That's four for CMP

[IMSKRONG]

You are absolutely correct; success is subjective. For me, the season is already a success. In early November, the team was not nationally ranked and pegged to finish in the middle of the conference (or a little better).

They have been ranked since late November and were ranked #1 for seven weeks. They are at worst B1G co-champions and will likely win the title outright. A guy who has been playing organized ball for a few short years may be the national player of the year. A freshman that nobody else wanted has run point all season. They have already exceeded expectations. That is a successful season (to me).

More importantly -- and as always -- our coach and players have represented our university with style and class. College basketball has more than its share of renegades and corruption, but there is not a whiff of it in West Lafayette. I don't think anyone should overlook that or take it for granted.

I realize the media and casual fans put more stock in the NCAA tournament. I might, too, if the field consisted of the 68 best teams in the country but that's not the case. Over the years, how many true Cinderellas who would have given high seeds all kinds of fits have been left out because some team with a losing or mediocre record happened to string a few wins together in a conference tournament? How many times has the best team really won the tournament? I will never be convinced that the 2010 NCAA tournament champions were better than the 2010 Purdue Boilermakers. Fate intervened.

To me, the regular season means more than the tournament. Of course, as I said in another thread, conference expansion has bastardized and diluted the significance of the regular season with unbalanced schedules and the like. But that doesn't change my view of the NCAA tournament, which is largely a crapshoot given your seeding, region, upsets, etc.

Also of course, I will be elated if the Boilers reach the Final Four, and very happy if they win the tournament. But in any given season, if a Purdue Boilermaker basketball team competes for (or wins) a conference championship, produces excellent players on and off the floor, and continues to foster and advance the program, I am satisfied.

All of this is probably why Purdue is what it is. A good program that can win big. Happy enough with regular season success.

And you think that 2010 Purdue team was better than 2010 Duke team? What crack exactly have you been smoking? That's about like IU fans thinking the 2012 IU team was better than the 2012 Kentucky team.

 

[collegehoopsfan123]

All of this is probably why Purdue is what it is. A good program that can win big. Happy enough with regular season success.

And you think that 2010 Purdue team was better than 2010 Duke team? What crack exactly have you been smoking? That's about like IU fans thinking the 2012 IU team was better than the 2012 Kentucky team.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Purdue lost to that 2010 Duke team by 13 points in the Sweet 16. Hummel did not play. Hummel was averaging 15.7 pts and 6.9 rebounds for a red-hot Purdue team that was going for a 1 seed before he got hurt.

Kansas and Kentucky had both lost, and Purdue (ranked #3) probably would have beaten Michigan State at home,(1st game without Hummel) and been ranked #1 with 2 regular season games left starting March.

So, yeah 2010 Purdue with Hummel could have beaten 2010 Duke in a FF or TG match-up. But hey what do I know. Thanks for mentioning Purdue.

 

[jdbrees922]

Does anyone know how many Big ten titles everyone has ? I know Purdue has 25 but curious about the others

 

[IMSKRONG]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Purdue lost to that 2010 Duke team by 13 points in the Sweet 16. Hummel did not play. Hummel was averaging 15.7 pts and 6.9 rebounds for a red-hot Purdue team that was going for a 1 seed before he got hurt.

Kansas and Kentucky had both lost, and Purdue (ranked #3) probably would have beaten Michigan State at home,(1st game without Hummel) and been ranked #1 with 2 regular season games left starting March.

So, yeah 2010 Purdue with Hummel could have beaten 2010 Duke in a FF or TG match-up. But hey what do I know. Thanks for mentioning Purdue.

Sure they could have, doesn't mean they were better.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

All of this is probably why Purdue is what it is. A good program that can win big. Happy enough with regular season success.

And you think that 2010 Purdue team was better than 2010 Duke team? What crack exactly have you been smoking? That's about like IU fans thinking the 2012 IU team was better than the 2012 Kentucky team.

Just so I understand you; are you saying that the administration and the basketball program have the exact or similar criteria I articulated and that is why Purdue "can [sic] win big"?

If that's the case, what's the solution? Fans banding together to pool money and/or deny JPC contributions so that Painter is forced out? Then what?

I happen not to judge the success of the program by Final Four appearances. If I did, I would think that the likes of Steve Fisher, Paul Hewitt, Dale Brown, Bruce Pearl, Hubert Davis, etc., etc. were or are more valuable than Keady or Painter. I don't. Perhaps you will say I need to heat up another spoon.

