UK crowned team of the '90s..
Dale Leatherwood
Congrats to UK, now certifiably the dominant team of the '90s. Tubby did
a great job of making sure his team maintained intensity for a full 40
minutes throughout the tournament, wearing down everyone he played and
making some terrific comebacks. I expect that with his key players back,
he could have another terrific run in '99.
Utah is owed congrats as well, playing almost perfect ball for 5 games
before running into the UK buzzsaw. Majerus did a masterful job of
adjusting his game plan for each game, each half, and each possession,
something more coaches need to learn to do more often (Gut?). One
problem with Majerus, however. As true as the sentiment may be, you
might want to wait at least 24 hours before telling the world that in
order to win you "just need to get better players." Everyone needs
better players coach, but you just went to the Finals after losing your
best player EVER, and your current players may be a little stung by the
comment.
Congrats to all the Final Four teams and to UK, long live the '90s king!
-dale
Charlie Board
Dale Leatherwood wrote:
>
> Congrats to UK, now certifiably the dominant team of the '90s.
I think your Duke friends may not concede quite so easily.
This title will be decided *next* year....
Wes Morgan
Charlie Board <cnc...@bnr.ca> wrote
Well, I (for one) would be quite happy to share a label
like "one of the two dominant teams of the decade."
Of course, UK's Blue Phoenix act took place during a
(relative) decline in Duke's fortunes; the two lines
intersected in '92 and '96, but not much else took
place between the two. That makes both comparison
and elevation (one over the other) difficult.
Duke's string of Final Fours in the early part of
the decade compares favorably to UK's current run.
UK's SEC championships can't really be compared
to Duke's ACC performance; while the SEC is good,
the ACC gets the nod for day-in-day-out conference
competition.
I believe that UK has had the more difficult road,
thanks to the NCAA's probation; I don't believe
that Duke has had to field as many walkons and
second-tier players as has UK. Should that dif-
ficulty, somehow, elevate UK's accomplishments
over those of the Blue Devils?
It's a tough call - and, as Charlie mentioned, the
jury is still out - but, as I said, I'd be quite
happy to label UK and Duke as the dominant programs
of the decade.
--Wes
Rob Hobbs
In article <3520EEDC...@mindspring.com>, dlea...@mindspring.com says...
>
>Utah is owed congrats as well, playing almost perfect ball for 5 games
>before running into the UK buzzsaw. Majerus did a masterful job of
>adjusting his game plan for each game, each half, and each possession,
>something more coaches need to learn to do more often (Gut?). One
>problem with Majerus, however. As true as the sentiment may be, you
>might want to wait at least 24 hours before telling the world that in
>order to win you "just need to get better players." Everyone needs
>better players coach, but you just went to the Finals after losing your
>best player EVER, and your current players may be a little stung by the
>comment.
I feel sorry for Majerus. I saw the interview and he was so tired and
emotionally drained that I honestly believe he didn't realize how bad
that sounded until it was already out of his mouth.
I'm a KY fan, but over the last 3 years I've become a Utah fan as well.
I LIKE Majerus, he is a great coach and has class. Actually, after
Tubby he was my next pick to coach at UK. I just wish the NCAA hadn't
kept putting UK and Utah on a collision course in previous years.
As for those Wildcats, I'm stunned. Just a few weeks ago (back in Feb.)
we were all wondering if the cats could make it to the round of eight
much less the final four or championship! In my mind this team sits
right up there close to the "Unforgetables".
And Tubby! What the heck are you going to do next? You've done it
all in your FIRST YEAR! SEC season champs, SEC tourney champs, and
NCAA tourney champs. Talk about expectations, people here in Lexington
are going to expect this every year now. You've got some big shoes to
fill, and you know what? They're not Pitino's they're your own!
My hat's off to the Cats! The BEST TEAM in the nation!
Rob
Mpace11
>really be compared
>to Duke's ACC performance; while the SEC is good,
>the ACC gets the nod for day-in-day-out conference
>competition.
Thats because the ACC has the big hype machine - but the facts of the 90's do
not bear this out.
Final four teams in the 90's: Kentucky (2 National titles, 3 final game
appeareances), Arkansas (1 NT, 2 final game appearances), Florida, didnt
Mississppi State one year go also to the final 4? Mississippi was in the top
10 in the nation. LSU had the Shaq
EAT IT ACC SEC RULES!!!
The SEC is the best BABY - Duke's loss proves it
SEC SEC SEC SEC!!!!!!
WILLIAM GAY
Dale Leatherwood <dlea...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Congrats to UK, now certifiably the dominant team of the '90s.
Bait. ;]
-Will
Netwalker
In article <3520FC...@bnr.ca>, cnc...@bnr.ca says...
>
>Dale Leatherwood wrote:
>>
>> Congrats to UK, now certifiably the dominant team of the '90s.
>
>This title will be decided *next* year....
