Big Ten Player of the Year- 2 Man Race

[Gold Blooded 73]

Here's something that I think IU and Purdue fans can and should agree on:

Currently, with Purdue and IU the top two teams in the B1G, both per polls and KenPom-style analytics, the State of Indiana is back to kicking a$$ in college hoops in a way that hasn't happened in 25-ish years. And that's a very good thing.

Additionally, with what I read on here about:

• Woody's inferior coaching
• Purdue's coronation as the State's dominant program
• Edey being superior to TJD
• IU still without our pre-season All-B1G point guard
• Braden Smith clearly out-performing IU's freshman guard, Jalen Hood-Schifino

--unless you guys want to "pre-blame" the referees, those factors would lead me to believe that there is a universal take here that Purdue should coast easily in Assembly Hall this coming weekend

These are all great points, I now believe that Purdue will coast easily in Assembly Hall! Thank you!

 

[arcb102000]

They are a blue blood due to history.

And what is a blueblood? It is a term that referred to European noble families. The problem with it is that they were very in-bred. That resulted in physical abnormalities, mental illness, undeserved arrogance and stupidity that was reflected in their inability to properly govern.

Thinking more about it, I guess the description is correct, but I have never understood why someone would be happy to be identified that way.

 

[arcb102000]

What is this nonsense, JM, about IU being among the Top 2 teams in the conference? Looking at the present standings, I see IU tied for 4th with Illinois at 6-4 and behind NW and Rutgers. IU has a road game tonight against MD as an underdog. If chalk holds, that places them at 6-5 and further down the list tied with a bunch of others. I know that you IU fans enjoy an elevated view of yourselves but the standings math does not lie.

 

[HoosierfanJM]

What is this nonsense, JM, about IU being among the Top 2 teams in the conference? Looking at the present standings, I see IU tied for 4th with Illinois at 6-4 and behind NW and Rutgers. IU has a road game tonight against MD as an underdog. If chalk holds, that places them at 6-5 and further down the list tied with a bunch of others. I know that you IU fans enjoy an elevated view of yourselves but the standings math does not lie.

True!

Currently IU is in a three way tie for third.

Props to Northwestern, who is 1/2 game into second place.

 

[HoosierTim]

If you want to talk about old dusty banners you might want to do some research. I think Bobby and the rest were a bit shy of 10. You do know IU only played in that second ever tourney because Purdue opted not to go in favor of academics. At that time the NIT was a bigger deal and the post season was more of an exhibition. Of course by this time Purdue had already won the NC, John Wooden was NPOY, and Ward Lambert was pioneering the up tempo basketball we all love today but yeah I guess IU is a blueblood based on history.

That's just flat wrong. Nobody on that 1932 team knew they were national champions because a national championship game wasn't played because it didn't exist. The 1932 team was retroactively named national champions by a baker in 1943, 3 years after IU played (and won) in an actual tournament setting.

 

[IMSKRONG]

And what is a blueblood? It is a term that referred to European noble families. The problem with it is that they were very in-bred. That resulted in physical abnormalities, mental illness, undeserved arrogance and stupidity that was reflected in their inability to properly govern.

Thinking more about it, I guess the description is correct, but I have never understood why someone would be happy to be identified that way.

You just have that saved on your phones notepad? LAME!

 

[IMSKRONG]

That's just flat wrong. Nobody on that 1932 team knew they were national champions because a national championship game wasn't played because it didn't exist. The 1932 team was retroactively named national champions by a baker in 1943, 3 years after IU played (and won) in an actual tournament setting.

True. Helms titles are literally worthless. Modern day basketball started in 1939.

 

[HoosierTim]

True. Helms titles are literally worthless. Modern day basketball started in 1939.

I wouldn't call them "worthless", Kansas still crows about all their Helms banners, but a national championship game was never played in 1932 and that gets lost on a lot of people. It was retroactively awarded and none of the players got to enjoy the feeling of being named national champions.

