Play Fantasy The Most Award Winning Fantasy game with real time scoring, top expert analysis, custom settings, and more. Play Now
Blog Entry

And then there were three

Posted on: January 9, 2010 6:51 pm
 

There's no shame in losing at Wisconsin.

Almost everybody does it.

And the loss doesn't mean Purdue stinks.

Purdue is very good.

But the nice thing about the Boilermakers' 73-66 loss at Wisconsin is that it will, at least momentarily, end the debate about whether Purdue belongs in the top tier with Kansas, Texas and Kentucky, i.e., the other schools that entered this weekend with undefeated records. Now that Purdue is no longer among the undefeated teams, folks won't try to group Purdue with the other undefeated teams, and then I won't have to argue that Purdue doesn't belong with the other undefeated teams, and everybody's life gets simpler.

As I type, three undefeated teams remain.

Kansas, Texas and Kentucky.

That's perfect because I've insisted for a while that those are college basketball's top three teams, and that they belong on a tier above all others, Purdue included. Purdue fans took offense to that opinion, explained how their team was undefeated, too, and then asked why I thought Purdue was terrible. Obviously, I never thought Purdue was terrible, and I still don't. In fact, I think Purdue is good enough to win the Big Ten and make the Final Four. It's just that I'm a big believer in the theory that it takes three NBA players to win the NCAA tournament, and I don't think Purdue has three.

Kansas does.

(Cole Aldrich, Sherron Collins, Xavier Henry)

Texas does.

(Dexter Pittman, Damion James, Jordan Hamilton, Avery Bradley)

Kentucky does.

(John Wall, Patrick Patterson, DeMarcus Cousins, Eric Bledsoe)

But Purdue doesn't.

And that's the only reason I've never grouped Purdue with Kansas, Texas and Kentucky. I simply don't believe Matt Painter has the roster to compete with those rosters for the national title. Could I be wrong? Sure, I guess. But understand that 40 of the past 41 NCAA tournament champions have had at least three players who were either A) selected in the first round of the NBA Draft, B) selected in the second round of the NBA Draft or, C) not selected in the first or second round but still went on to play in the NBA.

The only exception is the Syracuse team in 2003.

So though history suggests you can get to the Sweet 16 with anything and make a Final Four with close to anything, it also tells us that you'd better have three NBA players or Carmelo Anthony and Hakim Warrick if you want to win it all. Short of that, you're falling short. And I think Purdue is slightly short of that, which makes the Boilermakers a very good team that just isn't equipped to be elite.

Now that Purdue has one loss, that's how Purdue will be perceived by the common fan.

That'll leave Kansas, Texas and Kentucky alone at the top, which is the way it should've been all along.
Category: NCAAB
Comments

Since: Jan 13, 2010
Posted on: January 13, 2010 11:11 am
 

And then there were three

HAHAHAHAHA, 2 L's in a row. What now PU?



Since: Jan 14, 2008
Posted on: January 11, 2010 8:28 am
 

And then there were three

Rankings dont mean anything...A team is better off not getting the respect they deserve from the poles. 

To me this Purdue team has a lot of similarities to the Butler teams that have done so well in the NCAA tournament.  They play extremely smart basketball day after day.  They were one of the top teams in the country with +7 turnover ratio.  They are one of the best free throw shooting teams in the country.  They have A LOT of experience.  The main difference between them and those Butler teams is Purdue is a heck of a lot more talented. 

This year there's not a top tier team.  MArch is going to be Madness.




Since: Feb 27, 2007
Posted on: January 11, 2010 12:19 am
 

And then there were three

Everyone gets smarter or better the older they get (athletes too). Can you imagine reading a Parrish column when he was 19. Wow, that would be hilariously horrible. It would probably have a headline like " And then there were three".... 

Gary, I already said this in an earlier comment here, I usually like your work. But seriously easy on these Kentucky mentions or stories all the time, there are a lot of other stories outside of the Tennessee, Kentucky region to tell us college basketball fans about. 