But not this year.... D - UK - E!
Charlie Board
Wes Morgan wrote:
>
> I believe that UK has had the more difficult road,
> thanks to the NCAA's probation; I don't believe
> that Duke has had to field as many walkons and
> second-tier players as has UK. Should that dif-
> ficulty, somehow, elevate UK's accomplishments
> over those of the Blue Devils?
Or should the fact that they were *on*
probation be counted against them?
>
> It's a tough call - and, as Charlie mentioned, the
> jury is still out - but, as I said, I'd be quite
> happy to label UK and Duke as the dominant programs
> of the decade.
Still a year to go and both teams should be very
good once again....
Paul Banik
Dale Leatherwood wrote:
>
> Congrats to UK, now certifiably the dominant team of the '90s.
What about Duke? 2 championships (1991,1992) and two finalist
appearances (1990,1994)...
Wes Morgan
Mpace11 <mpa...@aol.com> wrote
> >really be compared
> >to Duke's ACC performance; while the SEC is good,
> >the ACC gets the nod for day-in-day-out conference
> >competition.
>
> Thats because the ACC has the big hype machine - but the facts of the
90's do
> not bear this out.
>
> Final four teams in the 90's: Kentucky (2 National titles, 3 final game
> appeareances), Arkansas (1 NT, 2 final game appearances), Florida, didnt
> Mississppi State one year go also to the final 4? Mississippi was in the
top
> 10 in the nation. LSU had the Shaq
>
> EAT IT ACC SEC RULES!!!
You missed my point *entirely*. In fact, you couldn't have missed
it by a larger margin if you had *tried* to do so.
I said "day-in-day-out competition." That means that I'm comparing
*CONFERENCE REGULAR SEASON SCHEDULES*. Take the top two teams out
of each conference, and compare the rest *for the conference season*.
Whether SEC teams "pick it up" for tournament play better than their
ACC brethren is a *completely* different question.
I should point out, that I'm an SEC fan.
--Wes
Charlie Board
Mpace11 wrote:
> EAT IT ACC SEC RULES!!!
>
> The SEC is the best BABY - Duke's loss proves it
Hey to South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, et al.
That first round was _fun_ wasn't it? (grin)
>
> SEC SEC SEC SEC!!!!!!
Jazzy J
Charlie Board <cnc...@bnr.ca> writes:
>Or should the fact that they were *on*
>probation be counted against them?
Why should it count against them? You're punishing the 90's teams
for 80's transgressions...
Jazzy J
--
Jazzy J v4.0 jazzyj(at)netcom.com | (O):(972) 419-2377
College Basketball Historian |
The best repository of college basketball statistics anywhere:
http://www.sportsstats.com/jazzyj/index.htm
Charlie Board
Jazzy J wrote:
>
> Charlie Board <cnc...@bnr.ca> writes:
> >Or should the fact that they were *on*
> >probation be counted against them?
>
> Why should it count against them? You're punishing the 90's teams
> for 80's transgressions...
Why not? They're just a bunch of racists anyway!
(Fer god's sake, I hope I don't *need* the smileys....)
Jeff Phelps
On Tue, 31 Mar 1998 13:53:48 -0500, Charlie Board
<cnc...@bnr.ca> wrote:
:Jazzy J wrote:
:>
:> Charlie Board <cnc...@bnr.ca> writes:
:> >Or should the fact that they were *on*
:> >probation be counted against them?
:>
:> Why should it count against them? You're punishing the 90's teams
:> for 80's transgressions...
:
: Why not? They're just a bunch of racists anyway!
That's what everyone says! (Gee I wonder what people would
have said if UK had played NC and the vile comments would
have been said about the Cats. Could have been a sad thing
in a scary kind of way.)
:(Fer god's sake, I hope I don't *need* the smileys....)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-- This message is spam resistant.
No email address is provided!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jeff Phelps
On 31 Mar 1998 16:58:08 GMT, "Wes Morgan"
<wmo...@databeam.com> wrote:
:I said "day-in-day-out competition." That means that I'm comparing
:*CONFERENCE REGULAR SEASON SCHEDULES*. Take the top two teams out
:of each conference, and compare the rest *for the conference season*.
I'd hve to agree with you about this year but not so for
many other year's in the 90's. Even this year the bottom
tier of the SEC had some good teams IMO. Vandy, Tenn. late
in the year, are two examples
CFeltham
>Charlie Board <cnc...@bnr.ca> writes:
>>Or should the fact that they were *on*
>>probation be counted against them?
>
> Why should it count against them? You're punishing the 90's teams
> for 80's transgressions...
>
AND... might I add.... ONE of those teams on probation won the unofficial SEC
regular season championship (and one might wonder how far they might have
gone...)
The quality of education in America has been in steady decline since the
discontinuation of Schoolhouse Rock.
20 minutes into the future...
Chris Feltham CFel...@aol.com
Jonathan Serody
Charlie Board wrote:
> Dale Leatherwood wrote:
> >
> > Congrats to UK, now certifiably the dominant team of the '90s.
>
> I think your Duke friends may not concede quite so easily.
> This title will be decided *next* year....
Charlie,
Duke forfeited this title with the 1995 season. You can't end up last
in a conference with 2 wins, and then not make the sweet 16 the next two
years and be the team of the 90's.
CFeltham
>
>:I said "day-in-day-out competition." That means that I'm comparing
>:*CONFERENCE REGULAR SEASON SCHEDULES*. Take the top two teams out
>:of each conference, and compare the rest *for the conference season*.
>
>
BEAT. Beating UK can be the crown jewel of your season... so EVERYBODY is
gunning for the Cats. Every game is a tough one.
In the ACC - there are at least 2 teams to shoot for (UNC, Duke) and all the
ACC teams get 2 shots at them. Some of the SEC teams only get 1 shot a year -
so they can pack all their hopes on that one game
At any rate - this title seems to be on a rotating dynasty wheel... Duke was
obviously the team of the early 90's (on the back end of the team of the late
80's) and UK is now the team of the late 90's (sorry UNC - ya gotta do better
than getting your heads handed to you in consecutive national semifinal games)
UK 17-1 in 3 years of the NCAA tourney... and that 1 loss was in OT.
Chris
JTGill
>Mpace11 wrote:
>>
>> SEC SEC SEC SEC!!!!!!
Not as much as the third and sixth round though :-)
JT
JTGill
>Dale Leatherwood wrote:
>>
>> Congrats to UK, now certifiably the dominant team of the '90s.
>What about Duke? 2 championships (1991,1992) and two finalist
>appearances (1990,1994)...
1990 is not properly considered part of the 'Nineties' decade.
JT
George W. Harris
In Wed, 01 Apr 1998 00:58:39 GMT of yore, JTGill <jtg...@mis.net> wrote
thusly:
=>Dale Leatherwood wrote:
=>>
=>> Congrats to UK, now certifiably the dominant team of the '90s.
=
=>What about Duke? 2 championships (1991,1992) and two finalist
=>appearances (1990,1994)...
=
=
=1990 is not properly considered part of the 'Nineties' decade.
Right. 1990 is in the eighties. Sure.
=JT
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'
Robert Kesten
Paul Banik <ppb...@mail.usask.ca> writes:
>Dale Leatherwood wrote:
>> Congrats to UK, now certifiably the dominant team of the '90s.
Right now I think if you looked back on the 90's thus far,
the top 5 programs would be:
#1 (tie) UK and Duke. Tied in titles, tied in Final Four
appearances, split in head to head games, Duke leads in
final game appearances, so the tie comes down to my
opinion that the UK 1996 team was more dominant and
and the 'Cats ability to come back to the finals
two more times despite player and coaching turnover.
#3 North Carolina. Most Final Fours. Only one title hurts.
If UK, Duke, or UNC wins it all next season, that team
will be the #1 team of the decade, IMHO of course.
#4 UNLV. Dominant team of the early years of the decade.
#5 Arkansas. Improved the stature of the SEC and carried the
conference flame when UK slid a bit in the mid 90's.
40 Minutes of Hell won 1 title and back to the championship game.
Sort of mediocre lately, but on the rise again.
Honorable mentions (no particular order): UCLA, Arizona, Kansas,
Syracuse, and I could probably come up with a few others.
Robert
UK '92
Robert Kesten
gha...@mundsprung.com (George W. Harris) writes:
>In Wed, 01 Apr 1998 00:58:39 GMT of yore, JTGill <jtg...@mis.net> wrote
>thusly:
>=1990 is not properly considered part of the 'Nineties' decade.
> Right. 1990 is in the eighties. Sure.
There is some logic in this because there was no year 0 A.D.
therefore the year 10 ended the 1st decade, and thus 1990
ended the decade of the 80's just as 2000 is the end of the
20th century (not the 1st year of the 21st). Or something
like that. Think of 1990 in basketball terms as being part
of the 1989-90 season.
On the other hand, people who actually have a life (no
offense intended to JTGill) do not care whether the
1st decade started at 0 or 1 A.D. and intuitively
consider 1990 to be part of the 90's. 0-9 just
wasn't a real decade <g> .. and don't even get into
the adjustments made to adopt the Gregorian calendar.
RK
UK '92
Jeff Phelps
On Wed, 1 Apr 1998 05:13:37 GMT, kes...@iglou1.iglou.com
(Robert Kesten) wrote:
:Paul Banik <ppb...@mail.usask.ca> writes:
:>Dale Leatherwood wrote:
:>> Congrats to UK, now certifiably the dominant team of the '90s.
:>What about Duke? 2 championships (1991,1992) and two finalist
:>appearances (1990,1994)...