 

[IMSKRONG]

I wouldn't call them "worthless", Kansas still crows about all their Helms banners, but a national championship game was never played in 1932 and that gets lost on a lot of people. It was retroactively awarded and none of the players got to enjoy the feeling of being named national champions.

Yea well Kansas fans are an odd bunch. They would have been ready to fire Self had they lost to Kentucky.

 

[arcb102000]

True!

Currently IU is in a three way tie for third.

Props to Northwestern, who is 1/2 game into second place.

They are tied recordwise for third, but lose placing to Rutgers based upon head to head. Also, when you look at Quad 1 & 2 W/L records, they are behind others as well. No way are they do have a big game coming up so voting by media might want to stimulate ranking.

 

[IMSKRONG]

They are tied recordwise for third, but lose placing to Rutgers based upon head to head. Also, when you look at Quad 1 & 2 W/L records, they are behind others as well. No way are they do have a big game coming up so voting by media might want to stimulate ranking.

Well most have Indiana in the 5/6 seed area and one of the highest of B1G teams. I think Indiana is 2md best B1G team in NET as well. Maybe Kenpom?

 

[arcb102000]

True. Helms titles are literally worthless. Modern day basketball started in 1939.

Says who, other than you? And by what standard are they worthless? That is simply your declaration. Who put you in charge of that judgment that must be accepted?

Until the early/mid-1960s, the NIT was more prestigious. The NCAA had to pass a rule demanding that a team accept their bid vs an NIT bid, else they could not play in another post-season tournament. In the 1940s and 1950s, the NIT was played in NYC vs the NCAA is other cities. Which tournament got the most media attention? Here's a hint: when Loyola of Chicago won the NCAA in the early 1960s, the game was not even shown live in Chicago let alone elsewhere. Like it or not, NYC is the premier media center in America.

Why is 1939 the cutoff? On what basis is this determined? If you are going to claim that it is because at that point the national championship was decided via tournament, then wouldn't that rule also be applied to other sports? If so, then all those football championships that Texas, Oklahoma, Georgia, Alabama, Minnesota, PSU, OSU, USC, ND and Army won prior to the BCS creation (and which were all voted) are no longer viable and therefore do not count? Try selling that claim to those schools.

 

[IMSKRONG]

Says who, other than you? And by what standard are they worthless? That is simply your declaration. Who put you in charge of that judgment that must be accepted?

Until the early/mid-1960s, the NIT was more prestigious. The NCAA had to pass a rule demanding that a team accept their bid vs an NIT bid, else they could not play in another post-season tournament. In the 1940s and 1950s, the NIT was played in NYC vs the NCAA is other cities. Which tournament got the most media attention? Here's a hint: when Loyola of Chicago won the NCAA in the early 1960s, the game was not even shown live in Chicago let alone elsewhere. Like it or not, NYC is the premier media center in America.

Why is 1939 the cutoff? On what basis is this determined? If you are going to claim that it is because at that point the national championship was decided via tournament, then wouldn't that rule also be applied to other sports? If so, then all those football championships that Texas, Oklahoma, Georgia, Alabama, Minnesota, PSU, OSU, USC, ND and Army won prior to the BCS creation (and which were all voted) are no longer viable and therefore do not count? Try selling that claim to those schools.

The baby and greatness that is the NCAA Tourney was born in 1939. That's when national championship counting began in basketball.

 

[arcb102000]

Well most have Indiana in the 5/6 seed area and one of the highest of B1G teams. I think Indiana is 2md best B1G team in NET as well. Maybe Kenpom?

What algorithms used by KenPom or whomever are interesting, the fact is on-court Quad 1/2/3/4 W/Ls are simple fact.

It is also interesting to note a logical inconsistency in your position. You claim Helms' awards are meaningless because they are based on an outsider and not on-court results. But now you argue citing KemPom data, which is produced outside the NCAA, and discount the Quad W/L records. Perhaps you can square that circle somehow.

