# Why The Acc Is Beter Than The Big12



## THELAKESHOW (Oct 9, 2002)

Let me start by saying that I think we all agree that the best conference is determined at the end of the year, not now. But this thread is intended to educate all of those who think the BIG 12 is a better conference year in, year out, than the ACC.

Since 1988( I know that is a long time ago, but thats how long it has been since the BIG 12 actually won a title) the ACC's dominance over the BIG 12 isnt even close, it is just plain ugly.

Total Final Fours:

ACC:17
BIG 12: 7

National Championships:

ACC: 5
BIG 12: 1

The PAC10 is a much closer comparison with the ACC. I understand the BIG 12 has lots of die-hard fans, but the stats are not EVEN close. Head to head in the Final Fours, it is just as ugly in favor of the ACC. Is there anyone who can back up their claims with REAL STATS and not just biased loyalites? Someone please try to prove me wrong, I would love to see the attempt on this matter. And remeber, I am not talking about who is the best in THIS young season( even though the ACC is 19-1, Big 12 is 20-8, and the team picked 7th in the ACC, UNC, throttled the best team in the BIG 12). So, lets get it on!!!!


----------



## THELAKESHOW (Oct 9, 2002)

*the big12 is loaded with cup cakes*

Top to bottom, the ACC is better. The only easy games are Clemson and Florida st. The Big 12 has Baylor, Nebraska, Texas A+M, Colorado, Kansas St, Iowa St, all easy games. The Big 12 is so top heavy its not even funny.


----------



## THELAKESHOW (Oct 9, 2002)

and lets not even start with who sents the most players to the NBA. GO HEELS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## hunterb14 (Jun 12, 2002)

I just want to make the point that there are three basketball powerhouses in each confrence

ACC - Duke, maryland, UNC
Big 12- Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas

Last year the Big 12 was cearly the stronger confrence but thiss year it nis the ACC. It all depends on the recruiting classes that the confrences get


----------



## Hollis (Jun 4, 2002)

*ACC - Duke, maryland, UNC
Big 12- Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas*

I sure hope you're talking about overall, not this year......UNC is definitely not a powerhouse....


----------



## Hollis (Jun 4, 2002)

It's also funny how all you keep talking about is how the end of the season counts and the season doesn't matter, when UNC beat KU in the *regular season* that doesn't mean anything..... 
I don't think anyone here doubts that the ACC has been better than the Big 12 over the years, and has great tradition.....

*The Big 12 has Baylor, Nebraska, Texas A+M, Colorado, Kansas St, Iowa St, all easy games.*
Nebraska, A&M and KSU are the only "easy games" on that list.


----------



## pharcyde (Jun 22, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>THELAKESHOW</b>!
> Let me start by saying that I think we all agree that the best conference is determined at the end of the year, not now. But this thread is intended to educate all of those who think the BIG 12 is a better conference year in, year out, than the ACC.
> 
> Since 1988( I know that is a long time ago, but thats how long it has been since the BIG 12 actually won a title) the ACC's dominance over the BIG 12 isnt even close, it is just plain ugly.
> ...


But this thread is intended to educate all of those who think the BIG 12 is a better conference year in, year out, than the ACC? What? Let me educate you on something, the Big XII wasn't even a conference until the 95 season.

mduke already pointed out that Colorado and Iowa State aren't easy games, but I'll elaborate even more. Iowa State in the past three seasons has been a 1 seed and a 2 seed, both times with teams that before the season everyone said had no talent. They were the second best team the year MSU won it all, they just got unlucky and had to play them in the elite eight. This year they've loaded up with juco studs and should surprise a lot of people.

