How Did IU Not Win The Championship

[The Lens]

5 years ago, IU had one player on the team that had played a total of 19 minutes.  5 years later, two kids drafted in the top 5, a bunch of guys on Academic All Big Ten, players graduating, Big Ten title....I'd say he's more than turned things around.  Haters keep on hating.  I heard Crean was fired last year. 

And 6 years ago they were an NCAA team, 7 years ago they won a Big Ten title.  Tommy decided to tear down and build back up, that's on him. 

[keefe]

And 6 years ago they were an NCAA team, 7 years ago they won a Big Ten title.  Tommy decided to tear down and build back up, that's on him. 

How dare you attempt to undermine the runic aspects of an epic saga! Tom Crean is a modern day Sigurd and the Rebirth of Indiana Basketball is The Tale of the Volsungs set forth on the turbid waters of the sacred White River. Armed with the mystical wisdom of the Valkyries Sigurd/Crean slays dragons, rescues maidens, and inspires a forlorn people bereft of hope that there can be redemption in the aftermath of the ruinous reign of the baleful ogre Sampson. This is an unforgettable chronicle of jealousy, betrayal, greed, vengeance, lust, and pride giving way to deliverance and salvation.

[ChicosBailBonds]

And 6 years ago they were an NCAA team, 7 years ago they won a Big Ten title.  Tommy decided to tear down and build back up, that's on him.  

He had no choice, the school demanded it.  Also the right thing to do.  They won a share of the Big Ten title.....ELEVEN YEARS AGO, not seven years ago. 

The one they won this year was the first outright title in more than two decades.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Come up with all the bad analogies and apples to pomegranates comparisons you want, here are the FACTS. Nine (9) teams before the Hoosiers had 2 players go in the top 5 of the NBA draft. Every single one of them made it to the Elite 8 and 7 of the 9 made the final four.

So, continue with the crapshoot BS but pardon the rest of us for calling it what it was - failure - unprecedented and epic.

Bad analogies....they are dead on analogies.

Secondly, it's not Zeller or IU's fault that one of the worst human beings and definitely the worst executive in the NBA made a guy that was slotted as the 10th to 14th pick and made him a top 5.  That's just pure stupidity on MJ's part, something we have come and seen as an everyday event.

And you and every other goofball here saying how weak of  a draft it. Are you saying the 2003 draft top 5 games is the same as this one?  Please, you're better than that, even if you want your hatred to cloud your judgment.  Almost every year's draft is better talent that this one, which means those other teams with those top 5 players were a hell of a lot better players.  So please, keep trying.

[ChicosBailBonds]

How dare you attempt to undermine the runic aspects of an epic saga! Tom Crean is a modern day Sigurd and the Rebirth of Indiana Basketball is The Tale of the Volsungs set forth on the turbid waters of the sacred White River. Armed with the mystical wisdom of the Valkyries Sigurd/Crean slays dragons, rescues maidens, and inspires a forlorn people bereft of hope that there can be redemption in the aftermath of the ruinous reign of the baleful ogre Sampson. This is an unforgettable chronicle of jealousy, betrayal, greed, vengeance, lust, and pride giving way to deliverance and salvation.

Pretty funny, considering his data was wrong....what's that about undermining again?  LOL

[ChicosBailBonds]

Sorry, Chicos. I've seen TC do this in public before. "Our plan was perfect but the players didn't execute" is an oft heard mantra.

I've seen it to, from Buzz Williams and a bunch of other coaches.  Remember, when Buzz does it it's ok, it's just coach speak.   

[keefe]

Pretty funny, considering his data was wrong....what's that about undermining again?  LOL

Please, Chico, heroic figures in soul-stirring epics don't require such incidental minutiae as accurate data...Where is your sense of drama and appreciation for dauntless gallantry?













 

[Jay Bee]

Tougher question (although many of us know the answer):

How did I4 not get past the S16 in either of the last two seasons?

