I know we’ve stunk, but this hit hard….
https://twitter.com/sbell021/status/2036186732261978295?s=46&t=Csl_r88muvNMBV79b5VS-Q
Wow! That is brutal!
I know we’ve stunk, but this hit hard….
https://twitter.com/sbell021/status/2036186732261978295?s=46&t=Csl_r88muvNMBV79b5VS-Q
It's inaccurate, but even the accurate numbers are depressing. Indiana was mistakenly ommited from the list.
Correction - we have won one game & should be listed here. I do not feel much better…
Correction - we have won one game & should be listed here. I do not feel much better…
Technically, two. The Wyoming game counts too.
When 11 seeds have to play the playin, it counts. Not sure it applies to us.
I looked near the top of that list, didn't see us? What gives, must be wrong! Sigh... No wonder we never won a Big Ten Tournament... program is ass.
There's always next year!
,
Correction - we have won one game & should be listed here. I do not feel much better…
Technically, two. The Wyoming game counts too.
I ain’t counting it, & no one can convince me otherwise….
Then no need to count that 1940 championship either. The NIT was the big, meaningful tournament when we won that one.
Then no need to count that 1940 championship either. The NIT was the big, meaningful tournament when we won that one.
Don't even count any of the first round. The real tournament only had 32 teams.
Indiana has 3 wins.
That’s your decision, so go for it. I’m still going to count it.Correction - we have won one game & should be listed here. I do not feel much better…
Technically, two. The Wyoming game counts too.
I ain’t counting it, & no one can convince me otherwise….
Then no need to count that 1940 championship either. The NIT was the big, meaningful tournament when we won that one.
Then no need to count that 1940 championship either. The NIT was the big, meaningful tournament when we won that one.
Don't even count any of the first round. The real tournament only had 32 teams.
Why are they called “play-in games” instead of round 1 of the tournament?
Has any other former blueblood fallen on harder times than IU? All the others have had at least some success over the last 30 years. I guess maybe not Georgetown but I cannot think of any others.
@arioznahoosier4554 depends on how you define "blueblood". Not sure I would consider Georgetown in that category. A great run under John Thompson and have certainly fallen on hard times since he retired. You can put Syracuse in that same boat- not necessarily a "blueblood" but they've gone down hill since Boeheim retired.
I consider the historical college basketball bluebloods to be: UCLA, Kentucky, UNC, IU, Kansas, and Duke. I'd add UConn to that list now- hard to exclude them now that they have 6 titles, even if they've all been in the last 30 years.
I guess with a looser definition of blueblood you could include the likes of Louisville, MSU, Florida, and Villanova, but I wouldn't.
All that said, to answer your question, no, I don't think any of the other bluebloods have floundered as badly as we have over the last 30 years. It's inexplicable. How can we completely screw up all these coaching hires over such a long period of time? Even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes.