Topic: To the few illogical folks saying we haven't won a tourney
Replies: 115   Last Post: Mar 22, 2011 12:02 PM by: deleted
This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.

[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
Replies: 115  

To the few illogical folks saying we haven't won a tourney

Posted: Mar 17, 2011 6:45 PM

game, here's an update:

In 2011, the NCAA expanded the TOURNAMENT to 68 teams.

We won the game the NCAA placed us in, therefore Clemson won an NCAA Tournament game. Period.

Re: To the few illogical folks saying we haven't won a tourney

Posted: Mar 17, 2011 6:55 PM

according to the ncaa we were 1-1.i'll take that,as long as we we build on it.rome wasn't built in a day.


Agreed. We beat a 12 seed, same as if we were a 5.***

Posted: Mar 17, 2011 6:55 PM

That's a lame stance.

Posted: Mar 17, 2011 6:55 PM

In a seeded tournament, you should play against a team with a seed proportional to the one you earned from the regular season. You DON'T get to play someone of the same seeded ability as you have.


I loved how much our team improved this year. I love Brownlee. But we really needed to win this game today to say that we've "won an NCAA tourney game."

We DID, however, get totally hosed by the NCAA's misguided and overlooked scheduling of this new "First Four" nonsense.

It's not my stance. It's the NCAA's. They are the ruling

Posted: Mar 17, 2011 7:02 PM

authority on the matter, and they say you're dead wrong. Your baseless opinion has been trumped.

I sincerely hope you don't voice this "stance" to our rivals

Posted: Mar 17, 2011 7:09 PM

... because it just looks pathetic.

"Look, they've created a new round of games for us, and we won one of them! We've TOTALLY now won a tourney game, just like the other teams that have won tournament games for the last 25 years! Haha!"

^ That is a sad, sad thing to proclaim. Sad.

And, c'mon, the NCAA is a bunch of fools. That has been proven over and over and over and over again the last couple of years. Their rulings, over and over, are hypocritical and "baseless." They are spineless criminals that intend only to make the most money possible, with little regard to integrity and fairness for the student-athlete that is repeatedly exploited by their "amateur" system of athletics. Their authority on any matter ought to be considered only with the utmost of suspicion and usually, disdain.

Wow. You're kinda dense huh?

Posted: Mar 17, 2011 7:14 PM

Look, cuatthefinishline, again, it's not my stance to decide. What are you having trouble understanding here?

Re: I sincerely hope you don't voice this "stance" to our rivals

Posted: Mar 17, 2011 7:15 PM

Agreed, unfortunately for our student athletes. Some "tournament" experience they got to have, huh?
My rant will follow shortly.

The NCAA disagrees.

Posted: Mar 17, 2011 7:17 PM

They are the ruling body. Not sure how a few of you are letting your "feelings" get in the way of fact.

Yes, you've said this same thing ten times now

Posted: Mar 17, 2011 7:47 PM

We get it. The NCAA makes the rules.

But c'mon. Think about this for a second. The NCAA willy-nilly makes a new thing where they let in a few more teams and instead of playing a 5-seed from the beginning, we play a less-deserving-than-us team in our first game. This is not how tournaments work. You play a 5 seed if you're a twelve. Not another "12."



Posted: Mar 18, 2011 11:48 PM

How many times has the NCAA tournament field been expanded?

Whether or not the NCAA makes some bad decisions or not has nothing to do with this. It was an NCAA tournament win, regardless.

We did win a tournament game. Period.

Posted: Mar 19, 2011 12:04 AM

Whether or not you brag about it, well, that is your decision. It is stupid to argue whether or not me won. It was a 68 team tournament and we won. That doesn't mean it was fair or perfectly crafted as a tournament, but we won a game.

You're absolutely correct

Posted: Mar 20, 2011 7:59 AM

Clemson won a tournament game.

But the old saying, "Winning a game in the tournament" doesn't mean the same thing it meant last year.


"Smelley, Garcia, and Beecher are going to lead you to 4-8." - york_tiger

i'm 55 and just don't remeber that being an old saying ;-)***

Posted: Mar 20, 2011 11:59 AM

2020 purple level memberbadge-donor-20yr.jpg

It doesn't mean the same thing as when there were 32 teams

Posted: Mar 20, 2011 1:22 PM

either. Your point?

Re: The NCAA disagrees.

Posted: Mar 17, 2011 8:34 PM

exactly what is it your not getting?

