An Open Letter to Big Ten Officials

Dear Big Ten,

I am not one to typically place the blame of a team winning or losing a game on those whose responsibility it is to officiate a fair game. In mostly all cases, even though a call may not go the way I want it to, I can accept the call and trust that the officials on the floor had a better view of the play in question than I did. I also trust that the officials on the floor are familiar with the rules and regulations of the game and that they are comfortable making an objective call. Recently as I've been watching sports, particularly Big Ten men's basketball games, I've become a little more uncomfortable with the officiating that not only dictates the outcome of each game, but the rhythm of each contest as well. I understand that there is room for dispute in most foul calls and each official has his own particular officiating style, but in watching some recent games, I've become somewhat disgusted by many of the referees' calls that have often proven vital in the outcome of an important contest.

Many NCAA basketball fans are familiar with the Minnesota vs. Virginia Tech game that took place on November 30th, which was officiated by the Big Ten. Minnesota ended up winning that game 58-55, and VT fans are still bitter, and for good reason. As you recall, the team of Big Ten officials blew a crucial backcourt violation call on VT's Robert Brown which gave Minnesota the ball at the 9 second mark with the lead. Had your team of referees not blown this magnificently simple call, Virginia Tech would've had a much easier chance at winning the game if not sending it into a period of overtime. However, a Big Ten official called an obviously incorrect backcourt violation, granted possession to the Gophers, and effectively shattered any hope that the Hokies had of winning the game. Instead of acknowledging right then that they had blown the call, the officials decided not to review, to let the game end, and to let Minnesota escape with a win. While such a small call didn't seem very important to the referees on the court that night, that single call could easily dictate whether Minnesota or VT (both arguably bubble teams) gets a chance to play in the NCAA tournament come March.

This is just one instance of idiotic officiating.

Not only does your team of officials have the responsibility of making objective calls each possession, but it also has to make calls consistently, at least throughout the duration of a single contest. One case in which inconsistent officiating directly impacted the final outcome of a game is in last night's basketball game between Indiana and Wisconsin. This team of officials, led by Ted Valentine, called one of the most questionable games in my recent memory. What was a foul at one point was not a foul later in the game.  Cody Zeller being hit on the arm during a layup was a called foul early in the game, but with 50 seconds left in the game with IU down three points, the same exact action is not a foul. Such error and irregularity in officiating simply blows my mind. That someone could possibly not recognize that as a foul raises serious questions in my mind as to who should be officiating these important games down the stretch.

Similarly, what was a foul on one player was not called on another. Jared Berggeren hitting Cody Zeller's hand on a lay-in altered his shot, which is something that we can all agree deserves a foul call. However, when he does the exact same thing to the much smaller Will Sheehey, he is credited with a block and play resumes. The play in question happened on the exact same spot on the court. The same player was the offender. The only difference is that Sheehey is smaller than Zeller, so the officials believed that no foul should be called.

The final and most infuriating error in judgement came with Indiana down three, nearing the end of the game. Jordan Taylor from Wisconsin shot a three-pointer, which subsequently rimmed out. Battling Zeller for the best position to grab a rebound, Ben Brust throws his rear into Zeller, sending him flying to the ground. The call? You guessed it: Nothing. Ted Valentine stood and watched as freshman Cody Zeller was thrown to the ground, and not a sound came out of his whistle. Now, I understand and appreciate the concept of physicality. I'm a Big Ten fan. Obviously I enjoy letting the boys play. What I don't understand, however, is how a brush on the arm warrants a whistle and two shots, but tackling another player in the final seconds of a game doesn't. Such incompetence doesn't even belong in suburban church league ball, let alone the best collegiate basketball conference in the entire world. The officiating at the end of this game disgusted me and left me wondering why this group of officials is still employed by the Big Ten.

