29 Nov 2006 20:55:51
Jay Furr
The Big 10

Not a bounceyball conference.



30 Nov 2006 06:42:06
Perusion Hostmaster
Re: The Big 10

On 2006-11-30, Jay Furr <jayfurr@gmail.com > wrote:
> Not a bounceyball conference.
>

Not this year, sigh. What the Cubs fan said.


--

Being against torture ought to be sort of a bipartisan thing.
-- Karl Lehenbauer


30 Nov 2006 11:18:53
Dennis
Re: The Big 10

On 29 Nov 2006 20:55:51 -0800, "Jay Furr" <jayfurr@gmail.com > wrote:

>Not a bounceyball conference.

Undue Perversity just beat Va....


30 Nov 2006 07:49:39
jsh
Re: The Big 10

In article <1164862550.957834.223010@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com >,
"Jay Furr" <jayfurr@gmail.com > wrote:

> Not a bounceyball conference.


All but one of the losses were by less than 10 points (matched by the
FSU loss), but yeah, this is pathetic.

Maybe a short hiatus is is order while we regroup. Let's try it again in
say, 2025.


30 Nov 2006 06:01:04
James Gibson
Re: The Big 10


Jay Furr wrote:
> Not a bounceyball conference.

Maybe they should add Air Force - they seemed to have no trouble with
their ACC opponent.



30 Nov 2006 08:23:32
stephenj
Re: The Big 10

Jay Furr wrote:
> Not a bounceyball conference.
>

we'll find out in march.


--
"when i visited Aden before collectivization,
all the markets were full of fish product. After
collectivization, the fish immediately disappeared."

- Aleksandr Vassiliev, Soviet KGB official


30 Nov 2006 15:08:21
Alotta Fagina
Re: The Big 10

You wrote:

> On 2006-11-30, Jay Furr <jayfurr@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Not a bounceyball conference.
>>
>
> Not this year, sigh.

Uh, remind me. What year has the Little Eleven WON the ACC Challenge?


30 Nov 2006 10:55:23
Edward M. Kennedy
Re: The Big 10

"Alotta Fagina" <alotta@fagina.com > wrote

> >> Not a bounceyball conference.
> >
> > Not this year, sigh.
>
> Uh, remind me. What year has the Little Eleven WON the ACC Challenge?

Not eggzactly because of UNC.

Anybody undefeated in this series?

--Tedward


30 Nov 2006 16:36:19
Alotta Fagina
Re: The Big 10

You wrote:

> "Alotta Fagina" <alotta@fagina.com> wrote
>
>> >> Not a bounceyball conference.
>> >
>> > Not this year, sigh.
>>
>> Uh, remind me. What year has the Little Eleven WON the ACC Challenge?
>
> Not eggzactly because of UNC.

Where did I refer to UNC?


30 Nov 2006 16:22:53
Donnie Barnes
Re: The Big 10

On Thu, 30 Nov, Edward M. Kennedy wrote:
> "Alotta Fagina" <alotta@fagina.com> wrote
>
>> >> Not a bounceyball conference.
>> >
>> > Not this year, sigh.
>>
>> Uh, remind me. What year has the Little Eleven WON the ACC Challenge?
>
> Not eggzactly because of UNC.
>
> Anybody undefeated in this series?

Just Duke.


--Donnie

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


30 Nov 2006 10:03:36
James Gibson
Re: The Big 10


Alotta Fagina wrote:
> You wrote:
>
> > On 2006-11-30, Jay Furr <jayfurr@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Not a bounceyball conference.
> >>
> >
> > Not this year, sigh.
>
> Uh, remind me. What year has the Little Eleven WON the ACC Challenge?

While the Big Ten has never actually won the challenge, there are
certainly years they performed better than this one.

2003 (7-2), 2004 (7-2), and this year (8-3) are just downright
embarrassing. But I think it's fair to argue that the Big Ten was at
least close to the ACC the years it was 5-4 or 6-5, possibly even
better the years that they were missing Indiana and Ohio State as
participants.