The midwest, and especially the Big XII, for a long time was a football region, and only recently is it really becoming an area where basketball is as popular. The players produced in the area are starting to stay home more often instead of leaving for ACC schools(St. Louis in particular has lost a lot of talent to far away schools). The ACC does have more tradition, I'll give them that, but the Big XII is better right now.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

*Re: the big12 is loaded with cup cakes*



> Originally posted by <b>THELAKESHOW</b>!
> Top to bottom, the ACC is better. The only easy games are Clemson and Florida st. The Big 12 has Baylor, Nebraska, Texas A+M, Colorado, Kansas St, Iowa St, all easy games. The Big 12 is so top heavy its not even funny.


baylor always puts together a decent team. not going to win the conference but a team that can compete with most teams in the nation. colorado has david harrison. he's a pretty big guy so i wouldn't exactly call those games easy. iowa state has already been talked about. this year the big 12 has three teams that are definately above the other teams but they aren't top heavy. three on top, three on bottom, and 6 in the middle who all could knock off one of the top teams in a game. i don't think there is a team in the acc better than missouri and i think missouri is 4th best in the big 12. the acc doesn't seem top heavy because the top really isn't that high up.(duke is way overrated)


----------



## kansasalumn (Jun 9, 2002)

whooaaaaaaa

Motigs already mention that Big 12 was ONLY 6 YEARS OLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Get that in you head.

motigs already mention that the big 12 was mainly put toegher for football and other sports. TGhe Southwest confercne was going down the toliet, and the top 4 schools in SWC came to the Big 8 to join them. In 1995, Big 8 was one of the best basketball conferences in the nation. In the 1980's, the Big 8 was amazing.. HTat top to bottom was a good confernece. K-state was even a good team aka Mitch Richmond was one aspect. But anyway. Big 12 in the fisrtt years was mostly football, they finally getting better in basketball. I personally tink the origional big 8 teams helped the Texas schools.

Ok you say Iowa State is an easy team to beat. Don't make me laugh. Hilton is one of the most toughest arena to play in. The Iowa State fans love their basketball. They have been in the lower half sicne losing Fizer and Tinsley, but they are a team to reckon with.

Baylor is an up and coming team. Coach David Bliss is one of the best newcoming coaches. He has really changed this team around. They used to be laughing stock in the begining of the big 12 era/ They have a new arena, and so forth. Plus, a couple seasons ago, the did beat Kansas. UNC when they were good, the lost to the wrose teams in the ACC. It is conference season, so to mention that these schools are easy to beat, you are deeply mistaken.

Yes K-state is down eince Lon Kougher and Dana Altman left K-state to go to Illinios, Tulsa, Crighton, and the Atlanta Hawks. Coach Woolbridge hate to say it, really getting them back to respectablity. They have a top 25 recruiiting class next season. 

Colorado is never an easy win. Coach Patton always has his teams ready to play. Plus they have one of the best centers in the college ranks, David Harrison. He will be a NBA player. He has the tools.

Nebraska, well, yes they are hurting, but they have a good solid team.

A&M, well every conference has a bad team, and the Aggies are them, However, they will give you a contest.


----------



## hunterb14 (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>mduke</b>!
> *ACC - Duke, maryland, UNC
> Big 12- Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas*
> 
> I sure hope you're talking about overall, not this year......UNC is definitely not a powerhouse....


Its overall mduke
Overall meaning for many years


----------



## TerpBurp (Sep 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kansasalumn</b>!
> whooaaaaaaa
> 
> Motigs already mention that Big 12 was ONLY 6 YEARS OLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> ...


Guess what, the Big 12 is ALWAYS going to be younger than the ACC. Yeah, think about it.  Just because you're young, doesn't mean we can't compare the ACC with the Big 12. You know what, let's compare records within the last 6 years then.
ACC: 2 national titles
Big 12: 0 national titles
Hmm, let's see who's better. Hmm, this is tough. The ACC, maybe?



> motigs already mention that the big 12 was mainly put toegher for football and other sports. TGhe Southwest confercne was going down the toliet, and the top 4 schools in SWC came to the Big 8 to join them. In 1995, Big 8 was one of the best basketball conferences in the nation. In the 1980's, the Big 8 was amazing.. HTat top to bottom was a good confernece. K-state was even a good team aka Mitch Richmond was one aspect. But anyway. Big 12 in the fisrtt years was mostly football, they finally getting better in basketball. I personally tink the origional big 8 teams helped the Texas schools.
> 
> Ok you say Iowa State is an easy team to beat. Don't make me laugh. Hilton is one of the most toughest arena to play in. The Iowa State fans love their basketball. They have been in the lower half sicne losing Fizer and Tinsley, but they are a team to reckon with.
> 
> ...