The conference is better than this. The Big Ten is the cream of the crop not only when it comes to athletics, but arts and academics as well. That we allow a conference of this caliber be officiated by such an incapable group simply bewilders me. The level of consistency at which this game and others have been controlled is unfair and downright wrong. Your conference makes millions of dollars off of each and every player on the court, and it is expected that your officials put forth the same effort that those players do. The fact that your referees are so careless and lackadaisical should be an embarrassment to you. I think it's time to take step back, look at the big picture, and realize what a mistake it is to have such unqualified minds regulating our entire basketball league.

Respectfully,
-DK

IU-Wisconsin: The Aftermath

Indiana had a tough loss tonight in Madison, 57-50. Wisconsin may have won by seven, but it wasn't until the last minute of the game that Wisconsin stretched its lead to more than one possession, and the seven point victory was mostly a byproduct of late, desperate fouling by IU in an attempt to lengthen the game.

I'm sure that there are some IU fans out there who are upset with the team for losing tonight. I am not one of those people. I'm not going to lie; deep down, I expected a win. With that being said, I am not ashamed at or disappointed with IU.

Honestly, I feel like regardless of the score, the Hoosiers outplayed the Badgers tonight. I thought that some mental breaks and unforced errors were the main causes for IU's loss. There were a few times when IU had opportunities to close Wisconsin out, and there were opportunities near the end for IU to take the lead for good. They just didn't capitalize. They gave up some very poorly timed offensive rebounds and they threw the ball away at very inopportune times as well.

I think the toughest thing to swallow about this loss is the fact that IU easily could have won it. Like Tom Crean said in a post-game interview, they were in a position to win, but they just couldn't find a way to pull it off.

Before IU fans declare war on this team and write them off as a disappointment, we need to remember a few things.

First of all, this team has already exceeded expectations. Most people thought this would be a .500 year, at best. Maybe it will still turn out to be a .500 season, but it would take a collapse of epic proportions. Right now, I think it would take many poor performances for them to finish with fewer than 21 wins. My best case scenario coming into this year was a 17-18 win season with a possible NIT bid. If the season ends today, IU is probably a 5 seed in the national tournament. I did not see that coming.

Secondly, this is still a young team in both age and experience. The "seasoned" veterans of this team, Verdell Jones III and Co., had a combined 28 wins coming into this season -- they've already won more than half that amount this season. So it's obviously going to take some time for this team to learn how to play as favorites, with a target on their back. Comparing this game tonight to the losses vs. Minnesota and at Nebraska, this is a COMPLETELY different team. They were much more aggressive on defense and they looked like a real offense as opposed to one who just shoots three-pointers. Obviously, they're a good three-point shooting team and that strategy has worked, but teams that depend on the three-pointer and base their entire offense around it are rarely successful in the long run. Today, they spread the wealth a little and moved the ball into the paint more often than they have in the past. I look at this as a positive, and as something to build on.

Third, IU hung with Wisconsin in Madison without three of their most important offensive players -- Victor Oladipo, Cody Zeller, and Will Sheehey -- contributing much at all. The three of them combined for 11 points, with Cody Zeller contributing 7 of those and Sheeladipo scoring 2 each. It's hard to win games when three dynamic scorers are effectively taken out of the game; the three played 19, 19, and 25 points respectively. Obviously, these guys need to step it up from here on out, especially Oladipo. For someone who was as good at the beginning of the season as Oladipo was, it's hard to imagine him staying in this funk for much longer, but the truth is that he's very hard to predict. When he can slash and get to the hoop, he's incredible. When he can't get around defenders and he's settling for jump shots, he's a non-factor. That explosiveness that he had earlier in the season is gone for now, most likely due to exhaustion and general wear and tear. I think he'll get his legs back under him soon enough.

So maybe this loss will leave a bitter taste in our mouths, because of what could have been, but looking at it from an optimist's point of view, this team has improved drastically from last week. I think they can only improve from here.

