ADVERTISEMENT

From first to sixth in seven games … and then worse

Born Boiler

Junior
Dec 6, 2006
2,294
2,055
113
Purdue was right where it was picked to be in preseason – first place in the Big Ten, standing 11-2 with seven games left -- then took halftime leads in six of those last seven games, only trailing by two in the other, yet collapsed badly, coming from ahead to snatch defeats in five of those seven.

Led for 35 minutes at Michigan, up by as many as 11, outscored 32-22 in last 10:00, lost by 2.​
Led for 18 minutes vs. Wisconsin, up by as many as 9, outscored 58-47 in second half, lost by 10.​
Led for 12 minutes at Michigan State, up by as many as 7, down 4 with 2:20 left, lost by 9.​
Led for 13 minutes at Indiana, up by as many as 12, outscored 48-18 after halftime, lost by 15.​
Led for 27 minutes at Illinois, up by as many as 10, up 4 with 2:00 left, lost by 8.​

And let’s not forget flipping a 16-point first-half lead into a late 9-point deficit against Ohio State.

The same players who generally dominated the first 20 minutes or more were the same ones who fell apart late. The personnel didn’t suddenly develop holes mid-game. No one caught an early bus. Blame can go on tighter rotations, tighter legs and tighter throats, leading to loose-stool defense, misfires and second-half loss after second-half loss. It was as if Rockne would appear at the break, pop corn and inspire them to “Gag one for the Gipper.”

But now that they’re done gagging away their Three-Pete, we’re seeing worse -- line after line by armchair coaches claiming “Well, I knew they’d suck all along.” Well, bullshit. With three starters and three top subs all back from a Final Four team, they were underrated nationally to start the year, if anything, and no self-respecting Purdue fan ever expects a kamikaze nosedive out of first place, not in the league we founded and own with 26 titles and series leads over everyone but UCLA, beaten there only because of our own superman alumnus. Better to gag than to barf and backfire.
 
Vine Wtf GIF
 
No one knows all the answers, but I would offer these possibilities:

1. B1G schedule was front loaded with easier games. Much better competition in the back half. Success in those first 12-15 games may have been misleading.

2. Too many minutes for top players and they just don't have it in the 2nd half of tough games.

3. We lost our starting 5 man in the 2nd game of the season. I don't think anyone realized (at least not our fans) how big of a loss that was. Zero rim protection.

4. Returning starters from FF team did their job, but non-starting returning players didn't make the improvements we had hoped for.

5. CMP decided that a portal addition wasn't needed. In hindsight, I think "most" would agree this was a mistake.

Finally, it's possible that the predictions at the beginning of the season were just wrong. Sometimes that happens in both directions. You have teams better than predictions and you have teams worse than predicted. It's why they are called "predictions" not facts. Losing Jones, Gillis and of course the NPOY hurt us deeply. Maybe what was left just wasn't as good as 1st place in the conference this year.

If you somehow feel cheated because the team didn't live up to what you expected, you have every right to feel however you want. But so does every other fan of this team, so if others don't feel the same as you it doesn't make them wrong.
 
Why? When competition got better Purdue could not stay in front of them and had zero rim protection. 4- man could not score other than receiving great passes that he sometimes layed in or dunked. Loyer disappeared in many second halves. Big opposing guards impacted Purdue's offense in couple of games. The subs did not improve as hoped. None or ( or one?) 20 point game off the bench.
 
I think it is a reasonable interpretation of the standings unless you can point me to a rule saying otherwise. Then I will agree with you.
It's actually not. We are tied for 4th. Think about it another way. If we had tied with Michigan State and Wisconsin for 1st place, but lost to both of them, would we still be Big 10 Champs?

Now do you agree?
 
It's actually not. We are tied for 4th. Think about it another way. If we had tied with Michigan State and Wisconsin for 1st place, but lost to both of them, would we still be Big 10 Champs?

Now do you agree?
That is a hole in the logic that we are fourth to some degree. But I think first is different than middle of the standings. I'm just asking for a rule that shows they don't use tiebreakers at fourth place. That's all. Then I will agree with you that it isn't up for interpretation.
 
