26 Nov 2003 22:44:22
Ryan Cooper
#1 UConn loses to unranked Georgia Tech.

Thus confirming that sportswriters are idiots.




27 Nov 2003 04:50:53
Diamondback
Re: #1 UConn loses to unranked Georgia Tech.

That needed confirmation?

"Ryan Cooper" <ryanc829@cox.net > wrote in message
news:yifxb.15875$Gj2.8171@okepread01...
> Thus confirming that sportswriters are idiots.
>
>




27 Nov 2003 05:12:12
Gpinlv
Re: #1 UConn loses to unranked Georgia Tech.

>Subject: #1 UConn loses to unranked Georgia Tech.
>From: "Ryan Cooper" ryanc829@cox.net

>Thus confirming that sportswriters are idiots.

Illogical, as all available evidence prior to the initial polls being
released pointed to UConn having as strong a claim to #1 as any team in the
nation.


26 Nov 2003 23:19:58
Ryan Cooper
Re: #1 UConn loses to unranked Georgia Tech.

"Gpinlv" <gpinlv@cs.com > wrote in message
news:20031127001212.20183.00001157@mb-m04.news.cs.com...
> >Subject: #1 UConn loses to unranked Georgia Tech.
> >From: "Ryan Cooper" ryanc829@cox.net
>
> >Thus confirming that sportswriters are idiots.
>
> Illogical, as all available evidence prior to the initial polls being
> released pointed to UConn having as strong a claim to #1 as any team in
the
> nation.

Really? Then why did Massey have them at #14 before tonight's game? Why did
Pomeroy have them #15? Why did Sagarin have them #25?

All the available evidence, or all the available hype?




30 Nov 2003 00:12:30
Michael Sullivan
Re: #1 UConn loses to unranked Georgia Tech.

Geoffrey F. Green <geoff-usenet2@stuebegreen.com > wrote:

> In article <ea44f5a1.0311280536.7e4316e0@posting.google.com>,
> tadamsmar@yahoo.com (Tom Adams) wrote:
>
> > In 1999 they won every game when they were healthy. They were not
> > nearly as highly rated and that team with the bowel-movement-sounding
> > name at the end of the season.
>
> Yes, you're right. In 1999, UConn was only ranked preseason #1 by
> half the prognosticators (including Dick Vitale, over Duke -- imagine
> that!), and only spent 7 or 8 weeks in the number one position that
> season. Way underrated.
>
> And yes, I thought the point spread for that game was absurd.

I never quite understood why UConn's rep that year went from being "boy
hard to tell, they might be better than Duke, but I think I'll give the
devils the nod because their schedule was a little tougher" to this
massive underdog "They don't play anybody and will lose by 15" over the
course of stomping through the Big East and NCAA tournaments without a
loss.

I don't know anyone who actually knew bball that considered that more
than a very mild upset. IIRC, talk here in this froup was that MSU,
UConn and Duke were very close to pick 'em as the favorites that year.


Michael


02 Dec 2003 03:40:09
ceb2
Re: #1 UConn loses to unranked Georgia Tech.

"Ryan Cooper" <ryanc829@cox.net > wrote in message news:<yifxb.15875$Gj2.8171@okepread01>...
> Thus confirming that sportswriters are idiots.

Oh come on! They clearly had as much talent as anyone in the nation.
To say anyone who ranked them #1 is an idiot is a bit extreme.

Carl in CT
__________________________________________________________
check out my UCONN Huskies Custom Computer Case Mod:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3444112693&category=51061&rd=1
and the rest of my sports themed Custom Computer Case Mods:
<http://www.freewebs.com/carlscases/index.htmlcolor=#0000FF> >
__________________________________________________________