And you bring up Syracuse 2003, everyone knows Melo was a stud freshman, but Gerry McNamara never got a serious look in the NBA and if I remember correctly his 6 three's a game in the tourney that year put them over the top. 

Watch a Purdue game and tell me John Wall wants to be guarded by Chris Kramer (the most productive player you will ever see that averages about 4 ppg). I think Wall gets rattled and blows up leading to a lot of easy buckets, you know the ones that even a blind squirrel can make.

I've watched college hoops a long time and I see it as if a team hits 3's they play good, if they miss 3's they're usually cooked. Syracuse didn't miss against Arizona St. last year and couldn't get one to fall against Oklahoma the next game. Guess what the results were.

It's funny, I read a thread yesterday where someone asked if anyone else thought Freeman and Doyel were brutal reads, and pointed to you as usually writing good, entertaining and intelligent articles, then you post this one!




Since: Mar 22, 2009
Posted on: January 10, 2010 11:49 pm
 

And then there were three

Gary,

First, thank you for replying to my post as I asked you to do.  That gains you a little respect back from me.

Second, I understand why you chose to right about drugs and guns rather than the #4 team beating the #6 team.  That's the kind of crap that sells.  But for people who are interested in basketball games, and how players play, and who wins, that's where you lost the respect you gained in previous recognition.

Third, I understand that you are probably on a plane back from the Tennessee beating Kansas game, saying "shoot, how am I gonna pull some bullcrap out of my butt to put a good spin on this", as you frantically search for a scandal to write about, or come up with some NBA stats to make Kansas sound better than Purdue.  Here, I'll help you out a little.  Purdue won on a neutral court and not at Tennesee.  Also, those 4 Tennessee players probably would have never made it to the NBA anyway, so essentially it's the same non-NBA level talent, and Kansas just had one of those days, like you said after they struggled against Cornell(if that wasn't you, I apologize, but somehow, my memory wants to put you as the author).  Maybe they were tired like WV @ Purdue and Duke @ GT, yea, that's it, they were tired.  Here's another thought that comes to mind, even NBA teams that are loaded with an entire team of NBA talent can lose.

I just hope this isn't the new "dumbest" post, and if you don't reply, I'll understand.  But, so you know, I cannot wait for your next blog, article, whatever.  You are now on my favorites just so I can find it quicker as I am sure it will come soon.  The question of the night is, will the article state that maybe Purdue is better than I give them credit for, maybe Kansas isn't as good as I gave them credit for, or, holy crap - can you believe how much better Kentucky and Texas are than the entire NCAA?

I did just pick up on your latest 25 and 1, and you didn't drop Purdue.  Again, for what it's worth, gained a little respect. 



Since: Dec 16, 2009
Posted on: January 10, 2010 10:35 pm
 

And then there were three

Gaaaarrrryyyyyy, Garrrryyyyyy, Hey here is a little game, lets call is wheres Gary Parrish?  He was around yesterday to keep spouting his crap in response to this absolutely useless articale, but today, when one of his elite teams gets beat by a team without 4 players, he is no where to be found.  So for the members of this blog what does this tell you about Gary, well, he doesn't really know what he is talking about and won't come back once proven wrong.  I was going to post a response to the Parrish response before I saw KU lose, so I will finish it up anyway.

Why did I not write extensively about Purdue's win over West Virginia?

I was on a plane when it happened, flying to Lexington for Kentucky-Louisville. By the time I landed, the game was over, and four Tennessee players had been arrested with guns and weed. So the focus was on that, and rightfully so.

What else do you need to know?

