This is not insignificant

[KoB2011]

14 minutes ago, IUFLA said:

Last year we beat a good Xavier team at their place and an 18th ranked (at the time) UNC squad at ours...I know you'll poo-poo those 2 wins some way... 

Of course, we lost to Kansas and Arizona 

So I'd say last year we were 2-2 against "non Big Ten team we’ve played of any caliber."

 

The Xavier win was a good win, UNC didn't even make the tournament. You've been preaching non-stop how a team is playing in November and December doesn't matter, so we can't now pretend beating that bad UNC team at home meant much.

And we didn't lose to Kansas and Arizona, we got blown out. And then in March... we got blown out. Those tricky March games we keep getting embarrassed in surely count for something.... 

I'll leave it at this, if what we have seen in nearly 2.5 years in terms of performance doesn't warrant concern then you and I simply have different standards for what we want at IU. And that's totally fine, but I won't lower my standards just because you don't have any. I'd like to compete for a Big Ten title or make a run in the tournament at some point, and we are likely not going to be sniffing any of that after three seasons. I would like to see some adjustments from the staff on how they're approaching things - they've stated the same criteria I just did on numerous occasions. 

[5fouls]

38 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

The Xavier win was a good win, UNC didn't even make the tournament. You've been preaching non-stop how a team is playing in November and December doesn't matter, so we can't now pretend beating that bad UNC team at home meant much.

And we didn't lose to Kansas and Arizona, we got blown out. And then in March... we got blown out. Those tricky March games we keep getting embarrassed in surely count for something.... 

I'll leave it at this, if what we have seen in nearly 2.5 years in terms of performance doesn't warrant concern then you and I simply have different standards for what we want at IU. And that's totally fine, but I won't lower my standards just because you don't have any. I'd like to compete for a Big Ten title or make a run in the tournament at some point, and we are likely not going to be sniffing any of that after three seasons. I would like to see some adjustments from the staff on how they're approaching things - they've stated the same criteria I just did on numerous occasions. 

I may be delusional, but I do not see why we cant compete for a Big Ten title this year.  

Are we the favorite?  No.

Is there a dominant team in the conference?  No.

Are we so bad that we can say with certainty that we can't beat "insert conference team" on any given night?  No.

I will be expecting us to win every game the rest of the season.  That's highly unlikely to happen, but when the official tosses the ball in the air for the opening tip, my brain is going to believe we can win the game.

So, yeah, I'm not going to be shocked at the end of the year if we are sitting at the top of the conference standings.

Currently 2-0. 

[IUFLA]

4 minutes ago, 5fouls said:

I may be delusional, but I do not see why we cant compete for a Big Ten title this year.  

Are we the favorite?  No.

Is there a dominant team in the conference?  No.

Are we so bad that we can say with certainty that we can't beat "insert conference team" on any given night?  No.

I will be expecting us to win every game the rest of the season.  That's highly unlikely to happen, but when the official tosses the ball in the air for the opening tip, my brain is going to believe we can win the game.

So, yeah, I'm not going to be shocked at the end of the year if we are sitting at the top of the conference standings.

Currently 2-0. 

I've watched every Big 10 team a couple of times...

And believe me, it galls me to say this, but Purdue is clearly the class of the league...Illinois is very good as well... To win against either one we'd have to play at our best... Wisconsin and Northwestern are good, but I think we're just as good, especially when X comes back... 

If Purdue lost Edey or the Illini lost Shannon, everybody would end up 10-10 🙂

[5fouls]

6 minutes ago, IUFLA said:

I've watched every Big 10 team a couple of times...

And believe me, it galls me to say this, but Purdue is clearly the class of the league...Illinois is very good as well... To win against either one we'd have to play at our best... Wisconsin and Northwestern are good, but I think we're just as good, especially when X comes back... 

If Purdue lost Edey or the Illini lost Shannon, everybody would end up 10-10 🙂

Purdue already has a conference loss.  If they can lose to Northwestern, they can lose to IU.

[IUFLA]

20 minutes ago, 5fouls said:

Purdue already has a conference loss.  If they can lose to Northwestern, they can lose to IU.

They can... But we have to bring our best game... 

