Tejas_Duke wrote:

My Filipina wife of six years does not know a lot of the history and traditions of American sports, so last night she asked me why I was so interested in Temple vs. Notre Dame. "Is Temple a good team?" She asked.

I responded Temple is to college football what Duquesne is to college basketball.

"Ouch" She responded.

Not really. Minnesota is to college football, what Duquesne is to college basketball.
 

Tejas_Duke wrote:

duq81 wrote:

Tejas_Duke wrote:

My Filipina wife of six years does not know a lot of the history and traditions of American sports, so last night she asked me why I was so interested in Temple vs. Notre Dame. "Is Temple a good team?" She asked.

I responded Temple is to college football what Duquesne is to college basketball.

"Ouch" She responded.

Not really. Minnesota is to college football, what Duquesne is to college basketball.
 

 

Temple as of last night is 5-101-1 in almost 100 years of college football against ranked opponents

That's why we're not Temple. Minny is better analogy as they are a once very powerful program, that fell off a cliff, and is now an nonentity. Temple has no tradition, not even an old one.
 

I just don't understand how you married a 6-year-old, Tejas.

Oh, wait, never mind.

I actually always likened Duquesne basketball to Rutgers football. Yeah, you played the first-ever college game. Yeah, every now and then you make a little noise, and a player comes out of your program who is pretty good. But your storied past is a disconnect from today's reality, and no matter who you bring in to coach, the results never seem to change.

ElDuque wrote:

I just don't understand how you married a 6-year-old, Tejas.

Oh, wait, never mind.

I actually always likened Duquesne basketball to Rutgers football. Yeah, you played the first-ever college game. Yeah, every now and then you make a little noise, and a player comes out of your program who is pretty good. But your storied past is a disconnect from today's reality, and no matter who you bring in to coach, the results never seem to change.

yeah, that one's a good parallel.  Ancient, dawn of time, relevance but nothing in the age of color television
 

ElDuque wrote:

duq81, I'm not old enough to remember the early 1900s, which I guess was when Minnesota was a powerhouse. Rutgers had a couple unbeaten teams in the early 1960s and some all-Americans (Alex Kroll). But they never got picked for major Bowl games.

Minnesota won their last of their 7 National Championships in 1960. So they fell off the map about a decade before we did. Rutgers wasn't playing a major college schedule until the late 70's. They had an unbeaten team in 1976, and decided it was time to take a shot at playing with the big boys, and upgraded their schedule. Haven't been very successful, other than under Greg Schiano.