Does Archie Miller Return To IU Next Year?
- Thread starter gymman1031
- Start date
He mentioned it. And then he mentioned Purdue's Helms title. I called him out on that and said nothing of IU.
My gosh EDEY might be the biggest dude I’ve ever seen play college ball.
His effin head must weigh 50 lbs
His effin head must weigh 50 lbs
And he didn’t even start playing basketball until after the last time IU beat Purdue.
Last edited:
Man IU is pretty important to you guys, huh? Its cool. Streaks happen. Eventually it will end...IU will go on a straeak. Then what? What do you have through all this domination? FF's? Titles? Bunch of Elite 8's? I mean, what? Look, its awesme...I get it. I'd be smacking my gums if it were IU with a 9 game winning steak. No doubt.
It's all good. Hopefully one day IU gets back to where they were, and starts making this a rivalry again..In the meantime, just gotta eat shit like you spew until then.
Congrats on your dominance over IU.....After the 9 straight wins....12 of 13, etc, etc....you still have....
Well,you know....
This response gets me....It does. Never understood this line of thinking....Person A throws some shade....Person returns some shade....Person B is now being salty, because they responded..
Yeah, sure---Makes prefect sense. SOme of us call this a conversation.
Yes, this is what I was implying. Not that they don't count, just that with two competing tournaments at the time, it wasn't implicitly known which tournament winner was the national champion. I never meant to imply that they didn't earn the NCAA title on the court.
The NCAA runs the show now, so they get to say that all NCAA winners were national champions but the way they used to be picked disagreed... a few times. As I mentioned before. Helms was still picking national title winners up till 1982. They only disagreed with who the NCAA winner was in something like 5 times over the 43 year span.
Last edited:
So in other words, you don't have a counter to my argument, therefore we have to move the goal posts to an era where my (your) argument holds water.
If IU does end up going in another direction what will become of the "Little Archie" Twitter handle. Hopefully that guy stays strong.
@IUfanBorden Yes, this is all I was getting at. I never was trying to say that they don't have 5 NCAA titles. Just that the first ones have an asterisk due to the competing tournaments.
I did elude to success under one coach because of the other two NCAA titles were during dualing tournaments. It was a sloppy argument.
You hang on to that Helms banner. People will continue to not take you serious. It's okay. You can take it.
I'm not hanging on to anything. I don't think you understand what I'm trying to say based on how you've been coming at me.
I hope so. As a Rutgers fan it’s been tremendously fun texting my IU friends “Hoosier daddy?” these past few years.
You yourself mentioned making fun of Purdue for life, so they’re important to you as well. Not sure why you would want Purdue to not care about IU, it would mean the rivalry has diminished. Why would you want the rivalry stale enough Purdue fans don’t care about IU?
Its hard to argue against 1940, imo. The NIT only had 6 teams. Both finalists from the NIT that year went and played in the NCAA tournament and both of them got handled, neither one making the final.
It's what IU fans have always done. When they can't beat Purdue on the floor, they claim it was because it was Purdue's Super Bowl.
They refuse to recognize that IU fans are very much the same as Purdue fans when it comes to the rivalry.
I wouldn’t say that but it sucks losing 9 times in a row as it only speaks to the state of IUs program considering Purdue has been good but not great in any stretch of the imagination.
I agree with that. I believe he would take it also.
Would never happen after the Sampson fiasco.
I didn’t realize they thought they’re above a state rivalry. I’m not trying to bad talk IU with what I’m about to say - the Knight IU years are before my time and I don’t really care about things that happened in generations ago. My introduction to the rivalry is my wife did her undergrad at Purdue and my in-laws are basketball season ticket holders. To a relative newbie to it the only thing I’m pretty sure IU has that’s definitely better is the reputation as a college town, (getting angry thinking about Scottys closing in WL in the weird little shopping place next to HGI). Seems like a fun, healthy rivalry and much more fun than the rednecks in our SEC rivalries that embarrass everybody. If I were Borden I’d be glad Purdue is talking about IU, just like when the tables turn it’ll be a good thing if IU is proud of it.
Maybe, but teams also have bad nights. You say the NIT only had 6 teams but the NCAA only had 8.
Besides I wouldn't say losing by 6 and 9 points is being "handled".
Last edited:
Back then a 9 point loss was absolutely getting handled.
6 teams, no teams from the B1G invited which was one of, if not the, predominate conference back then. Yeah, its really hard to argue it was superior and falls really flat when the finalists both played in the NCAA and didn't do so well.
Do Purdue fans not count Rupp and Phog Allen's titles back then?
Well teams must have REALLY been hammered when they lose by 21 back then.
I'm not familiar with the dates of those titles. I'm not trying to claim that the NCAA titles didn't count. Juts that there's an asterisk due to the nature of the competing tournaments and the NIT was deemed by many to be the premier event since it was in Madison Square Garden closest to the media.
Should be trying to negotiate with Brad Stevens.
He should be good enough to get everyone behind them. If he doesn't win there they should really humble themselves and understand basketball has changed
Probably kill a second before he gets a second title too
I did state that pretty much all of but 5 NCAA tourney winners were also picked to be the helms champion so if they have both then no. I mentioned this for IU as well. Their 2nd title they were also picked as the helms champion. So basically there are 5 NCAA winners that others could make an argument due to dualing tournaments and the traditional people that had picked champions up to that point picked someone else. Only because of the combination of those two things is there an asterisk. Otherwise, I see nothing in which to challenge a team as a national champion.
I don't really see why the Helm's would have anything to do with what the teams actually did on the court. Who cares what a bread baker retro-actively decided years later?
I don't see any justification for USC as their pick in 40. They got beat in the NCAA tournament. They weren't even in the NIT (which again points out how the NIT that year wasn't all that "prestigious").
