http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=3481843According to espn (yes, I hate them too), that's where NCSU ranks among the top 300 DI college bball programs.Start the whining & bitching.....now[Edited on July 21, 2008 at 2:24 PM. Reason : yes, I noticed I'm 1 'l' short in the title]
7/21/2008 2:20:07 PM
Seems a little high to meOut of over 300 Division 1 teams, I'm not sure I'd place us in the top third
7/21/2008 2:21:14 PM
hahaha, they have College of Charleston ranked higher than us.Here's their reasoning:
7/21/2008 2:23:31 PM
7/21/2008 2:24:42 PM
so we're tied for 7th in the number of NCAA basketball championships (with 7 others), but we're only ranked 52nd in "most prestigious?"wtf is that about?oh i just saw they only looked at 1984-1985+. that kinda sucks for ushttp://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=3481014]
7/21/2008 2:25:56 PM
7/21/2008 2:26:51 PM
7/21/2008 2:27:20 PM
So by their results there are 5 ACC teams with more history than us. I can understand UNC and Duke but the other three:WakeMarylandGT
7/21/2008 2:28:14 PM
This is pretty silly. College of Charleston has one losing season since 1984-85 because they play in the Atlantic Sun. They'd have one win total since 1984-85 had they been playing in the ACC.
7/21/2008 2:28:50 PM
7/21/2008 2:35:51 PM
as opposed to some of the teams ranked above us...for whom its been INFINITY YEARS SINCE THEY'VE NEVER WON A TITLE EVER...like Chatanooga and Western Kentucky]
7/21/2008 2:44:16 PM
these things aren't worth getting upset aboutlife is too fucking short to worry about shit like this
7/21/2008 2:58:25 PM
of course not, but they're things to make you question what all they're smoking at ESPN
7/21/2008 3:05:12 PM
UNC gonja... UNC will be number 1 and UCLA number 2
7/21/2008 3:07:40 PM
I don't see why we're arguing if it's been since 1984-85.We've been to what...two sweet 16s since then?? CofC has had only one losing season....we've had like 5 or 6 (I think?). We've been to maybe 12 or 13 NCAAs in 23 years (maybe?). Not exactly impressive for a big conference team.And honestly....who gives a shit?
7/21/2008 3:08:04 PM
7/21/2008 3:09:57 PM
if it's since 1985, do you think Duke will rank higher than UNC... pffff
7/21/2008 3:11:11 PM
Yeah, 3 national titles, more final fours, no 8-20 seasons.
7/21/2008 3:12:08 PM
Duke will obviously be 1. UNC 2. Kansas 3.[Edited on July 21, 2008 at 3:12 PM. Reason : kansas may be 2?]
7/21/2008 3:12:26 PM
UConn and Florida should be in the discussion
7/21/2008 3:12:45 PM
7/21/2008 3:14:04 PM
This list is a fucking joke and just goes to show how big of a sham ESPN has really become. My balls have more of a basketball tradition (they bounce and sweat) than some of the teams they have rated above us. And I think them justifying their cutoff point of the 1984-1985 season with the fact that the tournament expanded to 64 teams then is stupid. It's like they're calling into question the legitimacy of those teams and programs who were prominent before that expansion just because they had a couple of less games to win on their way to a national championship. Never mind the fact that less games being played meant less of a chance for your team to get into the tournament in the first place. If UCLA hadn't done shit since their dominance in the late 60s and early 70s, they would still be revered as one of the best programs/programs with most tradition by anyone with a brain that follows basketball. I mean, look at the Red Sox. It took them nearly 100 years to win another title, but I seriously doubt anyone who follows baseball would have put them in the bottom half of MLB in terms of tradition just because they hadn't won a title in the modern era.[Edited on July 21, 2008 at 3:49 PM. Reason : ESPN is a joke]
7/21/2008 3:47:53 PM
I agree that ESPN is a joke, but this list is no more ridiculous than the toughest places to play in the ACC list that had Kenan at #4 because it has pretty trees and a great view from the head coach's office. Every now and then you'll see a halfway descent article from ESPN but they are few and far between.
7/21/2008 3:55:44 PM
^haha, I missed that gem
7/21/2008 3:57:59 PM
7/21/2008 3:59:41 PM
They should have expanded this to 365 teams, giving them something to talk about for 10 minutes during all of 2009.
7/21/2008 4:02:44 PM
I think that is a fair assement of our program since 1985
7/21/2008 5:30:11 PM
This Is Not Read
7/21/2008 5:54:12 PM
Murray State in at #30
7/23/2008 3:40:41 PM
^haha, i stopped reading this list because it's obviously retarded, but I had no idea it was THAT bad
7/23/2008 3:43:39 PM
Tradition is not just 23 years.Tradition goes back to the start of programs.Saying that UCLA doesn't have as good of a "tradition" because their titles came at some arbitrary point in the past is ignoring what the word "tradition" means.For those curious, it's "the passing down of elements of a culture from generation to generation, especially by oral communication."Simply a ridiculous list. They should have simply stated that it was the top programs from the last 23 years and been done with it, there wouldn't have been any criticism about that.
7/23/2008 4:14:07 PM
surprised it wasnt a list of teams' success since 1979 or 1980 or whichever year ESPN first went on the airobviously sports were irrelevant before ESPN
7/23/2008 5:06:07 PM
timswar is pretty right onThe only thing I would disagree with is...
7/23/2008 5:39:36 PM
i guess you guys already figured out it's since 85.[Edited on July 23, 2008 at 6:07 PM. Reason : .]
7/23/2008 6:07:06 PM
7/25/2008 4:56:13 PM