So, you're saying those teams are not exactly doormats. Fine. What does it have ANYTHING to do with the Big 12 being a better conference than the ACC?


----------



## kansasalumn (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TerpBurp</b>!
> 
> 
> Guess what, the Big 12 is ALWAYS going to be younger than the ACC. Yeah, think about it.  Just because you're young, doesn't mean we can't compare the ACC with the Big 12. You know what, let's compare records within the last 6 years then.
> ...


I am showing that the Big 12 is not TOP HEAVY like this lakeshow is talking about. I am saying that these teams are good solid teams, and should NOT be taken easy.


----------



## kansasalumn (Jun 9, 2002)

I am going to get this topic a conclusion.

Ready??

First it is WAY TOO EARLY this season to see who is best conference ACC or the Big 12.

Last season, the Big 12 was the Best conference bar and none. Enough siad. Yes Maryland won! WOoppy. they won!. That does not make the ACC the best conference last season.

Previously, yes the ACC was a superior conference than the Big 12. Duh Before it was really only KU, OU, MU, and Iowa State (Big 8 schools). 

Before that the Big 8 was a better conference. Everyone won minus maybe Neb and Colorado. 

I think this who thread started b/c UNC bea KU. Wow, a powerhouse beat another powerhouse. 

To see who is the better conference now, just have to wait for the season to be over with. Plus it does not matter which conference won the National Championship. If that is true, lets say UMKCwon, does that make Mid Con.the best conference. Nope. In lakesshow arguement, that does not make sense. He says who win the Championshoip makes the confernece better and the best. 

Yes ACC in history is the best conference LATELY! How bout the Big 10? They historically a good conference. How about the Pac 10? Before the BIg 12, the Big 8 was one of the best as well. Or How about the SEC? Just everyone has their own opinon. 

My opinon last season and this seasn the Big 12 was the best ever. Beofre that in the 1990's it was a split between the Big 10 and the ACC. In the 1980's, I feel it was the Big 8. 1970's, I feel well does not matter b/c I was born in 78. 

Conversation is closed.


----------



## TerpBurp (Sep 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kansasalumn</b>!
> First it is WAY TOO EARLY this season to see who is best conference ACC or the Big 12.


Agree. But so far, looks like the ACC has a small lead.



> Last season, the Big 12 was the Best conference bar and none. Enough siad. Yes Maryland won! WOoppy. they won!. That does not make the ACC the best conference last season.


Maybe I'm missing something here, but isn't the point of playing college BB is so that you win the championship? Hello? So Maryland's championship meant NOTHING? Huh?  
But let me just play along here. Maryland was the best team last season. Duke was ranked #1 most of the time until they lost to Indiana. The Big 12 had Kansas and OU in the Final Four, but both teams lost their first games in the FF. And you're saying the Big 12 was better? How?



> To see who is the better conference now, just have to wait for the season to be over with.


Isn't the point of having a discussion board is so that fans can discuss DURING the season? If you want to wait till the end of the season, be my guest. Right now, I proclaim the ACC to be better due to their better records. 



> Plus it does not matter which conference won the National Championship. If that is true, lets say UMKCwon, does that make Mid Con.the best conference. Nope. In lakesshow arguement, that does not make sense. He says who win the Championshoip makes the confernece better and the best.


No, dont put your words in his mouth. He said the ACC was better because we have MORE titles and MORE FF appearances over a long period of time (15 years).



> Yes ACC in history is the best conference LATELY! How bout the Big 10? They historically a good conference. How about the Pac 10? Before the BIg 12, the Big 8 was one of the best as well. Or How about the SEC? Just everyone has their own opinon.


We are only comparing the ACC and the Big 12 here. 



