SportsCenter does it again...

[Yankees32123]

I guess 1999, 2004, and 2011 doesn't count.

 

[Tenspro2002]

Did 1991/2, 2001, 2010 not count already?

The JC oversight I've just come to expect at this point.

 

[TheChamps990411]

I guess 1999, 2004, and 2011 doesn't count.

Lol! Gotta love BSPN.

 

[uconngb]

No way I'm puttingonESPN for the next month. I can only imagine the woodythat Dukie V has now he's managed to get his bald head out of Calipari's ass....no thanks

 

[BlueMAB]

Did they take it down?

 

[aceboon]

What did the tweet say, its not showing up

 

[Matrim55]

They took it down.

 

[tcf15]

What did the tweet say, its not showing up

 

[Matrim55]

Fixed:

 

[tcf15]

 

[Yankees32123]

K already did it in 1991, 2001, and 2010. So technically Jim joined him in 2011. But Sportscenter tried.

 

[NHUConnfan]

Did 1991/2, 2001, 2010 not count already?

The JC oversight I've just come to expect at this point.

2010 is the last year of the 201st decade.

 

[champs99and04]

Kind of like being the second man on the moon.

 

[Kitaman]

It don't matter K got it done, and dook is relevant again.

We just need to get back to our winning/dominating ways. It starts by mastering our conference, which we haven't really done yet or consistently. We need to win games UConn style!

 

[djct1999]

We all know Coach K is a great coach. What amazes me most is not his ability to adjust to today's game, today's player but his willingness. Most guys like Coach K refuse to make that adjustment.

 

[Paesano]

People like to say comparing Geno to Jim is apples and oranges. Well, coach K took 8 McD all americans and beat a team with zero. Let's not make more of it than it is. He is a good coach because he has managed to win a lot of championships. But is he better than Calhoun who won three with far less talent? I don't think so.

 

[CallMeBruce]

2010 is the last year of the 201st decade.

This occurred to me, but with decades, I think we've all agreed to informally group them by their leading number. I'm not about to start pretending that 1990 was in the 80s, for example.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

It don't matter K got it done, and dook is relevant again.

We just need to get back to our winning/dominating ways. It starts by mastering our conference, which we haven't really done yet or consistently. We need to win games UConn style!

When was Duke basketball not relevant?

Sounds like something an idiot Cuse fan would say about us.

 

[Kitaman]

When was Duke basketball not relevant?

Sounds like something an idiot Cuse fan would say about us.

They weren't making it far in the post season and talked in terms of Championship caliber. Now comes the massive attention, butt kissing and media adoration.

We did get a nice break for a while from that , which is what I meant.

 

[jibsey]

People like to say comparing Geno to Jim is apples and oranges. Well, coach K took 8 McD all americans and beat a team with zero. Let's not make more of it than it is. He is a good coach because he has managed to win a lot of championships. But is he better than Calhoun who won three with far less talent? I don't think so.

Exactly, but why is it never pointed out? There are 98 analysts on 25 channels. Do they get fired if they say it?

 

[Paesano]

They make a living off the sport. They love the game. If you start to honestly look at the talent disparity, you will conclude that college basketball is a sham. Even though guys like Calhoun exist, the reality is that very few teams have a chance at winning due to the massive disparity.

 

[Huskies4ever]

They weren't making it far in the post season and talked in terms of Championship caliber. Now comes the massive attention, butt kissing and media adoration.

We did get a nice break for a while from that

Except we didn't. All that went to Kentucky and coach Cal.

 

[NHUConnfan]

This occurred to me, but with decades, I think we've all agreed to informally group them by their leading number. I'm not about to start pretending that 1990 was in the 80s, for example.

Except...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decade

"Because the common calendar starts with year 1, its first full decade is the years 1 to 10, the second decade from 11 to 20, and so on.[5] So although the "1960s" comprises the years 1960 to 1969, the "197th decade" spans 1961 to 1970."

 

[SubbaBub]

Except...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decade

"Because the common calendar starts with year 1, its first full decade is the years 1 to 10, the second decade from 11 to 20, and so on.[5] So although the "1960s" comprises the years 1960 to 1969, the "197th decade" spans 1961 to 1970."

Yeah, I remember everyone partying it up on Dec 31, 2000. I hear Prince agrees.

 

[PcketknfNiels]

Exactly, but why is it never pointed out? There are 98 analysts on 25 channels. Do they get fired if they say it?

Because approximately 93 of them are former Dook players.

 

[CallMeBruce]

Except...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decade

"Because the common calendar starts with year 1, its first full decade is the years 1 to 10, the second decade from 11 to 20, and so on.[5] So although the "1960s" comprises the years 1960 to 1969, the "197th decade" spans 1961 to 1970."

Great, let me know when VH1 starts showing "I Love The 198th Decade." Wikipedia may be right, technically, but that's not how the term "decade" is used in common parlance. It's one thing if we're talking about the millenium and all that, but that's not the situation here.