They're a podcaster with inside knowledge and good friends with the coach, and the other is the bag man for the program. It's not just a couple of random guys.
Good to know!Absolutely!
Purdue doing it right!
Guarantees your "Culture" stays solidified with minimal outside influence.Purdue doing it right!
Teams that have lots of original players have had a coach in place for a while.
A rational person would use the information from people more knowledgeable than them, not ignore it, but you do you I guessGood to know!
I will just keep forming my own opinions based on what my eyes tell me like an actual rational person!
Wow, Pudue and Mich St. should get bonus points.
You can scream that as loud as you can and we all should, unfortunately humans suck. And suck even worse behind the anonymity in social mediaThe one thing about the podcast that is so disappointing... is some people dogging on the players and the players hear/read/see it.
We all love ISU and want them to win every single time they compete regardless of sport. These are 18-24 year old men and women competing their asses off. They want to win even more than we do. They wear the ISU uniform and go to battle while we watch and cheer. We need to dial it back a little when mistakes are made. Let's not go hating on them.... let's support them regardless. Let's not be A-holes. When these kids are done competing at ISU, I want them to look back on their time in Ames with good vibes for the rest of their days.
If you want to hate on athletes and their performances, channel it towards the NFL, NBA, MLB. NHL, etc.
AND (going back further) ISU was ranked #5 in preseason AP poll, and a large chunk of reliable sources + bracketologists had it pegged in 2 to 4 seed range pre-November. All of that seemed within reason to most fans (even those of us who tend to be a little cautious about these things).I'm sorry I just can't get onboard with this. #1 We watch the games. Is there anything about what we saw in Maui or the non-conference that made you believe this wasn't a group that could get to the Elite 8 or the Final 4. Chatfield was playing good minutes off the bench. Heise was defending well. There was not a better backcourt in the country then Gilbert, Jones and Lipsey and then you had Jackson in the post averaging double-digits and Jefferson averaging 12-13 point and distributing from the 4 spot. Plus Milan who was averaging double-digits as well. You were 9 deep out in Maui with Chatfield playing 43 minutes (14 minutes a game) and Nojus playing 30 minutes (10 minutes a game).
This team beat Marquette by double digits, won at a rival in Iowa when they didn't have their best stuff were a half court heave from being 18-2 and 8-1 in the conference on January 27th.
There was not a single major sign that things would/could go sideways until Milan's broken finger, then Jones, then Gilbert and then Lipsey injuries.
Sure they were contributing to it but the hype/expectations were absolutely realistic at the time. After the Gilbert/Jones not playing at Houston and Gilbert not playing at Oklahoma State (February 25th) you didn't hear much about the Final 4 or Elite 8 unless it came with the caveat of "getting healthy."
Exactly we can still call out the ******** online, but most of them are fake fans or bots. At some point players need to either realize that or get off social media if they can’t handle it.I bet there’s a great deal of sabotaging going on with the social media burner accounts. Like pretending to be your rival’s fanbase.
Also a bunch of degenerates with gambling addictions.
Not pointed at you @madguy30, but It's all such ********. To a point, I appreciate metrics (as a splitting hairs thing among equals), but all of the Team X won and moved from Q2 to Q1 and Team Y lost and dropped from Q2 to Q3 stuff is just a bunch of the tail wagging the dog. At the end of the day, ISU losing to K-State at home and @ Okla. State were just lame ass bad losses regardless of their Q rating.Yes, metrics mattered.
That's likely how they got the three seed.
Nojus played quite a bit in those blow outs so he had plenty of reps. Maybe there's just a bit more to the decisions than 'but he scored 6 points on a Sunday afternoon in November'.
Is it organized left-to-right based on the minutes-per-game? Or random? Seems like it'd be the former, otherwise it'd be every original player from each school first, then maybe alphabetically.