The key to IU's success down the stretch mainly have to do with all of the players producing like they are capable of. IU has yet to have a game where they were firing on all cylinders, in my opinion. I think the closest thing to a "great" game by IU was honestly probably the Evansville game, which will hopefully not be true for much longer.

I think IU will be okay. If they play for the rest of the season like they played tonight, with the additions of Zeller, Oladipo, and Sheehey playing like they can, I think the Hoosiers could make a lot of noise throughout the rest of the season. It's just a matter of executing and learning from their mistakes.

IU-Penn State: The Aftermath

IU got a much needed win today in Bloomington against the Penn State Nittany Lions. Although they won by 19, they trailed by two at halftime and their offense looked stagnant, other than Cody Zeller. Jumpers weren't falling, specifically from Jordan Hulls and Christian Watford, they were getting killed on the offensive glass, and they were letting Tim Frazier score pretty much at will.

So what changed in the second half?

Well, essentially everything listed changed. Frazier still ended up with 21 points, but as a whole, their defense stayed aggressive throughout. They allowed 29 points in the first half and 25 in the second half, and 54 total points is the fewest they've allowed in Big Ten play. This isn't to say that IU's defense is now great, since Penn State's offense is not very good, but it's a very positive sign, especially since Penn State scored 82 during their last meeting.

The defense was consistent throughout. The biggest reason for IU's "comeback" (they were only down two at halftime) was their offense finally woke up.

In the first half, IU's shooting was atrocious. Most of their offense was run through Cody Zeller in the post, which is probably how it should be. But IU is one of the top teams in the nation in terms of field goal percentage, and I believe they ARE the best in terms of three-point field goal percentage. I'm not sure exactly what their percentage was in the first half, but it was...well, bad. But in the second half, Hulls and Watford both hit a couple of threes, and Roth added two of his own, and IU finished 7-16 from downtown; a 43.8%, which is not bad at all.

Their offense as a whole looked much more fluid than it has in a long time. Even during the first Penn State game, where IU scored 88 points, most of it was done behind the three-point line by Hulls and Roth. The fact that they were able to establish an inside game (not just by Zeller) is a good sign as well.

So, what did we learn?

We didn't learn much that we didn't already know. This was more a game for IU to find their stride again, for a couple of guys to shoot their way out of funks, and to gain an edge of sorts. They've lacked that fire and intensity they had in non-conference play, most likely because they're worn down from Big Ten season, but they played with a lot of aggression today. I liked what I saw today. I'm not ready to declare them the favorites for the national championship yet, but I am feeling more confident than I was after the Nebraska game.

Now that they've got their swagger back, hopefully they can start playing like the team we saw pre-Minnesota again.

The importance of the regular season

An argument that I constantly hear about the value of the BCS over the college basketball tournament is that the BCS makes the college football regular season more exciting than college basketball's regular season because college basketball's "doesn't matter."

This argument is one of the most ignorant statements one could make about sports, in my opinion. Yes, it's true that in college football, if you lose one game, your chances at playing in the national championship take a huge hit, depending on where it is in the season. Therefore, every game is do-or-die for most teams. And it's also true that a college basketball team can have four or five really bad losses, but as long as they win 20+ games and pull off a few upsets, they'll probably still make the tournament.

These things are true. That doesn't mean the college basketball regular season is pointless and doesn't matter.

For one thing, seeding in the tournament matters a lot. I know the argument against this: "But Josh, look at the Final Four last year! Butler was an 8 seed (or something) and VCU was an 11 seed! It is very common for a low seed to make a run in the tournament!"

My response: first of all, no it isn't. It isn't common. It's happened in the recent past, with George Mason and the aforementioned VCU and Butler (twice). But if you look at a list of Final Four teams, it is generally a top 3 seed that makes it to the Final Four. The reason that may lower seeded teams make deep tournament runs is simple. Teams in elite conferences, such as the Big Ten, play great and/or very tough teams pretty much non-stop. There are few sure wins in conference play in elite conferences, so these teams get beaten up over the course of the season, which results in tired teams in the national tournament. Now, the truly great teams are usually able to overcome this exhaustion, but some teams are affected.

