Even if we had played the top half two more times and lost, your argument would still not make sense. Don't you see that? We would have been still had two more wins against the top half then you, and still finished ahead of you in the standings. Seeing as we were 50% against the top half, one could surmise that we would have split those two games and likely would have finished right where we did anyway.
Uh, didn't you just make my argument for me? Not playing Wisconsin at home and MSU at home was a barrier not an advantage as your original argument was pointing out.
You keep switching from top 3 to bottom half and back to top 3 again.
You also mention top half and bottom half in every post. Your clearly spinning trying to grasp onto a point that backs your opinion
I have been trying to state this in so many ways, and really had not succeeded. You state this very well. Thank you.
Lunardi's specialty is predicting the decisions of the selection committee based on the comparative resumes of the potential NCAA qualifiers. In this field he is predicting the future success of teams, which is an entirely different exercise.
Thanks for confirming that Purdue finished 3rd in the Big Ten for us, but we already knew that.
I understand Da Bull's argument. It has merit. We have something to prove this year. His point that we played Maryland, Wisconsin, and MSU only once is reasonable. He contends that we have no proof we might have won a second game with each, and that's as true as we have no proof we would have lost either.
Yeh, you missed my point. Nobody was comparing IU and Purdue. That spin you are talking about might be your head spinning. (JK!)
You're missing the entire point of Dabuls posts. They're IU!!! They're ELITE!!!! That counts for something. You know dust bunnies on their banners and all that!!!Yeh, you missed my point. Nobody was comparing IU and Purdue. That spin you are talking about might be your head spinning. (JK!)
Da Bull was only saying we had not beaten a top 3 team last year. He is technically right, aided by the fact thaty we were one of the top three teams, so our odds of winning aqgainst a top 3 went down a little. All I am saying is that he has a fair point about the reluctance of some prognosticators to accept that we will continue to hold this top 3 position in the BIG next year.
As for comparing the 2 schools, last year, with roughly the same schedule difficulty, we finished 12-6 and IU finished 9-9 in the BIG. We finished with 2 beat downs of their team. Enough said. Their sole point of contention was that they beat Maryland last year and we didn't. Well... Rutgers beat Wisconsin.... so what? They pulled an upset. Without that upset, IU would have finished 8-10 in the BIG. Not stellar.
I respect all posters, as long as they act civil. I did not miss the candy striped helmet on his sig.
Getting back to the OP's statement. Purdue is capable of a fantastic year and it is BS they aren't ranked. I say capable because they have ALL the pieces. A huge and talented front line. Some very capable shooters. Length and athleticism. Brian has made the point that we can be really good but we'll need to make jump shots. I think this statement applies to every team from rec ball to the Pros. In Purdue's case if the shots aren't falling, there are other options down low. IU for example not so much.
Point guard is a question mark for sure. I think we will be fine there. Do we have a Yogi on the team, no. I think PJ, Hill and Weatherford will be fine. And Painter sure has all the other pieces in place. And what team doesn't have questions. Even Maryland is counting on a freshman at center. So is IU. In Purdues case, if shots aren't falling we will get plenty of rebounds and second chances. If Izzo had this roster they would be top 10.
I understand Da Bull's argument. It has merit. We have something to prove this year. His point that we played Maryland, Wisconsin, and MSU only once is reasonable. He contends that we have no proof we might have won a second game with each, and that's as true as we have no proof we would have lost either.
Given that we started 2-3 freshmen last year, and a PG that had just days to acclaimate himself to the team, we did pretty well. Unfortunately, between injuries and freshman fatigue, we dropped a game we might have won in the BIG tournament. We ran out of gas in the second half against Whisky and dropped a game we led at half. All this gives weight to his argument that we have yet to prove we can beat the top teams in the BIG.
Beyond this point, it is all conjecture and opinion. In my opinion, playing the schedule we have this year will give us a distinct advantage. It gives us the opportunity to beat those teams and establish Purdue as the best in the BIG. Frankly, I don't fear the turtle or the badger. I think we will step on both of them.
).Da Bull has stopped arguing about it. He continues to make the statement as if it is an established that Purdue finished 4th in the B1G. He even responded to my post with "??", as if he couldn't understand why anyone would challenge his belief that Purdue finished 4th. Purdue played who they were scheduled to play, and they finished tied for 3rd. It's in the record books and the entire world recognizes it (unless they wear candy-stripe glasses -- but then, they see a lot of things differently than the rest of the world.
If he is going to use his own make-believe cream & crimson rules for how Purdue finishes in the B1G, then he will have no credibility. What next? If Purdue scores more points than iu in a head-to-head, but the final difference is less than the odds-makers predictions, iu wins? In fact, we have heard similar arguments from that crowd. I'm not surprised by how he wants to see things. If he doesn't like the facts, he revises them and then repeatedly restate them as if his "facts" are the accepted truth. It's goofy.
.No doubt, point guard is very important, but bigs are also important. As an example, in this past draft, 8 of the first 18 picks were Final Four participants and none of the 8 was a guard. The first Final Four guard picked at 24, Tyus Jones, may have been the difference maker in the final, but that doesn't diminish the importance of Okefer, Winslow, Kaminsky, etc.
Smitty.....you guys still have that worthless POS so-called coach. And a team full of abusers.