On the contrary, I completely understand.***

Posted: Mar 18, 2011 11:49 PM

Re: I sincerely hope you don't voice this "stance" to our rivals

Posted: Mar 17, 2011 9:26 PM

Does your gamecocks the consolation games they one as tourney wins? I think we all know the answer to that because if they did not they would only have what 2 tourney wins

Why do you care so much what our rivals apparently think?

Posted: Mar 20, 2011 10:30 AM

They are our rivals, they're going to make fun of us no matter what we do. They'll make fun of us for being in a so-called play-in game despite not making the tourney themselves, just like many of us made fun of them for losing to FSU when they had beaten the crap out of us the month before.


OK one question for you.

Posted: Mar 19, 2011 11:33 AM

Do you count the Duke wins over 16th seed like Hampton? Was our game any easier?

2020 white level member

your points are idiotic! this entire post smells like a

Posted: Mar 19, 2011 4:56 PM


Re: To the few illogical folks saying we haven't won a tourney

Posted: Mar 17, 2011 7:00 PM

Cut the crap. You know exactly what people mean. We had to win that game to GET IN to the 64 team tournament. Not a tourney win regardless of what the abortion called the NCAA says. Just doesn't pass the smell test. Watch for my vent, still to come.

Sure, I understand what people think they mean.

Posted: Mar 17, 2011 7:02 PM

But they are wrong.

Re: Sure, I understand what people think they mean.

Posted: Mar 17, 2011 7:12 PM

I'm sure that if you've followed the tournament for a number of years, you'd be willing to agree that the play-in win does not "feel" like a tournament win, which in my mind, is all that matters. That is not the fault of our players, it just is what it is. Given that teams like Michigan, Michigan St, Tennessee, Penn St, etc. got in ahead of us, we should have never been in this position.

The NCAA expanded the tourney. It was a tournament game.

Posted: Mar 17, 2011 7:15 PM

Therefore it was a tournament win. Ask the NCAA. Your "feeling" has nothing to do with it.

But if we had never been thrown down to the first 4

Posted: Mar 17, 2011 8:26 PM

With the likes of UAB and UNC Ashville, we would have never had our "tournament win" that we seem to me touting so highly. So, how were we hosed on that? The only time we have been hosed was last night by PC

Yeah, we shouldn't have been in the 1st round....

Posted: Mar 18, 2011 11:54 PM

No doubt the situation we had to try and fight thru had a negative effect.. There's no doubt we deserved better too.

Re: To the few illogical folks saying we haven't won a tourney

Posted: Mar 17, 2011 7:16 PM

Ask Va Tech,they're still fussing because they didn't get in.

agreed..but you can't deny the frustration of

Posted: Mar 17, 2011 7:26 PM

being 4-0 in picking the 4 play-ins, but i'm "officially" now 1-3 so far, in the "second" round..the ncaa (and i) say we won an ncaa tournament game..but none of my pools recognize it.

true, you won your play-in game to the field of 64

Posted: Mar 17, 2011 7:40 PM

CU will get credit for a NCAA win in the new "first round". It is not as good as winning a traditional first round game, but it beats being UAB or teams not invited.

Simply, it is what it is and it is what it appears to be.

Re: true, you won your play-in game to the field of 64

Posted: Mar 17, 2011 7:43 PM

when did "first" round become new? Is that coot math? Could have sworn first has always come before second. Just because more teams were added, first round did not disappear.

the play in game is now called the first round thus " new"

Posted: Mar 17, 2011 7:51 PM

if you have not noticed, all the brackets online have their first round as the traditional first round.

usually the first 64 out of 68 teams do not get a bye. This year I guess they did.

If you cannot understand that the first round is different than in previous years you are an idiot.

Re: the play in game is now called the first round thus " new"

Posted: Mar 17, 2011 9:32 PM

"if you have not noticed, all the brackets online have their first round as the traditional first round."


Look what is above Clemson's game. I may be slow but that looks like FIRST ROUND and what is that above today's games?
Looks like someone does not know what they are talking about


Posted: Mar 17, 2011 9:33 PM

I never said the first was not different....you said it is new. Nothing new about first round. It has always comes before second round...which is being played today. But, it is different. You can say they added a new first round, but I say they added one more round to the end of the tournament, Every bracket I have seen online has today's games as second round.

And the name calling is very classy of you.

Re: lol....

Posted: Mar 17, 2011 9:36 PM

"Every bracket I have seen online has today's games as second round. "

Every bracket I have seen online has today's games as second round.