[IU Scott]

1 hour ago, KoB2011 said:

The Xavier win was a good win, UNC didn't even make the tournament. You've been preaching non-stop how a team is playing in November and December doesn't matter, so we can't now pretend beating that bad UNC team at home meant much.

And we didn't lose to Kansas and Arizona, we got blown out. And then in March... we got blown out. Those tricky March games we keep getting embarrassed in surely count for something.... 

I'll leave it at this, if what we have seen in nearly 2.5 years in terms of performance doesn't warrant concern then you and I simply have different standards for what we want at IU. And that's totally fine, but I won't lower my standards just because you don't have any. I'd like to compete for a Big Ten title or make a run in the tournament at some point, and we are likely not going to be sniffing any of that after three seasons. I would like to see some adjustments from the staff on how they're approaching things - they've stated the same criteria I just did on numerous occasions. 

So finishing second last year wasn't competing for the title

[Purdue7]

On 12/11/2023 at 10:38 PM, 5fouls said:

But, on the other hand, you have to be careful not to have a mascot failure.

Make it stop 🛑 

did a 5 year old make that ?

[KoB2011]

1 hour ago, 5fouls said:

I may be delusional, but I do not see why we cant compete for a Big Ten title this year.  

Are we the favorite?  No.

Is there a dominant team in the conference?  No.

Are we so bad that we can say with certainty that we can't beat "insert conference team" on any given night?  No.

I will be expecting us to win every game the rest of the season.  That's highly unlikely to happen, but when the official tosses the ball in the air for the opening tip, my brain is going to believe we can win the game.

So, yeah, I'm not going to be shocked at the end of the year if we are sitting at the top of the conference standings.

Currently 2-0. 

I love the optimism, but it's hard to imagine we can beat Purdue for the conference crown this year. I hope I'm wrong on that. 

[KoB2011]

58 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

So finishing second last year wasn't competing for the title

I don't personally consider finishing three games back competing for a conference title. 

[Artesian_86]

2 minutes ago, Purdue7 said:

Make it stop 🛑 

did a 5 year old make that ?

....Maybe one of the guys who escaped from Alcatraz, actually survived and got job making that hideous head....lol

 

[IUCrazy2]

1 hour ago, IU Scott said:

So finishing second last year wasn't competing for the title

Guess it depends on how you define compete, much like this year appears, it was kind of Purdue and everyone else.  We were 3 games back in the conference standings.  So I guess we "competed" but they won the conference pretty comfortably.  To put in perspective, Purdue had 5 losses and the next 7 teams had 8 or 9.  With uneven scheduling, there really wasn't a clear cut second best team (or third or fourth or....)

ETA:  to put it another way, as many losses separated 1 from 2 as separated 2 from 11.  Nobody was much competition at all.

Edited December 13, 2023 by IUCrazy2

[btownqb]

14 minutes ago, IUCrazy2 said:

Guess it depends on how you define compete, much like this year appears, it was kind of Purdue and everyone else.  We were 3 games back in the conference standings.  So I guess we "competed" but they won the conference pretty comfortably.  To put in perspective, Purdue had 5 losses and the next 7 teams had 8 or 9.  With uneven scheduling, there really wasn't a clear cut second best team (or third or fourth or....)

ETA:  to put it another way, as many losses separated 1 from 2 as separated 2 from 11.  Nobody was much competition at all.

Except for the fact we beat their asses twice without our starting PG lol wtf

[IUFLA]

20 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

I don't personally consider finishing three games back competing for a conference title. 

 

17 minutes ago, IUCrazy2 said:

Guess it depends on how you define compete, much like this year appears, it was kind of Purdue and everyone else.  We were 3 games back in the conference standings.  So I guess we "competed" but they won the conference pretty comfortably.  To put in perspective, Purdue had 5 losses and the next 7 teams had 8 or 9.  With uneven scheduling, there really wasn't a clear cut second best team (or third or fourth or....)

ETA:  to put it another way, as many losses separated 1 from 2 as separated 2 from 11.  Nobody was much competition at all.

When we beat Purdue on 2/25 we were 11-7 in the conference and they were 13-5... So, yeah, still having a shot at first 18 games into a 20 game conference season I'd call competing... 

