Oakland goes dancing.

TG1996 · Post by **TG1996** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 8:59 pm

61-60 win tonight. Why not us?

BGSU-Ph.D. · Post by **BGSU-Ph.D.** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 9:05 pm

I just signed-on to post that since I called Oakland a bad loss in an earlier post.

orangeandbrown · Post by **orangeandbrown** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 9:12 pm

Didn't they finish like 5 games under .500. Hello play in.

TG1996 · Post by **TG1996** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 9:13 pm

orangeandbrown wrote:Didn't they finish like 5 games under .500. Hello play in.

Actually, it was 6 games under... 12-18. Which means they probably finished the regular season at 8 or 9 and 18...

Dayons_Den · Post by **Dayons_Den** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 9:13 pm

One Falcon is in the dance, why not make it 11 more!!!

Metz · Post by **Metz** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:34 am

TG1996 wrote:61-60 win tonight. Why not us?

Wonder how Floyd is feeling after making the transfer now...

RedHawk65 · Post by **RedHawk65** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:48 am

I just heard on SportsCenter yesterday that you guys haven't gone dancing since '63 was it? Hard to imagine with all the good teams you've had over the past decade or so. I would like to see you back there, just not this year.

Metz · Post by **Metz** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 2:07 am

I believe it was actually 68...don't get Grant started on the 36 years thing though!!!

Post by **ZiggyZoomba** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 6:29 am

McMetz811 wrote:I believe it was actually 68...don't get Grant started on the 36 years thing though!!!

Hahha, yeah, don't make me bust out my banner avatar on you!!

hammb · Post by **hammb** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 9:26 am

McMetz811 wrote:
TG1996 wrote:61-60 win tonight. Why not us?
Wonder how Floyd is feeling after making the transfer now...

3 words:

Addition Through Subtraction

Nah...he's not that bad, but it does make you go hmmm...

ham0331 · Post by **ham0331** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 10:19 am

Yeah, Oakland was 12-18 but just check out their regular season schedule.

FALCON FLIER · Post by **FALCON FLIER** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 12:10 pm

BG hasn't been in the NCAA's since 1968 but like many MAC teams it's not because we haven't deserved too be. I recall just a few years ago BG was 24-9 with a couple of nice non-conference wins and lost in the MAC finals and ended up in the NIT. If the MAC had been given the at-large bids they deserved over the years there would have had a mcuh better representation in the tournament. I don't see the MAC getting anyone but the tournament champion is again this year. Too bad.

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 12:19 pm

FALCON FLIER wrote:BG hasn't been in the NCAA's since 1968 but like many MAC teams it's not because we haven't deserved too be. I recall just a few years ago BG was 24-9 with a couple of nice non-conference wins and lost in the MAC finals and ended up in the NIT. If the MAC had been given the at-large bids they deserved over the years there would have had a mcuh better representation in the tournament. I don't see the MAC getting anyone but the tournament champion is again this year. Too bad.

Actually I think we were 24-6

Germainfitch1 · Post by **Germainfitch1** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:24 pm

FALCON FLIER wrote:BG hasn't been in the NCAA's since 1968 but like many MAC teams it's not because we haven't deserved too be. I recall just a few years ago BG was 24-9 with a couple of nice non-conference wins and lost in the MAC finals and ended up in the NIT. If the MAC had been given the at-large bids they deserved over the years there would have had a mcuh better representation in the tournament. I don't see the MAC getting anyone but the tournament champion is again this year. Too bad.

We lost first round of that NIt if memory serves me.

Germainfitch1 · Post by **Germainfitch1** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:24 pm

TG1996 wrote:61-60 win tonight. Why not us?

Well because we are not as good as Oakland.

Oakland goes dancing.

Oakland goes dancing.

Re: Oakland goes dancing.

Re: Oakland goes dancing.

Re: Oakland goes dancing.