Guess you did not look at espn

Re: lol....

Posted: Mar 17, 2011 9:40 PM

You mean this bracket:


2020 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

Re: lol....

Posted: Mar 17, 2011 9:41 PM

Thanks forgot to paste the link lol

Re: lol....

Posted: Mar 17, 2011 9:40 PM

Did not look at cbssports either



Posted: Mar 17, 2011 10:09 PM

the links you give for espn and cbs say exactly what I said...second round

Re: huh???

Posted: Mar 17, 2011 10:26 PM

My bad I saw the others saying they had today listed as first round. Been a LONG day at work and then had to have practice for my kids t-ball and softball teams

not even worth responding to this sandlapper***

Posted: Mar 17, 2011 10:16 PM


"Smelley, Garcia, and Beecher are going to lead you to 4-8." - york_tiger

no reason to respond... he's wrong***

Posted: Mar 17, 2011 10:20 PM

2020 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

why?? because he is wrong?***

Posted: Mar 17, 2011 10:20 PM

How many have we won since your last? And were you

Posted: Mar 19, 2011 12:01 AM

even born when uSC won their last one?

Does it really matter?

Posted: Mar 19, 2011 11:57 AM

Neither program has even sniffed making a real impact in the tournament.


"Smelley, Garcia, and Beecher are going to lead you to 4-8." - york_tiger

Re: Does it really matter?

Posted: Mar 19, 2011 12:06 PM

We at least made it.

When was usc's last visit to the tournament?

When was usc's last win in the tournament?

Which loss in the tournament was most embarrassing:
Coppin State

2020 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg


Congratulations on being slighty less irrelevant than Caroli***

Posted: Mar 19, 2011 12:10 PM


"Smelley, Garcia, and Beecher are going to lead you to 4-8." - york_tiger

BS. A lot better, and you know it toogof09...

Posted: Mar 20, 2011 2:56 AM

And yeah, it's only the second leading revenue sport. No bid deal huh?

LOL. Are you seriously trying to debate this, or are you just pretending to be slow? Are you okay Bols?

Didn't you lose to South Carolina?***

Posted: Mar 20, 2011 7:57 AM


"Smelley, Garcia, and Beecher are going to lead you to 4-8." - york_tiger

Yeah. But of course you know you'd get squashed like a bug

Posted: Mar 20, 2011 2:11 PM

if we were to play again. We made tremendous strides as the year went along. Our seasons went in different directions, and our 1st year coach did better than your 3rd year coach. Overall your coach is showing a steady backwards progression...no wonder you're bitter.

Your pathetic dancing, toogs, is getting you nowhere as usual. Yet again you're showing your lack of character.

Lots of if in that equation***

Posted: Mar 20, 2011 3:28 PM


"Smelley, Garcia, and Beecher are going to lead you to 4-8." - york_tiger

Yet again.. complete nonsense and a lack of character.

Posted: Mar 20, 2011 8:14 PM

Typical toogs. You poor thing.

Once again you hold your football program by one

Posted: Mar 20, 2011 8:16 PM


and our baksetball program by another standard....


"Smelley, Garcia, and Beecher are going to lead you to 4-8." - york_tiger

I'd ask "what are you talking about toogie?" but you'd just

Posted: Mar 20, 2011 8:29 PM

post more typical tangential nonsense and fail to address your clear character issues.

Again, just typical toogie. Issues.

Please allow me to help.

Posted: Mar 19, 2011 12:12 PM

When was usc's last visit to the tournament?

When was usc's last win in the tournament?
How old were you then?

Which loss in the tournament was most embarrassing:
Coppin State - Probably this one since they were a 15 seed
Richmond - Close - since they were a 14 seed

These teams were pretty good back then.

2020 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg


Pffft. No big deal.

Posted: Mar 20, 2011 2:57 AM


The field was 68. And we didn't belong in the bottom 4.***

Posted: Mar 18, 2011 11:56 PM

This argument is ridiculous

Posted: Mar 17, 2011 7:43 PM

Yes, it is in the record books as a tournament win. However, I doubt very seriously anyone has the same feeling after we beat UAB, as they did when Barnes' team beat Miami of Ohio in 1997.

Larry Shyatt won one of those Thursday night play in games when he was the coach, so he technically has the same amount of tournament wins as Brownell, but beating Boston College this year was much bigger.

Yes, it's in the record books, but not something that any Clemson fan I know in real life were all pumped about. The "first four" that they created this year were really four teams stuck between the NCAA and NIT, and I got about as excited over that win as an NIT win.