30 Nov 2006 13:09:18
Edward M. Kennedy
Re: The Big 10

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

> > >> Not a bounceyball conference.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Not this year, sigh.
> >
> > Uh, remind me. What year has the Little Eleven WON the ACC Challenge?
>
> While the Big Ten has never actually won the challenge, there are
> certainly years they performed better than this one.
>
> 2003 (7-2), 2004 (7-2), and this year (8-3) are just downright
> embarrassing. But I think it's fair to argue that the Big Ten was at
> least close to the ACC the years it was 5-4 or 6-5, possibly even
> better the years that they were missing Indiana and Ohio State as
> participants.

Until expansion, the ACC was *always* playing its doormats,
so in general the B10 had an advantage. It's just one data/
bragging point. Sagarin will sort it out.

--Tedward


30 Nov 2006 20:30:32
Ed
Re: The Big 10

"Edward M. Kennedy" <doidy@wox.com > wrote in news:ekmutd$nh6$1
@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu:

> "Alotta Fagina" <alotta@fagina.com> wrote
>
>> >> Not a bounceyball conference.
>> >
>> > Not this year, sigh.
>>
>> Uh, remind me. What year has the Little Eleven WON the ACC Challenge?
>
> Not eggzactly because of UNC.
>
> Anybody undefeated in this series?
>

BC ;-)


30 Nov 2006 23:16:44
Ralph Kennedy
Re: The Big 10

"Jay Furr" <jayfurr@gmail.com > writes:
>
> Not a bounceyball conference.

Re the annual beginning-of-the-season series
of games known as the Big Ten ACC Challenge,
somebody on ESPN (was it Cold Pizza or Mike & Mike?)
said that maybe the Big Ten better find some other
conference to challenge, because the ACC has been
beating the tar out of the Big Ten every year since
the Challenge's inception.

--Ralph Kennedy {ames,gatech,husc6,rutgers}!ncar!noao!asuvax!kennedy
{allegra,decvax,ihnp4,oddjob}--^
^---------------The Wrong Choice
internet: kennedy@asuvax.eas.asu.edu


30 Nov 2006 23:43:17
J.
Re: The Big 10

On 29 Nov 2006 20:55:51 -0800, "Jay Furr" <jayfurr@gmail.com > wrote:

>Not a bounceyball conference.

Maybe not, but Ohio State without Greg Oden was fast and productive
and held their own on the road against UNC. With him... well... heal
quickly, Greg!

J.
-
"That song set white people back 50 years."
-- Jim Florentine, on "Ice Ice Baby"


30 Nov 2006 16:55:53
sopranos
Re: The Big 10

The only way the big ten(overrated) will ever beat the ACC is when they
play the ACC womens teams and then maybe if they are real lucky, the
big ten might win! Ha! ha! ha!



30 Nov 2006 17:06:44
James Gibson
Re: The Big 10


Edward M. Kennedy wrote:
> "James Gibson" <james.m.gibson@gmail.com> wrote
>
> > > >> Not a bounceyball conference.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > Not this year, sigh.
> > >
> > > Uh, remind me. What year has the Little Eleven WON the ACC Challenge?
> >
> > While the Big Ten has never actually won the challenge, there are
> > certainly years they performed better than this one.
> >
> > 2003 (7-2), 2004 (7-2), and this year (8-3) are just downright
> > embarrassing. But I think it's fair to argue that the Big Ten was at
> > least close to the ACC the years it was 5-4 or 6-5, possibly even
> > better the years that they were missing Indiana and Ohio State as
> > participants.
>
> Until expansion, the ACC was *always* playing its doormats,
> so in general the B10 had an advantage.

In the years, the Big Ten sat its doormats at home, true. In the first
two years, tOSU and IU, which in those two years were two of the better
Big Ten teams, sat out. And those two years ('99 and '00), the ACC
only won by one game each time.



