Where I commonly write about sports, in an uncommon way.

Sunday, February 27, 2011

The Odd Stat of the Week

Issue: Anything obscure happen in college basketball this week?

Short Answer: If division III counts, then yes.

Reasoning: As February comes to a close, talk begins to turn to college basketball and the "who's in" and "who's out" of the NCAA tournament.  The Big East is tough, the ACC is always good, and the Big Ten is having a year of resurgence.  March should be fantastic this year, as it always is.  However, 3,000 miles away from where I sit right now, something bigger happened this week, and most people heard nothing about it.  The Caltech Beavers are a division III athletic institution.  They are a private school with about 950 undergraduate students (my high school was much bigger).  And, they don't give out athletic scholarships.  Thirty-one faculty and alumni have won the Nobel Prize.  Hence, basketball takes a back seat at Caltech.  Or, maybe they don't even get a seat.  That is why they have been beaten time and time again, at an historical rate.

On February 22rd (or 23rd, depends on what time zone you live in), 2011, Caltech beat Occidental 46-45 (sounds like a high school score, and, something tells me there are high school teams out there that could beat both squads) in their final game of the season.  This is newsworthy because Caltech and Occidental play in the same conference - the Southern California Intercollegiate Athletic Conference (a basketball powerhouse) - and this was Caltech's first conference victory since...January 23, 1985.  That's right, it had been 310 conference games and 26 years since Caltech's last conference victory.  That stat is hard to wrap one's head around.  It seems impossible.  But, when you realize that Caltech finished this year 5-20, locking up their best record in 15 years, you realize how effing bad the Beavers really are.  Last year, the Beavers were 0-15.  The last time they had a winning record was 1954.  They suck so bad the Cincinnati Bengals feel sorry for them.  Maybe.  Let us now play, what-the-world-was-like the last time Caltech won a conference game (Jan. 23, 1985)*:
  1. I was only 6 years old.  Wow.  That was a looong time ago.
  2. Three days before Caltech's last conference victory, the San Francisco 49ers beat the Miami Dolphins 38-16 in Super Bowl XIX (yes, that is Super Bowl 19 - Green Bay just won Super Bowl 45).
  3. Five days after Caltech's last conference victory, a bunch of entertainers got together and recorded "We Are The World" to raise money to combat famine in Ethiopia.
  4. "Out Of Africa" won 7 Oscars, including best picture, even though I believe "Back To The Future" should have won every single Oscar that year.
  5. The Grammy winner for song of the year was Tina Turner's "What's Love Got To Do With It?", and the award for best new artist went to Cyndi Lauper (anyone feeling really old yet?).
  6. "The Cosby Show" edged out "Cheers" and "Family Ties" to win the primetime Emmy for best comedy series.  I miss good TV.
  7. The median household income was under $24,000, a gallon of gas was $1.20, a dozen eggs cost $0.80, and a first-class stamp was $0.20.  Sheesh.
Oliver Eslinger, Caltech Head Coach, after the victory**: “Tonight’s win is a testament to the hard work each member of this team, the alumni and the supporters have put into this program. I hope that everyone who has participated in Caltech men’s basketball is able to celebrate a little bit tonight...[w]e still have goals and aspirations that we want to accomplish as a program and this win is another step toward meeting these objectives.”  Goals and aspirations?  Really?  What, like win another conference game before 2037?  Maybe Caltech should just keep pumping out Nobel Prizes, because they will never have another celebration like this:


Wow.  And I thought I couldn't feel any more sorry for these guys.  But, in their defense, they are almost certainly smarter than you or me.  At least they have that going for them.


*I got most of these from Wikipedia, so I don't know if they are correct or not.  But, I think they are.

No comments:

Post a Comment