As for 2010, colleghoopsfan summed it up. And I've been playing or coaching basketball for nearly 40 years, so, yes, I think that Purdue was better than Duke that year. That is not a radical opinion by any stretch.

 

[bonefish1]

My desire to win the tournament begins and ends with shutting up the loudmouths bitching about us not doing it. I guess it would also be nice to chill some of our fans out - tasting the ultimate success kind of has a way of doing that.

It's a single-elimination tournament. Luck is a huge part of that.

Sure, there's some luck involved, but Purdue being unlucky isn't why we haven't been to the FF in 40 years. I think it has more to do with coaching style and philosophy. We've had 2 coaches in 40 years. One happened to play and coach under the other. Yes, they've been successful in conference but both struggled in the tourney. Neither was considered a great recruiter and was only able to recruit a handful of NBA caliber players. That has a lot more to do with it than luck.

 

[bonefish1]

Smart post - blue bloods are made in March and being a blue blood helps with recruiting. Success begets success.

You become a blue blood by building the program and having success in March. There's a bunch of teams who have had success in the tourney who most probably wouldn't consider to be blue bloods.
Cuse, Nova, UConn, Zaga, Those teams aren't UK, Duke, UNC, UCLA, Kansas.

 

[Dryfly88]

Oh no... No way anyone could recall national champions and not 1st team all Americans. Not in a million years.

Good job Savant, it was just last year. You have a great memory.....

 

[Schmedly_Whiplash]

Sure, there's some luck involved, but Purdue being unlucky isn't why we haven't been to the FF in 40 years. I think it has more to do with coaching style and philosophy. We've had 2 coaches in 40 years. One happened to play and coach under the other. Yes, they've been successful in conference but both struggled in the tourney. Neither was considered a great recruiter and was only able to recruit a handful of NBA caliber players. That has a lot more to do with it than luck.

You might want to look at our history a little closer.......... our best shots went down to injury to key players.
More than once.

 

[bonefish1]

You might want to look at our history a little closer.......... our best shots went down to injury to key players.
More than once.

Every team has injuries. I would argue that history would indicate Purdue would lose in the S16 or E8.
Look at last year; We have a Top 5 lottery pick, get to play a 15 seed to get to the E8 and Painter shits the bed......again.

 

[depthcharge623]

It’s interesting to me that some have said in this

Every team has injuries. I would argue that history would indicate Purdue would lose in the S16 or E8.
Look at last year; We have a Top 5 lottery pick, get to play a 15 seed to get to the E8 and Painter shits the bed......again.

Yes but the teams who get to the FF or win a NC are usually healthy or at least their best players are.

You cannot seriously think that losing Hummel and Haas didn’t hurt our chances of advancing farther in those tournaments…

At this point I have to just assume you are being insincere…

 

[Schmedly_Whiplash]

Every team has injuries. I would argue that history would indicate Purdue would lose in the S16 or E8.
Look at last year; We have a Top 5 lottery pick, get to play a 15 seed to get to the E8 and Painter shits the bed......again.

what a load of horse shit.
Glenn Rob and Robbie Hummel Aren't EVERYbody....
Get a clue.
And quit ur bitching

 

[bonefish1]

It’s interesting to me that some have said in this

Yes but the teams who get to the FF or win a NC are usually healthy or at least their best players are.

You cannot seriously think that losing Hummel and Haas didn’t hurt our chances of advancing farther in those tournaments…

At this point I have to just assume you are being insincere…

Of course it hurts your chances, but what in Purdue's history, when they have a completely healthy team, would indicate that they were going to advance. We had more talented teams get beat by lower seeded mid majors when we had no injury excuse.
History suggests they lose in the S16 or maybe the E8.

 

[bonefish1]

what a load of horse shit.
Glenn Rob and Robbie Hummel Aren't EVERYbody....
Get a clue.
And quit ur bitching

I'm not saying it wouldn't make a difference, but it doesn't guarantee anything either. Duke had plenty of NBA talent on that team.
But again, what about the years Purdue was completely healthy? Why'd they get beat by lower seeds those years?

 

[titaniumbolt]

Sure, there's some luck involved, but Purdue being unlucky isn't why we haven't been to the FF in 40 years. I think it has more to do with coaching style and philosophy. We've had 2 coaches in 40 years. One happened to play and coach under the other. Yes, they've been successful in conference but both struggled in the tourney. Neither was considered a great recruiter and was only able to recruit a handful of NBA caliber players. That has a lot more to do with it than luck.

