10 May 2007 20:33:51
Pauli G
Irrelevant basketball programs

http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=205216



11 May 2007 08:03:57
foaddoc
Re: Irrelevant basketball programs


"Pauli G" <rioroad@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1178854430.982530.154060@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=205216

WOO HOO! WE'RE NUMBER ONE!!

SUCK ON IT dEwKiEs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!





11 May 2007 05:57:44
James Gibson
Re: Irrelevant basketball programs

On May 10, 11:33 pm, Pauli G <rior...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=205216

That's a pretty random list of programs that aren't good right now,
but either are historically good or just have a few random "hit"
seasons. Penn State ranked 5th on the list, but you could have ranked
them on this list any time between their tournament appearances in '96
and '01 as well.

I get why all of them make this list, but 5 least relevant? Less
relevant than Arizona State or Mississippi or Northwestern? Or any of
a number of small teams from extremely small conferences?



11 May 2007 06:48:41
Pauli G
Re: Irrelevant basketball programs

On May 11, 8:57 am, James Gibson <james.m.gib...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On May 10, 11:33 pm, Pauli G <rior...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=205216
>
> That's a pretty random list of programs that aren't good right now,
> but either are historically good or just have a few random "hit"
> seasons. Penn State ranked 5th on the list, but you could have ranked
> them on this list any time between their tournament appearances in '96
> and '01 as well.
>
> I get why all of them make this list, but 5 least relevant? Less
> relevant than Arizona State or Mississippi or Northwestern? Or any of
> a number of small teams from extremely small conferences?

I agree with everything you say - just thought it might enliven this
chatroom a little bit.



11 May 2007 14:11:44
elaich
Re: Irrelevant basketball programs

Pauli G <rioroad@hotmail.com > wrote in news:1178891321.682110.306510
@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:

> I agree with everything you say - just thought it might enliven this
> chatroom a little bit.

This is not a chatroom.

--
A: Because it disturbs the logical flow of the message.
Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?


11 May 2007 10:52:27
Zaphod Beeblebrox
Re: Irrelevant basketball programs



elaich wrote, On 5/11/2007 10:11 AM:
> Pauli G <rioroad@hotmail.com> wrote in news:1178891321.682110.306510
> @p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
>
>> I agree with everything you say - just thought it might enliven this
>> chatroom a little bit.
>
> This is not a chatroom.
>
You mispelt chatrum.

--
I'm so hip I have trouble seeing over my pelvis.
I'm so cool you can keep a side of meat in me for months.


11 May 2007 08:06:14
Pauli G
Re: Irrelevant basketball programs

On May 11, 10:52 am, Zaphod Beeblebrox <victor.kingNOS...@comcast.net >
wrote:
> elaich wrote, On 5/11/2007 10:11 AM:> Pauli G <rior...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:1178891321.682110.306510
> > @p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> I agree with everything you say - just thought it might enliven this
> >> chatroom a little bit.
>
> > This is not a chatroom.
>
> You mispelt chatrum.
>

sorry pla. brb. lol !1!!1



11 May 2007 15:08:29
Donnie Barnes
Re: Irrelevant basketball programs

On Fri, 11 May, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
> elaich wrote, On 5/11/2007 10:11 AM:
>> Pauli G <rioroad@hotmail.com> wrote in news:1178891321.682110.306510
>> @p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> I agree with everything you say - just thought it might enliven this
>>> chatroom a little bit.
>>
>> This is not a chatroom.
>>
> You mispelt chatrum.

You misplet misplet.


--Donnie

--
Donnie Barnes http://www.donniebarnes.com 879. V.


11 May 2007 11:26:15
Edward M. Kennedy
Re: Irrelevant basketball programs

"elaich" <a@b.c > wrote

> > I agree with everything you say - just thought it might enliven this
> > chatroom a little bit.
>
> This is not a chatroom.

It's a fishing pond, Mr. Trout.