:
:Right now I think if you looked back on the 90's thus far,
:the top 5 programs would be:
:
:#1 (tie) UK and Duke. Tied in titles, tied in Final Four
: appearances, split in head to head games, Duke leads in
: final game appearances, so the tie comes down to my
: opinion that the UK 1996 team was more dominant and
: and the 'Cats ability to come back to the finals
: two more times despite player and coaching turnover.
:
:#3 North Carolina. Most Final Fours. Only one title hurts.
: If UK, Duke, or UNC wins it all next season, that team
: will be the #1 team of the decade, IMHO of course.
:
:#4 UNLV. Dominant team of the early years of the decade.
:
:#5 Arkansas. Improved the stature of the SEC and carried the
: conference flame when UK slid a bit in the mid 90's.
: 40 Minutes of Hell won 1 title and back to the championship game.
: Sort of mediocre lately, but on the rise again.
I think UNLV's role was pretty much over by '90. Surely
Arkansas's work has been greater during this decade.
Paul Banik
JTGill wrote:
>
> >Dale Leatherwood wrote:
> >>
> >> Congrats to UK, now certifiably the dominant team of the '90s.
>
> >What about Duke? 2 championships (1991,1992) and two finalist
> >appearances (1990,1994)...
>
>
Well, it should be. The 1990s implies the years 1990-1999, even though
1990 is the end of the 199th decade, and 1991 is the start of the 200th
decade.
Chuck Ross
In article <3520FC...@bnr.ca>, Charlie Board <cnc...@bnr.ca> writes:
|> Dale Leatherwood wrote:
|> >
|> > Congrats to UK, now certifiably the dominant team of the '90s.
|>
|> I think your Duke friends may not concede quite so easily.
|> This title will be decided *next* year....
Duke???? UK????? next year?????
The HUSKERS BABEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THE team of the 90's!!!!!!
Chuck
WILLIAM GAY
JTGill <jtg...@mis.net> wrote:
>>What about Duke? 2 championships (1991,1992) and two finalist
>>appearances (1990,1994)...
>1990 is not properly considered part of the 'Nineties' decade.
Really? Sure, the hoops season started in fall '89. If you
want to use this definition, I caution you that you must
also include the 1999-2000 season, in which Duke will probably
be very, very loaded. Your call.
-Will
WILLIAM GAY
Big news, fellas! I did some research and discovered an small
error made by some historians. Jesus indeed was born 4 years
prior to the commonly accepted date. Apparently he was a late
bloomer. Thus, the decade of the 90's actually includes the
years 1986 to 1996. Duke, while in swoon for the last 2 years
of the decade, still has to be considered the team of the
last decade of the 2nd millenium, with:
2 championships
5 finals
7 final 4s
Whooo eeee!
-Will
Rob Hobbs
>>
>> Congrats to UK, now certifiably the dominant team of the '90s.
>
>I think your Duke friends may not concede quite so easily.
>This title will be decided *next* year....
Your right, this was in the Lexington paper this morning:
NCAA records in the 90's
Final Regional
School W L % Titles Fours Finals
----------------------------------------------
Kentucky 28 5 85% 2 4 6
Duke 27 7 82% 2 4 5
UNC 28 8 78% 1 5 5
Arkansas 24 7 77% 1 3 4
Arizona 18 8 69% 1 2 3
UCLA 17 8 68% 1 1 3
UNLV 10 2 83% 1 2 2
Notes:
I added the % column, and bumped Duke's position in the
list above UNC because IMO their numbers are better than
UNC's.
Have a good one...
Rob
Foghorn52
Record
UK 28-5
UNC 28-8
Duke 27-6
Ark 24-7
AZ 18-8
UCLA 17-8
UNLV 10-2
Titles
UK 2
Duke 2
UNC 1
Ark 1
AZ 1
UCLA 1
UNLV 1
Final Four's
UNC 5
UK 4
Duke 4
Ark 3
AZ 2
UNLV 2
UCLA 1
Regional Finals
UK 6
UNC 5
Duke 5
Ark 4
AZ 3
UCLA 3
UNLV 2
Jeff Phelps
On 1 Apr 1998 12:50:56 -0500, w...@acpub.duke.edu (WILLIAM
GAY) wrote:
:Big news, fellas! I did some research and discovered an small
I guess you know that means we all missed the big party.
Thanks a lot.
JTGill
>RK
>UK '92
Well, there certainly is that ;-) Hell, lets scrap it and use the
ancient Aztec calender, it's so much cooler looking ;-)
JT
Jeffrey Davis
Jeff Phelps wrote:
>
> On 1 Apr 1998 12:50:56 -0500, w...@acpub.duke.edu (WILLIAM
> GAY) wrote:
>
> :Big news, fellas! I did some research and discovered an small
> :error made by some historians. Jesus indeed was born 4 years
> :prior to the commonly accepted date. Apparently he was a late
> :bloomer. Thus, the decade of the 90's actually includes the
> :years 1986 to 1996. Duke, while in swoon for the last 2 years
> :of the decade, still has to be considered the team of the
> :last decade of the 2nd millenium, with:
> :
> :2 championships
> :5 finals
> :7 final 4s
> :
> :Whooo eeee!
