Something hit me...

[BCEagles25]

Maybe Harvard is good?

[Eagledom]

Maybe Harvard is good?

oh my god.....

[doteagle]

I agree. Harvard hired a good coach and staff. They are trying to be Stanford East. Lin is special but he had others on the court last night.

Boston might be a city with 2 top tier college basketball programs.

[BCEagles25]

Think about it -- A solid PG that can penetrate an ACC defense (a weak one), a very talented and smart Jeremy Lin and not to mention a great sophomore Forward, Keith Wright. They have a few other solid contributors and good coaches. They held their own against UCONN (fuck them). I'm not overly ashamed about this loss.

[twballgame9]

No shit. Welcome to the club.

[BCEagle74]

Harvard is very good.

Still doesn't address the many comments and posts on these threads about Al's Coaching (fortget about recruiting) and not just this game but over his tenure at BC.

That is the issue 1.

[auggiebc]

Maybe Harvard is good?

it was an opportunity lost for us not to beat Harvard. beating a good team is what good teams should do on their home floor. but we lost. not the end of the world. like i have been saying, let's get rakim back and let the chips fall where they may.

remember...the 7-8 minute stretches where Al feels compelled to keep Trapani on the bench and therefore this team plays without any offense and we ultimately lose......those situations will be mitigated when sanders comes back. so when Al sits Trap for long stretches at least we'll have another scorer on the floor to offset 32-14 runs by IVY league teams.

[Eagledom]

the al apologists have hit new lows. A loss to Harvard has become acceptable, because they are just such a great team.

[screagle]

[eepstein0]

Please stop...immediately. Harvard is a fine Ivy League team. On the greater scale of things, Harvard is not good. They'd get slaughtered in any big-time conference including the awful Pac-10 this year.

[EaglesTalon]

If BC beat Harvard by one point, would people still be bitching?
Yes.

[Eagledom]

Please stop...immediately. Harvard is a fine Ivy League team. On the greater scale of things, Harvard is not good. They'd get slaughtered in any big-time conference including the awful Pac-10 this year.

Its no use...these idiots are now arguing that the Harvard loss was a "quality" loss. hilarious.

[twballgame9]

Please stop...immediately. Harvard is a fine Ivy League team. On the greater scale of things, Harvard is not good. They'd get slaughtered in any big-time conference including the awful Pac-10 this year.

Its no use...these idiots are now arguing that the Harvard loss was a "quality" loss. hilarious.

Technically it is, for all of the people like Pedro that beat off to the RPI.

But no, it ain't a good loss. It's a bad one, and a pretty meaningless one, and those who get their panties in a bunch over it make my day enjoyable.

[Eagledom]

You love to argue this "meaningless loss" crap.

A. No loss to a shitty team at any point of the season is meaningless when you are destined for the bubble.
B. You can say its meaningless all you want, but it does indicate what kind of team this is. Good teams don't lose to St. Joes and Harvard in the same season. Just doesn't happen.

So keep calling it meaningless, keep saying "Harvard is really good", and keep fooling youyrself that EVERYTHING changes when Rakim gets back.

[twballgame9]

You love to argue this "meaningless loss" crap.

A. No loss to a shitty team at any point of the season is meaningless when you are destined for the bubble.
B. You can say its meaningless all you want, but it does indicate what kind of team this is. Good teams don't lose to St. Joes and Harvard in the same season. Just doesn't happen.

So keep calling it meaningless, keep saying "Harvard is really good", and keep fooling youyrself that EVERYTHING changes when Rakim gets back.

A. Never said Harvard was good.

B. Rakim Sanders is the best player on the team by far.

C. The Harvard loss was positively fucking meaningless last year, just like I said it would be.

[apbc12]

You love to argue this "meaningless loss" crap.

A. No loss to a shitty team at any point of the season is meaningless when you are destined for the bubble.
B. You can say its meaningless all you want, but it does indicate what kind of team this is. Good teams don't lose to St. Joes and Harvard in the same season. Just doesn't happen.

So keep calling it meaningless, keep saying "Harvard is really good", and keep fooling youyrself that EVERYTHING changes when Rakim gets back.

You love to argue this "I'm not OJ" crap.

A. No dickish post at any point is meaningless when you are destined to spend life as the King of Dicks.
B. You can say you're not OJ all you want, but your posts indicate what a dick you are. Non-OJ posters don't post nothing but racist dickish bullshit. Just doesn't happen.

So keep claiming you've always been Eagledom, keep saying "I'm not OJ," and keep fooling yourself that EVERYONE believes you're not OJ.