--Tedward


11 May 2007 12:40:11
foaddoc
Re: Irrelevant basketball programs


"James Gibson" <james.m.gibson@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1178888264.721189.104740@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On May 10, 11:33 pm, Pauli G <rior...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=205216
>
> That's a pretty random list of programs that aren't good right now,
> but either are historically good or just have a few random "hit"
> seasons. Penn State ranked 5th on the list, but you could have ranked
> them on this list any time between their tournament appearances in '96
> and '01 as well.
>
> I get why all of them make this list, but 5 least relevant? Less
> relevant than Arizona State or Mississippi or Northwestern? Or any of
> a number of small teams from extremely small conferences?

Not to mention eg LaSalle, who won a national championship and had back to
back FF appearances in the 50s. Or U SanFran. Or closer to modern times
Houston and Jacksonville, both of whom had B2B Final Fours. One FF in 50
years suggests that SJU has nearly always been irrelevant. I certainly don't
see how we're any worse off than Rutgers or Satan Hall, except in that we're
not meeting higher expectations.




11 May 2007 09:41:55
Pauli G
Re: Irrelevant basketball programs

On May 11, 12:40 pm, "foaddoc" <f...@bitchslap.org > wrote:
> "James Gibson" <james.m.gib...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1178888264.721189.104740@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On May 10, 11:33 pm, Pauli G <rior...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=205216
>
> > That's a pretty random list of programs that aren't good right now,
> > but either are historically good or just have a few random "hit"
> > seasons. Penn State ranked 5th on the list, but you could have ranked
> > them on this list any time between their tournament appearances in '96
> > and '01 as well.
>
> > I get why all of them make this list, but 5 least relevant? Less
> > relevant than Arizona State or Mississippi or Northwestern? Or any of
> > a number of small teams from extremely small conferences?
>
> Not to mention eg LaSalle, who won a national championship and had back to
> back FF appearances in the 50s. Or U SanFran. Or closer to modern times
> Houston and Jacksonville, both of whom had B2B Final Fours. One FF in 50
> years suggests that SJU has nearly always been irrelevant. I certainly don't
> see how we're any worse off than Rutgers or Satan Hall, except in that we're
> not meeting higher expectations.

In related news, I understand that Bobby G and the boys are vacating
the Meadowlands and moving to the new arena in Newark.



11 May 2007 14:41:18
foaddoc
Re: Irrelevant basketball programs


"Pauli G" <rioroad@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1178901715.453919.47780@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

> In related news, I understand that Bobby G and the boys are vacating
> the Meadowlands and moving to the new arena in Newark.

It works for Booby G because the Newark's closer to Creedmoor.






11 May 2007 14:44:15
Edward M. Kennedy
Re: Irrelevant basketball programs

"James Gibson" <james.m.gibson@gmail.com > wrote

> That's a pretty random list of programs that aren't good right now,
> but either are historically good or just have a few random "hit"
> seasons. Penn State ranked 5th on the list, but you could have ranked
> them on this list any time between their tournament appearances in '96
> and '01 as well.
>
> I get why all of them make this list, but 5 least relevant? Less
> relevant than Arizona State or Mississippi or Northwestern? Or any of
> a number of small teams from extremely small conferences?

I took one look at the list, didn't see Clemson, and surfed
for pr0n instead of reading the article. Seeing double isn't
always a bad thing.

--Tedward

Choreographed twins!


11 May 2007 21:29:56
Milt Epstein
Re: Irrelevant basketball programs

James Gibson <james.m.gibson@gmail.com > writes:

>On May 10, 11:33 pm, Pauli G <rior...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=205216
>
>That's a pretty random list of programs that aren't good right now,
>but either are historically good or just have a few random "hit"
>seasons. Penn State ranked 5th on the list, but you could have
>ranked them on this list any time between their tournament
>appearances in '96 and '01 as well.
>
>I get why all of them make this list, but 5 least relevant? Less
>relevant than Arizona State or Mississippi or Northwestern? Or any
>of a number of small teams from extremely small conferences?

I agree with your comments. It's kind of a weird theme, and it was
possible to include more teams and/or vary the definition of the
concept of "least relevant".

But the comment in it I find most interesting is this:

An opinion piece is published to generate reaction, ...