Butler, on the other hand, plays teams like Wright State and Detroit week in and week out. Butler isn't even that good this year, mostly because that they lost their two best players from last year, but they're still third in their conference and will probably still make the tournament. My point here is that their conference is so weak that they're less beaten up than their elite conference counterparts, which means they're better rested for the tournament, which means they can take advantage of their opportunity to make a deep tournament run.

The ultimate point of the last two paragraphs was that, contrary to popular belief, tournament seeding does matter.

Another point in favor of college basketball's regular season is a team like Pittsburgh this year. Pitt is one of those teams that always makes the tournament and is usually a high seed. They're a team that most people would say "Why even have them play the regular season? They'll make the tournament no matter what!" Well, Pitt is 0-7 in the Big East and barely over .500 overall. Their regular season matters, albeit in a negative way.

It's true that it's relatively simple to predict roughly half of the teams that are going to make the tournament at the beginning of the year. It's true that it's possible to make the tournament with a slightly above average regular season. It's true that there can be a national champion who was .500 in the regular season. But that stuff doesn't happen. Do you think that right now, Duke is going to tell you that their regular season doesn't matter? Do you think that when Coach K got interviewed after the Florida State loss, he said "Yeah, this sucks. Thankfully, this isn't college football, therefore this game is completely irrelevant in every way!" Or Florida State's team doesn't care about this victory because it's a lowly regular season game? How about when Indiana beat Kentucky? Or when Notre Dame knocked off Syracuse?

You can't tell me that the college basketball regular season is irrelevant. You can tell me that the college football regular season is more important, but the way I look at it, college football doesn't have a regular season; it has an 11 week playoff. (I still think there should be an official college football playoff though.)

My main point here is that although not every single game has an incredible amount of importance, the regular season as a whole is a representation of everything that's great about college sports. In the grand scheme of things, it's not going to matter that Syracuse lost to Notre Dame last night. They'll still make the tournament easily, probably as a number one seed barring a complete collapse from here on out.

The college basketball season is not do-or-die, like the college football season. That doesn't make the Notre Dame victory any less important. It doesn't lessen the impact of Indiana's win over Kentucky. It doesn't cheapen Florida State's win at Duke. It doesn't make the regular season unimportant.

Big Ten Power Rankings

This isn't exactly a new concept, but I've decided to try to do Big Ten power rankings for this point in the season. Also, I don't know if you're supposed to capitalize "power rankings" or not.

1. Ohio State

When this team is on, I don't think anybody in the country can beat them. When they're off, there are still only a handful of teams who can beat them. Jared Sullinger is nearly unstoppable down low, because of a few reasons: first, if you put one man on him, he will score, regardless of who that person is; second, if you double him, he will find an open man, and said man will most likely hit a shot; third, if you foul him, he'll probably make his free throws. The only way to stop him is to get him into foul trouble, which Indiana did a good job of doing. Not to mention the fact that Deshaun Thomas, Aaron Craft, William Buford, and apparently Lenzelle Smith, Jr. are all really good too. In conclusion, Ohio State is probably the best team in the country right now.

2. Michigan State

Michigan State only has two losses in the Big Ten so far, and they were both on the road to very good teams. The loss that speaks most to me about how good Michigan State is, is the Michigan loss. Michigan is an excellent team with two elite players and a deep supporting cast -- and yet, Michigan State only lost to them by one on the road. Believe what you want, but I firmly believe that rivalry games give the home team a HUGE advantage, so this game, although a loss, still impresses me from Michigan State's standpoint. I'm really looking forward to seeing how they handle Ohio State -- I really doubt they'll win in Columbus, but the last game of the year is OSU-MSU in East Lansing, and that should be an excellent game; perhaps even deciding the Big Ten regular season crown. Michigan State could be a Final Four team, since they have the best coach in college basketball and one of the best players in the nation this year in Draymond Green.

