NCAA Conference Realignment

[Butterscup1679666578]

lol wife and kids

 

i know, i struggled to even get those words out.

[Derwood]

For the third time, is there any evidence that an actual or proposed conference/division realignment was influenced by the interests of women's sports, at the expense of the best option for revenue sports?

 

Yes. It's all on a website that doesn't exist anymore and in a paper that no one is allowed seeing

[Magnetic Curses]

and if we allow women's athletics to have an equal say in the distribution of teams throughout two conferences, who would stop a monkey or a dog or some sort of lizard from wanting an equal say in conferential distribution as well? it's a slippery slope, my friend.

[TruffleShuffle]

i would like to vote for "leave thread open so that the bum keeps embarrassing himself" to cancel out the bum's vote.

 

My vote counts for more because I'm so awesome.

 

you are alone in that assessment.

[UMFan83]

Sorry alumni, there will be no Michigan - Ohio State game this year, the Lady Gophers and the Lady Nittany Lions have a score to settle.

[UMFan83]

i would like to vote for "leave thread open so that the bum keeps embarrassing himself" to cancel out the bum's vote.

 

My vote counts for more because I'm so awesome.

 

A rather odd way to save face from everyone in this thread attacking your opinion.

[CubbieBum]

i would like to vote for "leave thread open so that the bum keeps embarrassing himself" to cancel out the bum's vote.

 

My vote counts for more because I'm so awesome.

 

you are alone in that assessment.

 

Good thing the only person's opinion that I care about sided with me. I heard he is a really really really ridiculously good looking guy.

[CubbieBum]

i would like to vote for "leave thread open so that the bum keeps embarrassing himself" to cancel out the bum's vote.

 

My vote counts for more because I'm so awesome.

 

A rather odd way to save face from everyone in this thread attacking your opinion.

 

I'm not trying to save face. Just because everyone disagrees (at least those who voiced an opinion) with doesn't make me wrong. You have an opinion and I have opinion and we will likely never truly know who was right so there's no point in arguing anymore.

[CubbieBum]

For the third time, is there any evidence that an actual or proposed conference/division realignment was influenced by the interests of women's sports, at the expense of the best option for revenue sports?

 

Yes. It's all on a website that doesn't exist anymore and in a paper that no one is allowed seeing

 

Did I just post a link to the website. Hmm I think I did but keep saying whatever you want.

[TruffleShuffle]

i would like to vote for "leave thread open so that the bum keeps embarrassing himself" to cancel out the bum's vote.

 

My vote counts for more because I'm so awesome.

 

you are alone in that assessment.

 

Good thing the only person's opinion that I care about sided with me. I heard he is a really really really ridiculously good looking guy.

 

the photo you posted would argue otherwise.

[UMFan83]

i would like to vote for "leave thread open so that the bum keeps embarrassing himself" to cancel out the bum's vote.

 

My vote counts for more because I'm so awesome.

 

A rather odd way to save face from everyone in this thread attacking your opinion.

 

I'm not trying to save face. Just because everyone disagrees (at least those who voiced an opinion) with doesn't make me wrong. You have an opinion and I have opinion and we will likely never truly know who was right so there's no point in arguing anymore.

 

But our opinions are backed with conclusive facts. Your only defense has been that Purdue has won the most Big Ten titles, and tied for 2nd since 1980 (a friendly year to pick for your argument). But ignoring the wave of evidence against you is ignorant. Remember you didn't say they were arguably the 2nd most prestigious team in the Big Ten historically, a statement that, while I'd strongly disagree with as would most of the board, I could accept as your inane opinion. But to say it without room for argument (which is the way you made the statement), you're slighting teams that have been to many more Final Fours and have won more National Titles than your squad. It just destroys any credibility you might have had as a college basketball fan.

[USSoccer]

Aside from the fact that your Title XI tangent was riddled with errors, you make excellent points.

