Does Archie Miller Return To IU Next Year?

[Boilermaker03]

It is time to accept Indiana is no longer a blue blood. With teams like Duke and Kentucky you are genuinely surprised they won't make the tournament and are so bad this year. With indiana, it is total meh.

Were they ever a blue blood or a school that had one great coach? Not meant as a troll post. Just don't know what is required to make a school a blue blood.

Is UCLA? They have the most titles, but haven't done much in a really long time. 10 of their 11 titles were won under one coach.

I guess my question is, what really makes a blue blood?

I saw somewhere that said "Tradition, consistency and resources are what dictate blue blood status." That could be a lot of schools, depending on how you define tradition and consistency...

Just for reference, the overall records of some "blue blood" schools with some regular basketball schools:

Duke 2,201–893 (.711)
Kentucky 2,320 wins (.765)
Kansas 2,302–862 (.728)
UCLA 1,909–868 (.687)
IU 1,868–1,074 (.635)

Purdue 1830–1027 (.641)
Michigan 1,655–1,057 (.610)
Illinois 1,813–1,025 (.639)
Michigan St 1752–1102 (.614)

Note: I tried to pull some other schools from other conferences, but in my quick search I couldn't find overall wins and losses.

 

[IUBtown]

Rick Pitino.

 

[NC_Trojan10]

Were they ever a blue blood or a school that had one great coach? Not meant as a troll post. Just don't know what is required to make a school a blue blood.

Is UCLA? They have the most titles, but haven't done much in a really long time. 10 of their 11 titles were won under one coach.

I guess my question is, what really makes a blue blood?

I saw somewhere that said "Tradition, consistency and resources are what dictate blue blood status." That could be a lot of schools, depending on how you define tradition and consistency...

Just for reference, the overall records of some "blue blood" schools with some regular basketball schools:

Duke 2,201–893 (.711)
Kentucky 2,320 wins (.765)
Kansas 2,302–862 (.728)
UCLA 1,909–868 (.687)
IU 1,868–1,074 (.635)

Purdue 1830–1027 (.641)
Michigan 1,655–1,057 (.610)
Illinois 1,813–1,025 (.639)
Michigan St 1752–1102 (.614)

Note: I tried to pull some other schools from other conferences, but in my quick search I couldn't find overall wins and losses.

So Duke isn’t a Blue Blood? They have only had success under Coach K. IU has national championships under multiple coaches.

 

[Villian07]

With the NCAA allowing an extra year, and transfers being immediately available, its(recruiting) not that big of an issue THIS year. But overall, it is alarming. Duncomb will be a very nice piece. He's solid. CJ Gunn is a very good get, as well.

With that being said, I’m Not sure I wouldn’t target a current coach with a stacked roster/recruiting class and see who he could bring along with him, if the home run hires don’t work out of course.

 

[Villian07]

Yea imo the blue bloods are duke uk Kansas unc

I have no clue what to do with UCLA. They should be there but at the same time year in and year out they don’t belong with the other 4. But it’s hard to ignore a decade streak of titles.

When you get to Indiana, you have to look at Louisville As well in my biased opinion. Before the vacations everything was close except they had us on titles. But if you start using the title argument As the end all be all, UCLA can’t be left out and you have to start considering UConn as well imo.

 

[boilerzz]

You are probably right about Pearl. BUT---I mean his past isn't that bad. MOF, its kind of comical to an extent...He lied about a BBQ at Tenn...I mean not good, of course. But not UL level type of shit, either..Then at UW-Milwaukee, he invited a recruit to his daughters graduation party...

 

[Boilermaker03]

So Duke isn’t a Blue Blood? They have only had success under Coach K. IU has national championships under multiple coaches.

Huh? I never said Duke wasn't.

 

[sgrooms]

Huh? I never said Duke wasn't.

"10 of their 11 titles were won under one coach."

That was used as a knock against UCLA.

 

[NC_Trojan10]

Huh? I never said Duke wasn't.

You said IU isn’t a Blue Blood, because they’ve only had success under 1 coach. Duke has only had success under Coach K. IU has championships under multiple coaches. Just pointing out your flawed logic.

 

[Jaycg15]

Bruce Pearl killed our Chicago pipeline that Lute Olsen created

Lol your pipeline? Michigan ended up with the Fab 5 because of Pearl. Juwan Howard chose Michigan instead of Illinois because of Pearl.

