(05-09-2017 06:39 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 04:52 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 01:19 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 01:01 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 12:56 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Yes..let's have a guy who knows little about college hoops define which rivalries register to the national college basketball fan base as being important.

Sorry but college lacrosse is much easier to watch on TV than college baseball. The growth of college lacrosse over the last 15 years has blown away every other college sport.

https://newwavelax.wordpress.com/2015/11...al-growth/

69 teams with the vast majority of them in the Mid-Atlantic and New England.

Regional niche sport.

Or the fastest growing sport in the nation located in the ACC footprint?

Don't worry...you can still watch your baseball and I'll watch my Lacrosse.

LOL You sound like the people back in the late 80's-early 90's who said "Soccer is the fastest growing sport in the country and will surpass everything in 10-15 years to become the most popular sport in the country."

You'll be dead and decomposing before there are 128 Lacrosse teams playing at the DI level.

Prove my claim (fastest growing sport) wrong!

BTW, there won't be 128 D-1 teams in Lacrosse...did I ever say that?

IMHO, if it wasn't for Title IX the ACC would have closer to 15 teams than 5 teams.

It's also worth noting that college baseball was rendered obsolete by the invention of minor league baseball ... in 1901.

(05-09-2017 07:07 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 06:39 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 04:52 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 01:19 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 01:01 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  69 teams with the vast majority of them in the Mid-Atlantic and New England.

Regional niche sport.

Or the fastest growing sport in the nation located in the ACC footprint?

Don't worry...you can still watch your baseball and I'll watch my Lacrosse.

LOL You sound like the people back in the late 80's-early 90's who said "Soccer is the fastest growing sport in the country and will surpass everything in 10-15 years to become the most popular sport in the country."

You'll be dead and decomposing before there are 128 Lacrosse teams playing at the DI level.

Prove my claim (fastest growing sport) wrong!

BTW, there won't be 128 D-1 teams in Lacrosse...did I ever say that?

IMHO, if it wasn't for Title IX the ACC would have closer to 15 teams than 5 teams.

It's also worth noting that college baseball was rendered obsolete by the invention of minor league baseball ... in 1901.

So obsolete that for 12 days they get prime ESPN coverage at a neutral site. So obsolete that there are 295 teams playing DI baseball right now. So obsolete that half of the #1 MLB draft picks the past 10 years have been DI players, and 6 college players total if you count Bryce Harper coming out of junior college. So obsolete that it's not a boutique sport centered around the Mid-Atlantic and New England.

(05-09-2017 08:45 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 07:07 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 06:39 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 04:52 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 01:19 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Or the fastest growing sport in the nation located in the ACC footprint?

Don't worry...you can still watch your baseball and I'll watch my Lacrosse.

LOL You sound like the people back in the late 80's-early 90's who said "Soccer is the fastest growing sport in the country and will surpass everything in 10-15 years to become the most popular sport in the country."

You'll be dead and decomposing before there are 128 Lacrosse teams playing at the DI level.

Prove my claim (fastest growing sport) wrong!

BTW, there won't be 128 D-1 teams in Lacrosse...did I ever say that?

IMHO, if it wasn't for Title IX the ACC would have closer to 15 teams than 5 teams.

It's also worth noting that college baseball was rendered obsolete by the invention of minor league baseball ... in 1901.

So obsolete that for 12 days they get prime ESPN coverage at a neutral site. So obsolete that there are 295 teams playing DI baseball right now. So obsolete that half of the #1 MLB draft picks the past 10 years have been DI players, and 6 college players total if you count Bryce Harper coming out of junior college. So obsolete that it's not a boutique sport centered around the Mid-Atlantic and New England.

Context: You're bragging about being kind of almost relevant 3.29% of the year (after I rounded up)

(05-09-2017 10:20 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 08:45 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 07:07 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 06:39 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 04:52 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  LOL You sound like the people back in the late 80's-early 90's who said "Soccer is the fastest growing sport in the country and will surpass everything in 10-15 years to become the most popular sport in the country."

You'll be dead and decomposing before there are 128 Lacrosse teams playing at the DI level.