3. Indiana

Now, I know what some of you may be thinking. "BIAS ALERT!" Yeah, sort of. But, although I seem like it, I don't judge a team based off a period of only two or three games, especially with the quality of some of the wins that IU has. I may seem like I do during and directly after IU losses, but after some time to actually think about the game, I realize that I can't do that. The way I look at it, this team has still beaten Kentucky, Ohio State, and Michigan. A couple of bad losses aren't going to change that. I think the biggest problem with the Hoosiers has actually been those good wins -- this is an inexperienced team, both in terms of age and of success in the past, and it's going to take time to be able to win games that you should win. I think they were surprised by Minnesota, a very well-coached and talented team that has a record that does not reflect how good they are, and if they can get a couple of wins in a row and build momentum, I think they'll be okay. For now, they're third. If they lose at home to Penn State, I'll drop them a lot probably.

4. Michigan

Michigan is one of those teams that has incredible talent but just needs to find consistency. Trey Burke is, along with Cody Zeller, one of the favorites for Big Ten Freshman of the Year, and Tim Hardaway Jr. is nothing to sneeze at either. This team has some very impressive games, but they also have some pretty bad ones too. The only reason I have them below Indiana is that at this point, IU has three wins over impressive teams (including Michigan) and Michigan has one. This is a team that I could see surprising a lot of people in the tournament -- maybe not a Final Four run, but they can hang with any team in the country, I believe. Burke is not only talented, but he has the poise of an upperclassman -- I saw this at the end of the Michigan State game, when he made an incredible pass to someone for the game-winning basket. I thought it was a veteran-type move to dish it to someone else, rather than forcing a shot up, which is what somebody like Victor Oladipo probably would have done. Nothing against Oladipo, but he has a tendency to take ill-advised shots at times. But if Burke can keep up what he's doing, this team will be very dangerous come tournament time.

And now, the rankings get incredibly difficult. The 5-10 positions are pretty interchangeable at this point, and there could be arguments made for nearly any of them to be higher than they are.

5. Wisconsin

Wisconsin has one incredibly embarrassing loss -- at home to Iowa -- and this has knocked them down to fifth when many thought they would contend for the Big Ten title. I personally always have thought that Ohio State would win it, but that's a story for a different time. But if you take away the Iowa loss, Wisconsin is 4-2 in the Big Ten with losses at home to Michigan State and on the road at Michigan. Those are two pretty impressive losses, for lack of a better term. I'm not going to condemn them to the cellar of the Big Ten for one bad game, and let's remember that this team only lost by 3 at North Carolina, and beat UNLV earlier in the year. They, like IU, just need to get a couple of wins to get back on track, and I think they will do so.

6. Illinois

I put these teams in order on Saturday night, and decided to wait until the week ended before I posted it. I was definitely on the fence about whether to put Wisconsin or Illinois ahead of the other. On one hand, Illinois was ranked and Wisconsin was not. On the other hand, I thought that Wisconsin was better than Illinois so I put them ahead. Turns out I was right. Illinois lost at home to Wisconsin today and at Penn State earlier in the week. If you look at their record, they look like a really good team. If you look at their results, you'd question that idea a bit. This team won by 5 at home to Nebraska (yes, Nebraska) (yes, at home) and they got crushed by Purdue. Granted, that was in Mackey, and Purdue's a good team, but still. Illinois is a tournament team and will probably be a 6 seed or so, but they need to get their act together pretty soon. Maybe Brandon Paul can score a million points every night, like he did against Ohio State.