No one knows all the answers, but I would offer these possibilities:

1. B1G schedule was front loaded with easier games. Much better competition in the back half. Success in those first 12-15 games may have been misleading.

2. Too many minutes for top players and they just don't have it in the 2nd half of tough games.

3. We lost our starting 5 man in the 2nd game of the season. I don't think anyone realized (at least not our fans) how big of a loss that was. Zero rim protection.

4. Returning starters from FF team did their job, but non-starting returning players didn't make the improvements we had hoped for.

5. CMP decided that a portal addition wasn't needed. In hindsight, I think "most" would agree this was a mistake.

Finally, it's possible that the predictions at the beginning of the season were just wrong. Sometimes that happens in both directions. You have teams better than predictions and you have teams worse than predicted. It's why they are called "predictions" not facts. Losing Jones, Gillis and of course the NPOY hurt us deeply. Maybe what was left just wasn't as good as 1st place in the conference this year.

If you somehow feel cheated because the team didn't live up to what you expected, you have every right to feel however you want. But so does every other fan of this team, so if others don't feel the same as you it doesn't make them wrong.
IMHO: #1 is the most important. Purdue's February/March schedule was just a lot tougher than January. In that light, #2 is probably an extension of #1 and #4.

Not sure what to say about Jacobsen. He might have been a difference maker this year. I don't think we saw enough of him to really know for sure. It's possible he would have struggled against tougher teams. Lots of freshmen do.

#5: In retrospect, Purdue could have used another scoring guard. At the same time, I can't fault Painter for looking at Colvin/Heide/Cox/Harris and saying, "I have what I need here." From that perspective, adding another guard last spring would have been at the expense of at least one of those guys playing and developing.

Personally, I was not expecting Purdue to win the B1G. I figured Purdue would have an up-and-down non-conference showing as it found its post-Zach Edey footing (which basically happened). I thought the team might struggle in January but pick up steam in February. Obviously the opposite happened.
 
IMHO: #1 is the most important. Purdue's February/March schedule was just a lot tougher than January. In that light, #2 is probably an extension of #1 and #4.

Not sure what to say about Jacobsen. He might have been a difference maker this year. I don't think we saw enough of him to really know for sure. It's possible he would have struggled against tougher teams. Lots of freshmen do.

#5: In retrospect, Purdue could have used another scoring guard. At the same time, I can't fault Painter for looking at Colvin/Heide/Cox/Harris and saying, "I have what I need here." From that perspective, adding another guard last spring would have been at the expense of at least one of those guys playing and developing.

Personally, I was not expecting Purdue to win the B1G. I figured Purdue would have an up-and-down non-conference showing as it found its post-Zach Edey footing (which basically happened). I thought the team might struggle in January but pick up steam in February. Obviously the opposite happened.
We can criticize if he doesn't add anyone next season but for this season it simply wasn't possible.
 
That is a hole in the logic that we are fourth to some degree. But I think first is different than middle of the standings. I'm just asking for a rule that shows they don't use tiebreakers at fourth place. That's all. Then I will agree with you that it isn't up for interpretation.
Make it simple. If there was no tournament, Purdue finishes tied for 4th. In a tournament you can’t have three 4 seeds, so based on rules Purdue was seeded 6. Or out another way 4(c).
 
Make it simple. If there was no tournament, Purdue finishes tied for 4th. In a tournament you can’t have three 4 seeds, so based on rules Purdue was seeded 6. Or out another way 4(c).
I can't even believe the argument. "Show me a rule"? Jesus.

Tell you what swag- at the beginning of next season, when there are preview shows and articles talking about Purdue, I challenge you to find ONE that says anything other than "Purdue tied for 4th last season". Good luck.
 
What's confusing to me is how we could have 2 first team All-Bigs, including player of year, an honorable mention and finish 6th.
What’s confusing? Ted Williams, Wilt Chamberlain, Archie Manning. Lots of sports teams have stars that don’t win championships.
 