>
> I guess you know that means we all missed the big party.
> Thanks a lot.
>
2003."
--
Jeffrey Davis <da...@ca.uky.edu> Lots Available
George W. Harris
In 1 Apr 98 19:14:35 GMT of yore, rho...@no.spam.please (Rob Hobbs) wrote
thusly:
=In article <3520FC...@bnr.ca>, cnc...@bnr.ca says...
=>
=>Dale Leatherwood wrote:
=>>
=>> Congrats to UK, now certifiably the dominant team of the '90s.
=>
=>I think your Duke friends may not concede quite so easily.
=>This title will be decided *next* year....
=
=Your right, this was in the Lexington paper this morning:
=
=NCAA records in the 90's
= Final Regional
=School W L % Titles Fours Finals
=----------------------------------------------
=Kentucky 28 5 85% 2 4 6
=Duke 27 7 82% 2 4 5
Duke has been in the NCAAs eight times in the '90s
(1990-94, 96-98) and won two titles, so they only have six
losses in the NCAAs, which makes their record 27-6; the 82%
is correct.
=Rob
--
I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV!
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'.
George W. Harris
In Wed, 1 Apr 1998 05:13:37 GMT of yore, kes...@iglou1.iglou.com (Robert
Kesten) wrote thusly:
=Right now I think if you looked back on the 90's thus far,
=the top 5 programs would be:
=
=<snipparooni>
=
=#4 UNLV. Dominant team of the early years of the decade.
Really only the dominant team of the *first* year of
the decade; while their regular season record was excellent
in 1991, their failure to even make the championship game
is pretty disappointing. Their achievements are a paltry two
Final Fours and one Championship, which is easily exceeded
by
=#5 Arkansas. Improved the stature of the SEC and carried the
= conference flame when UK slid a bit in the mid 90's.
= 40 Minutes of Hell won 1 title and back to the championship game.
= Sort of mediocre lately, but on the rise again.
Which was in three Final Fours, and won one
Chamionship. Worth noting that their first Final Four
appearance of the decade was as a member of the
now-defunct SWC.
=Robert
=UK '92
--
"If you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce, they
taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does." -Groucho Marx
Shawn Spence
>
>>What about Duke? 2 championships (1991,1992) and two finalist
>>appearances (1990,1994)...
>
>
You've seen this one before folks, and he's 100% right.
--
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Shawn Spence "...become better tomorrow as a result of
spe...@mcnet.marietta.edu today's experience."
Don Schaly, Baseball Coach, Marietta College
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
WILLIAM GAY
Jeff Phelps <none> wrote:
>I guess you know that means we all missed the big party.
>Thanks a lot.
I don't think any UK fans can complain about missing any
big parties lately. ;]
-Will
WILLIAM GAY
D R Crisp <dcr...@CCCnswc.navy.mil> wrote:
>This still gives Kentucky winner in two of the categories, tied in
>one; UNC 1 category winner; and Duke is only tied for top honors
>in but one (albeit the highest prized one).
True. However, if you throw out the "Regional Finals"
category and instead put in "Final", Duke gets another
category all to its own with 4.
This argument is clearly not settled. If UNC wins it
all they are it. If Duke wins it all, they are it. If
UK wins it all, they are it. If Kansas wins it all -
never mind! ;] j/k guys.
-Will
Charlie Board
JTGill wrote:
> Well, there certainly is that ;-) Hell, lets scrap it and use the
> ancient Aztec calender, it's so much cooler looking ;-)
Yeah, but isn't that the one that stops dead at 2012....
Heinlein
Shawn Spence wrote:
>
> In article <255.395T1...@mis.net>, JTGill wrote:
> >>Dale Leatherwood wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Congrats to UK, now certifiably the dominant team of the '90s.
> >
> >>What about Duke? 2 championships (1991,1992) and two finalist
> >>appearances (1990,1994)...
> >
> >
> >1990 is not properly considered part of the 'Nineties' decade.
>
> You've seen this one before folks, and he's 100% right.
>
I hope we don't have to go through this again, but it seems to be a
matter of semantics. If you want to proclaim a ``Team of the Decade''
then your argument that 1990 is not part of this decade has some
validity.<
But buddy, when you say ``Team of the '90s'' you're going to have a
hard time comvincing a reasonable person that 90 is not part of the
90s.<
Timmy Benge
WILLIAM GAY wrote:
> JTGill <jtg...@mis.net> wrote:
>
> >>What about Duke? 2 championships (1991,1992) and two finalist
> >>appearances (1990,1994)...