 

[Boilermaker03]

"10 of their 11 titles were won under one coach."

That was used as a knock against UCLA.

I wasn't using it as a knock. Just asking the question if having all or most of your titles under one coach still qualifies you as a blue blood.

 

[Boilermaker03]

You said IU isn’t a Blue Blood, because they’ve only had success under 1 coach. Duke has only had success under Coach K. IU has championships under multiple coaches. Just pointing out your flawed logic.

I was simply asking the question, what makes a blue blood. The definition says tradition, consistency and resources. Duke has a .711 win percentage, so I'd say tradition and consistency is there. I guess my point is even though Duke has only won titles under one coach, they still have a winning tradition, which makes them a blue blood, no? Or does it have to be with multiple titles? If that's the case, at what point does your status get removed if you're not performing at a high level?

My question is once again about IU. What is it that makes them a blue blood? Their overall winning percentage? Recent history win percentage? Or just simply the fact that they have a handful of national championships? If that's the case then do they carry that title forever, no matter how they perform decades later?

As far as my "flawed" logic, IU technically has 5 NCAA titles, but if we're being real, only the ones under Knight were true national titles. The first two for IU were back when the national champion could have been the NCAA winner and could have been the NIT winner.

 

[NC_Trojan10]

I was simply asking the question, what makes a blue blood. The definition says tradition, consistency and resources. Duke has a .711 win percentage, so I'd say tradition and consistency is there. I guess my point is even though Duke has only won titles under one coach, they still have a winning tradition, which makes them a blue blood, no? Or does it have to be with multiple titles? If that's the case, at what point does your status get removed if you're not performing at a high level?

My question is once again about IU. What is it that makes them a blue blood? Their overall winning percentage? Recent history win percentage? Or just simply the fact that they have a handful of national championships?

As far as my "flawed" logic, IU technically has 5 NCAA titles, but if we're being real, only the ones under Knight were true national titles. The first two for IU were back when the national champion could have been the NCAA winner and could have been the NIT winner.

IU has 5 NCAA national championships (the only national championships that matter). Once a blue blood, always a blue blood.

A better question though; is Purdue a blue blood?

 

[Boilermaker03]

IU has 5 NCAA national championships (the only national championships that matter). Once a blue blood, always a blue blood.

A better question though; is Purdue a blue blood?

I can see that you're getting hung up on the fact that I'm a Purdue fan asking about IU. I could have asked the same question about UCLA but considering they have the most titles, that would seem a tad more ridiculous, no?

IU has 5 NCAA titles. Anyone that is familiar with the history of the battle between the NCAA and NIT would understand that anything before the 1950's (and that's being generous) could be brought into question as to who the actual national champion would be.

2. The NCAA tournament used to take a backseat to the NIT.
The National Invitation Tournament, or NIT, which predates the NCAA tournament by a year, was once considered the preeminent college basketball event. It was especially attractive to teams that wanted the media attention of playing at Madison Square Garden in New York. As late as 1970, Marquette coach Al McGuire chose the NIT over the NCAA tournament because his team had been placed in the Midwest Regional rather than close to home in the Mideast Regional. After that, the NCAA barred any school that declined a bid in its tourney from playing postseason games elsewhere. An antitrust lawsuit ensued decades later, but the NCAA settled it in 2005 as part of a deal in which it purchased the NIT. These days, the NIT is a consolation tournament, open to those teams that don’t make the cut for March Madness.

 

[NC_Trojan10]

I can see that you're getting hung up on the fact that I'm a Purdue fan asking about IU. I could have asked the same question about UCLA but considering they have the most titles, that would seem a tad more ridiculous, no?

IU has 5 NCAA titles. Anyone that is familiar with the history of the battle between the NCAA and NIT would understand that anything before the 1950's (and that's being generous) could be brought into question as to who the actual national champion would be.

2. The NCAA tournament used to take a backseat to the NIT.
The National Invitation Tournament, or NIT, which predates the NCAA tournament by a year, was once considered the preeminent college basketball event. It was especially attractive to teams that wanted the media attention of playing at Madison Square Garden in New York. As late as 1970, Marquette coach Al McGuire chose the NIT over the NCAA tournament because his team had been placed in the Midwest Regional rather than close to home in the Mideast Regional. After that, the NCAA barred any school that declined a bid in its tourney from playing postseason games elsewhere. An antitrust lawsuit ensued decades later, but the NCAA settled it in 2005 as part of a deal in which it purchased the NIT. These days, the NIT is a consolation tournament, open to those teams that don’t make the cut for March Madness.

