I think Purdue and IU fans could agree that these two teams

[FirstDownB]

I agree the rivalry would benefit from playing twice every year and have argued that in previous threads. However, at least 2 other major factors are at play here:
(1) With the proliferation of cable and geographical mobility, fan bases are less regional than they used to be. When I grew up up in NW Indiana, you rooted for either IU or Purdue basketball, or you simply didn't follow college hoops . Now you've a lot more people in the state following more of the 'national' teams like Duke, UK, or whoever the flavor of the year is.
(2) Nearly 50% of the students at both IU and Purdue come from out of state and hear absolutely nothing of the rivalry until they step foot on campus. And even then, the in state kids are not exactly rabid about indoctrinating them (see point #1).

 

[honey_badger]

It's not irrelevant to point out that IU has a 4 game advantage since 1930. I'd say an advantage over the past 86 years is a more accurate way of summing up the rivalry than "IU rebounded a little bit." That "rebounded a little bit" has been an 86 year work-in-progress. It's also a more precise way of summing up the current state of the rivalry. When you add in NCAA achievements in the modern era (1939 to present) it also says something else.

It's clearly been a great thing to see us be a chink in the frail Armour of IU. Knight hated us only because of the beat-downs administered by Keady and others who proceeded him. We controlled and dominated (at times) throughout this rivalry. There is no doubt about it, much to the chagrin of IU fans local and abroad.

 

[TheB1GTerp]

The Big Ten has somewhat been ruined in this regard. I mean Rutgers in the Big Ten, really? Teams like Maryland, ok, they are at least decent, but it's hard for me to even imagine them in our league, but they are and we have to live with it.

I am glad we are at least DECENT. Were we a football program being in top 10 all year would you still say the same? Maryland is one of best bball programs in country. I mean check stubhub and the values of the games when we come to town. We aren't Kentucky, Duke or Kansas, but I am fine being right under those.

Anyways what I would like is college bball

#1 extending the season slightly by 4 more games allowing 4 games to be played against Division II teams if teams so desire.
#2 Then shortening the non-conference slate by 8.
#3 Right now we got 18 games. in conference of 31 total games.
#4 Extend the season by two weeks.
#5 Obviously schools that have less than 14 member have a issue. I would then require each school to require scheduling at a minimum of 28 out of 35 games be from a power5 or BigEast school +Uconn school

So you take away 6 non-conferen
ce games away putting it at 26 total games allowing for a home and home and divide the B1G into divisions as well.

This works for the ACC+1 (each team misses one team), BigTen, Pack12, SEC.

The Big East, AAC, and Big12 would then have to adjust scheduling amongst each other and other 4.

 

[honey_badger]

I am glad we are at least DECENT. Were we a football program being in top 10 all year would you still say the same? Maryland is one of best bball programs in country. I mean check stubhub and the values of the games when we come to town. We aren't Kentucky, Duke or Kansas, but I am fine being right under those.

Anyways what I would like is college bball

#1 extending the season slightly by 4 more games allowing 4 games to be played against Division II teams if teams so desire.
#2 Then shortening the non-conference slate by 8.
#3 Right now we got 18 games. in conference of 31 total games.
#4 Extend the season by two weeks.
#5 Obviously schools that have less than 14 member have a issue. I would then require each school to require scheduling at a minimum of 28 out of 35 games be from a power5 or BigEast school +Uconn school

So you take away 6 non-conferen
ce games away putting it at 26 total games allowing for a home and home and divide the B1G into divisions as well.

This works for the ACC+1 (each team misses one team), BigTen, Pack12, SEC.

The Big East, AAC, and Big12 would then have to adjust scheduling amongst each other and other 4.

 

[honey_badger]

The key in your proposal (i assume you saw mine and thus your post), is the extension of the season. From an academics standpoint, that would be very difficult. I didn't mean to demean Maryland, they bring excitement to the B1G but i'm just old-school and it takes me awhile to adjust (self - admitted)

 

[TheB1GTerp]

The key in your proposal (i assume you saw mine and thus your post), is the extension of the season. From an academics standpoint, that would be very difficult. I didn't mean to demean Maryland, they bring excitement to the B1G but i'm just old-school and it takes me awhile to adjust (self - admitted)

My wife went to Purdue, it's okay. I just think it is important to play everyone. I know it can't happen in football, but basketball already is playing games early in November and I know coaches want easy wins so go get them then.

 

[honey_badger]

My wife went to Purdue, it's okay. I just think it is important to play everyone. I know it can't happen in football, but basketball already is playing games early in November and I know coaches want easy wins so go get them then.

Exactly, play everyone. That's my beef. With IU getting a cup-cake first 10 games of the B1G, it makes it difficult for everyone to catch up to them. And they don't have a balanced schedule as it relates to ranked teams. They don't play Maryland on the road, nor Purdue, only have to play MSU 1 time, get home and away with awful teams like Illinois, Minnesota, only play Northwestern at home, only play Michigan one time, get to play awful Nebraska home and away, didn't have to play Penn State on the road. And the list goes on. So, on balance, it's a farce. The B1G scheduling committee will be re-vamped for next year I am guessing because of Indiana-Schedule-Gate.

 

[Statey]

Exactly, play everyone. That's my beef. With IU getting a cup-cake first 10 games of the B1G, it makes it difficult for everyone to catch up to them. And they don't have a balanced schedule as it relates to ranked teams. They don't play Maryland on the road, nor Purdue, only have to play MSU 1 time, get home and away with awful teams like Illinois, Minnesota, only play Northwestern at home, only play Michigan one time, get to play awful Nebraska home and away, didn't have to play Penn State on the road. And the list goes on. So, on balance, it's a farce. The B1G scheduling committee will be re-vamped for next year I am guessing because of Indiana-Schedule-Gate.

1. Purdue also plays Northwestern only once, at home
2. Purdue also plays awful Nebraska home and away
3. IU did play at Penn State... and lost

IU may have had the easier road, but geez, try to be informed if you're going to discuss it.

 

[BigRed3588]

It's clearly been a great thing to see us be a chink in the frail Armour of IU. Knight hated us only because of the beat-downs administered by Keady and others who proceeded him. We controlled and dominated (at times) throughout this rivalry. There is no doubt about it, much to the chagrin of IU fans local and abroad.

? Purdue won 52 of the first 61 games up until 1939. IU led the 40s and 50s, and the two have been dead even in the series since then. Heller is probably the only person on this board that may have been alive when Purdue last dominated the series.

 

[tjreese]

? Purdue won 52 of the first 61 games up until 1939. IU led the 40s and 50s, and the two have been dead even in the series since then. Heller is probably the only person on this board that may have been alive when Purdue last dominated the series.

True, but it is kinda interesting when on TV and elsewhere people make mention that Purdue was better before WWII and at the same time ignore the last few years, the last decade, the last 25 years or so. Teh false narrative is that IU is better today and Purdue was better prior to WWII and I think that can be debated pretty effectively. a logical argument can easily be made that Purdue had the better program over the years with a thought process that would be consistent in any other type of hypothetical comparison in a one tailed test of "better"... Still, I prefer to think of them pretty equal over the last several decades and a very logical argument can be made that I'm correct...

 

[honey_badger]

? Purdue won 52 of the first 61 games up until 1939. IU led the 40s and 50s, and the two have been dead even in the series since then. Heller is probably the only person on this board that may have been alive when Purdue last dominated the series.

That's what makes it a good rivalry, one of the best in the big ten (probably)

 

[honey_badger]

1. Purdue also plays Northwestern only once, at home
2. Purdue also plays awful Nebraska home and away
3. IU did play at Penn State... and lost

IU may have had the easier road, but geez, try to be informed if you're going to discuss it.

I'm very informed, I wasn't comparing their schedule to ours. Read my posts before responding in an uninformed way. Makes you look bad. Not trying to be derisive but get a clue.