Conference schedule the rest of the way

[Sphinx]

Wow.

I remember about a half dozen years ago being stunned when I read someone on here post that he preferred the 2005-2006 season to the 2013-2014 season. Yes, everyone is entitled to their own opinion but some just leave you wondering how they got there.

I personally cannot comprehend being willing to give up valuable hardware (a national title) just to be able to claim that the cool kids (alleged blue bloods) will let you sit with them at lunchtime.

Let me ask you this. Why is the natty hardware valuable? Is it not valuable because it impresses the rest of the basketball world -- because it gives us the right to claim a place at the blue blood lunch table? Why else do fans show up for games, shout themselves hoarse and wave "We're Number One" signs? What conceivable other purpose is there to the whole madness?

Now ask yourself this. Why does the basketball world persist in undervaluing our natties? Why does almost any recitation of blue blood names -- Duke, Kentucky, Kansas, etc -- leave us out? Is it not because our recent natties, certainly the last two, maybe the last three, are regarded as "flukes" -- accidents of the draw, vagaries of the one-and-done -- in no way the product of an elite, perennially dominant program? And why is that? Is it not because we've been conference also-rans, year after year, in the active memory of anyone 21 years old or younger?

Not to belabor the point, I just think that winning a BE championship now and then is part of the whole exercise.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

Let me ask you this. Why is the natty hardware valuable? Is it not valuable because it impresses the rest of the basketball world -- because it gives us the right to claim a place at the blue blood lunch table? Why else do fans show up for games, shout themselves hoarse and wave "We're Number One" signs? What conceivable other purpose is there to the whole madness?

Now ask yourself this. Why does the basketball world persist in undervaluing our natties? Why does almost any recitation of blue blood names -- Duke, Kentucky, Kansas, etc -- leave us out? Is it not because our recent natties, certainly the last two, maybe the last three, are regarded as "flukes" -- accidents of the draw, vagaries of the one-and-done -- in no way the product of an elite, perennially dominant program? And why is that? Is it not because we've been conference also-rans, year after year, in the active memory of anyone 21 years old or younger?

Not to belabor the point, I just think that winning a BE championship now and then is part of the whole exercise.

To expand on my initial comment; if I was told that giving up five of the precious conference titles that we had won would have given us two more tournament wins (and therefore a national title) in 2009, I would have signed up for it in a heartbeat. If giving up an additional five would have given us three more tournament wins in 2002, the decision wouild be the same. Ten fewer conference titles for two additonal national titles (within the timeframe that we have been relevant, not looking for one when Holy Cross or LaSalle was winning them) is a bargain.

The thing is, as much as many want to belittle our accomplishments, everyone who is competitive plays to cut down the nets and hoist the trophy. Those who claim that conference titles are of great importance and national titles don't really say anything are trying to justify their meager accomplishments. Syracuse did not win the BE title the year they cut down the nets. The do however have a number of BE titles under their belt. Ask one of their fans if the national title is worth five conference titles.

 

[ninety-nine]

How can you think this. The only thing that replaces a ncaa championship is another ncaa championship. Ask the Bills fans how the feel about four straight AFC championships. Then ask them if they would give up every AFC Championship every division championship for one Super Bowl win. Trolling along tonight…..

As a longtime Bills fan still stinging from yet another disappointing playoff loss, it sounds like you're essentially asking if I'd trade the Bills playoff history for the Jets playoff history. They do have one Super Bowl win, but no other appearances, and barely any division titles over the last 58 years. They rarely make the playoffs. And my answer is no, I can't say that I would make that trade. Too big a price.