As @btownqb said, that was without our starting PG, and with Purdue having a much softer Big 10 schedule than we did... 

[KoB2011]

12 minutes ago, IUFLA said:

 

When we beat Purdue on 2/25 we were 11-7 in the conference and they were 13-5... So, yeah, still having a shot at first 18 games into a 20 game conference season I'd call competing... 

As @btownqb said, that was without our starting PG, and with Purdue having a much softer Big 10 schedule than we did... 

I get all that, I get that we beat them twice, but we finished as close to 12th as we did to first.

I doubt anyone in the program considers that good enough. 

[IUCrazy2]

18 minutes ago, btownqb said:

Except for the fact we beat their asses twice without our starting PG lol wtf

We were 3 games out.  If we won the Big Ten by 3 games do you think we buy Purdue "competing" with us for the title because they happened to be built just right to beat us?  No way.  We would say they were no where near the title.

That isn't dogging the program or the players or the coaches.  That is just looking at that situation realistically.  Nobody really competed with Purdue for the title last year.  It was them up here, like 10 teams a ways down here in the middle, and then 3 more teams waaaay down there.

[Seeking6]

23 minutes ago, btownqb said:

Except for the fact we beat their asses twice without our starting PG lol wtf

Details, details....haha. Just like the road Xavier win last year it's because we had X. I'm going to wait and see what we look like with a full clip. Until that time we are a completely different operation without him. 

[Inequality]

If we had X we would have only lost by 10.

I don’t know about none of that.

I do know we better have our big boy pants on to compete with Kansas or they might as well show up in their home jerseys.

 

[IUCrazy2]

55 minutes ago, Inequality said:

If we had X we would have only lost by 10.

I don’t know about none of that.

I do know we better have our big boy pants on to compete with Kansas or they might as well show up in their home jerseys.

 

From what I saw the early betting lines opened at 5.5 and the ones that are accepting bets have ballooned to 18 to 22.  When was the last time we were a 20 point dog at home?

[NCHoosier32]

5 minutes ago, IUCrazy2 said:

From what I saw the early betting lines opened at 5.5 and the ones that are accepting bets have ballooned to 18 to 22.  When was the last time we were a 20 point dog at home?

i don't think anything could ruin this weekend for me, but Good Lord losing by 20 at home could come close.  i don't expect a win, but for some reason feel like it could happen since it is at AH and we do have talent on this team.  i think we will end up on the wrong end, but please let it be competitive at least!

[IUCrazy2]

51 minutes ago, NCHoosier32 said:

i don't think anything could ruin this weekend for me, but Good Lord losing by 20 at home could come close.  i don't expect a win, but for some reason feel like it could happen since it is at AH and we do have talent on this team.  i think we will end up on the wrong end, but please let it be competitive at least!

I am hoping that the "You rank em, we spank em" mojo is in effect.  We could really use that W.

[NotIThatLives]

2 hours ago, IUCrazy2 said:

I am hoping that the "You rank em, we spank em" mojo is in effect.  We could really use that W.

I'm not confident.  

What's the word on X?  Problem is the chemistry was picking up and he has been out.  X is a rhythm guy.  He seemed to still be feeling out the roles.   

[94hoosier]

13 minutes ago, NotIThatLives said:

I'm not confident.  

What's the word on X?  Problem is the chemistry was picking up and he has been out.  X is a rhythm guy.  He seemed to still be feeling out the roles.   

Maybe having him come in with second unit is a plus for the 2nd unit.  He still get 28 or more minutes, but comes in after 4 or 5 minutes to lead the second unit. 

[IUCrazy2]

1 hour ago, 94hoosier said:

Maybe having him come in with second unit is a plus for the 2nd unit.  He still get 28 or more minutes, but comes in after 4 or 5 minutes to lead the second unit. 

Maybe to get him back in the flow for a few games but you ultimately need "Good X" in the starting line up.

[94hoosier]

3 minutes ago, IUCrazy2 said:

Maybe to get him back in the flow for a few games but you ultimately need "Good X" in the starting line up.

agree

[NCHoosier32]

no doubt our best shot at reaching the best this team can be is a good XJ.  what stinks is that i still think we look better in some ways without him the way he was playing on both ends pre-injury.  we need him back and we need him playing smart.