[keefe]

Tougher question (although many of us know the answer):

How did I4 not get past the S16 in either of the last two seasons?

They needed more than 2 lottery draft picks to overcome inferior coaching?

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

 They won a share of the Big Ten title.....ELEVEN YEARS AGO, not seven years ago. 

Did they cut down the nets?

[The Lens]

He had no choice, the school demanded it.  Also the right thing to do.  They won a share of the Big Ten title.....ELEVEN YEARS AGO, not seven years ago. 

The one they won this year was the first outright title in more than two decades.

My bad, got my facts mixed up.

2007 10-6 in Conf.
2008 14-4 in Conf. And then Crean hired. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

Two of the first 4 picks, wow.

Back to you original question 4ever, how IU did not win the championship....they lost in a one and done.

Just like:

Duke didn't win the championship with 2 of the first 3 NBA picks under Coach K in 2002
UCLA didn't win the championship with 2 of the first 5 picks in 2008
North Carolina didn't win the championship with 2 of the first 5 picks in 1998
Ohio State didn't win the championship with  2 of the first 4 picks in 2007
Kentucky didn't win the championship with 2 of the first 5 picks in 2010
North Carolina didn't win the championship with 2 of the first 4 picks in 1995
UCONN didn't win the championship with 4 first rounders

Etc, etc.  One and done, it's a crap shoot, biggest in all of sports.  Always has been, always will be.
 
http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/ncaa-tournament-built-on-gambling-not-finding-the-best-team/Content?oid=2320718

[ChicosBailBonds]

My bad, got my facts mixed up.

2007 10-6 in Conf.
2008 14-4 in Conf. And then Crean hired. 

In a Big Ten that was a shadow of itself compared to today, I might add.  Big Ten with 4 bids to show just how pathetic that conference was in 2008.

[setyoursightsnorth]

We did not lose. We were not allowed to win.

So you lost?
You didn't win, so either a draw and a loss.

[Jay Bee]

Back to you original question 4ever, how IU did not win the championship....they lost in a one and done.

Just like:

Duke didn't win the championship with 2 of the first 3 NBA picks under Coach K in 2002
UCLA didn't win the championship with 2 of the first 5 picks in 2008
North Carolina didn't win the championship with 2 of the first 5 picks in 1998
Ohio State didn't win the championship with  2 of the first 4 picks in 2007
Kentucky didn't win the championship with 2 of the first 5 picks in 2010
North Carolina didn't win the championship with 2 of the first 4 picks in 1995
UCONN didn't win the championship with 4 first rounders

Etc, etc.  One and done, it's a crap shoot, biggest in all of sports.  Always has been, always will be.
 
http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/ncaa-tournament-built-on-gambling-not-finding-the-best-team/Content?oid=2320718

How many of those teams failed to win their S16 game? oic

[keefe]

So you lost?
You didn't win, so either a draw and a loss.

Though there is a yin-yang to life the vast majority of experience, observation, activity, behavior and thought resides in the languid shadows of that large gray void. It must be frightfully boring to reduce all of human existence to an Aristotelian syllogism.

And the fact is that Chico is wrong, the military did not lose the armed conflict in Vietnam. But we as a society experienced a profound catharsis which can never be packaged into a facile dyadic construct. Some outcomes are far too complex and abstruse to trivialize as you suggest.

The Chinese author Mo Yan laments that the single biggest problem with thought today is the distinct lack of subtlety. Please reflect on that.

[ChicosBailBonds]

How many of those teams failed to win their S16 game? oic

I believe the title of the thread was about the championship.

Secondly, this top 5 picks is perhaps the worst in NbA draft history, so comparing them to what stronger top 5 picks did with different teams is not a true comparison.

However, if you are looking for the answer it is the same answer as the one to this question.  How many teams in NCAA tournament failed to score at least 40 points in an Elite 8 game prior to 2013.  Same answer.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Though there is a yin-yang to life the vast majority of experience, observation, activity, behavior and thought resides in the languid shadows of that large gray void. It must be frightfully boring to reduce all of human existence to an Aristotelian syllogism.