I might trade the three Super Bowl losses in SBs 26-28 if Norwood's kick goes through the uprights in SB 25, thus taking away the memory of all of those losses (because as Belichick said, losing hurts more than winning feels good) and replacing them with one thrilling win, but I doubt it would really elevate the Bills' history much to have only one SB appearance (a win) over 58 years, a la the Jets and Saints, rather than the four consecutive SB losses. As for giving up all of their division titles (which I believe are about 11) AND the Super Bowl losses for one single win, I would definitely not do that if that would mean the team was mediocre or lousy most of the time, with one great year to look back on. Honestly, what fun is it being a fan of a team that is seldom competitive? Pro sports are for entertainment, and losing gets old fast.

Having said that, would I trade some of them away for an SB win? Sure. Maybe as much as half of their overall division and conference title haul. But at some point, it becomes a bad trade because of the implications.

On the flip side, as a UConn fan/alum, I wouldn't trade away any of the NCs for a bunch of extra conference trophies, because UConn has been very competitive without managing to win a recent conference title, save for the few years at the end of Ollie's tenure. The entertainment value as a fan has been incredible, and we're chasing history with our five natties. One more and we tie UNC for third most all-time. No need to tamper with that history. Plus, we're in great shape now basketball-wise with the program, so we don't need a time machine to fix anything - the near-term future is very bright.

 

[CL82]

Why is the natty hardware valuable? Is it not valuable because it impresses the rest of the basketball world -

Not in the least. It's valuable because it is a statement that at that one moment in time, at that one season, we were the best among our peers. Winning them consistently, say, oh I don't know, once every five years or so for decades, is a statement that we are consistently among the best in our sport. Trying to be your very best version of yourself, a trait of successful people, typically is a personal goalpost. To people who are truly at the top of their respective endeavors, what other people say is irrelevant.

So, no, failing at being the very best version of ourselves so that we fit in better with the pack is not a goal. It's an excuse made by also rans, and not surprisingly, one that we don't make to ourselves.

 

[TheChamps990411]

It looks pretty grueling. Sure we get the mid February Georgetown, Depaul break, but otherwise it's pretty unrelenting.

View attachment 95477

I
AB
SOLUTELY
LOVE IT!!!!

 

[TheChamps990411]

As a longtime Bills fan still stinging from yet another disappointing playoff loss, it sounds like you're essentially asking if I'd trade the Bills playoff history for the Jets playoff history. They do have one Super Bowl win, but no other appearances, and barely any division titles over the last 58 years. They rarely make the playoffs. And my answer is no, I can't say that I would make that trade. Too big a price.

I might trade the three Super Bowl losses in SBs 26-28 if Norwood's kick goes through the uprights in SB 25, thus taking away the memory of all of those losses (because as Belichick said, losing hurts more than winning feels good) and replacing them with one thrilling win, but I doubt it would really elevate the Bills' history much to have only one SB appearance (a win) over 58 years, a la the Jets and Saints, rather than the four consecutive SB losses. As for giving up all of their division titles (which I believe are about 11) AND the Super Bowl losses for one single win, I would definitely not do that if that would mean the team was mediocre or lousy most of the time, with one great year to look back on. Honestly, what fun is it being a fan of a team that is seldom competitive? Pro sports are for entertainment, and losing gets old fast.

Having said that, would I trade some of them away for an SB win? Sure. Maybe as much as half of their overall division and conference title haul. But at some point, it becomes a bad trade because of the implications.

On the flip side, as a UConn fan/alum, I wouldn't trade away any of the NCs for a bunch of extra conference trophies, because UConn has been very competitive without managing to win a recent conference title, save for the few years at the end of Ollie's tenure. The entertainment value as a fan has been incredible, and we're chasing history with our five natties. One more and we tie UNC for third most all-time. No need to tamper with that history. Plus, we're in great shape now basketball-wise with the program, so we don't need a time machine to fix anything - the near-term future is very bright.

Wide right! I cant think of a more deserving fan base to finally get a break and win a Super Bowl. I think theyll get at least one with Allen. I think he and Mahomes could become the new Manning v Brady over the next few years and like Manning Allen will eventually get over the hump. I honestly thought itd be this season. Im a Bears fan so i dont know much about winning.