Prove my claim (fastest growing sport) wrong!

BTW, there won't be 128 D-1 teams in Lacrosse...did I ever say that?

IMHO, if it wasn't for Title IX the ACC would have closer to 15 teams than 5 teams.

It's also worth noting that college baseball was rendered obsolete by the invention of minor league baseball ... in 1901.

So obsolete that for 12 days they get prime ESPN coverage at a neutral site. So obsolete that there are 295 teams playing DI baseball right now. So obsolete that half of the #1 MLB draft picks the past 10 years have been DI players, and 6 college players total if you count Bryce Harper coming out of junior college. So obsolete that it's not a boutique sport centered around the Mid-Atlantic and New England.

Context: You're bragging about being kind of almost relevant 3.29% of the year (after I rounded up)

Not to get into the middle of this rather entertaining spat ... but ...

3.29 > 0

(05-09-2017 10:20 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 08:45 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 07:07 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 06:39 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 04:52 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  LOL You sound like the people back in the late 80's-early 90's who said "Soccer is the fastest growing sport in the country and will surpass everything in 10-15 years to become the most popular sport in the country."

You'll be dead and decomposing before there are 128 Lacrosse teams playing at the DI level.

Prove my claim (fastest growing sport) wrong!

BTW, there won't be 128 D-1 teams in Lacrosse...did I ever say that?

IMHO, if it wasn't for Title IX the ACC would have closer to 15 teams than 5 teams.

It's also worth noting that college baseball was rendered obsolete by the invention of minor league baseball ... in 1901.

So obsolete that for 12 days they get prime ESPN coverage at a neutral site. So obsolete that there are 295 teams playing DI baseball right now. So obsolete that half of the #1 MLB draft picks the past 10 years have been DI players, and 6 college players total if you count Bryce Harper coming out of junior college. So obsolete that it's not a boutique sport centered around the Mid-Atlantic and New England.

Context: You're bragging about being kind of almost relevant 3.29% of the year (after I rounded up)

And you are bragging about being non-relevant 100% of the year.

I've never understood some Syracuse people denigrating college baseball all the time, particularly in view of the fact the ACC is so dominant every season. As a fan of a conference that leaves a lot to be desired in baseball, I'm very jealous of what you guys have here. This weekend's Clemson/Louisville series should be a good one. (Prediction Clemson takes 2 out of 3)

I watch every ND baseball game on ACC Network Extra or on WatchND, and the Irish baseball program blows right now.

I never watch ND lacrosse, and I hear its program is pretty good.

(05-10-2017 05:25 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 10:20 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 08:45 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 07:07 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 06:39 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Prove my claim (fastest growing sport) wrong!

BTW, there won't be 128 D-1 teams in Lacrosse...did I ever say that?

IMHO, if it wasn't for Title IX the ACC would have closer to 15 teams than 5 teams.

It's also worth noting that college baseball was rendered obsolete by the invention of minor league baseball ... in 1901.

So obsolete that for 12 days they get prime ESPN coverage at a neutral site. So obsolete that there are 295 teams playing DI baseball right now. So obsolete that half of the #1 MLB draft picks the past 10 years have been DI players, and 6 college players total if you count Bryce Harper coming out of junior college. So obsolete that it's not a boutique sport centered around the Mid-Atlantic and New England.

Context: You're bragging about being kind of almost relevant 3.29% of the year (after I rounded up)

And you are bragging about being non-relevant 100% of the year.

College basketball (the only sport that I've talked about in any detail) is irrelevant 100% of the year?

(05-10-2017 10:06 AM)hoops22 Wrote:  I've never understood some Syracuse people denigrating college baseball all the time, particularly in view of the fact the ACC is so dominant every season. As a fan of a conference that leaves a lot to be desired in baseball, I'm very jealous of what you guys have here. This weekend's Clemson/Louisville series should be a good one. (Prediction Clemson takes 2 out of 3)

Nobody is criticizing baseball unfairly. It's fun to watch, and it's fun to play - much like a number of other college sports. And much like a number of other college sports, it isn't particularity relevant. When you beat your chest w/ an extremely forced argument that only claims relevancy less than 4% of the time, you highlight how irrelevant the sport actually is - at least on a collegiate level.