And the fact is that Chico is wrong, the military did not lose the armed conflict in Vietnam. But we as a society experienced a profound catharsis which can never be packaged into a facile dyadic construct. Some outcomes are far too complex and abstruse to trivialize as you suggest.

The Chinese author Mo Yan laments that the single biggest problem with thought today is the distinct lack of subtlety. Please reflect on that.

Call it what you want, I don't disagree with you or Lenny from a military perspective, but wars aren't simply won on the battlefield.  There are geopolitical considerations, hearts and minds, etc.  My family was in that war as well, so I've heard it all firsthand.  Sure, militarily we won every battle, but there are "elements" in this country that don't like wars no matter what...literally, no matter what.  Be it far lefties or some libertarians, etc, that's the new paradigm.  Many of them are in the media and guide what gets to your living room and have great sway in how things are viewed.  Also factor in that a few folks in our military acted like total asshats during that war with abuses, etc, plus an enemy that was willing to keep coming back for more and more, it's a recipe for ultimate defeat even if we didn't lose on the battlefield. 

We aren't allowed to fight wars to win them anymore.  If today's technology and media (hell, if 1970's technology) was around during WWII, some of these same folks mentioned above wouldn't have allowed us to bomb Tokyo, drop two A-Bombs, etc.  Today it's all about no collateral damage, and that makes it a lot harder to win wars than it used to be.  Throw in those internally in this country that don't care about the U.S. (though they are Americans), a compliant media, etc, and its that much harder.  Lots of Jane Fondas, Code Pinks, John Kerry's, etc, out there.  Winning becomes almost impossible and the enemy knows it.  All they have to do is hunker down and wait for a few bad stories to hit the homeland on the their TV sets and watch the erosion begin.

[77ncaachamps]

It's the shoes:






Oh wait. Louisville is also Adidas.

[keefe]

Call it what you want, I don't disagree with you or Lenny from a military perspective, but wars aren't simply won on the battlefield.  There are geopolitical considerations, hearts and minds, etc.  My family was in that war as well, so I've heard it all firsthand.  Sure, militarily we won every battle, but there are "elements" in this country that don't like wars no matter what...literally, no matter what.  Be it far lefties or some libertarians, etc, that's the new paradigm.  Many of them are in the media and guide what gets to your living room and have great sway in how things are viewed.  Also factor in that a few folks in our military acted like total asshats during that war with abuses, etc, plus an enemy that was willing to keep coming back for more and more, it's a recipe for ultimate defeat even if we didn't lose on the battlefield. 

We aren't allowed to fight wars to win them anymore.  If today's technology and media (hell, if 1970's technology) was around during WWII, some of these same folks mentioned above wouldn't have allowed us to bomb Tokyo, drop two A-Bombs, etc.  Today it's all about no collateral damage, and that makes it a lot harder to win wars than it used to be.  Throw in those internally in this country that don't care about the U.S. (though they are Americans), a compliant media, etc, and its that much harder.  Lots of Jane Fondas, Code Pinks, John Kerry's, etc, out there.  Winning becomes almost impossible and the enemy knows it.  All they have to do is hunker down and wait for a few bad stories to hit the homeland on the their TV sets and watch the erosion begin.

You are obviously a disciple of von Clausewitz. The Baron was the first to write that war is the dialectical interaction of various diaphanous influences that lead to unpredictable consequences and unforeseen outcomes. This was his Fog of War Theory. As you note, von Clausewitz stressed the moral and political dimensions of war being the most important rather than battlespace engagement. von Clausewitz was the first theorist to observe that war was simply a continuation of state policy by other means, stripping away medieval concepts of glorious conflict and honor-based struggle.