Exactly. Luck plays into a small sample size...but over a large sample size (which we have under Painter), it becomes much more about regression to the mean. We know what the mean is under him. If anything, based on the performance of the premier B10 teams, we should have been to the F4 twice by now with Painter if we were to assume he was capable of performing at the level of the top B10 coaches.

 

[pubill]

Nah. They are known for dominating their fake conference, getting an undeserved 1 seed, and flaming out.

Matt has never got a 1 seed.

 

[pubill]

Does anyone know how many Big ten titles everyone has ? I know Purdue has 25 but curious about the others

They all have less than 25 I know.

 

[pubill]

Just so I understand you; are you saying that the administration and the basketball program have the exact or similar criteria I articulated and that is why Purdue "can [sic] win big"?

If that's the case, what's the solution? Fans banding together to pool money and/or deny JPC contributions so that Painter is forced out? Then what?

I happen not to judge the success of the program by Final Four appearances. If I did, I would think that the likes of Steve Fisher, Paul Hewitt, Dale Brown, Bruce Pearl, Hubert Davis, etc., etc. were or are more valuable than Keady or Painter. I don't. Perhaps you will say I need to heat up another spoon.

As for 2010, colleghoopsfan summed it up. And I've been playing or coaching basketball for nearly 40 years, so, yes, I think that Purdue was better than Duke that year. That is not a radical opinion by any stretch.

I agree, before Hummel went down Purdue was best team in the nation.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

Matt has never got a 1 seed.

Was responding to the Gonzaga comment. Keep up!

 

[nitrowars]

2022- Kansas
2021- Baylor
2020- Politicians
2019- Virginia
2018- Villanova
2017- North Carolina
2016- Villanova
2015- Duke
2014- UConn
2013- Hookers
2012- Kentucky
2011- UConn
2010- Duke
2009- North Carolina
2008- Kansas
2007- Florida
2006- Florida
2005- North Carolina
2004- UConn
2003- Syracuse
2002- Maryland
2001- Duke
2000- Michigan State
1999- UConn
1998- Kentucky
1997- Arizona
1996- Kentucky

Absolutely love the politicians one

 

[Purdue80]

Smart post - blue bloods are made in March and being a blue blood helps with recruiting. Success begets success.

This!

 

[BoilerAndy]

Every team has injuries. I would argue that history would indicate Purdue would lose in the S16 or E8.
Look at last year; We have a Top 5 lottery pick, get to play a 15 seed to get to the E8 and Painter shits the bed......again.

So did blue blood Kentucky against the same team. Explain that.

 

[Purdue Grad in Texas]

Does anyone know how many Big ten titles everyone has ? I know Purdue has 25 but curious about the others

Purdue - 25
Indiana - 22
Ohio State/Wisconsin - 20
Illinois - 18
Michigan State - 16
Michigan - 15
Iowa/Minnesota - 8
University of Chicago - 6
Northwestern - 2
Maryland - 1

 

[delarno]

Nah. They are known for dominating their fake conference, getting an undeserved 1 seed, and flaming out.

In the last 5 NCAA tournaments, Gonzaga has gone to the Final Four and played in the National Title game 2 times, the Elite 8 once, and the Sweet 16 twice. We would kill for those two National title games.

Gonzaga plays in a weak conference but they have a lot of success in the tournament. Certainly, getting Number 1 seeds 4 out of those 5 tournaments have made their life easier but they have performed pretty well in support of those seed lines. I am confident they would have had a much tougher time getting those number 1 seeds had they played in the Big Ten or the Big 12 though.

 

[bonefish1]

So did blue blood Kentucky against the same team. Explain that.

The UK program has earned the right for some early tourney flops.

 

[bonefish1]

In the last 5 NCAA tournaments, Gonzaga has gone to the Final Four and played in the National Title game 2 times, the Elite 8 once, and the Sweet 16 twice. We would kill for those two National title games.

Gonzaga plays in a weak conference but they have a lot of success in the tournament. Certainly, getting Number 1 seeds 4 out of those 5 tournaments have made their life easier but they have performed pretty well in support of those seed lines. I am confident they would have had a much tougher time getting those number 1 seeds had they played in the Big Ten or the Big 12 though.