I mean, sure, if a column is simplistic, obvious, and/or simply
follows the "conventional wisdom", it's not going to be very
interesting. But one can avoid these things without one's main
purpose being to generate reaction. Kind of gives an insight into
these guys, and gives further confirmation as to why I avoid
reading/listening to them.

Not one of DeCourcy's better efforts.

--
Milt Epstein
mepstein@uiuc.edu


12 May 2007 09:21:08
James Gibson
Re: Irrelevant basketball programs

On May 11, 5:29 pm, Milt Epstein <mepst...@uiuc.edu > wrote:

> I mean, sure, if a column is simplistic, obvious, and/or simply
> follows the "conventional wisdom", it's not going to be very
> interesting. But one can avoid these things without one's main
> purpose being to generate reaction. Kind of gives an insight into
> these guys, and gives further confirmation as to why I avoid
> reading/listening to them.


Maybe we should discuss this article instead:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=2865999

It's about the 10 most underachieving basketball programs. That seems
to be a little more definable than most irrelevant. And still
arguable as to what the criteria should be. And I agree with the
choice of Michigan for #1. As for Oregon State, I'm not sure they
really have the resources to be considered underachieving.




12 May 2007 13:27:12
foaddoc
Re: Irrelevant basketball programs


"James Gibson" <james.m.gibson@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1178986868.425612.228230@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On May 11, 5:29 pm, Milt Epstein <mepst...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>> I mean, sure, if a column is simplistic, obvious, and/or simply
>> follows the "conventional wisdom", it's not going to be very
>> interesting. But one can avoid these things without one's main
>> purpose being to generate reaction. Kind of gives an insight into
>> these guys, and gives further confirmation as to why I avoid
>> reading/listening to them.
>
>
> Maybe we should discuss this article instead:
>
> http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=2865999
>
> It's about the 10 most underachieving basketball programs. That seems
> to be a little more definable than most irrelevant. And still
> arguable as to what the criteria should be. And I agree with the
> choice of Michigan for #1. As for Oregon State, I'm not sure they
> really have the resources to be considered underachieving.

Irrelevant AND underachieving. SUCK IT AGAIN dOoKiEs!!!!!!!!!!!!




13 May 2007 15:41:12
Edward M. Kennedy
Re: Irrelevant basketball programs

"James Gibson" <james.m.gibson@gmail.com > wrote

> > I mean, sure, if a column is simplistic, obvious, and/or simply
> > follows the "conventional wisdom", it's not going to be very
> > interesting. But one can avoid these things without one's main
> > purpose being to generate reaction. Kind of gives an insight into
> > these guys, and gives further confirmation as to why I avoid
> > reading/listening to them.
>
>
> Maybe we should discuss this article instead:
>
> http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=2865999
>
> It's about the 10 most underachieving basketball programs. That seems
> to be a little more definable than most irrelevant. And still
> arguable as to what the criteria should be. And I agree with the
> choice of Michigan for #1. As for Oregon State, I'm not sure they
> really have the resources to be considered underachieving.

I guess any consistent doormat in a major conference could
be up for consideration. I'm still trying to figure out
how Clemson didn't get any votes.

--Tedward


15 May 2007 14:30:49
jsh
Re: Irrelevant basketball programs

In article <1178986868.425612.228230@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com >,
James Gibson <james.m.gibson@gmail.com > wrote:
>
> Maybe we should discuss this article instead:
>
> http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=2865999
>
> It's about the 10 most underachieving basketball programs. That seems
> to be a little more definable than most irrelevant. And still
> arguable as to what the criteria should be. And I agree with the
> choice of Michigan for #1. As for Oregon State, I'm not sure they
> really have the resources to be considered underachieving.

So the B10, with 5 of its 11 teams getting votes, is clearly the most
underachieving conference. (Followed by the B12, with 4 of 12.)

I'm not sure what conclusions to draw from this.

a) The media (or rather, a select few ESPN "experts") have
unrealistically high expectations for the conference each year.

b) The expectations are reasonable, but the conference truly does
underachieve each year.

c) Neither of the above. It's the GSD after all, even for hotshot ESPN
basketball writers. (You can never have enough Top Ten lists.)


-- jsh