[treebird]

i'm going to call senator pelosi and tell her you told us about your interview and the fbi is going to murder you

 

do you still have her number

[USSoccer]

How long do documents have to remain classified before they are released? I hope I live long enough to FOIA his 90 page undergrad paper.

[Garwilly]

And it was one of those incredibly idiotic and pointless 90 pagers where 12 was the paper and 72 was the bibliography and explanation of your sources.

 

 

When it's required everyone does. The prof said right from the start no A will be given unless its 90+ pages and at max the actual paper will only be counted as 12.

 

 

So you didn't get an "A".

[UMFan83]

And it was one of those incredibly idiotic and pointless 90 pagers where 12 was the paper and 72 was the bibliography and explanation of your sources.

 

 

When it's required everyone does. The prof said right from the start no A will be given unless its 90+ pages and at max the actual paper will only be counted as 12.

 

 

So you didn't get an "A".

 

LOL, nice catch

[CubbieBum]

i would like to vote for "leave thread open so that the bum keeps embarrassing himself" to cancel out the bum's vote.

 

My vote counts for more because I'm so awesome.

 

A rather odd way to save face from everyone in this thread attacking your opinion.

 

I'm not trying to save face. Just because everyone disagrees (at least those who voiced an opinion) with doesn't make me wrong. You have an opinion and I have opinion and we will likely never truly know who was right so there's no point in arguing anymore.

 

But our opinions are backed with conclusive facts. Your only defense has been that Purdue has won the most Big Ten titles, and tied for 2nd since 1980 (a friendly year to pick for your argument). But ignoring the wave of evidence against you is ignorant. Remember you didn't say they were arguably the 2nd most prestigious team in the Big Ten historically, a statement that, while I'd strongly disagree with as would most of the board, I could accept as your inane opinion. But to say it without room for argument (which is the way you made the statement), you're slighting teams that have been to many more Final Fours and have won more National Titles than your squad. It just destroys any credibility you might have had as a college basketball fan.

 

Anything posted on a message board about something that is a ranking and thus inherently opinion doesn't need a "I think" or "IMO" before it. It is an opinion.

 

I also never said anything about prestige. I said Indiana and Purdue are, "historically the best in the Big Ten." That is a fact and not debatable even though you guys have decided to. In the Big Ten they have historically played the best. I've now realized you guys didn't take that as the way I meant it. I wasn't talking about play outside of the Big Ten. When I said, "in the Big Ten," I was referring to in Big Ten play only (I was also including women's basketball).

 

Also, I picked 1980 because it is the start of a decade and thus a good starting point and it's not too friendly considering Purdue shared the title in 1979. If you want to start in 1990 then you have Purdue's three-pete which along with Ohio State's (1960-62) are the only three-petes in conference history where none were shared. Purdue is also 195-145 in Big Ten play since the 1989-90 season.

[SouthSideRyan]

I am definitely jealous of a professional bellhop.

[SouthSideRyan]

I didn't know Purdue had any Petes on those teams, let alone 3.

[cubsfan]

I didn't know Purdue had any Petes on those teams, let alone 3.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_4tW3SJ-v45s/RvyoZPKTpzI/AAAAAAAAATM/D6qMpLf_zac/s1600/purdue%2Bpete.jpg

[XZero771679666304]

 

Anything posted on a message board about something that is a ranking and thus inherently opinion doesn't need a "I think" or "IMO" before it. It is an opinion.

 

I also never said anything about prestige. I said Indiana and Purdue are, "historically the best in the Big Ten." That is a fact and not debatable even though you guys have decided to. In the Big Ten they have historically played the best. I've now realized you guys didn't take that as the way I meant it. I wasn't talking about play outside of the Big Ten. When I said, "in the Big Ten," I was referring to in Big Ten play only (I was also including women's basketball).