> My opinon last season and this seasn the Big 12 was the best ever.


Do you have any facts to back that up? Like win-loss records or something.


----------



## hunterb14 (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TerpBurp</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yea two teams in the final four is better than one right?SDuke should have been there except JWill cant make free throws but that is a n issue to discuss at a later date.

Big 12 was clearly better last year having OU, Texas, and Kansas while the ACC had only Maryland and Duke.

Lets wait till March then we can say which confrence is better ths year.


----------



## THELAKESHOW (Oct 9, 2002)

*WHY CAN"T THE BIG 12 WIN A TITLE?*



> Originally posted by <b>kansasalumn</b>!
> I am going to get this topic a conclusion.
> 
> Ready??
> ...




If the Big 12's "fans" think they have a better conference because of last years 2 teams in the Final Four, then fine. You guys standards are so much lower than the ACC's, where the goal is to win National Championships. Thats funny when you think about it, because none of you Big 12 "fans" back anything up with stats. I also know that the Big 12 is a new conference and thought I'd be gracious enough to include KU's 1988 title so it isnt REALLY ugly. So, let me say this then, THE BIG 12 HAS NEVER WON A TITLE!!! NOBODY!! And stop trying to talk up your scrub , cellar-dweller into good teams, because they are not, the top teams in the Big 12 get to pad their scheduals with cupcake wins from scrubs. The ACC is loaded top to bottom, with future NBA stars. You don't get any/many nights off in the ACC. Why can't you guys prove it with stats instead of you biased opinions, I may be biased, but at least I can argue my case with stats. 

It is obvious that the BIG 12 hasn't won a big stakes game, ever!!! The ACC thrives on it. Who ever said Duke is overrated is someone I would never want on my side, so lets hope we don't convince him of anything. Duke is the best program in the country, and that is the fact of the matter. Carolina has been to more Final Fours than anyone, and won 4 titles themseleves. Maryland throttled K-Pew last year on there way to the title. And this year, 75% of the McDonalds AA's are in the ACC, we reload, not rebuild!!! 

And did I mention that UNC thumped Kansas/ Roy"I can't win the big one" Williams? What a backdoor clinic, and this is supposed to be the team led by the best coach in the country? Whatever. 

Just once, only once, can ANYBODY from the Big 12 or frickin Big 8 or Big 24 or whatever you are, PLEASE WIN A BIG GAME? Please, go get at least 1 title, so this can be an argument.


----------



## TerpBurp (Sep 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>hunterb14</b>!
> Yea two teams in the final four is better than one right?


Yes, but one team winning it all is better than two teams in the FF. Let's try this anology. In the Olympics, would you rather have one Gold medal or two Bronze medals?

I hate Duke as much as the next person but they did have a good year. They were ranked #1 for the most part and had very impressive overall record. They lost to Indiana. So did OU. I'm not saying they had a better year than OU but it was very close.


----------



## THELAKESHOW (Oct 9, 2002)

*Great Point....*



> Originally posted by <b>TerpBurp</b>!
> 
> 
> Yes, but one team winning it all is better than two teams in the FF. Let's try this anology. In the Olympics, would you rather have one Gold medal or two Bronze medals?
> ...


Maybe the BIG 12 should take up a new motto, "its not weither you win or lose, its that you are brave in the attempt." Special Olympics.

They always are playing for the broze medal, and they never win the gold. They are two different standards to measure by, the Big 12's is to contend, the ACC's is to win. Period.


----------



## pharcyde (Jun 22, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TerpBurp</b>!
> 
> 
> Do you have any facts to back that up? Like win-loss records or something.


I'd be interested to see an actual win-loss record myself. Titles and FF's tell a lot, but they don't tell the whole picture. The Big XII style of basketball is much different from the ACC style, which explains why they don't win as much in march. They play a more physical style of ball, and in the tournament it depends on what refs are doing the game. ACC refs and Big XII refs call games differently. If the ACC and Big XII had a tournament, like the ACC Big 10 challenge, it would depend on where the games were played and who's refs were used.