>
> >1990 is not properly considered part of the 'Nineties' decade.
>
> Really? Sure, the hoops season started in fall '89. If you
> want to use this definition, I caution you that you must
> also include the 1999-2000 season, in which Duke will probably
> be very, very loaded. Your call.
>
> -Will
But at the same time UK should be equally well stocked with
their now incoming freshman and for what it's worth semingly all of
the top juniors seem to very high on Kentucky.
Blue chip talent aside, where are we going to find players with the
heart of an Edwards, Mills, or a Sheppard - as Coach Pitino calls
them "P.H.D." players "poor, hungry, and determined."?
Timmy
Jeff Phelps
On 2 Apr 1998 07:19:07 -0500, w...@acpub.duke.edu (WILLIAM
GAY) wrote:
Hey come to think of it I think UK can be called the team of
the millennium!!!! Since 97 and 98 are the only years we
have had in this millennium then UK has to be the best.
Wow.
Shawn Spence
Team of the 90's implies decade of the 90s, which should not
include 1990. If you say team of the 90's, what is the 90's? A
period of 10 years, or A DECADE. if you include 1990 in the 90's,
and you include the 1999-2000 season (by the same principle), you
now have 11 years, which you certainly did not mean to do.
George W. Harris
In 6 Apr 1998 06:58:58 GMT of yore, spe...@mcnet.marietta.edu (Shawn Spence)
wrote thusly:
=In article <3523AF...@mindspring.com>, Heinlein wrote:
=>Shawn Spence wrote:
=>>
=>> In article <255.395T1...@mis.net>, JTGill wrote:
=>> >>Dale Leatherwood wrote:
=>I hope we don't have to go through this again, but it seems to be a
=>matter of semantics. If you want to proclaim a ``Team of the Decade''
=>then your argument that 1990 is not part of this decade has some
=>validity.<
=> But buddy, when you say ``Team of the '90s'' you're going to have a
=>hard time comvincing a reasonable person that 90 is not part of the
=>90s.<
=
=Team of the 90's implies decade of the 90s, which should not
=include 1990.
Why not? 1990 should be in the '80s, maybe?
= If you say team of the 90's, what is the 90's? A
=period of 10 years, or A DECADE.
Right. 1990-1999 is a period of ten years, a decade. It's the
nineties. What's the problem?
= if you include 1990 in the 90's,
=and you include the 1999-2000 season (by the same principle), you
=now have 11 years, which you certainly did not mean to do.
Since when is the '00 champion needed to be in the
'90s, by any principle?
=Shawn Spence "...become better tomorrow as a result of
=spe...@mcnet.marietta.edu today's experience."
--
Doesn't the fact that there are *exactly* fifty states seem a little suspicious?
Darrian Ashoka
Did George W. Harris <gha...@mundsprung.com> really say:
> = If you say team of the 90's, what is the 90's? A
> =period of 10 years, or A DECADE.
> Right. 1990-1999 is a period of ten years, a decade. It's the
> nineties. What's the problem?
because the first decade was counted from 1-10 AD. i think someone
mentioned it before. so if you do simple math and extrapolate then we
get 1991-2000 being this decade and not 1990-1999. similar reasoning
is found in how we define our centuries. the last year of the 20th
century is 2000 and not 1999.
--
Never argue with a fool, people might not know the difference.
TWS
>because the first decade was counted from 1-10 AD. i think someone
>mentioned it before. so if you do simple math and extrapolate then we
>get 1991-2000 being this decade and not 1990-1999. similar reasoning
>is found in how we define our centuries. the last year of the 20th
>century is 2000 and not 1999.
The general population means 1990-1999 when they say the 1990's. Even
though this corrupts the precise ordinal structure of centuries and
decades, the general population doesn't care. 1990's means 199?.
But, if they said Kentucky was the team of the 200th decade AD, then
it would be 1991-2000, but I'd doubt they would ever say that on ESPN.
-- Tim
(if you e-mail me, delete the garbage at the end of my address)
James C. Armstrong
Yeesh.
The 90's started on January 1, 1990 and end December 31, 1999.
The 200th decade started January 1, 1991 and end December 31, 2000.
If you're talking the "Team of the 90's" use the time period 1/1/90
to 12/31/99
If you're talking the "Team of the 200th Decade" use 1/1/91-12/31/00.
--
James C. Armstrong, Jr. | Access the college tournament scores
ja...@sagarmatha.com | database:
j...@netcom.com | http://www.sportsstats.com/
E-mail sent to this address is never read. Use james(at)sagarmatha(dot)com
Roberta Rydberg
In article <6gekft$d...@smash.gatech.edu>,
Darrian Ashoka<SP...@get.some> wrote:
>Did George W. Harris <gha...@mundsprung.com> really say:
>
>> = If you say team of the 90's, what is the 90's? A
>> =period of 10 years, or A DECADE.