01 Dec 2006 03:15:37
Alotta Fagina
Re: The Big 10

You wrote:

>
> Edward M. Kennedy wrote:
>> "James Gibson" <james.m.gibson@gmail.com> wrote
>>
>> > > >> Not a bounceyball conference.
>> > > >>
>> > > >
>> > > > Not this year, sigh.
>> > >
>> > > Uh, remind me. What year has the Little Eleven WON the ACC
>> > > Challenge?
>> >
>> > While the Big Ten has never actually won the challenge, there are
>> > certainly years they performed better than this one.
>> >
>> > 2003 (7-2), 2004 (7-2), and this year (8-3) are just downright
>> > embarrassing. But I think it's fair to argue that the Big Ten was
>> > at least close to the ACC the years it was 5-4 or 6-5, possibly even
>> > better the years that they were missing Indiana and Ohio State as
>> > participants.
>>
>> Until expansion, the ACC was *always* playing its doormats,
>> so in general the B10 had an advantage.
>
> In the years, the Big Ten sat its doormats at home, true. In the first
> two years, tOSU and IU, which in those two years were two of the better
> Big Ten teams, sat out. And those two years ('99 and '00), the ACC
> only won by one game each time.

Wah wah wah wah wah.



01 Dec 2006 11:36:13
Dennis
Re: The Big 10

On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 23:16:44 GMT, kennedy@asuvax.eas.asu.edu (Ralph
Kennedy) wrote:

>"Jay Furr" <jayfurr@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> Not a bounceyball conference.
>
> Re the annual beginning-of-the-season series
>of games known as the Big Ten ACC Challenge,
>somebody on ESPN (was it Cold Pizza or Mike & Mike?)
>said that maybe the Big Ten better find some other
>conference to challenge, because the ACC has been
>beating the tar out of the Big Ten every year since
>the Challenge's inception.

maybe that's why Keady liked the Alaska Shoot-out every year, usually
beat those pesky ACC schools there...


01 Dec 2006 11:37:34
Dennis
Re: The Big 10

On 30 Nov 2006 16:55:53 -0800, "sopranos" <seigel_24@hotmail.com >
wrote:

>The only way the big ten(overrated) will ever beat the ACC is when they
>play the ACC womens teams and then maybe if they are real lucky, the
>big ten might win! Ha! ha! ha!

is this where we bring up Purdue and Penn State? and maybe even Notre
dames?


01 Dec 2006 04:45:47
James Gibson
Re: The Big 10


Alotta Fagina wrote:
> You wrote:
>
> >
> > Edward M. Kennedy wrote:
> >> "James Gibson" <james.m.gibson@gmail.com> wrote
> >>
> >> > > >> Not a bounceyball conference.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Not this year, sigh.
> >> > >
> >> > > Uh, remind me. What year has the Little Eleven WON the ACC
> >> > > Challenge?
> >> >
> >> > While the Big Ten has never actually won the challenge, there are
> >> > certainly years they performed better than this one.
> >> >
> >> > 2003 (7-2), 2004 (7-2), and this year (8-3) are just downright
> >> > embarrassing. But I think it's fair to argue that the Big Ten was
> >> > at least close to the ACC the years it was 5-4 or 6-5, possibly even
> >> > better the years that they were missing Indiana and Ohio State as
> >> > participants.
> >>
> >> Until expansion, the ACC was *always* playing its doormats,
> >> so in general the B10 had an advantage.
> >
> > In the years the Big Ten sat its doormats at home, true. In the first
> > two years, tOSU and IU, which in those two years were two of the better
> > Big Ten teams, sat out. And those two years ('99 and '00), the ACC
> > only won by one game each time.
>
> Wah wah wah wah wah.