 

[arcb102000]

The baby and greatness that is the NCAA Tourney was born in 1939. That's when national championship counting began in basketball.

Then you must logically argue that prior football championships don't count using the same rule. Do you really expect the folks in South Bend to accept your logic? And if not, why must we here?

That's going to cause the reversible jacket brethren some real consternation.

 

[IMSKRONG]

Then you must logically argue that prior football championships don't count using the same rule. Do you really expect the folks in South Bend to accept your logic? And if not, why must we here?

That's going to cause the reversible jacket brethren some real consternation.

Yea I really don't care about football championships pre-BCS era. I really don't care about football championships period.

 

[IMSKRONG]

Then you must logically argue that prior football championships don't count using the same rule. Do you really expect the folks in South Bend to accept your logic? And if not, why must we here?

That's going to cause the reversible jacket brethren some real consternation.

Because right now we don't have anything definitive to look at. Just rankings and ratings.

 

[arcb102000]

And additionally, why must the teams that won the considered more important tournament in the 1940s and 50s accept your judgment? Which championship do you think got the most media attention? The answer is clear: NYC was and is the national media center. MSG is the most famous arena, and that is where those games were played.

 

[arcb102000]

Yea I really don't care about football championships pre-BCS era. I really don't care about football championships period.

So because you don't care about these other sports, your declaration in this case should be considered valid? Wow, that is quite a statement. Of course, as an IU fan I can understand why you might have that opinion considering their history. The problem is that your opinion would not be accepted by many outside of your fan colleagues,

 

[arcb102000]

Because right now we don't have anything definitive to look at. Just rankings and ratings.

You are changing the subject. We have objective facts: W/L records and conference standings to date. Those are real and by definition definitive. The Helms' award was a real one whether you like it or not.

Again, please explain why Purdue is not allowed to claim the Helms' but UNC and KU are? Have you gone to their sites and made this claim? Or are we just lucky?

 

[Poprudy]

The baby and greatness that is the NCAA Tourney was born in 1939. That's when national championship counting began in basketball.

And many since then have figured out that the NCAA was strictly based on revenue and how they became a fraud.

 

[IMSKRONG]

You are changing the subject. We have objective facts: W/L records and conference standings to date. Those are real and by definition definitive. The Helms' award was a real one whether you like it or not.

Again, please explain why Purdue is not allowed to claim the Helms' but UNC and KU are? Have you gone to their sites and made this claim? Or are we just lucky?

UNC and Kansas fans get laughed at too trying to claim Helms titles.

And sure we have W/L and Qs... What helps Indiana? Only 1 loss outside of Q1. Rutgers? 3. Including a Q3 loss. Illinois? Same boat as Indiana which is why IU and Illinois are considered the highest seeds outside of Purdue right now.

 

[IMSKRONG]

And many since then have figured out that the NCAA was strictly based on revenue and how they became a fraud.

Of course it is based on revenue. It's a business.

 

[Poprudy]

Of course it is based on revenue. It's a business.

Once again, you read only what you want. "strictly" is what you seemingly missed.

 

[arcb102000]

UNC and Kansas fans get laughed at too trying to claim Helms titles.

And sure we have W/L and Qs... What helps Indiana? Only 1 loss outside of Q1. Rutgers? 3. Including a Q3 loss. Illinois? Same boat as Indiana which is why IU and Illinois are considered the highest seeds outside of Purdue right now.

First of all, I am not aware that UNC and Kansas fans are laughed at over claiming their Helms'.

Also. have you posted your disdain for their banners on their sites? Please show us the posts and the reactions to them. If you have not, why not?

Secondly, at this time Rutgers is 4-4 and 3-2 in Quads 1 and 2, respectively. Indiana is 3-5 and 3-1. Northwestern is 4-3 and 2-2. Illinois is 4-5 and 3-1. Iowa is 5-5 and 2-2. Against the better teams, each of them has a better W/L record than Indiana does.