>
>> Right. 1990-1999 is a period of ten years, a decade. It's the
>> nineties. What's the problem?
>
>because the first decade was counted from 1-10 AD. i think someone
>mentioned it before. so if you do simple math and extrapolate then we
>get 1991-2000 being this decade and not 1990-1999. similar reasoning
>is found in how we define our centuries. the last year of the 20th
>century is 2000 and not 1999.
>
>
>--
>Never argue with a fool, people might not know the difference.
And this argument would be pertinent if someone had asked "Who is the dominant team in the last
decade of the 20th century(or the 10th decade or the last of the 2nd millenium, etc). The
grouping of years into "the 90s" differs from an ordinal number description like that. The
1990s are simply defined as those years whose first three digits are 199 - ie. 1990-1999
inclusive. With the issue of a season that always occurs over a two year span the issue is a
bit tricky and open to debate. Seeing that the NCAA tournament has become the primary method of
measuring success in NCAA basketball, I would be inclined to include those seasons whose NCAA
tournaments occurred in the 90s, hence the seasons 1989-90 through 1998-1999. But that
classification is debatable.
And as a final point of clarification, a decade refers to any collection of ten years and so it
is only by saying the 1st decade after Christ's birth or the last decade of the 20th century or
even the 2nd decade since Bill Buckner let that damned ground ball go between his.... oh excuse
me... I digress...
Deslok
There are three kinds of people in the world, those who can count, and those who can't.
Bryan Arendall
James C. Armstrong <j...@netcom.com> wrote:
: The 90's started on January 1, 1990 and end December 31, 1999.
: If you're talking the "Team of the 90's" use the time period 1/1/90
: to 12/31/99
: If you're talking the "Team of the 200th Decade" use 1/1/91-12/31/00.
is this for seasons ending or starting?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Bryan Arendall
aren...@u.arizona.edu
go cats (UK)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Charlie Board
James C. Armstrong wrote:
>
> Yeesh.
>
> The 90's started on January 1, 1990 and end December 31, 1999.
>
Yep
> The 200th decade started January 1, 1991 and end December 31, 2000.
Nope. You gotta figure in those missing 14(?) days in the 18th
century when we were switching calendars....
If we're going to nitpick, let's do it right! :^)
Wes Morgan
Darrian Ashoka <SP...@get.some> wrote in article
<6gekft$d...@smash.gatech.edu>...
> Did George W. Harris <gha...@mundsprung.com> really say:
>
> > = If you say team of the 90's, what is the 90's? A
> > =period of 10 years, or A DECADE.
>
> > Right. 1990-1999 is a period of ten years, a decade. It's the
> > nineties. What's the problem?
>
> because the first decade was counted from 1-10 AD. i think someone
> mentioned it before. so if you do simple math and extrapolate then we
> get 1991-2000 being this decade and not 1990-1999. similar reasoning
> is found in how we define our centuries. the last year of the 20th
> century is 2000 and not 1999.
Speaking of which, what college basketball programs have Y2K problems?
--Wes
James C. Armstrong
In article <6geu1s$k62$2...@news.ccit.arizona.edu>,
Bryan Arendall <aren...@u.arizona.edu> wrote:
>James C. Armstrong <j...@netcom.com> wrote:
>: The 90's started on January 1, 1990 and end December 31, 1999.
>: The 200th decade started January 1, 1991 and end December 31, 2000.
>: If you're talking the "Team of the 90's" use the time period 1/1/90
>: to 12/31/99
>: If you're talking the "Team of the 200th Decade" use 1/1/91-12/31/00.
>
>is this for seasons ending or starting?
Games played in that interval.
Darrian Ashoka
Did James C. Armstrong <j...@netcom.com> really say:
>>: The 200th decade started January 1, 1991 and end December 31, 2000.
>>: If you're talking the "Team of the 90's" use the time period 1/1/90
>>: to 12/31/99
>>: If you're talking the "Team of the 200th Decade" use 1/1/91-12/31/00.
>>
>>is this for seasons ending or starting?
> Games played in that interval.
no you missed the point. do we consider the season ending in 1999 as
the last season in the 90s or is it the season that starts in 1999 but
ends in 2000 as the last season of the 90s. i would go with the
former. YMMV.
--
To continue, hit any key. Where's the any key?
George W. Harris
In 8 Apr 1998 01:39:09 GMT of yore, Darrian Ashoka<SP...@get.some> wrote
thusly:
=Did George W. Harris <gha...@mundsprung.com> really say:
=
=> = If you say team of the 90's, what is the 90's? A
=> =period of 10 years, or A DECADE.
=
=> Right. 1990-1999 is a period of ten years, a decade. It's the
=> nineties. What's the problem?
=
=because the first decade was counted from 1-10 AD. i think someone
=mentioned it before. so if you do simple math and extrapolate then we
=get 1991-2000 being this decade and not 1990-1999. similar reasoning
=is found in how we define our centuries. the last year of the 20th
=century is 2000 and not 1999.