You must have at least 1 national title to join this discussion.

 

[Boilermaker03]

You must have at least 1 national title to join this discussion.

Great, now answer my question please.

 

[VulvHa]

Once a blue blood always a blue blood? Does that mean my alma mater is a blue blood in football and still the greatest program ever since it has the most national titles?

 

[boiler1987]

IU has 5 NCAA national championships (the only national championships that matter). Once a blue blood, always a blue blood.

A better question though; is Purdue a blue blood?

You do realize two of those championships occurred when the NIT was the better tournament right? It’s odd that IU fans seem to just skate right past that. You give us crap re the Helms stuff but then act like your early titles meant more than winning the NIT. I’ll give you the 3 ones Knight won for sure. The first two? Naw

 

[VulvHa]

You do realize two of those championships occurred when the NIT was the better tournament right? It’s odd that IU fans seem to just skate right past that. You give us crap re the Helms stuff but then act like your early titles meant more than winning the NIT. I’ll give you the 3 ones Knight won for sure. The first two? Naw

Yep, they are below UCONN at this point

 

[Boilermaker03]

You do realize two of those championships occurred when the NIT was the better tournament right? It’s odd that IU fans seem to just skate right past that. You give us crap re the Helms stuff but then act like your early titles meant more than winning the NIT. I’ll give you the 3 ones Knight won for sure. The first two? Naw

@NC_Trojan10 We were picked by Helms AND the Premo-Porretta Power Poll in 1932. Two different services gave it to us that year yet it doesn't count according to IU fans. Does that mean that there are NO national champions prior to the first NCAA or NIT tournaments? Does that also mean that Notre Dame never won a national championship since none of their titles came during the BCS or current playoff system?

 

[boiler1987]

Yep, they are below UCONN at this point

1940 Purdue won the B1G lol. They declined the invitation to the NCAA tournament lol.

 

[NC_Trojan10]

Championships seems to be a touchy subject with Purdue fans... lol

 

[VulvHa]

Championships seems to be a touchy subject with Purdue fans... lol

Same with the lack of blue blood status for IU fans

 

[Boilermaker03]

Championships seems to be a touchy subject with Purdue fans... lol

We aren't the ones using revisionist history to support our ideals. I'd say IU fans are the one's that are touchy about championships.

 

[Boilermaker03]

Championships seems to be a touchy subject with Purdue fans... lol

If I'm going to be consistent logically, IU technically did win a national championship in 1953 since they won the NCAA as well as the Helms award. So IU has 4 national championships.

 

[boilerzz]

@NC_Trojan10 We were picked by Helms AND the Premo-Porretta Power Poll in 1932. Two different services gave it to us that year yet it doesn't count according to IU fans. Does that mean that there are NO national champions prior to the first NCAA or NIT tournaments? Does that also mean that Notre Dame never won a national championship since none of their titles came during the BCS or current playoff system?

Dude, I'm a Purdue fan and even I don't recognize "Helms" championships as national championships. Let's put that nonsense to bed please.

 

[Boilermaker03]

@NC_Trojan10 You can laugh at my statement, but Helms was still choosing National Champions up until 1982. It's not clear when exactly the NCAA tournament became the defacto national champion, but there would be no need for a service like Helms if it was clear it was the NCAA tournament winner. My guess is that Helms became redundant around 1970 when the NCAA barred teams from playing in the post season (NIT) if they turned down the NCAA tournament. If the NCAA tournament was the crowning of the national champion, then why would any team turn down an invite to play in a lesser tournament?

Not only that, but the Helms champion mirrored the NCAA champion every single year accept 1939, 1940, 1944, and 1954.

 

[Boilermaker03]

Dude, I'm a Purdue fan and even I don't recognize "Helms" championships as national championships. Let's put that nonsense to bed please.

So in your mind no team ever was a national champion until 1939? With that logic, Notre Dame has never won a national championship in football. Get real dude...

 

[boilerzz]

So in your mind no team ever was a national champion until 1939? With that logic, Notre Dame has never won a national championship in football. Get real dude...