7. Purdue

Purdue is a strange team. I feel like they're pretty good at this point, and they have a few impressive victories (@ Iowa, which is a bigger win now than it was at the time; @ Minnesota, vs. Illinois), but two of their six losses (@ Penn State by 20, against Butler) are really bad losses. I do not think that Purdue is a bad team; I think they'll make the tournament, probably as a six or seven seed and make it to the second round at least. But at this point in the season, Purdue hasn't really impressed me yet. I think that they still have room to improve, and I think they will end up with 20 or so wins. But, for right now (and probably until the end of the season), I think Purdue is a middle of the road team in the Big Ten. NOTE: I think Purdue is going to beat Indiana in Mackey. So don't think I'm overly biased.

8. Iowa

Iowa was picked by many people to finish in the bottom of the Big Ten, along with Nebraska and Penn State. At this point in the season, Iowa does not look like a "bottom of the barrel" team in the Big Ten. They have had many impressive games in conference play thus far, with all three of their wins in the Big Ten (@ Wisconsin, @ Minnesota, vs. Michigan) being very impressive victories. They've had a few hiccups against Michigan State and Ohio State, but who hasn't? The only thing keeping me from putting them higher on this list is their non-conference play. It's hard to tell at this point if Iowa is playing over their heads right now and they are actually the team they showed they were in non-conference, or if their non-conference does not reflect how good they actually are. Only time will tell, but one thing is for sure: Iowa will not be at the bottom for long.

9. Minnesota/10. Northwestern

I was having trouble with ranking every team after #5, but I especially had trouble deciding whether to put Minnesota or Northwestern ahead of the other. Both of them have good wins and solid performances, but both are in the bottom of the Big Ten. I was actually leaning on putting Northwestern ahead of Minnesota, because Northwestern had a few impressive games (losing in overtime @ Michigan specifically) and they didn't really have any bad losses, like Minnesota does (losing vs. Iowa, vs. Purdue). But then Minnesota beat Northwestern by 23 today, so my dilemma was made much easier. I think that overall, Minnesota is a better team than Northwestern, but Northwestern has a better player than Minnesota. Meaning that Northwestern is only as good as they are because of John Shurna, the Big Ten's leading scorer. When it's all said and done, though, I think that Minnesota will keep riding this winning streak they have going and will end up making the tournament. I don't think I can say the same for Northwestern. But who knows? Maybe John Shurna will average 30 PPG from here on out and they'll win every game.

11. Nebraska

Nebraska probably could be higher on this list. The only problem is that, with the exception of the victory of Indiana, their "impressive" games are just losses that could have been by a lot more. Granted, I have not seen this team play very often, but they only have two Big Ten wins (vs. IU, vs. Penn State), only one of which was a "good" win. Watching them play against IU, I learned a few things. First, they are a scrappy team. They're not the most talented team by any means, but they have that grit and hustle that coaches love. Second, Bo Spencer is really good. Maybe he was made to look better because of IU's awful defense, but I still think that he's a really good player. He's a little inconsistent, but when he's on, he's really good. I just think that the rest of the team is not good enough to make his impact mean much of anything.

12. Penn State

Penn State has two in-conference wins against good teams, one of which was ranked at the time of their loss. They have a great player in Tim Frazier, and, like Nebraska, they have plenty of grit and hustle. You'd think that they would be better than they are, but here we are at the bottom of the rankings. Their offense, apart from Frazier, is not strong. Frazier is the only player averaging double digits in PPG, and he leads the team in points, rebounds, and assists per game. So, basically, the only good player for Penn State is Frazer. He's potentially first team all-Big Ten, but it's kind of hard to win when you only have one good player, and it's especially hard to win when your point guard is leading your team in rebounds per game. Their grit will win them games, but it's tough to win on grit alone.

This is (an) Indiana (rivalry)

The title of this post sucks. I get it. I literally sat here for 10 minutes, trying to think of something, couldn't think of anything, and gave up. That's the first thing that popped into my head. Don't let it hurt your enjoyment of this post.

This is going to be a post filled with raw emotion, and my thoughts might not always be very well constructed. Please give me some leeway. Or don't, I really don't care.