I don't think anyone is disrespecting what our team did this year, they did a remarkable job. But 1997 was the last time we made any noise at all in the tournament, period.

Re: This argument is ridiculous

Posted: Mar 17, 2011 8:39 PM

Thank you for this post. I've been feeling like I'm in the twilight zone for continuously answering this ridiculous post.

Re: This argument is ridiculous

Posted: Mar 17, 2011 9:53 PM

I do not see anyone saying that this was a better than 97. I think people are wondering why true Clemson fans are downgrading the win Tuesday night. In a few years it will be seen as an NCAA win in 2011 and not an NIT. one more NCAA win can not hurt recruiting

Larry Shyatt won an NCAA tournament game? Really?

Posted: Mar 19, 2011 12:05 AM


Clemson did win an NCAA tournament game in 2011. It doesn't matter how people felt after Miami of Ohio, and that's just your opinion anyway.

Re: Larry Shyatt won an NCAA tournament game? Really?

Posted: Mar 19, 2011 12:33 AM

I was talking about when Larry Shyatt won an ACC tournament play in game in the old 8/9 format. If your opinion is different that is fine.

So the answer is no. Thanks.***

Posted: Mar 19, 2011 12:38 AM

Not worth arguing about

Posted: Mar 19, 2011 12:57 AM

It's nice to say we have a recognized tournament win after all these years, but I am not jumping up and down about beating UAB, and losing to WVU. I realize it was a recognized tournament win, but why pick an argument with someone who simply was not as excited about that win as a win in the field of 64?

You're right, it's not... You can't argue the inarguable.

Posted: Mar 20, 2011 2:50 AM

So why are you trying?

Clemson won an NCAA tournament game in 2011.

Did you answer by the way?..I may have missed it?

Has the NCAA ever expanded the number of bids? If so, then how many times, and by how many teams each time? Thanks in advance.

The irony in your post

Posted: Mar 20, 2011 1:35 PM

Is amazing. You are the one who started this thread, and keep t-mailing me to keep me responding. I responded about the Larry Shyatt thing because I noticed I did not make it clear that I was talking about the ACC tournament, I am well aware Shyatt never even made it to the NCAA tournament.

I made one comment that the argument is ridiculous.

It is a fact that the NCAA had a new format this year, and we won a game in the new format, so we WON an NCAA tournament game. Why are you so riled up that I am not pumped about beating UAB in the first four? Why does it bother you that I was much more excited when we beat Miami of Ohio in round one in 1997? Why are you acting like I am knocking our team? If you are thrilled and were jumping up and down after beating UAB, then that is you, and I do not care if your feelings are different than mine.

We won an NCAA tournament game, but I would rather have made it to the field of 32 instead of 64. That is me, and I am sorry it just kills you that I feel that way.

There is no irony. You're full of it, making it up as you go

Posted: Mar 20, 2011 2:04 PM

along, and exhibiting an inability to admit when you're wrong.

You compared a Larry Shyatt ACC win to an NCAA tournament win and insinuated they were equal. Reality is it's not even close.

We were corresponding in tmails. That is, I replied to you just as you replied to me. You can also stop that nonsense.

I said we legitimately won an NCAA tournament game. You incorrectly challenged that. I couldn't care less how riled up you were; the simple fact cannot be challenged. So why do you continue to try? Get a grip man.

Does reading comprehension not apply here

Posted: Mar 20, 2011 3:34 PM

When people type long messages here, nobody likes to read long messages. In some cases, and it seems like yours is one, a full explanation of what I was saying is needed.

I have grown up watching Clemson basketball since a tiny kid, when there were 8 teams in the ACC. When you won an ACC tourney game back then, it was a pretty big deal. When FSU joined the league, it created an uneven amount of teams, and the ACC, with the exception of an experiment for a couple of years where they had the one playing the seven on Thursday, and then having Friday off, created an 8/9 Thursday night match up.

Larry Shyatt was involved in many of those 8/9 Thursday night match ups, and won one of them. Therefore, that counted as an ACC tournament win. It counted the same as if in the old school format Clemson was a 4 seed and beat a five seed. A tournament win is a tournament win in the record books.

I am comparing the way the field expanded this year, to when the ACC expanded the tournament when FSU joined the league, and then again when Miami, VT, and BC joined the league.