  • Like
Reactions: boilerzz
Purdue was right where it was picked to be in preseason – first place in the Big Ten, standing 11-2 with seven games left -- then took halftime leads in six of those last seven games, only trailing by two in the other, yet collapsed badly, coming from ahead to snatch defeats in five of those seven.

Led for 35 minutes at Michigan, up by as many as 11, outscored 32-22 in last 10:00, lost by 2.​
Led for 18 minutes vs. Wisconsin, up by as many as 9, outscored 58-47 in second half, lost by 10.​
Led for 12 minutes at Michigan State, up by as many as 7, down 4 with 2:20 left, lost by 9.​
Led for 13 minutes at Indiana, up by as many as 12, outscored 48-18 after halftime, lost by 15.​
Led for 27 minutes at Illinois, up by as many as 10, up 4 with 2:00 left, lost by 8.​

And let’s not forget flipping a 16-point first-half lead into a late 9-point deficit against Ohio State.

The same players who generally dominated the first 20 minutes or more were the same ones who fell apart late. The personnel didn’t suddenly develop holes mid-game. No one caught an early bus. Blame can go on tighter rotations, tighter legs and tighter throats, leading to loose-stool defense, misfires and second-half loss after second-half loss. It was as if Rockne would appear at the break, pop corn and inspire them to “Gag one for the Gipper.”

But now that they’re done gagging away their Three-Pete, we’re seeing worse -- line after line by armchair coaches claiming “Well, I knew they’d suck all along.” Well, bullshit. With three starters and three top subs all back from a Final Four team, they were underrated nationally to start the year, if anything, and no self-respecting Purdue fan ever expects a kamikaze nosedive out of first place, not in the league we founded and own with 26 titles and series leads over everyone but UCLA, beaten there only because of our own superman alumnus. Better to gag than to barf and backfire.
Schedule got brutal at end. Losing to psu and osu were where our margin got thin. Jacobson getting hurt was not good and a couple players just didnt develop like we hoped. Hopefully everyone comes back, players develop, and if someone does leave we are able to add an athletic back court player who can be a secondary ball handler
 
  • Like
Reactions: rgarlitz
No one knows all the answers, but I would offer these possibilities:

1. B1G schedule was front loaded with easier games. Much better competition in the back half. Success in those first 12-15 games may have been misleading.

2. Too many minutes for top players and they just don't have it in the 2nd half of tough games.

3. We lost our starting 5 man in the 2nd game of the season. I don't think anyone realized (at least not our fans) how big of a loss that was. Zero rim protection.

4. Returning starters from FF team did their job, but non-starting returning players didn't make the improvements we had hoped for.

5. CMP decided that a portal addition wasn't needed. In hindsight, I think "most" would agree this was a mistake.

Finally, it's possible that the predictions at the beginning of the season were just wrong. Sometimes that happens in both directions. You have teams better than predictions and you have teams worse than predicted. It's why they are called "predictions" not facts. Losing Jones, Gillis and of course the NPOY hurt us deeply. Maybe what was left just wasn't as good as 1st place in the conference this year.

If you somehow feel cheated because the team didn't live up to what you expected, you have every right to feel however you want. But so does every other fan of this team, so if others don't feel the same as you it doesn't make them wrong.
A good list, but I'll add a lot of players have not been very successful against Purdue the last few years and Purdue may have got better effort from some teams than they usually displayed. Purdue became a bit of a measuring stick in addition to the issues above
 
That is a hole in the logic that we are fourth to some degree. But I think first is different than middle of the standings. I'm just asking for a rule that shows they don't use tiebreakers at fourth place. That's all. Then I will agree with you that it isn't up for interpretation.
Go to page 6 in the link and tell me what you see.

 
That is a hole in the logic that we are fourth to some degree. But I think first is different than middle of the standings. I'm just asking for a rule that shows they don't use tiebreakers at fourth place. That's all. Then I will agree with you that it isn't up for interpretation.
If you think for purposes of this argument that 1st is different than 4th, I don't know what RULES you're playing by anyway. You're clearly making them up. So whatever, believe what you want.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT