Purdue is essentially Kentucky from last year

[purdue4sure]

2-point loss on a neutral court when you have the ball with a chance to win on the last possession. The difference between winning and losing in that situation is less than 1%.

Leas than 1%? Show your work. How did you come to that answer?

 

[FinallyABoilerFinal4]

Leas than 1%? Show your work. How did you come to that answer?

So I completely punk out your post and instead of offering a rebuttal you take that approach? N.C. A & T put up more of a challenge that you.

 

[purdue4sure]

So I completely punk out your post and instead of offering a rebuttal you take that approach? N.C. A & T put up more of a challenge that you.

I thought so. You come here filling this board with silly nonsense and claim that your statements are all facts. Just giving you an opportunity to back it up. Fail. Again.

 

[FinallyABoilerFinal4]

How's this: if you lose a game on a neutral count 100-0, that is 100% a loss. 1+ point equals 1%. Easy enough for you to understand? Notre Dame lost by 2. So that is 2%. But they had the final shot to tie or win, so that negates 1%.

Your responses in this thread have proven to be worthless, dumb, and whiney. Quit before you get elusive quadruple embarrassment.

 

[70boiler]

How's this: if you lose a game on a neutral count 100-0, that is 100% a loss. 1+ point equals 1%. Easy enough for you to understand? Notre Dame lost by 2. So that is 2%. But they had the final shot to tie or win, so that negates 1%.

Your responses in this thread have proven to be worthless, dumb, and whiney. Quit before you get elusive quadruple embarrassment.

What the f are you talking about? That's absolutely bizarre

 

[purdue4sure]

How's this: if you lose a game on a neutral count 100-0, that is 100% a loss. 1+ point equals 1%. Easy enough for you to understand? Notre Dame lost by 2. So that is 2%. But they had the final shot to tie or win, so that negates 1%.

Your responses in this thread have proven to be worthless, dumb, and whiney. Quit before you get elusive quadruple embarrassment.

Umm, OK. Apologies for having fun at your expense. I didn't realize...

But think about this. Isn't every loss 100% a loss? And by your method, if my team loses 120-0, is that 120% a loss?

 

[SnowLeopard]

What the f are you talking about? That's absolutely bizarre

Sounds like the kind of trailer park math they teach at IU

According to Loosiers, if you have 100 relatives and you sleep with 50 of them, you are only 50% hillbilly

 

[FinallyABoilerFinal4]

Umm, OK. Apologies for having fun at your expense. I didn't realize...

But think about this. Isn't every loss 100% a loss? And by your method, if my team loses 120-0, is that 120% a loss?

Does it matter? If you lost 240-120, yes, that would be a 120% loss. If you lost 2-0, it would be a 2% loss. If you had the final shot with a chance to tie, it would be a .5% loss. If you had the final shot with a chance to tie or win, it would technically be a loss, but for the purposes of studying which team is better, it would be a draw. For further clarification, this has to be a realistic shot. So Butler's half-court heave against Duke in the Championship doesn't apply. Duke was 2% better than Butler. Now, if they had played during season and Butler lost by 20, you would take the avg. of the 2 games and say Duke was 11% better and Butler probably wouldn't fare as well as they did in the a Title Game if they had to play once more.

 

[proudopete]

Does it matter? If you lost 240-120, yes, that would be a 120% loss. If you lost 2-0, it would be a 2% loss. If you had the final shot with a chance to tie, it would be a .5% loss. If you had the final shot with a chance to tie or win, it would technically be a loss, but for the purposes of studying which team is better, it would be a draw. For further clarification, this has to be a realistic shot. So Butler's half-court heave against Duke in the Championship doesn't apply. Duke was 2% better than Butler. Now, if they had played during season and Butler lost by 20, you would take the avg. of the 2 games and say Duke was 11% better and Butler probably wouldn't fare as well as they did in the a Title Game if they had to play once more.

Dude. Buy yourself a math coloring book. Then ask your youngest child to explain it to you.

 

[FinallyABoilerFinal4]

Dude. Buy yourself a math coloring book. Then ask your youngest child to explain it to you.

This is logic not math you *******.

The real point of this thread is comparing this year's Boilers to last years Wildcats. That debate is on hold until AJ returns bc I'm pretty sure Kentucky wouldn't have given up 79 points to Vermont.