Most people did not get all giddy about Clemson winning the old 8/9 match up. But when Clemson won a 4/5 match up in the ACC tourney, it was a much bigger deal, but in the record books the total amount of wins are the same.

Why do you want to keep this going? What exactly did I make up? I said from the start that in the record books Clemson has an NCAA tournament win this year, it is a fact. But I, along with everyone else I have spoke with in real life, were about as excited over that as an NIT win, because all it did was put us in the same spot we have been in the previous three years, the field of 64.

What have I made up? I did not, and will not ever throw a celebration party if Clemson ever wins another game in the first four. Even though it counts the same as if we had beaten West Virginia, a tourney win, it did not and will not ever have the same feeling as advancing to the round of 32, not to me, but maybe you are a small minority who thinks so. And if you do I DO NOT CARE, that is you.

Once again, what have I made up?

Ask yourself that question...

Posted: Mar 20, 2011 8:25 PM

Go back and re-read this exchange from the beginning. I said, "To the few illogical folks saying we haven't won a tourney game...", then you proceeded to say, "This argument is ridiculous..". You've been typing a bunch of gibberish ever since.

First and foremost, it's not an argument. It's an irrefutable statement.. yet you continue to type NOTHING that counters anything.

Then you talk about "reading comprehension"? That's funny right there.

Can you at least try to man up? You have NO ARGUMENT for what I said, so what is it you think you're saying?

I already clearly pointed pointed out your "feelings" on the matter are irrelevant. We won an NCAA tournament game. Period. Just let it go man.

Nothing you said counters anything I said. And you used a lot more words than I. For crying out loud, just give it up.

I thought this was settled

Posted: Mar 20, 2011 8:39 PM

Dude, you are the one that can't give it up. You T-mailed me first, and I came to this thread to make a correction to make sure people knew what I meant by saying Larry Shyatt won an 8/9 game in the ACC tournament, and never reached the NCAA tournament or won an NCAA game, obviously.

How do you know what I meant when I said "This argument is ridiculous?" The reason I thought it was ridiculous was because under the new format, and in the record books, we won an NCAA tournament game. I was actually agreeing with you more than disagreeing. I thought the argument was ridiculous because it is obvious, as the announcers said the other night, "Clemson wins their first NCAA tournament game since 1997," therefore we won an NCAA tourney game, with no argument. You are arguing with someone who agrees that we won an NCAA game, and the people who do not like calling it a tourney win just can't get warm and fuzzy over winning a "first four" game.

I am one that does not get warm and fuzzy over the win, but am not in denial that we have a recognized NCAA tournament win. Basically everything I just typed is the same "gibberish" I have been explaining the whole time.

LOL. Wrong again.

Posted: Mar 20, 2011 8:45 PM

I said "to those arguing we didn't get an NCAA tournament win.."

You said, "this argument is ridiculous".

It's not an argument. It's irrefutable fact.

Your feelings on the matter or how you think others feel about it have NOTHING to do with what I said.

It's just as simple as that, yet you can't acknowledge it and let it go.

So I am not allowed to respond?

Posted: Mar 20, 2011 8:54 PM

I am not allowed to respond to my feelings about the people who say we did not win a tournament game, just because of your original message?

By the time I saw this thread there were like 20 to 30 responses, and I thought it was ridiculous to argue over something so trivial. I put my two cents in trying to sum up how many Clemson fans in the real world I know felt, and because you put to those arguing we didn't get a tourney win, I couldn't respond at all.

OK, you win. There has never been a thread on Tiger Net before where people responded to an argument where a poster was addressing people that he/she disagreed with....Yeah, Ok, you win. I will let you have the trophy, LOL.

Sure, you can post your feelings...

Posted: Mar 20, 2011 8:57 PM

But that doesn't mean my "argument (sic) is ridiculous". Again, there is no argument. You were flat out wrong and simply can't admit it.

Where did I say YOUR argument was ridiculous

Posted: Mar 20, 2011 9:06 PM

Link please? I said THIS AGRUMENT, meaning the SUBJECT that you were talking about. How can you not understand that?

There is no argument. Period.

Posted: Mar 20, 2011 9:08 PM

This is hilarious!

You are right

Posted: Mar 20, 2011 9:20 PM

The only thing I will admit that I messed up on was not clarifying that Larry Shyatt's tournament win was between the bottom feeders in the ACC tournament, not an NCAA tournament win, I can see there being confusion there.

People arguing that we did not win a tournament game is not an argument, because it is in the NCAA record books, so there is no argument. There, we finally agreed.