Well, yes, I do think missing one of your final 4 teams puts you at a
disadvantage. And when the total is only 5-4, that's hardly evidence
that the ACC was better in thos years. OTOH, in '03 when the ACC won
7-2, the Big Ten was practically a mid-major. They only had 3 teams in
the NCAA tournament, and arguably only deserved 2, whereas the ACC got
6/9. '04 was particularly brutal too, as was this year. However I
don't think the 1 game difference that has appeared several times is
all that telling.



01 Dec 2006 13:55:37
Alotta Fagina
Re: The Big 10

You wrote:

>
> Alotta Fagina wrote:
>> You wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Edward M. Kennedy wrote:
>> >> "James Gibson" <james.m.gibson@gmail.com> wrote
>> >>
>> >> > > >> Not a bounceyball conference.
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Not this year, sigh.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Uh, remind me. What year has the Little Eleven WON the ACC
>> >> > > Challenge?
>> >> >
>> >> > While the Big Ten has never actually won the challenge, there are
>> >> > certainly years they performed better than this one.
>> >> >
>> >> > 2003 (7-2), 2004 (7-2), and this year (8-3) are just downright
>> >> > embarrassing. But I think it's fair to argue that the Big Ten
>> >> > was at least close to the ACC the years it was 5-4 or 6-5,
>> >> > possibly even better the years that they were missing Indiana and
>> >> > Ohio State as participants.
>> >>
>> >> Until expansion, the ACC was *always* playing its doormats,
>> >> so in general the B10 had an advantage.
>> >
>> > In the years the Big Ten sat its doormats at home, true. In the
>> > first two years, tOSU and IU, which in those two years were two of
>> > the better Big Ten teams, sat out. And those two years ('99 and
>> > '00), the ACC only won by one game each time.
>>
>> Wah wah wah wah wah.
>
> Well, yes, I do think missing one of your final 4 teams puts you at a
> disadvantage.

So what? Matt Doherty's 8-20 team should have had Ronald Curry, Julius
Peppers, Joe Forte and Jason Parker.

> OTOH, in '03 when the ACC won
> 7-2, the Big Ten was practically a mid-major. They only had 3 teams in
> the NCAA tournament, and arguably only deserved 2, whereas the ACC got
> 6/9. '04 was particularly brutal too, as was this year.

Uh, that's the point, Einstein.


01 Dec 2006 06:26:08
James Gibson
Re: The Big 10


Alotta Fagina wrote:
> You wrote:
>
> >
> > Alotta Fagina wrote:
> >> You wrote:
> >
> > Well, yes, I do think missing one of your final 4 teams puts you at a
> > disadvantage.
>
> So what? Matt Doherty's 8-20 team should have had Ronald Curry, Julius
> Peppers, Joe Forte and Jason Parker.

Entirely different situation. There, you're talking about what was.
In comparing conference quality, tOSU and Indiana are still part of the
conference whether or not they took part in the challenge. That year,
Curry, Peppers, and Parker were not part of the UNC team.

>
> > OTOH, in '03 when the ACC won
> > 7-2, the Big Ten was practically a mid-major. They only had 3 teams in
> > the NCAA tournament, and arguably only deserved 2, whereas the ACC got
> > 6/9. '04 was particularly brutal too, as was this year.
>
> Uh, that's the point, Einstein.

Your point was that it was like this in all years. My point is that it
hasn't been nearly this bad most years, Schrodinger.



01 Dec 2006 10:40:05
Edward M. Kennedy
Re: The Big 10

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

> Well, yes, I do think missing one of your final 4 teams puts you at a
> disadvantage. And when the total is only 5-4, that's hardly evidence
> that the ACC was better in thos years. OTOH, in '03 when the ACC won
> 7-2, the Big Ten was practically a mid-major. They only had 3 teams in
> the NCAA tournament, and arguably only deserved 2, whereas the ACC got
> 6/9. '04 was particularly brutal too, as was this year. However I
> don't think the 1 game difference that has appeared several times is
> all that telling.