While Palm and Lunardi are pretty good at determining who gets in the tournament, their prediction of seeding is historically worse. They readily acknowledge this point. So I do not know that I would be placing a lot of emphasis on their present Illinois and Indiana placements.

 

[IMSKRONG]

Once again, you read only what you want. "strictly" is what you seemingly missed.

Uhh... Yea... Duh.

 

[IMSKRONG]

First of all, I am not aware that UNC and Kansas fans are laughed at over claiming their Helms'.

Also. have you posted your disdain for their banners on their sites? Please show us the posts and the reactions to them. If you have not, why not?

Secondly, at this time Rutgers is 4-4 and 3-2 in Quads 1 and 2, respectively. Indiana is 3-5 and 3-1. Northwestern is 4-3 and 2-2. Illinois is 4-5 and 3-1. Iowa is 5-5 and 2-2. Against the better teams, each of them has a better W/L record than Indiana does.

While Palm and Lunardi are pretty good at determining who gets in the tournament, their prediction of seeding is historically worse. They readily acknowledge this point. So I do not know that I would be placing a lot of emphasis on their present Illinois and Indiana placements.

I've been around on the Internet for over a decade. Not just staying on Indiana sites. ESPN, CBSSports, SEC sites, basketball sites etc. Yea, everyone on ESPN back in the old commenting days, made fun of Kansas fans for trying claim Helms titles and it was no different with Bama football fans trying to claim 1400 national titles. Where you seem to refuse to look is the loss Rutgers took, which Rutgers pretty much sits in the same spot as Indiana. But they have a Q3 loss Iowa has a Q4 loss and 8 losses total that hurt them compared to Indiana or Illinois.

 

[Poprudy]

I've been around on the Internet for over a decade. Not just staying on Indiana sites. ESPN, CBSSports, SEC sites, basketball sites etc. Yea, everyone on ESPN back in the old commenting days, made fun of Kansas fans for trying claim Helms titles and it was no different with Bama football fans trying to claim 1400 national titles. Where you seem to refuse to look is the loss Rutgers took, which Rutgers pretty much sits in the same spot as Indiana. But they have a Q3 loss Iowa has a Q4 loss and 8 losses total that hurt them compared to Indiana or Illinois.

When are you going to tell us you're retired from the sale of your company and own over a 1000 acre farm. Oddly, your poster name doesn't generate on your own board. B1G you really do live a sad life.

 

[arcb102000]

The baby and greatness that is the NCAA Tourney was born in 1939. That's when national championship counting began in basketball.

Here is another point: at the time of the NCAA in 1939, only conference members were allowed in. At that time, comparatively few schools were in conferences. There were many more independents. This was particularly true in the East. The NIT invited both, so it was the more open tournament.

Why do you determine that back then, the NCAA, the more restrictive tournament, decided the national championship? Would it not make sense that the tournament that allowed greater participation would be the more deserving of that consideration? To me, that would certainly seem reasonable.

 

[arcb102000]

I've been around on the Internet for over a decade. Not just staying on Indiana sites. ESPN, CBSSports, SEC sites, basketball sites etc. Yea, everyone on ESPN back in the old commenting days, made fun of Kansas fans for trying claim Helms titles and it was no different with Bama football fans trying to claim 1400 national titles. Where you seem to refuse to look is the loss Rutgers took, which Rutgers pretty much sits in the same spot as Indiana. But they have a Q3 loss Iowa has a Q4 loss and 8 losses total that hurt them compared to Indiana or Illinois.

First of all, I seem to be at a disadvantage in this discussion because I took quite a few math courses. Rutgers at 0.500 in Quad 1 vs 0.375 for Indiana. In my classes, I was taught 0.500 > 0.375; so they are not the same. Quad 1 are the better games. Putting together Q 1&2, Rutgers is at 7-6 and Indiana at 6-6. Northwestern and Illinois are also above 0.500. So in terms of Quads 1 &2, Indiana is tied for 5th with Iowa.

