Guest DickVitale Posted March 20, 2008 Report Posted March 20, 2008 Dickie and Aggies- Let me start a new discussion. I say that Tiger is more dominant in his profession than Jordan was in his. I dont know about that one...MJ took a team sport and put a group of average guys on his back and won multiple titles in a very competitive league....Tiger accomplishments are mind blowing as well, but I dont think that it's THAT cut and dry, ya know?
Guest bleed orange Posted March 20, 2008 Report Posted March 20, 2008 I have never even heard of that song, but it makes perfect sense to me!! Bye, bye miss american pie drove my chevy to the levy but the levy was dry, good ole boy's were drinking whiskey and wine singing "that will be the day that I die". Song from the 70's before you were born. Sang by Don McLean. Could be wrong. But I am close. BY the way list looks pretty good to me. There was a kid from PNG that could shoot lights out. I think his last name was Straface first name may have been bobby. I am close.
Guest DickVitale Posted March 20, 2008 Report Posted March 20, 2008 :D..Thanks...I HAVE heard that song! Thanks, bleed...Who do you think is more dominant in their respective sport, MJ or Tiger?
AggiesAreWe Posted March 20, 2008 Report Posted March 20, 2008 Dickie and Aggies- Let me start a new discussion. I say that Tiger is more dominant in his profession than Jordan was in his. Only because you can win 10 majors in a year... Ittakes 82 games and a playoff just to get one ring! Correction, there are only 4 majors in the calender year. Masters, US Open, The Open Championship ( British Open ) and the PGA Championship. Both MJ's and Tiger's accomplishments are mind blowing, but the question was who was more dominate in their respective sport, and IMO, Tiger has dominated his sport far more than MJ did.
Guest bleed orange Posted March 20, 2008 Report Posted March 20, 2008 :D..Thanks...I HAVE heard that song! Thanks, bleed...Who do you think is more dominant in their respective sport, MJ or Tiger? That's a tough one because both are class acts. Even though I am old school I will have to say Tiger. I only watch golf if he is playing.
Guest DickVitale Posted March 20, 2008 Report Posted March 20, 2008 OK..Do you think that 10 years AFTER his retirement, Tiger will be still be as marketable as MJ is? Air Jordans are here forever!! ;D....Seriously though, MJ's market power is just sick...Tiger does well too, but MJ has been retired for 10 years now, and people STILL marvel at him...Will Tiger have that impact?
AggiesAreWe Posted March 20, 2008 Report Posted March 20, 2008 OK..Do you think that 10 years AFTER his retirement, Tiger will be still be as marketable as MJ is? Air Jordans are here forever!! ;D....Seriously though, MJ's market power is just sick...Tiger does well too, but MJ has been retired for 10 years now, and people STILL marvel at him...Will Tiger have that impact? Most definetly, probably greater.
BearWolf Posted March 20, 2008 Report Posted March 20, 2008 OK..Do you think that 10 years AFTER his retirement, Tiger will be still be as marketable as MJ is? Air Jordans are here forever!! ;D....Seriously though, MJ's market power is just sick...Tiger does well too, but MJ has been retired for 10 years now, and people STILL marvel at him...Will Tiger have that impact? Most definetly, probably greater. i can agree with that
Guest tigersvoice Posted March 20, 2008 Report Posted March 20, 2008 OK..Do you think that 10 years AFTER his retirement, Tiger will be still be as marketable as MJ is? Air Jordans are here forever!! ;D....Seriously though, MJ's market power is just sick...Tiger does well too, but MJ has been retired for 10 years now, and people STILL marvel at him...Will Tiger have that impact? Most definetly, probably greater. i can agree with that Emphatically, yes. When Tiger is finally and formally crowned "The Greatest Golfer Ever" he will gain even more endorsement power. At some point he will come out with his autograph line of clubs and that will start the craze over again.
Guest DickVitale Posted March 20, 2008 Report Posted March 20, 2008 Is it because of the overall audience that watches Tiger is different? I mean, usually there are the wealthy that follow and play golf, right?...Therefore he has a completely different audience than MJ..They also have the same audiences at the same time, because the wealthy like basketball too, but I think Tiger will appeal to the more elite crowd. This is why I feel MJ's appeal is so large..He gets the rich, poor and in between....what about that? Is that fairly accurate?
westend1 Posted March 20, 2008 Report Posted March 20, 2008 The thing is, we will never know. Tiger can continue to play until he's 70, if he wants. He will still be winning tourneys at 60 if he continues to play. He is already retired, playing golf for fun.