And I didn't "wait" for Purdue to lose. Honestly, what I wrote had less to do with Purdue losing than with Kansas, Texas and Kentucky finally being the only three undefeated teams left. Like I said, those are the three teams best equipped to win it all, and now everybody will view them that way given that they are the only undefeated teams left. Because Purdue remained undefeated until yesterday, the Boilermakers were, I think, artificially grouped with those three. But Purdue's loss will now have everybody seperating Kansas, Texas and Kentucky from Purdue, Duke and everybody else, and that's why I said the loss was "nice." Not nice in that I'm glad Purdue lost. Nice in that it simplifies the national debate about the best teams in the country. All along, I've thought that debate should involve three teams. But until yesteday we had four undefeated teams, and so everybody tried to make it a four-team debate. Now they won't. And that was the point.
So the first thing we learn about Parrish from this post, he is lazy, what you can only write one aritile a day about TN having to dismiss 4 players, how nice to cover the brighter side of things. 

Second, and this one comes true sooner than later, so when Purdue, Kansas, TX, and Kentucky all have 1 loss at the same time, are we still not able to have Purdue considered in the same class as them.  It never ends with your logic right.

Third, You NBA talent logic, might have statistics behind it, but it has a bit of a non-correllary relationship to it.  I will explain, if 2 out of 3 people who eat carrots get cancer, do you assume that carrots cause cancer.  Not really, there could be other things effecting here.  So now lets take this statistic that Parrish likes to use.  Would all of the players on these championship teams have been drafted as high as they were if they had not won the championship?  We all know that when teams win championships players stock goes up, so lets play this out, we already know that Purdue has 3 guys who NBA Scouts (people who do know what they are talking about) consider 3 Purdue players having NBA talent.  So, if Purdue wins the championship, doesn't it hold true that their stock might go up, and now your statistic still works and you can keep spouting this jibberish.

At the end of th day you can take you stupid players in the NBA statistic and put it where the sun don't shine (at least I hope).  As far as I am concerned I will wait to see how things go in the tournament, at that point we will know who the "elite" are.



Since: Dec 10, 2008
Posted on: January 10, 2010 9:30 pm
 

And then there were three

"Tennessee was missing 4 players today when they beat Purdue"  masaaj_marod

I saw TN beat KU today not Purdue......

Purdue lost to the Badgers

For the record.



Since: Aug 24, 2009
Posted on: January 10, 2010 8:49 pm
 

And then there were three

Purdue beat Tenn on a neutral court in the Virgin Island Paradise Jam championship game.  Yet, the point remains the same.  Tennessee was missing 4 players today when they beat Purdue.  All 4 of those players played big minutes against Purdue.



Since: Aug 24, 2009
Posted on: January 10, 2010 8:37 pm
 

Parrish again making us wonder why he has a job


It must be shameful to be exposed yet again as a blowhard know-nothing after a team that lost to Purdue with a full deck just beat your sweetheart Elite team missing 4 players that play major minutes.  Did common sense not tell you that perhaps you should save your mouthbreathing rant about Purdue until *after* Kansas beat a common opponent that Purdue already handled?  Or did you think that Kansas team who nearly lost to powerhouse Cornell is just so amazingly good that they couldn't possibly lose to a depleted, but still talented Tennessee team?

Anybody lacking the common sense to not spout off until after today's Kansas-Tennessee matchup doesn't deserve to have a national pulpit to spew their non-sensical opinions. 




Since: Dec 10, 2008
Posted on: January 10, 2010 8:23 pm
 

And then there were three

gbo82

a little exaggeration on the 50% estimate.

If TN was at 50% today then at 100% they would beat the Lakers (what is at 100% plus is TN's passion and chemistry....nice job by Coach Pearl)

I don't see the "extremely disrespectful" angle...my posts and most (including GP's) were that Purdue is an elite eight team and maybe final four...just not at the same level as KU, TX and UK....I stick by my opinion as just stated. 

My other observation this weekend is that Purdue fans have passion for their team....but not as much as UK fans.

(thought I would stir it up a bit more)

Go Cats!



Since: Jan 10, 2010
Posted on: January 10, 2010 8:14 pm
 

And then there were three

One day after a ridiculous article where you were extremely disrespectul to Purdues athletes....you need to explain how a lesser team (Purdue) beat Tennessee at full strength earlier in the season when tennesse at 50% beat the best team in the land today?  Either that...or apologise for the article that you put no effort into yesterday?
<!-- Session data-->


The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com