 

[purdue4sure]

This is logic not math you *******.

The real point of this thread is comparing this year's Boilers to last years Wildcats. That debate is on hold until AJ returns bc I'm pretty sure Kentucky wouldn't have given up 79 points to Vermont.

For your sake, let's keep it on hold indefinitely.

 

[FeistyBoiler]

Does it matter? If you lost 240-120, yes, that would be a 120% loss. If you lost 2-0, it would be a 2% loss. If you had the final shot with a chance to tie, it would be a .5% loss. If you had the final shot with a chance to tie or win, it would technically be a loss, but for the purposes of studying which team is better, it would be a draw. For further clarification, this has to be a realistic shot. So Butler's half-court heave against Duke in the Championship doesn't apply. Duke was 2% better than Butler. Now, if they had played during season and Butler lost by 20, you would take the avg. of the 2 games and say Duke was 11% better and Butler probably wouldn't fare as well as they did in the a Title Game if they had to play once more.

I'm pretty sure this is at least 100% retarded. But my math may be a little shaky.

 

[FinallyABoilerFinal4]

I'm pretty sure this is at least 100% retarded. But my math may be a little shaky.

Something intelligent and logical is retarded. Hmm...The National consensus would probably be that the state of Indiana is a little backwards so I guess that makes sense.

 

[FeistyBoiler]

Something intelligent and logical is retarded. Hmm...The National consensus would probably be that the state of Indiana is a little backwards so I guess that makes sense.

You're funny if you think you make any sense.

 

[70boiler]

Does it matter? If you lost 240-120, yes, that would be a 120% loss. If you lost 2-0, it would be a 2% loss. If you had the final shot with a chance to tie, it would be a .5% loss. If you had the final shot with a chance to tie or win, it would technically be a loss, but for the purposes of studying which team is better, it would be a draw. For further clarification, this has to be a realistic shot. So Butler's half-court heave against Duke in the Championship doesn't apply. Duke was 2% better than Butler. Now, if they had played during season and Butler lost by 20, you would take the avg. of the 2 games and say Duke was 11% better and Butler probably wouldn't fare as well as they did in the a Title Game if they had to play once more.

Holy hell! I thought that your earlier post was bizarre.

 

[BoilerUpMoose]

Ok, so if I'm following this correctly, IU logic is the replacement for IU math? What the hell? This guy needs to just give up. Nobody that studied any kind of math at Purdue could possibly follow his so-called "logic".

 

[anon_y5n942o85fk69]

didnt UK have like 6 guys 6-9 or taller?
they were big, and athletic.
we are big and slow.
big difference.
but we do have some shooters.
we will never be compared to UK as long as John Cal is there.
we will be a very tough out this year.
BTFU!

 

[hoosierhoops33]

Purdue's team in 2015-16 is very similar to Kentucky's 38-1 team in 2014-15. Partially because the backup point guards for both teams are midget spark plugs. But it goes deeper. The overall athleticism, size, and depth is very comparable. Here is a position-by-position breakdown:

PG: Harrison (better scoring) vs. Hill (better defense)
SG: Harrison (better shooting) vs. Davis (better everything else)
SF: Lyles vs. Vince (potentially better everything)
PF: Willie (much better D) vs. Bigge (much better all around O)
C: Towns (better offense) vs. AJ (better defense)

2PG: Ulis (much better shooting) vs. PJ (potentially better everything else)
2SG: Booker (slightly better shooting) vs. Kendall (better everything else)
2F: No one vs. Basil (potentially really, really, really good)
2PF: Lee vs. Jacquil
C: Darkari vs. Haas

Kentucky in 2014-15 was the most overrated team in history. Their legend was built around the fact they had early season blowout victories against Kansas and UCLA, two teams that were both in complete rebuilding mode, and both easily dispatched by double digits in the Tournament. No one noticed that UK was losing by 5 at home to Buffalo at halftime and tied at home at halftime with Texas who was missing their star point guard, Isiah Taylor. No one also noticed those 6 SEC games that Kentucky won by 8 points or less. Keep in mind this is a conference that had several non-conference losses to mid-majors and had no team besides Kentucky reach the Sweet 16. Kentucky was finally found out in the Tournament, struggling with Cincinnati in the 2nd round, escaping by 2 points against Notre Dame in Elite 8, and being pretty much controlled throughout in their loss to Wisconsin in the Final Four.