Put another way, NCAA baseball is like boxing. I love boxing, and I wish SU still sponsored it, but I still don't think it's relevant.

(05-10-2017 11:43 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-10-2017 05:25 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 10:20 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 08:45 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 07:07 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  It's also worth noting that college baseball was rendered obsolete by the invention of minor league baseball ... in 1901.

So obsolete that for 12 days they get prime ESPN coverage at a neutral site. So obsolete that there are 295 teams playing DI baseball right now. So obsolete that half of the #1 MLB draft picks the past 10 years have been DI players, and 6 college players total if you count Bryce Harper coming out of junior college. So obsolete that it's not a boutique sport centered around the Mid-Atlantic and New England.

Context: You're bragging about being kind of almost relevant 3.29% of the year (after I rounded up)

And you are bragging about being non-relevant 100% of the year.

College basketball (the only sport that I've talked about in any detail) is irrelevant 100% of the year?

I'm pretty sure that Clemson has been just a LITTLE bit more relevant than 3.29% of the year athletically the past few years considering we have been so good at the most popular college sport. Maybe y'all should give football a try so you are relevant more than November-March.

(05-10-2017 02:55 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-10-2017 11:43 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-10-2017 05:25 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 10:20 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 08:45 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  So obsolete that for 12 days they get prime ESPN coverage at a neutral site. So obsolete that there are 295 teams playing DI baseball right now. So obsolete that half of the #1 MLB draft picks the past 10 years have been DI players, and 6 college players total if you count Bryce Harper coming out of junior college. So obsolete that it's not a boutique sport centered around the Mid-Atlantic and New England.

Context: You're bragging about being kind of almost relevant 3.29% of the year (after I rounded up)

And you are bragging about being non-relevant 100% of the year.

College basketball (the only sport that I've talked about in any detail) is irrelevant 100% of the year?

I'm pretty sure that Clemson has been just a LITTLE bit more relevant than 3.29% of the year athletically the past few years considering we have been so good at the most popular college sport. Maybe y'all should give football a try so you are relevant more than November-March.

So now your theory is being good at football means your baseball team is relevant? If so, I think you just made a lot of friends in the upper Midwest.

(05-10-2017 04:32 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-10-2017 02:55 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-10-2017 11:43 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-10-2017 05:25 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 10:20 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Context: You're bragging about being kind of almost relevant 3.29% of the year (after I rounded up)

And you are bragging about being non-relevant 100% of the year.

College basketball (the only sport that I've talked about in any detail) is irrelevant 100% of the year?

I'm pretty sure that Clemson has been just a LITTLE bit more relevant than 3.29% of the year athletically the past few years considering we have been so good at the most popular college sport. Maybe y'all should give football a try so you are relevant more than November-March.

So now your theory is being good at football means your baseball team is relevant? If so, I think you just made a lot of friends in the upper Midwest.

Again, make up your rabbit-assed mind. You want to discuss overall athletic relevance or just one of the minor sports?

(05-10-2017 04:42 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-10-2017 04:32 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-10-2017 02:55 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-10-2017 11:43 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-10-2017 05:25 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  And you are bragging about being non-relevant 100% of the year.

College basketball (the only sport that I've talked about in any detail) is irrelevant 100% of the year?

I'm pretty sure that Clemson has been just a LITTLE bit more relevant than 3.29% of the year athletically the past few years considering we have been so good at the most popular college sport. Maybe y'all should give football a try so you are relevant more than November-March.

So now your theory is being good at football means your baseball team is relevant? If so, I think you just made a lot of friends in the upper Midwest.

Again, make up your rabbit-assed mind. You want to discuss overall athletic relevance or just one of the minor sports?

I was discussing basketball. You're the one who brought up baseball, pretended it was major, and is now calling it minor.

And in addition to that, you're now hurling insults. What's that you always say about people who resort to insults in arguments?