Yep. You messed up on Shyatt, and you messed up by saying

Posted: Mar 21, 2011 1:42 AM

there was anything refutable about what I said.

Yet again, how you "feel" about it and your wild guesses as to how the masses feel about it are COMPLETELY irrelevant.

Sorry, I do not agree with whatever point you think you're making there. Your reply to my original post and all the meaningless fluff that followed has zero bearing on my original post. I hope you can finally agree.

You are still up?

Posted: Mar 21, 2011 2:02 AM

I think you just don't want to let this thread die. For some reason you picked my post instead of this one, which was saying about the same just in different ways:


Why do you care so much about how I feel about that game? That wasn't the point of your original message, was it? Wasn't it to tell people that they are not being logical saying we did not win a NCAA game? Which I agreed with, in the NCAA record books we now have a win for the first time since 1997.

Like you I guess. I'd be glad to allow the post to die.

Posted: Mar 21, 2011 2:46 AM

However there is no argument about anything I said and your feelings on it are irrelevant. As soon as you admit that then I'll be glad to let it die.

Oh, and I already told you - I don't care how you feel about any games. Your feelings rant under my "to the illogical folks.." was directed towards what I posted, right? You attempted to diminish a simple fact by laughingly pulling Larry Shyatt into the picture and whatnot.

So you've been arguing about nothing? If you can admit all of that, then we're good.

I end a lot of my posts with

Posted: Mar 21, 2011 3:13 AM

"That's just my opinion." That is my way of saying that my feelings on the subject are just that, my feelings. You could have asked me that a long time ago. I have admitted on here time and time again that many have different opinions, and to call someone names because they have a different one is just being close-minded. I don't sugarcoat things, and do not say things people want to hear to get points or a high pulse rate. I guess all of us have a certain bias towards Clemson, but I don't blame others, like commissioners, opposing coaches, or the blue in North Carolina for our shortcomings. I do believe there is a bias in the Chapel Hill area by the ACC, but that is not holding us back. FSU is in the sweet sixteen, it didn't hold them back. People on here talk about the "tobacco road bias," but I pointed out a few weeks ago that NC State and ourselves are the only two schools to not win an ACC basketball or football title the past twenty years, and of course I am not counting the expansion teams. NC State is a tobacco road school, so what is their excuse?

But to sum it up, my opinion is just that, my opinion. I said in this thread a long time ago if beating UAB made you so happy you were doing jumping jacks then more power to you. To me, beating UAB gave us our first tourney win since 1997, but we still have not advanced past the field of 64 since '97, either. I am not sure why I have to say things I already said. After all, it's all just my opinion.

That's nice, but your opinion

Posted: Mar 21, 2011 3:23 AM

has nothing to do with the fact that I posted. How many times and different ways must this be said?

And see, there you go again.. I never said anything about how beating UAB made me feel. What are you talking about? Your effort to turn the angle to not making it past 64 is weak as well.

You're really struggling with this. You'd be much better off just admitting it.

Who said my post was directed at you?

Posted: Mar 21, 2011 3:52 AM

In my ten years of being on tigernet, if there is a long argument going on where many people are agreeing or disagreeing on one certain matter, normally people just reply to the oringal message. When I saw this thread, there were numerous replies already, and I didn't feel like reading through them all, so I replied to the original message. You have only been a member for a year, I have been here ten years, and that's the way a lot of people roll, instead of reading through a really long thread, and responding to just some random message, we figure it's best to respond to the original.

There is your Tiger Net 101 lesson for the night/morning.

Let me know when you need to learn something new. For now, I have to leave this computer I am on.

LOL. Again with the nonsensical stuff...

Posted: Mar 21, 2011 4:10 AM

For the final record, here's a simplified yet completely concise summary:

Me: "Ice is cold."

You: "That's ridiculous."

Me: "What are you talking about? Ice is most definitely cold."

You: ""Fluff, blah, blah, fluff...I don't like ice. Larry Shyatt liked cold things"

Me: "You're not making sense. Ice is definitely cold. Why can't you just let that fact lie?"

You: "Fluff, fluff, blah, blah, fluff...I have a right to not like ice. Nobody likes ice."

Me: "That's all well and good, but ice is still cold. I mean come on, be a man and admit it."

You: "Fluff, fluff, blah, blah, fluff...I have a right to not like ice!"

Me: "Okay, you don't like ice. I got you, but that doesn't mean ice isn't cold. Is it possible for to be a man about it?"

