Musketeer Madness

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=3493766

Temple #20
UC #19

It's certainly good pub for the A10 to have 2 of the top 20 programs. If I'm the new commissioner, I'm firing up the emails and faxes to get this out!

I understand having only 15 NCAA Tourney wins, fewest in the top 25, please explain how 3 All-Americas and 2 NBA top 10 picks (one national player of the year) and having only one losing season are NEGATIVES, given Xavier's size, conference affiliation and the schools and programs it is being compared with??? Is it me?



Negatives: 1 losing season; 3 All-Americans and 2 NBA top-10 picks; 15 NCAA tourney wins, the fewest of any team in the Top 25

<<given Xavier's size, conference affiliation and the schools and programs it is being compared with??? Is it me?>>

I see your point, jkc, but if we're going to say that X is NOT a midmajor, then we're going to be held to "major" standards. We can't have it both ways (demand to be included amongst the big boys, but then use our size and conf. affiliation to explain any lack of NCAA success).

I can just see the jubilation on campus with everyone running around yelling "We're No. 17", "We're No. 17"
Nevertheless, it sure is good to see Xavier rated this high - and especially better than that "other" team in town.

X highest in A-10 and better then their neighborhood rival...not bad for a small "mid-major" school!

< if we're going to say that X is NOT a midmajor>

No if's and's or but's about it. Xavier is NOT a mid-major! We're not "saying" it .. it's a FACT!

Yeah, spin it Gary, spin it ... I don't give a hoot what any golden throat sez.

17th in the nation over the last 23 years puts that dog to sleep!

Xavier's sustained success over the years is remarkable. And like my own program, I feel that the best is yet to come (i.e. I believe there will be a Final Four in both of our futures).

Continued good luck to the Musketeers.

<<Yeah, spin it Gary, spin it >>

Wise, you have an unrivalled ability to miss my point. I wasn't "spinning" anything. I was simply pointing out the obvious, which is that if X is a "major", then we can't ask ESPN to take into account our size, conf. affiliation, etc.

Either you run with the big boys or you don't. I doubt if Sean and Mike are offering up any excuses. We shouldn't be, either.

And I was pointing out the obvious .. that you'd find something negative to add.
And, you didn't let us down

We'll stop being mid-major when we stop saying we aren't mid-major.