" by seeing how long you can keep this thread going. Now it has reversed, and the posters here are just playing you to see how long you will keep it up and how much of a fool you are. Yes, harsh words, but that is what is happening here.
lol. If we wanted this thread to end, we would just roll our eyes and say, "We agree with you. IU basketball is relevant in places outside of southern Indiana. We Purdue fans admit that the dominant recuiting over the decades has returned you to the heights of the Blue Bloods."
And you would go away for awhile, all puffed up because big brother admits IU basketball is relevant, and by extension, you are relevant. IU fans coming here craving Purdue fan's affirmation has been a traditional part of the basketball season for as long as these boards have been active.
But people here won't lie just to make little brother feel better about himself. And we obviously like to be amused by keeping these threads alive. I just did my part.
I'm just confused where you built your narratives? You just make it up in your head? Winning it all was never a thought of fans. There is only 1 5 star on the team. I'm really confused I guess why Purdue fans seem to make up these narratives? I guess to have a figurative chip on your shoulder? I don't know many Indiana fans who thought Purdue would suck. Most I seen had them finishing Top 4-5 in the B1G. Everyone just had the same question: can Edey play 30+ minutes and how will Smith/Loyer perform. Those were fair questions to begin the year. And Indiana, despite injuries, aren't far from where they were expected to be.
Yea we know how y'all want people to actually care about a useless Helms title.. no one does. Only Purdue fans. The Helms title is such a joke that Purdue wasn't handed a Helms title until 11 years after the 31-32 season. Wooden wasn't given POY until a year later. And we are supposed to take any of that seriously? Who did Purdue have to play for that? Oh no one? Why did it take 11 years to decide? Oh right... Because the Helms Foundation wasn't founded until 4 years after Purdue was retroactively given a title and it still took another 7 years for the Helms Foundation to give it to them. So who doesn't know their history?
It's amazing that you could Google all that, but you couldn't figure out last years All-American team included 3 players from the B1G.
I look forward to our 2nd NC.
I believe in CMP and the Purdue program.
Can you please go back to your job @ McDonald's. If not, you are @ least contributing to the sad reputation of all the iu gap tooth's with the content your post's here.
2nd title???!!!???
Oh lordy, not the Helms Championships picked by one guy, that in 1943 chose the 1931/1932 Boilers as that year's champ.
WAIT -- the Helms Championships count??!!??
That means that Indiana now has 8 National Championships! All hail the 1953, 1976, and 1981 Helms National Champion Indiana Hoosiers!
So, 8 national titles to 1.
Wow. That's a lot of digging for someone who doesn't care. lol
Want to know who else cares? Kansas.
But you aren't Indiana. So what are you bragging about?
As I said in a previous post, some IU fans seek personal validation from a winning IU basketball team -- and from the attention of Purdue fans.
Laugh? People in southern Indiana, I suppose. I wouldn't know. The rest of the world recognizes Kansas as a blue blood because of those titles.
Why is it just stated that the 1940 NCAA championship was a national championship? The NIT was the premier tournament at that time and was until the early 1960s. If you want to claim post 1960 NCAAs as national championships, that seems fair. But prior to that it was not accepted as the National Championship. The NIT was the more open tournament and the NCAA did not allow many Eastern and Midwestern independents, at that time many of the East Coast and Midwestern schools were often religiously affiliated, to play. The present status is being backdated improperly.
The NIT was held entirely in NYC at that time. It was, and still is, the media center of America. There is not a college basketball telecast from MSG that does not call it the most important arena in the country. That was where the focus was. To put things in perspective, the NCAA final game in the early 1960s when Loyola of Chicago won was not even on tv in Chicago. That is how important the game was viewed.
It is fair to say that IU has won 5 NCAA championships. It is not OK to say that they have won 5 national championships.
The NIT was held entirely in NYC at that time. It was, and still is, the media center of America. There is not a college basketball telecast from MSG that does not call it the most important arena in the country. That was where the focus was. To put things in perspective, the NCAA final game in the early 1960s when Loyola of Chicago won was not even on tv in Chicago. That is how important the game was viewed.
It is fair to say that IU has won 5 NCAA championships. It is not OK to say that they have won 5 national championships.
Last edited:
Also, there is this claim that a Helms title is not recognized as valid because it was voted. Kansas and NC recognize theirs and I do not see IU fans going there and telling them that title does not count. Well, voted titles were how things were done back then. You cannot retroactively claim the past is invalid because things are done differently now.
Prior to the BCS, all football titles were voted. In some years there were split titles. I will not hear from IU fans that a voted title is not valid. If so, then they can offer to prove that they go to ND, USC, Army, Texas, Penn State and Oklahoma boards and tell them that their football national championships are not valid because they were voted. Let's see that reaction and how those boards react.