You: "I've been here 10 years. I don't like ice."

Me (now): "And so it stands. Ice is cold."

Let me know if I can simplify this any further.

Stan, Stan, Stan...

Posted: Mar 21, 2011 10:49 PM

...It's ok to admit it when you need a little help at comprehending things. You are not a message board veteran, so sometimes it takes a little extra learning to get how conversations work on sites like thetigernet.

I will continue with my lesson here. Sometimes threads are started on here where you really do not even have to open the message, because the topic pretty much tells what is going to be said. Your original message was one of those messages. I could just read the topic and tell that you were going to pretty much say that according to the NCAA, we won an NCAA tournament game last week.

Then you have threads where the topic says things like, "Oh my goodness." This type of topic will peak peoples' interests a little more, and they will open that thread because they want to know what the deal is.

When I saw this thread for the first time, there were probably like 20 to 30 people arguing about this. Instead of clicking on some random person's post, where ten others were likely saying the same thing, I just clicked on the original message, and was addressing all that were arguing about this. But you just cannot get that, can you? It's alright Stan. Some people don't catch on to calculus as fast as others. But if they try hard enough, and put forth the effort, the majority of average intelligent people eventually get it. I am rooting for you Stan, you will get the hang of this message board thing!

There is no way I'm going to sift through all that fluff...

Posted: Mar 21, 2011 11:54 PM

As long as it says something to the effect that you were wrong to challenge an irrefutable fact, and you spent a whole lot of time trying to justify your position based on irrelevant feelings, illogical tangents, and outright nonsense, then we're good.

Are you being serious?

Posted: Mar 22, 2011 12:36 AM

I thought we were just having a little fun here. But after all of this if you are really being serious, and think I was trying to say that we did not win a legitimate tournament game, then I just need to give up on this.

100% serious....

Posted: Mar 22, 2011 12:01 PM

There is simply no doubt you challenged my irrefutable position..and you're still carrying on, completely unable to admit your errors.

Re: Only people having a problem with it or Coots and

Posted: Mar 17, 2011 9:06 PM

they have made the tournament in most of your lifetimes.

Re: To the few illogical folks saying we haven't won a tourney

Posted: Mar 17, 2011 9:49 PM

What are people rewarding this ridiculous post ????

While not as bad as our NIT Championship

Posted: Mar 17, 2011 10:11 PM

that's pretty lame


"Smelley, Garcia, and Beecher are going to lead you to 4-8." - york_tiger

What are you talking about?

Posted: Mar 19, 2011 12:11 AM

Envy looks good on you.

NIT Championship isn't lame....

Posted: Mar 19, 2011 4:04 PM

Claiming it as a national championship is however.

No NCAA Tournament win is lame. Of all people, you Gamecock fans should know that.

This team doesn't need moral victories

Posted: Mar 17, 2011 10:21 PM

so please stop it. Coach Brownell did an unbelievable job with a depleted team. The last thing they need is some spin crew trying to find moral victories. Leave the moral victories to USC.

Not a moral victory.

Posted: Mar 19, 2011 12:10 AM

But it was an NCAA tournament win.

I don't understand why they didn't extend the seeding to 68.

Posted: Mar 17, 2011 10:29 PM

There were 6 #16's, 5 #12's, and 5 #11's.

And besides, everyone's bracket does not inclued Tuesday's and Wednesday's games.

Would it even out mathematically? You would have to have an

Posted: Mar 19, 2011 1:42 AM

even number of seeds per region, that also divided evenly. If you had 18 teams per region, it wouldn't work, because you would only have 9 winners, & one team would be opponent-less.

Of course it was a tourney win.

Posted: Mar 19, 2011 8:09 AM

Anyone who thinks it wasn't a tourney win either is willfully ignorant or can't read.

Call them illogical? Be honest, they are just coots.***

Posted: Mar 19, 2011 12:16 PM

2020 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

We PLAYED 2 NCAA Games In Tournament..and WON One.***

Posted: Mar 19, 2011 1:29 PM


2020 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

To All CLEMSON TiGERS..Sending you Bright Light from the Carolina Coast and hoping you get to witness a huge Orange sunset tonight. Go Tigers!

Ah... toogie of 09

Posted: Mar 20, 2011 8:09 AM

1) Didn't you lose the reqular season series to Clemson in baseball last year? (Your point here is ludicrous and meaningless as both have no bearing on any post season play)
2) Winning the game this is year is actually better than last year. BEATING a 12 seed in the expanded 68 team field.

