Recent content by bleedsmaroonandgold

Ive never understood the rule (or the delay on postseason eligibility in other sports when moving up to D1). If a school that moves up is good earn to earn a postseason berth, what is the benefit of letting them play? Why was the rule there in the first place?

Seems like a pretty fair list. When I saw the title of the thread,the first thing that jumped to my mind was loving how we play against Wisconsin and hating how we play against Iowa.

Multiple things can be true at the same time. 1)if we hired a coach as good as Cignetti, we could have a similar experience as Indiana 2) PJ has done well here and we have been reasonably successful during his tenure 3) evaluating coaches is hard, if we decided to move on from PJ to chase...

We should play Iowa. It was disappointing we decided to sit that game out last season.

If im understanding the problem right, it is fair to complain about the U taking your money, not providing the spot you paid for, and not refunding your money, even if the reason for the spot unavailability is reasonable. Everyone knows airlines overbooks their flights. That means sometimes...

When my team finds itself in a position to clinch a post season berth by simply preserving a 6-1 lead heading into the ninth at home, Im not concerned with the equities of the tiebreaker criteria.

Thats brutal. I always assumed that a spot in the ramp is included when you buy a spot in the ramp. Guess I was wrong. Sounds like the Seinfeld rental car bit. "We have the reservation, we just dont have a car." "But the reservation keeps the car here, thats why we have the reservation."

Maybe it will be like the 2020 football season, where the league changes the rules once it realizes it doesn't like the outcome under the rules the season started with.

Is Dinkytown Athletes going to start selling #5 jerseys with "Pappagorgio" on the back?

I think thats what you call a post hac justification. Those numbers may be true, but they are also is not the reason.

I like what ive seen so far this off-season, though when all is said and done, ill evaluate Medved by whether and how much his team wins, not whether I am impressed with his recruiting. Players from the bench of elite teams intrigue me. If we get the right ones, they have three things going for...

So since 2000, there are multiple schools who average more wins per year in the tourney than we have had in total during that stretch? Also, i know that has been talked to death, but we fired a coach at the end of the year in which we recorded half of the tournament wins we have had this century.

I don't have the bizarre SEC cult obsession with our conference. But all things being equal, i generally prefer the B1G to win over other conferences because wherever we end up in our conference, thats more impressive if we are in the best conference. Exceptions: I cheer against Wisconsin in...

My preference would be going back to 64. Assuming that wont happen, id rather the play in games be played exclusively by at-large berths. Id like to see auto-bid winning conference champs be in the field of 64. Also, with the field of 76, how many historically unsuccessful major conference...

It seems to be a moving target with how the one game tournament impacts team evaluations on here. When the Gophers have a high seed and lose in the tourney, its "well it doesn't matter if you cant finish the deal." But when another team does, its "one game doesn't erase how good they were for...