----------



## pharcyde (Jun 22, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>hunterb14</b>!
> 
> 
> Yea two teams in the final four is better than one right?SDuke should have been there except JWill cant make free throws but that is a n issue to discuss at a later date.
> ...


Don't forget Missouri. They were in the elite eight last season.


----------



## pharcyde (Jun 22, 2002)

*Re: WHY CAN"T THE BIG 12 WIN A TITLE?*



> Originally posted by <b>THELAKESHOW</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


First of all, you are the most biased on in this discussion, and the only stats you've used is the championships. Try finding season records, ACC vs. Big XII games(all teams not just the ones that fit your arguement), and stuff like that. You really haven't used stats at all to back yourself up. We've at least used unbiased opinions. And if you really want an unbiased opinion, check out espn or some place like that. They actually have an east coast biase, but they'll tell you that the Big XII is better this year. And you keep saying that Duke is the best program, but they got knocked out in the Sweet 16 by Indiana. You keep going back and forth on what makes a team great, saying crap like Duke was number 1 almost all year, so they're better than everyone else, then saying regular season games don't matter, just who wins the championship.


----------



## pharcyde (Jun 22, 2002)

*Re: Great Point....*



> Originally posted by <b>THELAKESHOW</b>!
> 
> 
> Maybe the BIG 12 should take up a new motto, "its not weither you win or lose, its that you are brave in the attempt." Special Olympics.
> ...


Mocking the special olympics.... how low can a person go?


----------



## THELAKESHOW (Oct 9, 2002)

*Re: Re: WHY CAN"T THE BIG 12 WIN A TITLE?*



> Originally posted by <b>moTIGS</b>!
> 
> 
> First of all, you are the most biased on in this discussion, and the only stats you've used is the championships. Try finding season records, ACC vs. Big XII games(all teams not just the ones that fit your arguement), and stuff like that. You really haven't used stats at all to back yourself up. We've at least used unbiased opinions. And if you really want an unbiased opinion, check out espn or some place like that. They actually have an east coast biase, but they'll tell you that the Big XII is better this year. And you keep saying that Duke is the best program, but they got knocked out in the Sweet 16 by Indiana. You keep going back and forth on what makes a team great, saying crap like Duke was number 1 almost all year, so they're better than everyone else, then saying regular season games don't matter, just who wins the championship.





It is obvious that you just don't get it. So, I propose that we have a criteria to determine who is the best. For example:

1. Overall winning percentage from what ever time period you want. Minimum of 5 years though.
2. Non-Conference winning percentage
3. Head to head
4. Final Fours
5. National Championships
6. NCAA winning percentage

If you can think of other criteria, please feel free. But, if you are scared, just say you're scared, don't dodge it.


----------



## pharcyde (Jun 22, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: WHY CAN"T THE BIG 12 WIN A TITLE?*



> Originally posted by <b>THELAKESHOW</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ok.... you've brought up the actual numbers to fit TWO of those categories, championships and final fours, and not the actual numbers, just saying the ACC has more, and you haven't provided a link to any of your sources. You're the one who started this whole thing about the ACC being better, so if you want people to believe you then you should look up all that stuff and provide links to the sites you get the info from. But I doubt you actually go out and do that, you haven't shown anything to lead me to believe that you're a person intelligent enough to actually find all that stuff.


----------



## THELAKESHOW (Oct 9, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: WHY CAN"T THE BIG 12 WIN A TITLE?*



> Originally posted by <b>moTIGS</b>!
> 
> 
> Ok.... you've brought up the actual numbers to fit TWO of those categories, championships and final fours, and not the actual numbers, just saying the ACC has more, and you haven't provided a link to any of your sources. You're the one who started this whole thing about the ACC being better, so if you want people to believe you then you should look up all that stuff and provide links to the sites you get the info from. But I doubt you actually go out and do that, you haven't shown anything to lead me to believe that you're a person intelligent enough to actually find all that stuff.