I know that is a lot to ask for logical consistency from this group but that does not make their declarations valid just because they said so.
Prior to the BCS, all football titles were voted. In some years there were split titles. I will not hear from IU fans that a voted title is not valid. If so, then they can offer to prove that they go to ND, USC, Army, Texas, Penn State and Oklahoma boards and tell them that their football national championships are not valid because they were voted. Let's see that reaction and how those boards react.
I know that is a lot to ask for logical consistency from this group but that does not make their declarations valid just because they said so.
Because the NCAA runs college basketball, so when the NCAA created their own tournament, that became the national championship, and who won it, were the national champions. And some teams I believe played in both tourneys.
No those people get laughed at. If you think anyone other than those fan bases take a joke like a Helms title seriously, you'd be lying to yourself. Whether on the old ESPN or CBSSPORTS comment sections of even Twitter, no one took that garbage seriously. And Kansas fans were always mocked for trying to claim them as anything. Why would you expect me to take it seriously when Purdue was named national champs 11 years after the fact?
No, the NCAA runs college basketball now. They did not run college basketball THEN. THEN is what we are discussing. You are correct that some teams played in both tournaments. CCNY is the only team to win both in the same year. However, the early NCAA only allowed conference champions to play in it. It did not allow independents. Independents were most of the East Coast schools and religiously affiliated schools. They often had very good teams.
The NIT was open to conference members and independents. Thus it was able to attract schools that the NCAA was not interested in. It had a wider and more open set of competitors. So why would a tournament with a better group of competitors be considered inferior to the one with a lesser set? That makes no sense. Also, since many of those independent schools were Catholic, anti-Catholicism played a role in the NCAA at that time. So if you are happy to celebrate the bigoted tournament, have at it. But you are contradicting history.
Which tournament got the most press and radio coverage back then? Here's a hint: it wasn't close and it wasn't the NCAA. The first NCAA final was played in the old gym at Northwestern U in Evanston. The NIT was played in Madison Square Garden. Which do you think had more interest by the general public? The answer is clear; and not close.
Learn some history.
Last edited:
It's gotten hard to take you seriously when you make these statements. Who are these "people"?
This from the guy who says IU is a blue blood, but Duke is not. Hard to take you seriously when you use the NCAA tournament as your measuring stick. Duke's history in the NCAA is far better than IU's.
So the determination of "fact" is whatever you declare just because or whether some people on an old ESPN comment section or CBSSPORTS.COM comment section wrote something. And this is to be taken seriously? I do not know anyone that mocks Kansas' claim. And who cares if a person historically ignorant mocks a fact? The fact is nonetheless true and only betrays the ignorance of the mocker.
Keep going, support the historical bigots. Their level of ignorance matches yours.
Well the NCAA did run college basketball at the time, there just wasn't an NCAA regulated championship tourney in 1938 when the NIT was invented. And yes, the NIT was more "prestigious" with it being held in New York but it didn't last long. And the NCAA champion was still likely considered the best team in the nation. There is a ton of history on the that maybe you should go read about. Whether you like it or not, NCAA tournament winners are and always be considered THE national champions. Not NIT winners, not retroactive helms titles.
The determination that the majority of people I've interacted with in my life, find helms titles to be completely worthless. The only people who care about them that I've ever seen are a small minority of Kansas fans and a majority of Purdue fans.
Let me get it straight: the majority of people that you have interacted with in your life determine reality? Really, are they mostly IU fans? Might that bias perhaps color their knowledge? And what knowledge do they have of the situation in the 1940s and 50s and 60s?
I note that you did not deny the point about only conference champs and no independents in the early NCAA. Ever hear of the McGuire Rule? Why did that come about?
By the way, the NCAA was not the only arbiter of basketball in those days. The AAU was also a major partner. It was not a monopoly as it is now. In fact, the NCAA bought the NIT rather recently because they could have been sued for monopolistic tactics by the NIT - restricting trade.
Do you ever pay attention to what you write? You posted that the NIT was more prestigious but that didn't last long? I guess "not long" is 25 years or so. And then you write that the winner of the less prestigious tournament, by your own admission, "...was still likely to be considered the best team in the nation." Do you not realize how ridiculous that comment sounds? There's no support for that other than your own declaration.
Then you dodge and declare that NCAA Tournament winners are and always will be THE national champions. Nobody is debating that as true in the present. recent past or future which is the tenses in which you are posting. The discussion was about the more distant past, and your commentary on that matter is absurd, and I am being charitable in that description.
And I also note that you ignore the historic religious bigotry that was a major factor in NCAA and university politics in those days. Ever wonder why religiously affiliated universities were ineligible for Phi Beta Kappa? Same as the reasons that they could not enter the NCAA.