 

Also, I picked 1980 because it is the start of a decade and thus a good starting point and it's not too friendly considering Purdue shared the title in 1979. If you want to start in 1990 then you have Purdue's three-pete which along with Ohio State's (1960-62) are the only three-petes in conference history where none were shared. Purdue is also 195-145 in Big Ten play since the 1989-90 season.

 

All of this ridiculousness started because you implied there would be something inherently unfair about putting Indiana and Purdue in the same hypothetical division. This isn't like dividing the ACC and putting Duke and Carolina in the same division, since Purdue is so far removed from most of that success that it simply doesn't hold much weight.

 

The fact of the matter is that in modern history, Purdue has done nothing to distinguish itself from half of the B10 teams. I promise you that if you stop most B10 fans on the street and ask them to name the most prestigious B10 basketball schools, the overwhelming majority will omit Purdue. Your pre-historic B10 titles and NC make keep you warm at night, but it has little bearing on anything anymore.

[CubbieBum]

 

Anything posted on a message board about something that is a ranking and thus inherently opinion doesn't need a "I think" or "IMO" before it. It is an opinion.

 

I also never said anything about prestige. I said Indiana and Purdue are, "historically the best in the Big Ten." That is a fact and not debatable even though you guys have decided to. In the Big Ten they have historically played the best. I've now realized you guys didn't take that as the way I meant it. I wasn't talking about play outside of the Big Ten. When I said, "in the Big Ten," I was referring to in Big Ten play only (I was also including women's basketball).

 

Also, I picked 1980 because it is the start of a decade and thus a good starting point and it's not too friendly considering Purdue shared the title in 1979. If you want to start in 1990 then you have Purdue's three-pete which along with Ohio State's (1960-62) are the only three-petes in conference history where none were shared. Purdue is also 195-145 in Big Ten play since the 1989-90 season.

 

All of this ridiculousness started because you implied there would be something inherently unfair about putting Indiana and Purdue in the same hypothetical division. This isn't like dividing the ACC and putting Duke and Carolina in the same division, since Purdue is so far removed from most of that success that it simply doesn't hold much weight.

 

The fact of the matter is that in modern history, Purdue has done nothing to distinguish itself from half of the B10 teams. I promise you that if you stop most B10 fans on the street and ask them to name the most prestigious B10 basketball schools, the overwhelming majority will omit Purdue. Your pre-historic B10 titles and NC make keep you warm at night, but it has little bearing on anything anymore.

 

I'm pretty sure most fans would mention Purdue considering they are currently in the top five and have gotten a good amount of press for three seasons in a row. That said I could care less what a Big Ten fan on the street thinks because a large majority don't know much and are more casual fans than anything else.

 

Purdue has finished second two years in a row and are the favorite at this point this season. The eight years or so before that weren't very good (although they did have some good seasons) but that is really the only stretch where they weren't consistently a good team in their history. So to sum up in the last couple years they have done well, in the last decade not so much and in the years before that they have done as well as anyone.

[Warpticon]

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=4735336

 

Barry Alvarez is saying they will.

 

Not sure who they could get but my guess if we do add one it will come out of the Big East. I don't see ND coming aboard. Neither side is willing to budge on the money issue. Pitt, Marquette, and Cincinnati I would say are the most likely candidates in the long run and I personally wouldn't mind any one of them with Pitt being top choice.

 

Pitt/Penn State every year (or at least most years) would be fun to watch.

 

Exactly. They also play similar styles in the big sports. They play physical hard nosed basketball and football and are very good at both. It would be a big coo for the Big Ten to take over the Pittsburgh market.

 

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2181/1996760647_084422a590.jpg

[SouthSideRyan]

Big Ten titles In the NCAA tournament era:

 

Illinois: 17

Indiana: 17

Ohio State: 14

Michigan State: 11

Purdue: 9

Michigan: 8

Iowa: 6

Wisconsin: 5

Minnesota: 3

Northwestern: 0

Penn State: 0

[imb]

a real coupe