So then. What you are saying is that you agree on this criteria and that it is a fair way to end this argument, right? I say we can start from the BiG 12's conception to the present, fair enough? I will look it all up and provide links, deal? Or are you scared?


----------



## pharcyde (Jun 22, 2002)

We'll either do it from a lot earlier or a lot later. Starting from the beginning of the Big XII isn't as accurate as it could be. Many teams have gone through serious changes since then(Missouri, Texas, and Oklahoma in particular). Starting earlier would provide a more thorough investigation. Either do it from like '85 or '88 or for the past three seasons.


----------



## THELAKESHOW (Oct 9, 2002)

*Then we will do from a lot later*



> Originally posted by <b>moTIGS</b>!
> We'll either do it from a lot earlier or a lot later. Starting from the beginning of the Big XII isn't as accurate as it could be. Many teams have gone through serious changes since then(Missouri, Texas, and Oklahoma in particular). Starting earlier would provide a more thorough investigation. Either do it from like '85 or '88 or for the past three seasons.




The Big 12 didnt exist then, so that would be pointless in this discussion. Why not go back 5 years? How would that be less accurate than 3 yrs? Eiether way, you get proven wrong, but its [strike]fun seeing you squirm though.[/strike]

Please do not insult motigs That is very uncall for. One of our terms here is not too mock and insult other users. Thanks---kansasalumn


----------



## pharcyde (Jun 22, 2002)

Yeah, I'm squirming alright....

It wouldn't be that hard to look at the teams from the Big 8 and throw in the four texas schools that got thrown in.

Actually, maybe the best way to look at this would be to look at the past 15years, then the past 7 or 8, then the past 3 or 4, or something like that.


----------



## THELAKESHOW (Oct 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>moTIGS</b>!
> Yeah, I'm squirming alright....
> 
> It wouldn't be that hard to look at the teams from the Big 8 and throw in the four texas schools that got thrown in.
> ...



I will comprimize, 1990 is the start year, fair enough? 12 years?


----------



## pharcyde (Jun 22, 2002)

Conveniently cutting off KU's title, but I really don't care. The end result will be you finding some way to twist it, no matter what the results say, into the ACC being better.


----------



## THELAKESHOW (Oct 9, 2002)

*I will give you the 88' title then*



> Originally posted by <b>moTIGS</b>!
> Conveniently cutting off KU's title, but I really don't care. The end result will be you finding some way to twist it, no matter what the results say, into the ACC being better.



No opinions, just facts. And a criteria we both agree on, simple as that. You may actually learn something too. Look at who IS squirming, you are already downplaying the results and we have even decided the criteria. LOL. That is very fair criteria for both sides, and I'll give you the 88' title and give you another just because the results are not going to even be close, deal? Or perhaps you have better criteria, like, "who wins the most games in November after 9pm est"? Deal? Don't squirm now!


----------



## THELAKESHOW (Oct 9, 2002)

*That is what I thought you would do...squirm!*

Just admit it dude, you know what the results will be. You can't run from the facts.


----------



## THELAKESHOW (Oct 9, 2002)

Come on moTIGS, why you runnin?


----------



## hunterb14 (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>THELAKESHOW</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> I will comprimize, 1990 is the start year, fair enough? 12 years?


If i remember the Big 12 hasnt been around since then

pondering......................


----------



## hunterb14 (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>THELAKESHOW</b>!
> Come on moTIGS, why you runnin?


I dont think he is running and i stand beside him on the issue that in YOUR criteria you have only proven to us 2 of 6. 

And whats with the whole your running our scared? Why would he be? YOu have made accusations which you have yet to fully back up


----------



## THELAKESHOW (Oct 9, 2002)

*Dude, you can't read or write very well...*



> Originally posted by <b>hunterb14</b>!
> 
> 
> I dont think he is running and i stand beside him on the issue that in YOUR criteria you have only proven to us 2 of 6.
> ...



If you will have someone read you the earlier posts, you will see that we were debating what criteria would be used. He is running from the issue now, because he knows he is wrong. And once there is an agreed criteria, I will provide you with ALL the needed proof to end this subject once and for all.