Football is different. It was voted on until 1997 so it's an accepted part of history. You will find very few legitimate sources that say that about college basketball. Most just recognize the NCAA champion so yes, they all tend to start in 1939.

BTW, do you know what the term "mythical" means? If not, look it up and get back to us.

PS - If you need to go back more than 80 years to make an argument, you've already lost.

 

[Boilermaker03]

Football is different. It was voted on until 1997 so it's an accepted part of history. You will find very few legitimate sources that say that about college basketball. Most just recognize the NCAA champion so yes, they all tend to start in 1939.

BTW, do you know what the term "mythical" means? If not, look it up and get back to us.

PS - If you need to go back more than 80 years to make an argument, you've already lost.

Yes I've heard of the term mythical national champion. It also deems football champions before the BCS as mythical so your argument doesn't hold water about Notre Dame's championships.

As far as mythical national champion stygma, that would mean the football national champion and the basketball national champion don't exist pre playoff systems.

"A mythical national championship (sometimes abbreviated MNC) is national championship recognition that is not explicitly competitive. This phrase has often been invoked in reference to American college football, because the NCAA does not sponsor a playoff-style tournament or recognize official national champions for the Football Bowl Subdivision. "

"Mythical national champion" is a term that has been used since at least 1920[2] for a championship won by an NCAA Division I football team, especially for titles won before the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) system began in 1998. Before the BCS, polls in which coaches and/or sportswriters voted, such as the AP, UPI, and USA Today polls, awarded championships. This led to seasons in which two or even more teams could claim to have won the national championship.

"The national championship of collegiate basketball that is officially recognized by the main governing body for collegiate athletics in the United States, the NCAA, has been awarded to the champion of an annual national post-season tournament run by the NCAA since 1939. Prior to the advent of national post-season college basketball tournaments, beginning with the NAIA national men's basketball championship in 1937, the National Invitation Tournament (NIT) in 1938[3] and the NCAA Tournament in 1939, virtually no third-party organizations selected basketball national champions."

"The Official NCAA Men's Basketball Records Book lists title selections of pre-tournament era teams by the Helms Athletic Foundation."

 

[boilerzz]

I can read Wikipedia too. But that doesn't make your point any more right. Let's focus on the last 75 years. Or better yet, how about the lifetimes of today's college basketball players. That's an entertaining period IMO.

 

[IUfanBorden]

I was simply asking the question, what makes a blue blood. The definition says tradition, consistency and resources. Duke has a .711 win percentage, so I'd say tradition and consistency is there. I guess my point is even though Duke has only won titles under one coach, they still have a winning tradition, which makes them a blue blood, no? Or does it have to be with multiple titles? If that's the case, at what point does your status get removed if you're not performing at a high level?

My question is once again about IU. What is it that makes them a blue blood? Their overall winning percentage? Recent history win percentage? Or just simply the fact that they have a handful of national championships? If that's the case then do they carry that title forever, no matter how they perform decades later?

As far as my "flawed" logic, IU technically has 5 NCAA titles, but if we're being real, only the ones under Knight were true national titles. The first two for IU were back when the national champion could have been the NCAA winner and could have been the NIT winner.

"A handful of National titles"? Ummm, they are 4th all-time. A handful is 2 or 3----Not 5.

"Only the titles under Knight are real....national champ could have been NCAA/NIT winner"..

Ummm, that's not how it works. THeir titles under McCracken were not voted titles....They were titles won on the floor. Now could you aregue the NIT winner COULD HAVE been better? Sure. But to say they don't really count is not accurate. I mean if that is the logic you wanna use, fine...But now we are cancelling NCAA titles all through the 40's, 50's and 60's. Something tells me is Purdue had won a title or two in that era, you wouldn't be so quick to dismiss them.

 

[IUfanBorden]

I can read Wikipedia too. But that doesn't make your point any more right. Let's focus on the last 75 years. Or better yet, how about the lifetimes of today's college basketball players. That's an entertaining period IMO.

Not sure what you mean here---But why would we focus on a 20 year span, to define the overall success of a program? IU was/is considered a blue blood because of multiple factors---Not just one: Titles. They are in the Top 10 in almost every statistical category when determining a "blue blood", so to speak: Wins, FF's, Titles, NCAAT appearnces....NCAAT wins. How many boxes can Purdue check?