[Eagledom]

You love to argue this "meaningless loss" crap.

A. No loss to a shitty team at any point of the season is meaningless when you are destined for the bubble.
B. You can say its meaningless all you want, but it does indicate what kind of team this is. Good teams don't lose to St. Joes and Harvard in the same season. Just doesn't happen.

So keep calling it meaningless, keep saying "Harvard is really good", and keep fooling youyrself that EVERYTHING changes when Rakim gets back.

A. Never said Harvard was good.

B. Rakim Sanders is the best player on the team by far.

C. The Harvard loss was positively fucking meaningless last year, just like I said it would be.

Sanders being the best player on the team is not an issue....we shouldn't be losing to Harvard and St. Joes without him. And there's a potential that he still an inconsistent turnover machine that plays well 2 every three games and disappears the other game. The Harveard game being meaningless last year doesn't mean it will be this year. You don't want to accumulate 3 bad losses in your first 9 games, because there is a very good chance it could have an effect on tourney chances. And finally, I'll say it again because you just don't get it. GOOD TEAMS DO NOT LOSE TO HARVARD and ST JOES>

[twballgame9]

You love to argue this "meaningless loss" crap.

A. No loss to a shitty team at any point of the season is meaningless when you are destined for the bubble.
B. You can say its meaningless all you want, but it does indicate what kind of team this is. Good teams don't lose to St. Joes and Harvard in the same season. Just doesn't happen.

So keep calling it meaningless, keep saying "Harvard is really good", and keep fooling youyrself that EVERYTHING changes when Rakim gets back.

A. Never said Harvard was good.

B. Rakim Sanders is the best player on the team by far.

C. The Harvard loss was positively fucking meaningless last year, just like I said it would be.

Sanders being the best player on the team is not an issue....we shouldn't belosing to Harvard and St. Joes without him. And there's a potential that he still and inconsistent turnover machine that plays well 2 every three games and disappears the other game. The Harveard game being meaningless last year doesn't mean it will be this year. You don't want to accumulate 3 bad losses in your first 9 games, because there is a very good chance it could have an effect on tourney chances. And finally, I'll say it again because you just don't get it. GOOD TEAMS DO NOT LOSE TO HARVARD and ST JOES>

BC was a good team last year. Went to the tourney. Beat #1 UNC and #5 Duke. 9 wins in the conference. Lost to St. Louis and Harvard.

You are stupid.

[Eagledom]

You love to argue this "meaningless loss" crap.

A. No loss to a shitty team at any point of the season is meaningless when you are destined for the bubble.
B. You can say its meaningless all you want, but it does indicate what kind of team this is. Good teams don't lose to St. Joes and Harvard in the same season. Just doesn't happen.

So keep calling it meaningless, keep saying "Harvard is really good", and keep fooling youyrself that EVERYTHING changes when Rakim gets back.

You love to argue this "I'm not OJ" crap.

A. No dickish post at any point is meaningless when you are destined to spend life as the King of Dicks.
B. You can say you're not OJ all you want, but your posts indicate what a dick you are. Non-OJ posters don't post nothing but racist dickish bullshit. Just doesn't happen.

So keep claiming you've always been Eagledom, keep saying "I'm not OJ," and keep fooling yourself that EVERYONE believes you're not OJ.

Please show me one of my "racist" comments. Thanks in advance.

[Eagledom]

You love to argue this "meaningless loss" crap.

A. No loss to a shitty team at any point of the season is meaningless when you are destined for the bubble.
B. You can say its meaningless all you want, but it does indicate what kind of team this is. Good teams don't lose to St. Joes and Harvard in the same season. Just doesn't happen.

So keep calling it meaningless, keep saying "Harvard is really good", and keep fooling youyrself that EVERYTHING changes when Rakim gets back.

A. Never said Harvard was good.

B. Rakim Sanders is the best player on the team by far.

C. The Harvard loss was positively fucking meaningless last year, just like I said it would be.

Sanders being the best player on the team is not an issue....we shouldn't belosing to Harvard and St. Joes without him. And there's a potential that he still and inconsistent turnover machine that plays well 2 every three games and disappears the other game. The Harveard game being meaningless last year doesn't mean it will be this year. You don't want to accumulate 3 bad losses in your first 9 games, because there is a very good chance it could have an effect on tourney chances. And finally, I'll say it again because you just don't get it. GOOD TEAMS DO NOT LOSE TO HARVARD and ST JOES>

BC was a good team last year. Went to the tourney. Beat #1 UNC and #5 Duke. 9 wins in the conference. Lost to St. Louis and Harvard.