Except that decades aren't necessarily distinct
and non-intersecting, counted from the year 1. 5BC-5AD
is a decade, too, as are 1493-1502 and 1986-1995. The
200th decade is 1991-2000, but that doesn't mean anything
about the nineties, which are 1990-1999. Besides, not only
was no one using that dating system back then, no one was
playing basketball, either. If you're going to be pedantic
about counting decades in college basketball, you should
start either from the first intercollegiate basketball game, or
the first NCAA championship tournament (unless you're
restricting a discussion to a particular conference or team, in
which case the formation of the conference or establishment
of the program, respectively, are also appropriate). Some
inaccurate calendar developed by a sixth-century monk is the
height of irrelevancy...
George W. Harris
In Wed, 08 Apr 1998 02:07:45 GMT of yore, sch...@spectra.net.DELETE-THIS-PART
(TWS) wrote thusly:
=>because the first decade was counted from 1-10 AD. i think someone
=>mentioned it before. so if you do simple math and extrapolate then we
=>get 1991-2000 being this decade and not 1990-1999. similar reasoning
=>is found in how we define our centuries. the last year of the 20th
=>century is 2000 and not 1999.
=
=The general population means 1990-1999 when they say the 1990's. Even
=though this corrupts the precise ordinal structure of centuries and
=decades, the general population doesn't care. 1990's means 199?.
=But, if they said Kentucky was the team of the 200th decade AD, then
=it would be 1991-2000, but I'd doubt they would ever say that on ESPN.
It doesn't corrupt any such thing. There's nothing
ordinal about the nineties; you seem to be confusing the
nineties with the 200th decade, which is 1991-2000, as
opposed to 1990-1999. Since nobody talks about the
200th decade anyway, it isn't an issue.
Geez, all these people who think they're educated.
=-- Tim
=(if you e-mail me, delete the garbage at the end of my address)
--
They say there's air in your lungs that's been there for years.
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'.
George W. Harris
In Wed, 08 Apr 1998 08:52:10 -0400 of yore, Charlie Board <cnc...@bnr.ca>
wrote thusly:
=James C. Armstrong wrote:
=>
=> Yeesh.
=>
=> The 90's started on January 1, 1990 and end December 31, 1999.
=>
=
=Yep
=> The 200th decade started January 1, 1991 and end December 31, 2000.
=
=Nope. You gotta figure in those missing 14(?) days in the 18th
Actually, eleven.
=century when we were switching calendars....
That's only in Protestant countries; for Catholics,
it was 10 days in, I believe, the 16th. For Russian Orthodox
it was 13 in the 20th, and I don't think the Eastern Orthodox
have made the switch. It's also worth noting that in the
previous (Julian) calendar the year started on March 1st
(hence George Washington's birthday being given as either
February 11, 1721 or February 22, 1722), and that Herod,
who was supposedly king when Christ was born, died in 4BC,
so the whole thing's off by at least four years anyway.
Most people won't recognize how unusual it will be
when the year after next is a leap year...
=If we're going to nitpick, let's do it right! :^)
What you said.
--
I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV!
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'.
James C. Armstrong
I did some checking, and the NCAA tracks winningest teams by decade.
It looks like they use the year the season ended, so, the team of
the 90's would be from October 15, 1989 to March 29, 1999. So, for
the record, the winningest teams, by winning percentage, of the past
decades:
80's: UNC, 281-63 UNLV 271-65
70's: UCLA 273-27 Marquette 251-41
60's: UCLA 234-52 Cincinnati 214-63
50's: UK 224-33 N C State 240-65
40's: UK 239-42 Oklahoma State 237-55 (*)
30's: LIU 198-38 UK 162-34
(*) Seton Hall had a higher winning percentage than UK, but closed
down their program for 3 years during WWII.
With the possible exception of UNC in the 80's(**), it is hard to
argue that the team listed with the most wins wasn't the team of
the decade. By and large, they dominated their opponents. They
won NCAA titles.
(**) UNC could be argued due to their record of reaching only
2 Final Fours and winning 1 title during this period. Several
teams had better tournament success: Louisville, Indiana,
and Georgetown.
Interestingly, the leader for the 90's is Kansas, but they face
the same criticisms I just leveled against UNC. They may have
the highest winning percentage, but they have as bad a tournament
record as UNC did in the 80's.
Jason O'Rourke
Darrian Ashoka <ro...@mail.com> wrote:
>because the first decade was counted from 1-10 AD. i think someone
It's clearly the second week of April when people are resorting to
debating whether or not a win in 1990 counts as part of the 90s. How much
lamer can we get?
--
Jason O'Rourke j...@best.com www.jor.com
'96 BMW r850R '98 Outback
last dive: April 5th, "Sleeping Sharks Cave Farce," Isla Mujeres
45 mins at 58feet.