Is it a compliment to compare Purdue to a team I just destroyed for a paragraph? That overrated Kentucky team was still able to reach the Final Four on the strength of its size, athleticism, and quality depth. Purdue can match that size, athleticism, and quality depth plus boast superior intangibles, since UK had no Seniors in their rotation and Purdue has 3. Purdue will murder some overrated teams in 2015-16. Florida comes to mind. The B1G is the toughest conference this year, not the 6th toughest like the SEC was last year, so just don't expect an undefeated regular season. Do expect a Final Four.

What the f**k are you smokin pal? You my friend need to get your brain checked out.

 

[boilerzz]

What the f**k are you smokin pal? You my friend need to get your brain checked out.

We've been telling him that for weeks. Frankly, he's so out there, some of us think he's been hanging out with IU basketball players!

 

[andreweich830]

...

 

[Meso93]

Lololol hahahaha

 

[nookam]

. I guess the OP forgot coaching, and 1/4 the talent

 

[andreweich830]

...

 

[TexasPaul]

Purdue's team in 2015-16 is very similar to Kentucky's 38-1 team in 2014-15. Partially because the backup point guards for both teams are midget spark plugs. But it goes deeper. The overall athleticism, size, and depth is very comparable. Here is a position-by-position breakdown:

PG: Harrison (better scoring) vs. Hill (better defense)
SG: Harrison (better shooting) vs. Davis (better everything else)
SF: Lyles vs. Vince (potentially better everything)
PF: Willie (much better D) vs. Bigge (much better all around O)
C: Towns (better offense) vs. AJ (better defense)

2PG: Ulis (much better shooting) vs. PJ (potentially better everything else)
2SG: Booker (slightly better shooting) vs. Kendall (better everything else)
2F: No one vs. Basil (potentially really, really, really good)
2PF: Lee vs. Jacquil
C: Darkari vs. Haas

Kentucky in 2014-15 was the most overrated team in history. Their legend was built around the fact they had early season blowout victories against Kansas and UCLA, two teams that were both in complete rebuilding mode, and both easily dispatched by double digits in the Tournament. No one noticed that UK was losing by 5 at home to Buffalo at halftime and tied at home at halftime with Texas who was missing their star point guard, Isiah Taylor. No one also noticed those 6 SEC games that Kentucky won by 8 points or less. Keep in mind this is a conference that had several non-conference losses to mid-majors and had no team besides Kentucky reach the Sweet 16. Kentucky was finally found out in the Tournament, struggling with Cincinnati in the 2nd round, escaping by 2 points against Notre Dame in Elite 8, and being pretty much controlled throughout in their loss to Wisconsin in the Final Four.

Is it a compliment to compare Purdue to a team I just destroyed for a paragraph? That overrated Kentucky team was still able to reach the Final Four on the strength of its size, athleticism, and quality depth. Purdue can match that size, athleticism, and quality depth plus boast superior intangibles, since UK had no Seniors in their rotation and Purdue has 3. Purdue will murder some overrated teams in 2015-16. Florida comes to mind. The B1G is the toughest conference this year, not the 6th toughest like the SEC was last year, so just don't expect an undefeated regular season. Do expect a Final Four.

Classic!

TP

 

[honey_badger]

Purdue lots of talent. Awesome coaching, we just ran into a buzz-saw in UALR. Just like IU did vs. Witchita State when they got knocked out in the first round. WSU was mis-seeded too low and ended up thrashing hapless IU and showing off Crean's terrible Xs Os side.......