NCAA says its a win in the tourney... nothing you can do to refute that at all.

I'm not refuting that it's a win

Posted: Mar 20, 2011 8:12 AM

but the saying, "won a tournament game" ≠ what it meant last year.

that's also irrefutable

and yes, we lost the regular season series. But won the overall series 3-2. You know this board would be rife with posts of how you were the better team had we not redeemed ourselves versus you in omaha.


"Smelley, Garcia, and Beecher are going to lead you to 4-8." - york_tiger

It doesn't matter how big the field was last year just as

Posted: Mar 20, 2011 8:48 PM

it doesn't matter how big the field was in 1964 or whatever.

It was an NCAA tournament win, period, something your team hasn't done since before you were born. Try to get a handle on your envy.

What is there to be envious of?

Posted: Mar 21, 2011 1:10 PM

Thursday at 4:00 pm we were both sitting at home with no shot to win a championship.


"Smelley, Garcia, and Beecher are going to lead you to 4-8." - york_tiger


Posted: Mar 22, 2011 12:02 PM

In your life you have ZERO experience winning an NCAA tournament game. That says it all.

If the play-in games were real tournament games, then why...

Posted: Mar 20, 2011 8:12 AM

...did ESPN allow me until Thursday noon to fill out my bracket???

Seems like ESPN didn't think the tournament started until Thursday. Clemson didn't win the Thursday game, therefore, Clemson still hasn't won an NCAA tournament game in 10 years or whatever length of time it has been.

J. Marc Edwards
Cary, NC

I dunno, but ESPN doesn't decide what is and what is not

Posted: Mar 21, 2011 1:32 PM

and NCAA tournament win. You're wrong.

Next question.

And Toogie of 09

Posted: Mar 20, 2011 8:20 AM

in this case its GREATER rather than just NOT EQUAL. Beating a 12 seed is a good thing... in case you didn't notice.

Your reference to the early season hoops game is simply not relevant to any post season success. Frankly, saying what other posters might or might not say is equally irrelevant to the point.

For me... our hoops team grew this year... your baseball team did last year. I can easily congratulate you on that. I have a feeling that you aren't capable of the same,

Gosh jmarc... when did ESPN become the NCAA?

Posted: Mar 20, 2011 8:21 AM

I missed that. Wooo.

We played in round 1 of ncaa basketball tournament - look

Posted: Mar 20, 2011 9:30 AM

at what today's round is called - round 3. Tuesday was round 1. Thursday/Friday - round 2. Saturday/Sunday - round 3.

2020 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

A 12 seed doesnt play a 12 seed in round one. They play a 5.

Posted: Mar 21, 2011 8:38 AM


Yes, they do. We played in Round One this year.

Posted: Mar 21, 2011 9:59 PM

Please look on the brackets or follow the TV coverage if you missed it.

Round Two was the 5 vs. 12 matchup (West Virginia vs. Clemson).

2020 white level member

Brad Brownell: all-time winningest coach in Clemson men's basketball history, and only coach to beat North Carolina in Chapel Hill.

Re: To the few illogical folks saying we haven't won a tourney

Posted: Mar 21, 2011 1:16 PM

My take is this... we won a tourney game according to the NCAA and the record books.... so in 20 years, that is how it will be looked at.
Would I rather have beated WV? Of course... is it the same as the other #12 seeds that beat a #5, no... but it is more than what we did the last 3 years... and it would have been really bad had we lost.

10 oclock in Dayton on CourtTv =play-in game***

Posted: Mar 21, 2011 1:26 PM

It wasn't 10:00, it was Round 1, and it was TruTV.

Posted: Mar 21, 2011 1:30 PM

But forget those pesky facts.

A ton of games have been on TruTV... are you saying they weren't NCAA tournament games?

Any winner on TruTV didn't really win an NCAA tournament game? Is that what you mean?

Please provide a link to any NCAA, TruTV, or CBS

Posted: Mar 21, 2011 1:40 PM

info using the term "play-in game"....

2020 purple level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

DO NOT concern yourself with

Posted: Mar 21, 2011 2:11 PM

anyone you have to argue this point with... clearly they are biased and SuCk! ;)

Replies: 115  


FB GAME: Season Tickets
FOR SALE: 4 in Sec UO row K and a Lot 5 parking pass number 5579 asking 8500 for the package, email if intere...

Buy or Sell CU Tickets and More in Tiger Tickets!

[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
3011 people have read this post