As regards Vietnam, the coalition forces fighting North Vietnamese aggression against the Saigon government thoroughly destroyed the Viet Cong guerilla forces as an effective political and military organization by the summer of 1968 and yet Walter Cronkite was on the Evening News declaring Tet a coalition defeat. The Vietnam Conflict was the first fought in the living rooms of America as live action from the front was broadcast while Middle America sat down to dinner with Chet and David providing color commentary. Civilian squeamishness with gore and mayhem elevated political opposition in ways Patton, Bradley, and MacArthur never envisioned possible or acceptable. One of Schwarzkopf's most important combat victories was how he managed the press during Desert Storm.

Political management of the Vietnam Conflict reached absurd levels of involvement. LBJ personally selected targets for air strikes from maps and recce photos laid out on the Oval Office carpet. Daily FRAGOs had to wait for Presidential approval - something a seasoned Major should have been doing in an Air Operations Center rather than the CinC from the White House.

Absurd ROE tied the hands of warriors while strengthening the enemy. The NVA knew that Laos and Cambodia were safe havens that allowed them opportunity for reconstitution and regeneration. Haiphong was an open port and weaponry poured in from China and the CCCP. von Clausewitz had a maxim for victory: Seize the Capital. And yet Hanoi (as well as the rest of North Vietnam!) were banned as targets. Can you imagine FDR telling Hap Arnold that bombing Berlin was off-limits? Or Winston Churchill ordering Sir Arthur Harris to not bomb the Ruhr? It is unthinkable that Harry Truman would have forbidden Curt LeMay from bombing Tokyo. And yet that was the lunacy dictating Air Power Doctrine and employment in Vietnam.

I understand there were geopolitical considerations but von Clausewitz would have been appalled at how the US ran that war. And recently disclosed material from the Kremlin proves that Brezhnev would not have gone DefCon One over Ho Chi Minh. The Soviets were happy to have the NVA keep pin pricking the US but would never have pushed their Moscow and Leningrad chips into the pot. The Cold War construct of MAD was validated.

The bottom line is that the US squandered 58,209 American lives and millions of Vietnamese by tilting at chimeric windmills. The incredible amount of capital we poured into that sinkhole without any realistic plan for actually winning is criminal. Anytime you ask American men and women to risk everything by going into harm's way the nation has a sacred obligation to do everything possible to ensure them every advantage for victory and an expedient return home. We failed them terribly in Vietnam and were doing the same in OIF and OEF until Gen David Petraeus threatened to resign if the ROE were not changed.

I can tell you that prior to The Surge OIF Coalition Forces were banned from targeting mosques, schools, residences, markets, etc... So guess where the insurgents holed up? Petraeus argued correctly that a mosque garrisoned by AQI insurgents was no longer a mosque but a fortress. For 3 years we let armed Islamic radical insurgents from Bosnia, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Chechnya, Yemen, Egypt, Syria, Iran, etc... fire on American service members with impunity from schools and mosques. In 2007 that changed and guess what? We annihilated the insurgency and American troops no longer garrison Iraq. I pray to God that future political leaders of this Republic learn the COIN lessons from OIF as promulgated by Gen Petraeus so that we lose not one single American life unnecessarily.

I have been in an CAS 4 Ship Battle Box overhead American ground forces getting pounded in al Anbar by Islamic radicals who were firing from a Mosque and residential buildings. The Marines were locked in but couldn't return fire. We had 4 fully loaded A10s that could have ended the fire fight in 3 seconds but the ROE would not allow us to fire on a mosque. American Marines died that day because a lawyer in Washington DC never read Sun Tzu or von Clausewitz.  Thank God David Petraeus has a pair.

[ChicosBailBonds]

My family that was in the war constantly touts the ROE as one of the main reasons.  As stated, we aren't allowed to win wars anymore without tying both hand behind our backs and one leg.  It's a very different country from the greatest generation when folks were willing to do what had to be done, even if it got messy sometimes.  They knew what it took.