 

[boiler1987]

"A handful of National titles"? Ummm, they are 4th all-time. A handful is 2 or 3----Not 5.

"Only the titles under Knight are real....national champ could have been NCAA/NIT winner"..

Ummm, that's not how it works. THeir titles under McCracken were not voted titles....They were titles won on the floor. Now could you aregue the NIT winner COULD HAVE been better? Sure. But to say they don't really count is not accurate. I mean if that is the logic you wanna use, fine...But now we are cancelling NCAA titles all through the 40's, 50's and 60's. Something tells me is Purdue had won a title or two in that era, you wouldn't be so quick to dismiss them.

I think the most recent 3 carry a lot more significance honestly. The first two the NCAA wasn’t the premier tournament.

 

[Fighter of the Nightman]

I’m fine calling IU a “Blue Blood” on historical grounds, but I’ve always grouped IU and UL together in my head, and I think they both absolutely deserve the same distinction. Honestly, though, Kentucky, UNC, Kansas and Duke are clearly a step above anyone else in this conversation, and the advantage those schools enjoy on a yearly basis is in the stratosphere. IU probably enjoys more natural advantages than Illinois or OSU, for example, but they’re much closer to us than their “fellow Blue Bloods” in that category.

As for the OP, I could see them keeping him. IU’s administration knows the fans will show up next year, and they’ll just fire him next year for less money.

 

[boilerzz]

"A handful of National titles"? Ummm, they are 4th all-time. A handful is 2 or 3----Not 5.

"Only the titles under Knight are real....national champ could have been NCAA/NIT winner"..

Ummm, that's not how it works. THeir titles under McCracken were not voted titles....They were titles won on the floor. Now could you aregue the NIT winner COULD HAVE been better? Sure. But to say they don't really count is not accurate. I mean if that is the logic you wanna use, fine...But now we are cancelling NCAA titles all through the 40's, 50's and 60's. Something tells me is Purdue had won a title or two in that era, you wouldn't be so quick to dismiss them.

You aren’t understanding because @Boilermaker03 and I were talking about Purdue’s ”Helms title”, not Indiana.

 

[IUfanBorden]

I think the most recent 3 carry a lot more significance honestly. The first two the NCAA wasn’t the premier tournament.

Agree... But not the point. To say IU has only has success under one coach is false. When in fact they have had two coaches win multiple national titles. I mean shit even Dean had a decent career here. Won three Big 10 titles. 163-90 overall record. I mean by no means was he sitting the world on fire...But for that era---pretty damn goood.

 

[IUfanBorden]

I’m fine calling IU a “Blue Blood” on historical grounds, but I’ve always grouped IU and UL together in my head, and I think they both absolutely deserve the same distinction. Honestly, though, Kentucky, UNC, Kansas and Duke are clearly a step above anyone else in this conversation, and the advantage those schools enjoy on a yearly basis is in the stratosphere. IU probably enjoys more natural advantages than Illinois or OSU, for example, but they’re much closer to us than their “fellow Blue Bloods” in that category.

As for the OP, I could see them keeping him. IU’s administration knows the fans will show up next year, and they’ll just fire him next year for less money.

TBH , I couldn't give two ****s if IU is labeled a blood blood or not. It has no relevance. t doesn't help shit. I just wanna win. Be relevant. Battle for a Big 10 title...be mentioned in the race would suit me.

IU fans can make fun of Purdue all they want. I do it. Always will. But at the end of the day, there's not one that would take what Painter has done lately, and IS doing now, over the fukin shit show this program has been.

 

[IUfanBorden]

You aren’t understanding because @Boilermaker03 and I were talking about Purdue’s ”Helms title”, not Indiana.

Then, ummm, why mention IU and their number of titles? Or only being succesful under one coach?

 

[boiler1987]

TBH , I couldn't give two ****s if IU is labeled a blood blood or not. It has no relevance. t doesn't help shit. I just wanna win. Be relevant. Battle for a Big 10 title...be mentioned in the race would suit me.

IU fans can make fun of Purdue all they want. I do it. Always will. But at the end of the day, there's not one that would take what Painter has done lately, and IS doing now, over the fukin shit show this program has been.

Assuming you meant to say there isn’t one that wouldn’t* instead of would?