On one hand, I agree with you. The ACC/B10 challenge is but
one data point, as is the final Sagarin ratings and NCAA
results, both of which outrank the challenge. On the other
hand, I don't think it's any coinkidink that the ACC won
all 8 of them. It doesn't mean the ACC is infinitely better,
but we get to crow about the achievement. That Duke is 8-0
is both a coinkidink and an valid achievement -- 6-2 would
be pretty good too, seeing as Duke is always playing one
of the better teams in a good conference.

One can make a good argument that the ACC has been the
premier conference since I began following it in 1979.
I actually think an ACC/SEC/B10 triumvirate is a more
accurate summation, with the B12, Big East, and PAC 10
making more than enough noise to warrent major conference
status.

No more blow jobs though. The MVC is here to stay. Buck
up or bow out.

--Tedward


01 Dec 2006 08:19:14
James Gibson
Re: The Big 10


Edward M. Kennedy wrote:
> "James Gibson" <james.m.gibson@gmail.com> wrote
>
> > Well, yes, I do think missing one of your final 4 teams puts you at a
> > disadvantage. And when the total is only 5-4, that's hardly evidence
> > that the ACC was better in thos years. OTOH, in '03 when the ACC won
> > 7-2, the Big Ten was practically a mid-major. They only had 3 teams in
> > the NCAA tournament, and arguably only deserved 2, whereas the ACC got
> > 6/9. '04 was particularly brutal too, as was this year. However I
> > don't think the 1 game difference that has appeared several times is
> > all that telling.
>
> On one hand, I agree with you. The ACC/B10 challenge is but
> one data point, as is the final Sagarin ratings and NCAA
> results, both of which outrank the challenge. On the other
> hand, I don't think it's any coinkidink that the ACC won
> all 8 of them. It doesn't mean the ACC is infinitely better,
> but we get to crow about the achievement. That Duke is 8-0
> is both a coinkidink and an valid achievement -- 6-2 would
> be pretty good too, seeing as Duke is always playing one
> of the better teams in a good conference.
>
> One can make a good argument that the ACC has been the
> premier conference since I began following it in 1979.
> I actually think an ACC/SEC/B10 triumvirate is a more
> accurate summation, with the B12, Big East, and PAC 10
> making more than enough noise to warrent major conference
> status.

If the argument is the ACC has been the premier conference since '79, I
can certainly buy that. If the argument is the ACC has been better
than the Big Ten over the 8 years the challenge has existed, I don't
think that's in doubt, either. The only thing I don't buy is that the
ACC has been better overall than the Big Ten in each of the individual
years of the challenge. The ACC has won the challenge every year, and
I can't deny that. And in the years that the ACC has crushed the Big
Ten (including this year), I think the ACC has been vastly superior.
My only argument in favor of the Big Ten is that in a few select years
where the ACC only won the challenge by one game, the Big Ten still
had, arguably, the better conference.

Certainly, both the 8-0 record overall and the 48-27 record of invidual
teams speak to the superiority of the ACC over the Big Ten in the 8
years it has gone on. I'm just saying that the Big Ten still had some
good basketball in that stretch (I'll have to except '03-'04, '04-'05,
and likely '06-'07.)



01 Dec 2006 08:57:08
Re: The Big 10


Edward M. Kennedy wrote:

> One can make a good argument that the ACC has been the
> premier conference since I began following it in 1979.
> I actually think an ACC/SEC/B10 triumvirate is a more
> accurate summation,

s/SEC/Big East/

---Reed



01 Dec 2006 08:59:28
Re: The Big 10


James Gibson wrote:

> > > OTOH, in '03 when the ACC won
> > > 7-2, the Big Ten was practically a mid-major. They only had 3 teams in
> > > the NCAA tournament, and arguably only deserved 2, whereas the ACC got
> > > 6/9. '04 was particularly brutal too, as was this year.
> >
> > Uh, that's the point, Einstein.
>
> Your point was that it was like this in all years. My point is that it
> hasn't been nearly this bad most years, Schrodinger.

TMML, Newton.

---Reed