You are stupid.

If you think that was a good team last year, you really do have low standards.

[twballgame9]

You love to argue this "meaningless loss" crap.

A. No loss to a shitty team at any point of the season is meaningless when you are destined for the bubble.
B. You can say its meaningless all you want, but it does indicate what kind of team this is. Good teams don't lose to St. Joes and Harvard in the same season. Just doesn't happen.

So keep calling it meaningless, keep saying "Harvard is really good", and keep fooling youyrself that EVERYTHING changes when Rakim gets back.

A. Never said Harvard was good.

B. Rakim Sanders is the best player on the team by far.

C. The Harvard loss was positively fucking meaningless last year, just like I said it would be.

Sanders being the best player on the team is not an issue....we shouldn't belosing to Harvard and St. Joes without him. And there's a potential that he still and inconsistent turnover machine that plays well 2 every three games and disappears the other game. The Harveard game being meaningless last year doesn't mean it will be this year. You don't want to accumulate 3 bad losses in your first 9 games, because there is a very good chance it could have an effect on tourney chances. And finally, I'll say it again because you just don't get it. GOOD TEAMS DO NOT LOSE TO HARVARD and ST JOES>

BC was a good team last year. Went to the tourney. Beat #1 UNC and #5 Duke. 9 wins in the conference. Lost to St. Louis and Harvard.

You are stupid.

If you think that was a good team last year, you really do have low standards.

Wait, I want to get this straight - you don't think BC had a good team last year?

Okay then, Socrates, Al must be a great coach since he coached them to the tournament with a team that wasn't very good.

[Eagledom]

You love to argue this "meaningless loss" crap.

A. No loss to a shitty team at any point of the season is meaningless when you are destined for the bubble.
B. You can say its meaningless all you want, but it does indicate what kind of team this is. Good teams don't lose to St. Joes and Harvard in the same season. Just doesn't happen.

So keep calling it meaningless, keep saying "Harvard is really good", and keep fooling youyrself that EVERYTHING changes when Rakim gets back.

A. Never said Harvard was good.

B. Rakim Sanders is the best player on the team by far.

C. The Harvard loss was positively fucking meaningless last year, just like I said it would be.

Sanders being the best player on the team is not an issue....we shouldn't belosing to Harvard and St. Joes without him. And there's a potential that he still and inconsistent turnover machine that plays well 2 every three games and disappears the other game. The Harveard game being meaningless last year doesn't mean it will be this year. You don't want to accumulate 3 bad losses in your first 9 games, because there is a very good chance it could have an effect on tourney chances. And finally, I'll say it again because you just don't get it. GOOD TEAMS DO NOT LOSE TO HARVARD and ST JOES>

BC was a good team last year. Went to the tourney. Beat #1 UNC and #5 Duke. 9 wins in the conference. Lost to St. Louis and Harvard.

You are stupid.

If you think that was a good team last year, you really do have low standards.

Wait, I want to get this straight - you don't think BC had a good team last year?

Okay then, Socrates, Al must be a great coach since he coached them to the tournament with a team that wasn't very good.

I don't think making it to a field of 64 is de facto evidence of a good year. There are plenty of average teams in the tournament. But to Mr. "making it to the tourney is our ultimate goal", that's a great year.

[twballgame9]

You love to argue this "meaningless loss" crap.

A. No loss to a shitty team at any point of the season is meaningless when you are destined for the bubble.
B. You can say its meaningless all you want, but it does indicate what kind of team this is. Good teams don't lose to St. Joes and Harvard in the same season. Just doesn't happen.

So keep calling it meaningless, keep saying "Harvard is really good", and keep fooling youyrself that EVERYTHING changes when Rakim gets back.

A. Never said Harvard was good.

B. Rakim Sanders is the best player on the team by far.

C. The Harvard loss was positively fucking meaningless last year, just like I said it would be.

Sanders being the best player on the team is not an issue....we shouldn't belosing to Harvard and St. Joes without him. And there's a potential that he still and inconsistent turnover machine that plays well 2 every three games and disappears the other game. The Harveard game being meaningless last year doesn't mean it will be this year. You don't want to accumulate 3 bad losses in your first 9 games, because there is a very good chance it could have an effect on tourney chances. And finally, I'll say it again because you just don't get it. GOOD TEAMS DO NOT LOSE TO HARVARD and ST JOES>

BC was a good team last year. Went to the tourney. Beat #1 UNC and #5 Duke. 9 wins in the conference. Lost to St. Louis and Harvard.

