Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

It's happened once. In 1998, #16 Harvard took out #1 Stanford.

I'm wondering if anyone thinks there's a chance of it happening today, particularly with #1 Notre Dame....

No

89Hen wrote:No

This

Or CCU beating Wisconsin? It won't happen but I wouldn't be upset if it did.

We're it not for Kelly Olnyk and his 21 pts Southern would have joined Harvard in '13 playing vs Gonzaga.

dal4018 wrote:We're it not for Kelly Olnyk and his 21 pts Southern would have joined Harvard in '13 playing vs Gonzaga.

So?

Southern failed. End of story.

Last year I filled out a bracket on ESPN just for fun and I picked chalk the whole way through... I almost won the damn thing. Looks like there were only 6 "upsets" in the first round this year, none higher than an 11 seed.

89Hen wrote:Last year I filled out a bracket on ESPN just for fun and I picked chalk the whole way through... I almost won the damn thing. Looks like there were only 6 "upsets" in the first round this year, none higher than an 11 seed.

Are the two 13s over 4s not considered 'upsets'?

bandl wrote:

89Hen wrote:Last year I filled out a bracket on ESPN just for fun and I picked chalk the whole way through... I almost won the damn thing. Looks like there were only 6 "upsets" in the first round this year, none higher than an 11 seed.

Are the two 13s over 4s not considered 'upsets'?

Look who started this thread... you think this is about the mens' tourney?

bandl wrote:

89Hen wrote:Last year I filled out a bracket on ESPN just for fun and I picked chalk the whole way through... I almost won the damn thing. Looks like there were only 6 "upsets" in the first round this year, none higher than an 11 seed.

Are the two 13s over 4s not considered 'upsets'?

He's talking about dykeball.

Is Princeton still alive?

Grizalltheway wrote:

bandl wrote: Are the two 13s over 4s not considered 'upsets'?

He's talking about dykeball.

About what?

89Hen wrote:

bandl wrote: Are the two 13s over 4s not considered 'upsets'?

Look who started this thread... you think this is about the mens' tourney?

Grizalltheway wrote:

bandl wrote: Are the two 13s over 4s not considered 'upsets'?

He's talking about dykeball.

Boxketball.

SuperHornet wrote:It's happened once. In 1998, #16 Harvard took out #1 Stanford.

I'm wondering if anyone thinks there's a chance of it happening today, particularly with #1 Notre Dame....

Notre Dame is a #3 seed.

And a #16 has never beaten a #1.

BDKJMU wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:It's happened once. In 1998, #16 Harvard took out #1 Stanford.

I'm wondering if anyone thinks there's a chance of it happening today, particularly with #1 Notre Dame....

Notre Dame is a #3 seed.

And a #16 has never beaten a #1.

You obviously didn't bother to read any of the intervening posts.

SuperHornet wrote:

BDKJMU wrote:
Notre Dame is a #3 seed.

And a #16 has never beaten a #1.

You obviously didn't bother to read any of the intervening posts.

Just like 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999996939999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of people don't give a flying fuck about womens basketball.

The only reason 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999996939999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of womens programs exist is Title IX.

The 100% only reason the WNBA exists is the NBA allows it too. If they wanted they could shut the league down tomorrow

clenz wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:
You obviously didn't bother to read any of the intervening posts.

Just like 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999996939999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of people don't give a flying fuck about womens basketball.

The only reason 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999996939999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of womens programs exist is Title IX.

The 100% only reason the WNBA exists is the NBA allows it too. If they wanted they could shut the league down tomorrow

Who would want to play for the WNBA and make hundreds of dollars a year?

One of their top players just went to Russia to get $1.5 million when she was making about $100,000 (about league max) in the WNBA. Apparently, the coaches make $250,000 in the WNBA.

tribe_pride wrote:One of their top players just went to Russia to get $1.5 million when she was making about $100,000 (about league max) in the WNBA. Apparently, the coaches make $250,000 in the WNBA.

All 100% subsidized by NBA advertising $

Not disagreeing at all. Is the Russian league really that good though that they can pay these amounts or do they get nice subsidies too?

tribe_pride wrote:Not disagreeing at all. Is the Russian league really that good though that they can pay these amounts or do they get nice subsidies too?

Not sure what would be subsidizing them.


Look at professional salaries all over Europe. None of them match the NBA/NFL/MLB (outside of the pro soccer leagues) but they are all extremely high. Most pro basketball players in Europe make way more than they would in the NBADL or as a last man on the bench at the NBA minimum. Many teams pay the taxes on their salaries as well so they end up getting 100% of their quoted salar

Ivytalk wrote:Is Princeton still alive?

If your talking about the women unfortunately they are out courtesy of Maryland 31-1!!!!

Cluck U wrote:

dal4018 wrote:We're it not for Kelly Olnyk and his 21 pts Southern would have joined Harvard in '13 playing vs Gonzaga.

So?

Southern failed. End of story.

Yes they failed.

SuperHornet wrote:It's happened once. In 1998, #16 Harvard took out #1 Stanford.

I'm wondering if anyone thinks there's a chance of it happening today, particularly with #1 Notre Dame....

Because of that Allison Feaster (Harvard)was taken 10th overall in the '98 WNBA draft.Probably the only player taken in the draft from a Ivy League school.