Secondly, you never quite answered the question about how you shared your Helms' insight at the Kansas and NC boards. I suspect that you have not chosen to avail yourself of those opportunities. I wonder why.

I don't know exactly how many titles Alabama had before the BCS, but I know that they had a few. Same goes for ND, OSU, USC, Army, etc.

 

[IMSKRONG]

When are you going to tell us you're retired from the sale of your company and own over a 1000 acre farm. Oddly, your poster name doesn't generate on your own board. B1G you really do live a sad life.

Lol. Because I'm not on the IU board here. Literally ever.

 

[arcb102000]

When are you going to tell us you're retired from the sale of your company and own over a 1000 acre farm. Oddly, your poster name doesn't generate on your own board. B1G you really do live a sad life.

I agree with your identification of this poster. But hey, he has inside information about the finances of the Gillis family.

 

[arcb102000]

Lol. Because I'm not on the IU board here. Literally ever.

Total nonsense!!

 

[proudopete]

I agree with your identification of this poster. But hey, he has inside information about the finances of the Gillis family.

This guy isn’t Trojan. This guy says he never went to IU. Style is totally different and Trojan will tell you who he is and just ramble on until he gets banned again.

 

[Poprudy]

This guy isn’t Trojan. This guy says he never went to IU. Style is totally different and Trojan will tell you who he is and just ramble on until he gets banned again.

So, you're saying we have a serial poster🤔

 

[arcb102000]

This guy isn’t Trojan. This guy says he never went to IU. Style is totally different and Trojan will tell you who he is and just ramble on until he gets banned again.

Big also claims knowledge of the finances of the Gillis family; I believe that it is claimed through a sister.

 

[arcb102000]

I find it humorous that he has not chosen to answer about why way back when the NCAA winner was national champion instead of the NIT champ given that the NIT was the more open tournament. After all, CCNY is the only school to have won both in the same year.

 

[Raynman92]

Big Ten POY is seeming pretty clear to coming down to Zach Edey and Trayce Jackson-Davis. Both are averaging similar numbers in conference play.

Edey: 20.8 points, 14.0 rebounds, 1.6 assists, 2.8 blocks, 0.0 steals, 57.3% FG, 77.1% FT

TJD: 21.4 points, 12.6 rebounds, 5.0 assists, 3.6 blocks, 0.5 steals, 55.9% FG, 73.6 FT

Numbers alone, TJD is the front runner. Context of winning and numbers, it's obviously Edey. But as of now, it's a very close race.

Both teams get into the real meat of their schedule now as well. Especially Purdue, as they've played 6 of 9 conference games against the bottom 4 of the league. Indiana still has Purdue 2x, Michigan 2x, Rutgers, Michigan State, Illinois and Iowa. Purdue has Michigan, Michigan State, Iowa, Illinois and Wisconsin. The SOS without a doubt favors Purdue and Edey, but I think this race will come down to the wire at the end. Both might not be here next year, so just cherish the greatness of each while they are here.

TJD influence on defense is no where near what Edey’s is. TJD is a very good shot blocker and I respect his defensive game but It’s not all about the number of blocks. In Edey’s case teams won’t even attempt to try to get shots off. His influence completely changes opponents offense. TJD doesn’t have near the effect.

 

[IMSKRONG]

TJD influence on defense is no where near what Edey’s is. TJD is a very good shot blocker and I respect his defensive game but It’s not all about the number of blocks. In Edey’s case teams won’t even attempt to try to get shots off. His influence completely changes opponents offense. TJD doesn’t have near the effect.

Well you're 7-4 kinda the case. Notice who the nations leading shot blocker is?

 

[BoilerDaddy]

Well you're 7-4 kinda the case. Notice who the nations leading shot blocker is?

The most surprising thing about Edey’s season is how good he is defensively. He is doing everything that Painter asks and he is doing it well within the system. There have been times that he has had to pick up a guard and has done a credible job. He affects shots while not overcommitting and giving up a bunch of easy rebounds. He also does it all without fouling much.