Master T Posted March 20, 2008 Report Posted March 20, 2008 Don't forget Jordan did play baseball and tried golf
Guest tigersvoice Posted March 20, 2008 Report Posted March 20, 2008 Don't forget Jordan did play baseball and tried golf More accurately, he plays golf (pretty well, actually) and tried baseball. ;D
Guest tigersvoice Posted March 20, 2008 Report Posted March 20, 2008 Is it because of the overall audience that watches Tiger is different? I mean, usually there are the wealthy that follow and play golf, right?...Therefore he has a completely different audience than MJ..They also have the same audiences at the same time, because the wealthy like basketball too, but I think Tiger will appeal to the more elite crowd. This is why I feel MJ's appeal is so large..He gets the rich, poor and in between....what about that? Is that fairly accurate? Hey DickieV - Good Stuff !! Very good assessment. Along these lines, while Tiger is hawking Buicks, MJ is doing Jockey shorts; there probably are more people in Jockey shorts than Buicks. I follow your line. 8)
Guest DickVitale Posted March 20, 2008 Report Posted March 20, 2008 Is it because of the overall audience that watches Tiger is different? I mean, usually there are the wealthy that follow and play golf, right?...Therefore he has a completely different audience than MJ..They also have the same audiences at the same time, because the wealthy like basketball too, but I think Tiger will appeal to the more elite crowd. This is why I feel MJ's appeal is so large..He gets the rich, poor and in between....what about that? Is that fairly accurate? YEP! I've got my Hanes Undershirt on right now as a matter of fact!! COMFORTABLE!! ;D...I dont drive a Buick though!! :D...Tiger has some NICE Nike golf shirts though...really nice. ..Its a GREAT debate! Hey DickieV - Good Stuff !! Very good assessment. Along these lines, while Tiger is hawking Buicks, MJ is doing Jockey shorts; there probably are more people in Jockey shorts than Buicks. I follow your line. 8)
Guest bleed orange Posted March 20, 2008 Report Posted March 20, 2008 OK..Do you think that 10 years AFTER his retirement, Tiger will be still be as marketable as MJ is? Air Jordans are here forever!! ;D....Seriously though, MJ's market power is just sick...Tiger does well too, but MJ has been retired for 10 years now, and people STILL marvel at him...Will Tiger have that impact? I have to agree with you on this DV. Tiger when he retires will ride off into the sunset. He likes his privacy. To me MJ is old school like Magic, and Larry. I liked that era.
shorttexas1 Posted March 20, 2008 Report Posted March 20, 2008 Dickie and Aggies- Let me start a new discussion. I say that Tiger is more dominant in his profession than Jordan was in his. Only because you can win 10 majors in a year... Ittakes 82 games and a playoff just to get one ring! Correction, there are only 4 majors in the calender year. Masters, US Open, The Open Championship ( British Open ) and the PGA Championship. Both MJ's and Tiger's accomplishments are mind blowing, but the question was who was more dominate in their respective sport, and IMO, Tiger has dominated his sport far more than MJ did. It is called sarcasm or an exaggeration!
BLUEDOVE3 Posted March 21, 2008 Report Posted March 21, 2008 What about Kenyon Spears from Hardin Jefferson class of 96. Three time all state ranked number one team in 3A , oh and he played with that honorable mention Jason Troupe before he went to LCM. Played at LU and was Chevrolet Player of the Game against some team named the DUKE BLUE DEVILS. ( and he led all with 19 points. I know that I am getting off subject somewhat but I want to cringe when people bring up this game as if LU played Duke a good game. Man, Duke played down in that game. And those of you who are true athletes know what I mean by playing down. When Duke played Kansas (?) after the LU game, their intensity was at a higher level because of the competition. LU would have been blown away if Duke played at a higher mental level.
Guest DickVitale Posted March 21, 2008 Report Posted March 21, 2008 What about Kenyon Spears from Hardin Jefferson class of 96. Three time all state ranked number one team in 3A , oh and he played with that honorable mention Jason Troupe before he went to LCM. Played at LU and was Chevrolet Player of the Game against some team named the DUKE BLUE DEVILS. ( and he led all with 19 points. I know that I am getting off subject somewhat but I want to cringe when people bring up this game as if LU played Duke a good game. Man, Duke played down in that game. And those of you who are true athletes know what I mean by playing down. When Duke played Kansas (?) after the LU game, their intensity was at a higher level because of the competition. LU would have been blown away if Duke played at a higher mental level. Yes, I agree, and it happens EVERY year to tournament teams...Then some mid major will say, "we almost beat em!" I just do not believe in moral victories...Duke would have beat Lamar by 50 had they played them again that year...No wait, 75!
Guest abovetherim Posted March 21, 2008 Report Posted March 21, 2008 Agree that Lamar team was 15-15 and had no business in the NCAA tournament. That said, I have poster the opening tipoff of that game hanging in my son's room. DV 75, no way. 45, maybe but they didn't. End of that story. Are you forgeting all the upsets in the tournament Lamar has had in the past. Alabama, Detroit, Weber State, Oregon State and Missouri come to my mind pretty quick. Now, back to the present didn't George Mason just reach the Final Four a couple of years ago. Didn't know they were a high-major program. Thanks for educating me.