[keefe]

My family that was in the war constantly touts the ROE as one of the main reasons.  As stated, we aren't allowed to win wars anymore without tying both hand behind our backs and one leg.  It's a very different country from the greatest generation when folks were willing to do what had to be done, even if it got messy sometimes.  They knew what it took.

War is messy. The post-action battlespace at Operation Mountain Fury looks the same as at the Siege of Khandahar in 1737. We just kill from greater distance. The blood is just as red and metallic tasting. Intestines spilling out of torn stomachs still resemble purple bratwurst while bodies bloat, swell, and hiss in the sub-tropical sun as they have for millennia. And young men still cry out for their mothers instinctively as metal tears through flesh and bone. Nothing can rival the intensity, fury, and utter chaos of combat.

[setyoursightsnorth]

Though there is a yin-yang to life the vast majority of experience, observation, activity, behavior and thought resides in the languid shadows of that large gray void. It must be frightfully boring to reduce all of human existence to an Aristotelian syllogism.

And the fact is that Chico is wrong, the military did not lose the armed conflict in Vietnam. But we as a society experienced a profound catharsis which can never be packaged into a facile dyadic construct. Some outcomes are far too complex and abstruse to trivialize as you suggest.

The Chinese author Mo Yan laments that the single biggest problem with thought today is the distinct lack of subtlety. Please reflect on that.

The military did lose in Vietnam. The US Army was held at bay by guerilla warriors who had no where near the firepower available to them when compared to the US. The war was a failure. The policy of containment failed. Vietnam united under Communism, the very thing the war was meant to prevent. So the military did lose. I'm not undermining veterans, what they sacrificed can't be described, but to say the military didn't lose the war in Vietnam is a bit farfetched. From a military strategy point of view, it was a disaster.

[keefe]

The military did lose in Vietnam. The US Army was held at bay by guerilla warriors who had no where near the firepower available to them when compared to the US. The war was a failure. The policy of containment failed. Vietnam united under Communism, the very thing the war was meant to prevent. So the military did lose. I'm not undermining veterans, what they sacrificed can't be described, but to say the military didn't lose the war in Vietnam is a bit farfetched. From a military strategy point of view, it was a disaster.

You realize of course that the Truman Doctrine was based on Kennan's Foreign Affairs article, The Sources of Soviet Conduct. Kennan argued that the Soviet Union was inherently expansionist, not for ideological reasons, but for the simple fact of Tsarist Realpolitik tradition. His thesis was that Moscow needed to be contained in geographies of strategic importance to the West. Vietnam certainly lay beyond that sphere and Kennan argued vehemently against US involvement in a French post-colonial transition issue (remember, of course, that French colonial control and security was reimposed and enforced by the Japanese Imperial Army whose troops continued to garrison Indochina on behalf of the French until 1950.)

So was the failure of the Truman Doctrine in Indochina the responsibility of the military, as you suggest? I think before you answer this you need to read from a balanced bibliography to include:

"The Sources of Soviet Conduct," Foreign Affairs, George F. Kennan

Vietnam: A History, Stanley Karnow

The Quiet American, Graham Greene

A Rumor of War, Phil Caputo

A Bright Shining Lie, Neil Sheehan

Anatomy of a War, Gabriel Kolko

Fire In the Lake, Frances FitzGerald

The Best and the Brightest, David Halberstam

Triumph Forsaken, Mark Moyar

A Better War, Lewis Sorley

Dispatches, Michael Herr

Fields of Fire, Jim Webb

A Soldier Reports, William Westmoreland

In Retrospect, Robert McNamara

Class Warfare, Noam Chomsky

Fighter Pilot, Robin Olds

People's War, Vo Nguyen Giap

Ho Chi Minh, William Duiker

The Lost Valley: Dien Bien Phu and the French defeat in Vietnam, Martin Windrow

The Other Side of Heaven, Minh Kue Le & Tru Ong Vu

The Things They Carried, Tim O'Brien

I think you will find this reading provides a balanced overview of what Vietnam was and meant to all parties concerned.