 

[TJBoiler]

Purdue's team in 2015-16 is very similar to Kentucky's 38-1 team in 2014-15. Partially because the backup point guards for both teams are midget spark plugs. But it goes deeper. The overall athleticism, size, and depth is very comparable. Here is a position-by-position breakdown:

PG: Harrison (better scoring) vs. Hill (better defense)
SG: Harrison (better shooting) vs. Davis (better everything else)
SF: Lyles vs. Vince (potentially better everything)
PF: Willie (much better D) vs. Bigge (much better all around O)
C: Towns (better offense) vs. AJ (better defense)

2PG: Ulis (much better shooting) vs. PJ (potentially better everything else)
2SG: Booker (slightly better shooting) vs. Kendall (better everything else)
2F: No one vs. Basil (potentially really, really, really good)
2PF: Lee vs. Jacquil
C: Darkari vs. Haas

Kentucky in 2014-15 was the most overrated team in history. Their legend was built around the fact they had early season blowout victories against Kansas and UCLA, two teams that were both in complete rebuilding mode, and both easily dispatched by double digits in the Tournament. No one noticed that UK was losing by 5 at home to Buffalo at halftime and tied at home at halftime with Texas who was missing their star point guard, Isiah Taylor. No one also noticed those 6 SEC games that Kentucky won by 8 points or less. Keep in mind this is a conference that had several non-conference losses to mid-majors and had no team besides Kentucky reach the Sweet 16. Kentucky was finally found out in the Tournament, struggling with Cincinnati in the 2nd round, escaping by 2 points against Notre Dame in Elite 8, and being pretty much controlled throughout in their loss to Wisconsin in the Final Four.

Is it a compliment to compare Purdue to a team I just destroyed for a paragraph? That overrated Kentucky team was still able to reach the Final Four on the strength of its size, athleticism, and quality depth. Purdue can match that size, athleticism, and quality depth plus boast superior intangibles, since UK had no Seniors in their rotation and Purdue has 3. Purdue will murder some overrated teams in 2015-16. Florida comes to mind. The B1G is the toughest conference this year, not the 6th toughest like the SEC was last year, so just don't expect an undefeated regular season. Do expect a Final Four.

 

[TJBoiler]

Purdue's team in 2015-16 is very similar to Kentucky's 38-1 team in 2014-15. Partially because the backup point guards for both teams are midget spark plugs. But it goes deeper. The overall athleticism, size, and depth is very comparable. Here is a position-by-position breakdown:

PG: Harrison (better scoring) vs. Hill (better defense)
SG: Harrison (better shooting) vs. Davis (better everything else)
SF: Lyles vs. Vince (potentially better everything)
PF: Willie (much better D) vs. Bigge (much better all around O)
C: Towns (better offense) vs. AJ (better defense)

2PG: Ulis (much better shooting) vs. PJ (potentially better everything else)
2SG: Booker (slightly better shooting) vs. Kendall (better everything else)
2F: No one vs. Basil (potentially really, really, really good)
2PF: Lee vs. Jacquil
C: Darkari vs. Haas

Kentucky in 2014-15 was the most overrated team in history. Their legend was built around the fact they had early season blowout victories against Kansas and UCLA, two teams that were both in complete rebuilding mode, and both easily dispatched by double digits in the Tournament. No one noticed that UK was losing by 5 at home to Buffalo at halftime and tied at home at halftime with Texas who was missing their star point guard, Isiah Taylor. No one also noticed those 6 SEC games that Kentucky won by 8 points or less. Keep in mind this is a conference that had several non-conference losses to mid-majors and had no team besides Kentucky reach the Sweet 16. Kentucky was finally found out in the Tournament, struggling with Cincinnati in the 2nd round, escaping by 2 points against Notre Dame in Elite 8, and being pretty much controlled throughout in their loss to Wisconsin in the Final Four.

Is it a compliment to compare Purdue to a team I just destroyed for a paragraph? That overrated Kentucky team was still able to reach the Final Four on the strength of its size, athleticism, and quality depth. Purdue can match that size, athleticism, and quality depth plus boast superior intangibles, since UK had no Seniors in their rotation and Purdue has 3. Purdue will murder some overrated teams in 2015-16. Florida comes to mind. The B1G is the toughest conference this year, not the 6th toughest like the SEC was last year, so just don't expect an undefeated regular season. Do expect a Final Four.

Finally a Boiler I hope you never work at evaluating talent. Let's see Hammons is in mocks I have seen not even a 1st rd draft choice. High 2nd rd pick. Towns is NBA rookie of year and was #1 pick. Lyles 1st rd pick AND Booker was a 1st rd pick. Purdue right now has maybe 2 potential NBA players in Edwards and Swanigan. I said MAYBE!!!