Guest DickVitale Posted March 21, 2008 Report Posted March 21, 2008 Agree that Lamar team was 15-15 and had one business in the NCAA tournament. That said, I have poster the opening tipoff of that game hanging in my son's room. DV 75, no way. 45, maybe but they didn't. End of that story. Are you forgeting all the upsets in the tournament Lamar has had in the past. Alabama, Detroit, Weber State, Oregon State and Missouri come to my mind pretty quick. Now, back to the present didn't George Mason just reach the Final Four a couple of years ago. Didn't know they were a high-major program. Thanks for educating me. WAIT...George Mason had a GOOD team..Yes, they are a mid major, but they had SOLID guard play that year, good coaching, and a little luck mixed in with some good fortune! Don't get it confused, George Mason EARNED their way to the Final Four in 2006, and my hats off to them..However, Lamar did NOT win the lowly Southland Conference, yet got hot and won the tournament..OK, Duke may not have won by 75, (I was being extreme) but it would have definitely been a blowout had they played again...bad..Truth is, and I am with Bobby Knight on this one, some teams just dont belong in the NCAA tournament...Lamar 2000 was one of them..
BLUEDOVE3 Posted March 21, 2008 Report Posted March 21, 2008 Agree that Lamar team was 15-15 and had one business in the NCAA tournament. That said, I have poster the opening tipoff of that game hanging in my son's room. DV 75, no way. 45, maybe but they didn't. End of that story. Are you forgeting all the upsets in the tournament Lamar has had in the past. Alabama, Detroit, Weber State, Oregon State and Missouri come to my mind pretty quick. Now, back to the present didn't George Mason just reach the Final Four a couple of years ago. Didn't know they were a high-major program. Thanks for educating me. WAIT...George Mason had a GOOD team..Yes, they are a mid major, but they had SOLID guard play that year, good coaching, and a little luck mixed in with some good fortune! Don't get it confused, George Mason EARNED there way to the Final Four in 2006, and my hats off to them..However, Lamar did NOT win the lowly Southland Conference, yet got hot and won the tournament..OK, Duke may not have won by 75, (I was being extreme) but it would have definitely been a blowout had they played again...bad..Truth is, and I am with Bobby Knight on this one, some teams just dont belong in the NCAA tournament...Lamar 2000 was one of them.. Excellent point! Some Conferences don't belong in the tournament. Southland, SWAC, Southland, Swac, Southland, etc, etc,
Guest DickVitale Posted March 21, 2008 Report Posted March 21, 2008 Well, DOVE, I wouldn't say that CONFERENCES dont belong, because sometimes, certain teams may be tournament ready..(i.e. Southern in 1993 when they beat Georgia Tech) Its just that when certain conferences are down or perenially weak, and some 13-18 team wins the conference tournament and gets in! I hate that!...What about the SFA's of the world that had a GREAT regular season, and slips up in their conference tournament and UTA gets the NCAA bid? They will get beat by 40 today, while SFA obviously dissapointed, gets beat by 20 in the NIT first round..Actually in their case I think they peaked too early, and started a downward fall at the end..BUT anyway, you get my point!!
Guest abovetherim Posted March 21, 2008 Report Posted March 21, 2008 Disagree for the 1,000 time. If they take the team that earned the conference championship instead of a team that got hot for thee games at a neutral court with MAYBE 1,000 fans in the stands you would see better results from the SLC. As you just mentioned history, well history tells me when Lamar won all those games in the NCAA tournament games the SLC did not have a conference tournament. They just sent the conference champion. Lord man, you are a piece of work. You just stated history repeats itself and now the SLC doesn't deserve a bid to the NCAA tournament. Thank God, there are more intelligent people running the thing or maybe they need to give you a call. :
Guest abovetherim Posted March 21, 2008 Report Posted March 21, 2008 Well, DOVE, I wouldn't say that CONFERENCES dont belong, because sometimes, certain teams may be tournament ready..(i.e. Southern in 1993 when they beat Georgia Tech) Its just that when certain conferences are down or perenially weak, and some 13-18 team wins the conference tournament and gets in! I hate that!...What about the SFA's of the world that had a GREAT regular season, and slips up in their conference tournament and UTA gets the NCAA bid? They will get beat by 40 today, while SFA obviously dissapointed, gets beat by 20 in the NIT first round..Actually in their case I think they peaked too early, and started a downward fall at the end..BUT anyway, you get my point!! Dude SFA got the invite and played on the road at UMass. As great as Coach Boutte is he would have a hard time getting a team ready to play in 36 hrs for the time they got word of who they were playing and the start of the game. Lord man, I thought you were a coach? Obviously SFA was at a great disadvantage.
Recommended Posts