You are stupid.

If you think that was a good team last year, you really do have low standards.

Wait, I want to get this straight - you don't think BC had a good team last year?

Okay then, Socrates, Al must be a great coach since he coached them to the tournament with a team that wasn't very good.

I don't think making it to a field of 64 is de facto evidence of a good year. There are plenty of average teams in the tournament. But to Mr. "making it to the tourney is our ultimate goal", that's a great year.

It is not a "field of 64". Getting rid of the bullshit teams, it is about a field of 32-35.

[BCEagles25]

No shit. Welcome to the club.

What club? I didn't hear anybody afterwards say "Wow, that wasn't a bad loss. I'm not upset, they're just superior." If you can find a quote, fine, but from my memory everyone was pissed.

[commavegarage]

BC was a good team last year. A 7 seed is a sign of a good team. It was not a great team, but it was a good team.

And yeah, OJ, TW pretty much has you cornered. If you don't think that was a good team it meant Al did a hell of a job coaching the team to top 6 in conference, two top 5 wins, and a 7 seed.

[Eagledom]

BC was a good team last year. A 7 seed is a sign of a good team. It was not a great team, but it was a good team.

And yeah, OJ, TW pretty much has you cornered. If you don't think that was a good team it meant Al did a hell of a job coaching the team to top 6 in conference, two top 5 wins, and a 7 seed.

Only if you think "top 6 in the conference" and a 1st round exit in the ncaas is a "good" season. To me its ho hum. but again, its the lowered expectations of people like you that think its great. same way that a top 2 finish in football in the division and a bowl game was ho hum.

[commavegarage]

BC was a good team last year. A 7 seed is a sign of a good team. It was not a great team, but it was a good team.

And yeah, OJ, TW pretty much has you cornered. If you don't think that was a good team it meant Al did a hell of a job coaching the team to top 6 in conference, two top 5 wins, and a 7 seed.

Only if you think "top 6 in the conference" and a 1st round exit in the ncaas is a "good" season. To me its ho hum. but again, its the lowered expectations of people like you that think its great. same way that a top 2 finish in football in the division and a bowl game was ho hum.

Are you fucking kidding me? You do not think a top 6 finish in the best conference in the nation is a "good season"?

[Eagledom]

BC was a good team last year. A 7 seed is a sign of a good team. It was not a great team, but it was a good team.

And yeah, OJ, TW pretty much has you cornered. If you don't think that was a good team it meant Al did a hell of a job coaching the team to top 6 in conference, two top 5 wins, and a 7 seed.

Only if you think "top 6 in the conference" and a 1st round exit in the ncaas is a "good" season. To me its ho hum. but again, its the lowered expectations of people like you that think its great. same way that a top 2 finish in football in the division and a bowl game was ho hum.

Are you fucking kidding me? You do not think a top 6 finish in the best conference in the nation is a "good season"?

meh. i'd like better, but you can continue being satisied with that.

[commavegarage]

BC was a good team last year. A 7 seed is a sign of a good team. It was not a great team, but it was a good team.

And yeah, OJ, TW pretty much has you cornered. If you don't think that was a good team it meant Al did a hell of a job coaching the team to top 6 in conference, two top 5 wins, and a 7 seed.

Only if you think "top 6 in the conference" and a 1st round exit in the ncaas is a "good" season. To me its ho hum. but again, its the lowered expectations of people like you that think its great. same way that a top 2 finish in football in the division and a bowl game was ho hum.

Are you fucking kidding me? You do not think a top 6 finish in the best conference in the nation is a "good season"?

meh. i'd like better, but you can continue being satisied with that.

I understand you would like better, but you do not constitute that as a good season? Then what is a good season for you?

[BCEagles25]

BC was a good team last year. A 7 seed is a sign of a good team. It was not a great team, but it was a good team.

And yeah, OJ, TW pretty much has you cornered. If you don't think that was a good team it meant Al did a hell of a job coaching the team to top 6 in conference, two top 5 wins, and a 7 seed.

Only if you think "top 6 in the conference" and a 1st round exit in the ncaas is a "good" season. To me its ho hum. but again, its the lowered expectations of people like you that think its great. same way that a top 2 finish in football in the division and a bowl game was ho hum.

Are you fucking kidding me? You do not think a top 6 finish in the best conference in the nation is a "good season"?

meh. i'd like better, but you can continue being satisied with that.

I understand you would like better, but you do not constitute that as a good season? Then what is a good season for you?

A season where they only recruit white players and fire Al Skinner.