(05-10-2017 05:10 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-10-2017 04:42 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-10-2017 04:32 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-10-2017 02:55 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-10-2017 11:43 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  College basketball (the only sport that I've talked about in any detail) is irrelevant 100% of the year?

I'm pretty sure that Clemson has been just a LITTLE bit more relevant than 3.29% of the year athletically the past few years considering we have been so good at the most popular college sport. Maybe y'all should give football a try so you are relevant more than November-March.

So now your theory is being good at football means your baseball team is relevant? If so, I think you just made a lot of friends in the upper Midwest.

Again, make up your rabbit-assed mind. You want to discuss overall athletic relevance or just one of the minor sports?

I was discussing basketball. You're the one who brought up baseball, pretended it was major, and is now calling it minor.

And in addition to that, you're now hurling insults. What's that you always say about people who resort to insults in arguments?

An accurate description isn't an insult. You bounce from side to side just like a rabbit when it runs.

YOU interjected yourself into a segment of the conversation that was concerning lacrosse and baseball.

But if you want to talk basketball we can, but it's relevance and importance has already been established.

(05-10-2017 05:23 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-10-2017 05:10 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-10-2017 04:42 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-10-2017 04:32 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-10-2017 02:55 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  I'm pretty sure that Clemson has been just a LITTLE bit more relevant than 3.29% of the year athletically the past few years considering we have been so good at the most popular college sport. Maybe y'all should give football a try so you are relevant more than November-March.

So now your theory is being good at football means your baseball team is relevant? If so, I think you just made a lot of friends in the upper Midwest.

Again, make up your rabbit-assed mind. You want to discuss overall athletic relevance or just one of the minor sports?

I was discussing basketball. You're the one who brought up baseball, pretended it was major, and is now calling it minor.

And in addition to that, you're now hurling insults. What's that you always say about people who resort to insults in arguments?

An accurate description isn't an insult. You bounce from side to side just like a rabbit when it runs.

YOU interjected yourself into a segment of the conversation that was concerning lacrosse and baseball.

But if you want to talk basketball we can, but it's relevance and importance has already been established.

....and yet you're the one who keeps running.

You injected college baseball into a conversation about adding Georgetown for the millions that their basketball program would bring into the conference. If you care to remember correctly, you were worried that your highly irrelevant baseball team would be mildly inconvenienced, as they might have to make a minor schedule change. Additionally, you seemed highly indifferent to increasing revenue.

....addotionally, you did feel the need to take shots at both myself and Syracuse (I'm noticing a trend).

(05-10-2017 05:29 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-10-2017 05:23 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-10-2017 05:10 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-10-2017 04:42 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-10-2017 04:32 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  So now your theory is being good at football means your baseball team is relevant? If so, I think you just made a lot of friends in the upper Midwest.

Again, make up your rabbit-assed mind. You want to discuss overall athletic relevance or just one of the minor sports?

I was discussing basketball. You're the one who brought up baseball, pretended it was major, and is now calling it minor.

And in addition to that, you're now hurling insults. What's that you always say about people who resort to insults in arguments?

An accurate description isn't an insult. You bounce from side to side just like a rabbit when it runs.

YOU interjected yourself into a segment of the conversation that was concerning lacrosse and baseball.

But if you want to talk basketball we can, but it's relevance and importance has already been established.

....and yet you're the one who keeps running.

You injected college baseball into a conversation about adding Georgetown for the millions that their basketball program would bring into the conference. If you care to remember correctly, you were worried that your highly irrelevant baseball team would be mildly inconvenienced, as they might have to make a minor schedule change. Additionally, you seemed highly indifferent to increasing revenue.

....addotionally, you did feel the need to take shots at both myself and Syracuse (I'm noticing a trend).

There is no "millions". They would struggle to bring in enough to cover their own payout, much less increase the payout to other member schools.

And the rest of their sports do absolutely nothing to help the rest of the ACC other than give lacrosse an autobid that they do not need.

They are a private school with a small undergrad enrollment in a transient city. They used to be a big deal in basketball but have fallen on hard times with no assurances that they will ever come close to what they were in the 1980's under John Thompson.