----------



## hunterb14 (Jun 12, 2002)

Ok Criteria

both confrences stats start from the year the Big 12 was made.

1. national championships
2. Final Fours
3. Won- loss ratio overall for all teams in confrence
4. won loss ratio for all teams against the opposing confrence
5. sweet 16 appearences
6. NCAA winning percentage
7. non confrence winning percentage
8. players from each confrence to make it to the pros

You said you would give the stats if you gave the criteria so have at it 

Oh yeah, please site your source


----------



## pharcyde (Jun 22, 2002)

*Running? No, I just have a life*

Instead of sitting here debating all day about the validity of your accusations against the Big XII, comparing them to Special Olympians <strike>(anyone who does that is a terrible person by the way.</strike>(Although I might agree that the physically impaired should NEVER be used as a comparison issue, we still have to NOT accuse someone of being a terrible person. That is a personal attack. -TRM) 
Those people can't help the way they are, and in reality, their motto is a pretty good one), I've decided to do other things. I realize that some people's lives do not extend beyond the keyboard, and I feel sorry for those people, but that does not mean I'm going to sit here all day and make their life more important.

I don't give a crap what the criteria is, but hunterb's look fine, except pro players, because that's got nothing to do with playing in college. A lot of those guys play a year then bolt, so they don't have time to impact their teams.


----------



## kansasalumn (Jun 9, 2002)

*Re: Great Point....*



> Originally posted by <b>THELAKESHOW</b>!
> 
> 
> Maybe the BIG 12 should take up a new motto, "its not weither you win or lose, its that you are brave in the attempt." Special Olympics.
> ...


That is very uncall for. I am a dedicted voluteer for the Special Olympics, and that is very uncall for to use their motto for this arguement. That is very bad taste. My best friend has down syndome, and he won a gold in bowling. Can you please apology on using this motto for the arguement we are having? Every single time I read this line by you, I get sick in my stomach. I would appreciate that you don't use any those kind of lines in here anymoe. I feel that is a big insult for the Special Olympics, Big 12, motigs, myself, and others.


----------



## THELAKESHOW (Oct 9, 2002)

*I aologize...*

Even though my comment was not intended to insult the special olympics, it was out of line. I commend everyone involved with the SO, and my comment was intended to emphasize a different point. Reguardless, it was out of line, and I apologize for the reference to it. Won't happen again, thanks.


----------



## TheRifleman (May 20, 2002)

*Apology accepted*

Your public apology is accepted and now that we know that passion for this great game can make us say things that may be offensive to others, let's keep this game in perspective, okay?


----------



## pharcyde (Jun 22, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>THELAKESHOW</b>!
> Come on moTIGS, why you runnin?


So are you having trouble finding the facts, or did they just end up different than you were hoping?


----------



## kansasalumn (Jun 9, 2002)

*Re: I aologize...*



> Originally posted by <b>THELAKESHOW</b>!
> Even though my comment was not intended to insult the special olympics, it was out of line. I commend everyone involved with the SO, and my comment was intended to emphasize a different point. Reguardless, it was out of line, and I apologize for the reference to it. Won't happen again, thanks.


Thank you.


----------



## THELAKESHOW (Oct 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>moTIGS</b>!
> 
> 
> So are you having trouble finding the facts, or did they just end up different than you were hoping?



These stats are going to take awile to get together, because this is a lot of information, but I will do it. Does anyone know where helpful links will be? The Final Fours, titles, sweet 16's, and NBA players will be easy. Non-conference, head to head, etc. will be more difficult. Anybody know of links? Thanks


----------



## hunterb14 (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>THELAKESHOW</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> These stats are going to take awile to get together, because this is a lot of information, but I will do it. Does anyone know where helpful links will be? The Final Fours, titles, sweet 16's, and NBA players will be easy. Non-conference, head to head, etc. will be more difficult. Anybody know of links? Thanks


I dont know but i would check ESPN and if College bball has a hom,e site like the nba does then i might check there


----------