Rivalries in sports are a beautiful thing. Let me be clear: they are a beautiful thing when the teams are playing each other. Watching the Red Sox and Yankees play is a wonderful thing. The teams don't like each other -- and yet they respect each other. Honestly, rivalry games are probably my favorite events in sports.

The IU-Purdue rivalry is an example of one of these. It's true that the rivalry hasn't been as great as it was during the Bob Knight/Gene Keady era, when both teams were members of the elite ranks in college basketball, but the games are still usually very interesting, well-played, exciting games. Granted, it's sort of difficult to have interesting, well-played, exciting games when IU is winning roughly 10 games per year as they have for the past few years, but they still found ways to make some games exciting, like two years ago in Bloomington where the game came down to the wire.

But with this beauty comes maybe my least favorite thing in sports -- trash-talking by fans.

For the past three years, I (and all IU fans) have had to put up with constant mockery from Purdue fans. IU is a more historically great program than Purdue, so Purdue fans have leaped on this opportunity to make up for years of playing second fiddle to the Hoosiers. In a way, I understand where this comes from.

But the overall douchiness of Purdue fans over the past four years is still remarkable to me. I remember an instance in particular, right after Purdue won in dramatic fashion in the NCAA tournament over (I believe) Texas A&M. Some friends of mine, who shall remain nameless, got on the internet right after it happened, and instead of saying something like "Boiler up!" or "What a win!" or something, said "How far did IU go in the tournament this year?"

This is something that I do not understand. I do not understand somebody, right after a huge win by the team they have supported for his or her entire life, insulting a rival instead of celebrating his or her team's success. Honestly, to me, it's the sign of a poor fan. And obviously there are crappy fans in every fan base -- you don't have to tell me that there are crappy IU fans.

This is not to say that all Purdue fans are like this. I know many Purdue fans who are apathetic about IU, unless Purdue is playing them. This is how I feel about Purdue. I love rooting against Purdue when they play IU. I don't love rooting against them when they play Mississippi Tech for their second game of the season. I don't grin and happily jump and down while clapping when they lose to crappy teams.

If you are reading this post, then you know I'm an IU fan. My brother goes to Purdue and competes in swimming there, so my case is pretty unique. I don't hate Purdue as much as many of my IU fan friends do. But even if both of my brothers had played IU basketball, I wouldn't treat Purdue fans the way many others do.

And sure, I've been known to occasionally offer the sarcastic quip about Purdue (yes, the language in that sentence is supposed to sound lame). Usually, this is because a) I'm bitter for some reason, most likely an IU loss or b) I'm feeling particularly douchey. Over the past few years, I have reacted poorly to Purdue fans at times. To give you a better idea of what this looks like, here's an example:

Purdue fan: IU SUCKS!!!

Me: No, you suck, poopman! Purdue is gay! Boiler down!

(end scene)

It's not pretty. I'm not proud of it. Although I don't think I've ever said "Boiler down!" At least I hope I haven't. But anyway, I think I've done a pretty good job of keeping my priority of paying attention to IU and not paying attention to Purdue as much. Because the truth is, I don't care how good Purdue is. Hell, the better Purdue is, the better/deeper the Big Ten is. I will rarely go out of my way to root for Purdue, but I also didn't insult Purdue after IU beat Kentucky.

I know I've rambled a lot through this post, mostly because proofreading or collecting your thoughts beforehand is for wimps, so I'll end by saying this: people who take an unusual amount of glee in a rival's failure, even going so far as to insulting a rival instead of celebrating a victory, is the sign of a bad fan. Purdue fans do it. IU fans do it. Fans of all teams do it. It needs to stop. Healthy competition based on a respect, however grudgingly it is given, is a beautiful thing. You guys are ruining it with your douchiness.

And so ends hopefully the last time I will ever complain about IU-Purdue rivalry.