I bet Mark Few cares a lot more about tourney success than how he does in conference

 

[BoilerAndy]

The UK program has earned the right for some early tourney flops.

You didn't explain it. Especially when you consider all of the 5-star NBA talent they had on that team.

 

[bonefish1]

You didn't explain it. Especially when you consider all of the 5-star NBA talent they had on that team.

Like I said, when Purdue hangs a bunch of FF and NC banners, then they’ll have earned the right for some early exits.
It’s like one of my reps who’s a consistent high performer and won P club a few times. A bad year here and there is easily forgiven.

 

[pubill]

Was responding to the Gonzaga comment. Keep up!

do not want to with you!

 

[BoilerAndy]

Like I said, when Purdue hangs a bunch of FF and NC banners, then they’ll have earned the right for some early exits.
It’s like one of my reps who’s a consistent high performer and won P club a few times. A bad year here and there is easily forgiven.

You're making excuses and deflecting. You still didn't explain how blue blood Kentucky, with all of their 5-star NBA talent, lost to St. Peters.

 

[bonefish1]

You're making excuses and deflecting. You still didn't explain how blue blood Kentucky, with all of their 5-star NBA talent, lost to St. Peters.

The same way Purdue did to St. Peter or Little Rock or n Texas or…..

 

[BoilerAndy]

The same way Purdue did to St. Peter or Little Rock or n Texas or…..

But UK is loaded with 5-star talent. And Purdue had zero 5-stars. According to you, teams loaded with 5-stars don't lose those games. They win it all. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Purdue Grad in Texas]

But UK is loaded with 5-star talent. And Purdue had zero 5-stars. According to you, teams loaded with 5-stars don't lose those games. They win it all. Thanks for clarifying.

Purdue had one against Little Rock, but your point remains.

 

[New Pal Boiler]

Like I said, when Purdue hangs a bunch of FF and NC banners, then they’ll have earned the right for some early exits.
It’s like one of my reps who’s a consistent high performer and won P club a few times. A bad year here and there is easily forgiven.

That UK history was built on cheating.

 

[depthcharge623]

Guys, we won the Big Ten BY THREE WHOLE GAMES. On what was supposed to be a rebuilding year.

The whole thing with an unbalanced schedule to me seems crazy considering basically the entire Big Ten finished very close to one another except for 1-2 teams. So to me there is not a very clear dividing line between the top and bottom half of the conference.

But even if we do admit the schedule was somewhat unbalanced, we won by THREE WHOLE GAMES. The haters can stuff that in their pipes and smoke it.

Purdue mens basketball achieved something great this year. Let’s hope they can continue to achieve more.

 

[bonefish1]

But UK is loaded with 5-star talent. And Purdue had zero 5-stars. According to you, teams loaded with 5-stars don't lose those games. They win it all. Thanks for clarifying.

I didn't say that at all. What I said was that UK has had so much tourney success with multiple FF and NCs that when they sometimes crap the bed in the tourney, you can look past it. A team like UK, Duke or UNC has earned the right to have a bad tourney showing here or there because they've had so much success in the past. Purdue hasn't earned that right.

 

[bonefish1]

That UK history was built on cheating.

Allegedly

 

[New Pal Boiler]

Allegedly

WOW. You ARE naive…

 

[BoilerAndy]

I didn't say that at all. What I said was that UK has had so much tourney success with multiple FF and NCs that when they sometimes crap the bed in the tourney, you can look past it. A team like UK, Duke or UNC has earned the right to have a bad tourney showing here or there because they've had so much success in the past. Purdue hasn't earned that right.

That is exactly what you have been saying. For as long as you have been posting here.

 

[arcb102000]

My desire to win the tournament begins and ends with shutting up the loudmouths bitching about us not doing it. I guess it would also be nice to chill some of our fans out - tasting the ultimate success kind of has a way of doing that.

It's a single-elimination tournament. Luck is a huge part of that.

In 1985, Villanova won is first national championship defeating Georgetown 66-64 in the final game. During the season, Georgetown and Villanova played twice in the Big East schedule with Georgetown winning twice by decent margins. Villanova was 4th in the conference. Georgetown won the BE Tournament and Villanova did not get that far.

Now, on the basis of that one close game, is anyone going to main that Villanova was the better team?

In a single elimination tournament, luck can play a much larger factor than over the long haul. The law of averages comes into effect. It is the reason that a conference champion is more indicative of quality.