05-25-2018, 08:55 PM
UCLA softball just made the college World Series
NCAA Championship 117 to 116
05-25-2018, 11:01 PM
(05-25-2018, 08:55 PM)BobK Wrote: UCLA softball just made the college World Series
Bob, I think you and I both know that it is highly unlikely UCLA wins the national championship in softball. I would probably favor every other Pac-12 team alone, if they all were to hypothetically qualify, over UCLA. UCLA has Garcia as their rotation, and that's it. They will be worn down by better teams with deeper rotations.
(05-25-2018, 08:55 PM)BobK Wrote: UCLA softball just made the college World Series
Bob, I think you and I both know that it is highly unlikely UCLA wins the national championship in softball. I would probably favor every other Pac-12 team alone, if they all were to hypothetically qualify, over UCLA. UCLA has Garcia as their rotation, and that's it. They will be worn down by better teams with deeper rotations.
05-26-2018, 07:44 AM
Ill be rooting for Lonnie at Florida State. Lost her first Game
Also Hoover at LSU won their first game
Ex Stanford coach and ex Stanford pitcher
Boo to Oregon who are 1-1
Also Hoover at LSU won their first game
Ex Stanford coach and ex Stanford pitcher
Boo to Oregon who are 1-1
(05-26-2018, 07:44 AM)BobK Wrote: Ill be rooting for Lonnie at Florida State. Lost her first Game
Also Hoover at LSU won their first game
Ex Stanford coach and ex Stanford pitcher
Boo to Oregon who are 1-1
The softball final 8 is now set. Four Pac 12 teams (Oregon, ASU, UW, UCLA), two SEC teams (Florida, Georgia), one ACC (FSU), one Big 12 (Oklahoma).
All of the Super-regional participants were top 16 seeds. All of the Final Eight were top 8 seeds.
(05-26-2018, 07:44 AM)BobK Wrote: Ill be rooting for Lonnie at Florida State. Lost her first Game
Also Hoover at LSU won their first game
Ex Stanford coach and ex Stanford pitcher
Boo to Oregon who are 1-1
The softball final 8 is now set. Four Pac 12 teams (Oregon, ASU, UW, UCLA), two SEC teams (Florida, Georgia), one ACC (FSU), one Big 12 (Oklahoma).
All of the Super-regional participants were top 16 seeds. All of the Final Eight were top 8 seeds.
05-27-2018, 10:30 AM
Is there a webpage that has a listing of number of championships won by year by school, or at least which school has won the most championships in a given year?
Is there a webpage that has a listing of number of championships won by year by school, or at least which school has won the most championships in a given year?
05-27-2018, 10:50 AM
(05-27-2018, 10:30 AM)JustAnotherFan Wrote: Is there a webpage that has a listing of number of championships won by year by school, or at least which school has won the most championships in a given year?
Here's a PDF of the Year by Year championships records book on ncaa.org.
http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/champs_rec...ok/YbY.pdf
Code:
MOST TEAM CHAMPIONSHIPS IN A YEAR
School Year Total
1. Stanford 1996-97 6
2. UCLA 1981-82 5
Stanford 1991-92 5
Stanford 1994-95 5
Stanford 1997-98 5
6. Many with 4. Most Recently: UCLA, 2003-04But as we can see in from the section I quoted above, it may contain errors. The most recent 4-championship year when the PDF was compiled was Stanford last year and it is now Stanford this year.
(05-27-2018, 10:30 AM)JustAnotherFan Wrote: Is there a webpage that has a listing of number of championships won by year by school, or at least which school has won the most championships in a given year?
Here's a PDF of the Year by Year championships records book on ncaa.org.
http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/champs_rec...ok/YbY.pdf
Code:
MOST TEAM CHAMPIONSHIPS IN A YEAR
School Year Total
1. Stanford 1996-97 6
2. UCLA 1981-82 5
Stanford 1991-92 5
Stanford 1994-95 5
Stanford 1997-98 5
6. Many with 4. Most Recently: UCLA, 2003-04But as we can see in from the section I quoted above, it may contain errors. The most recent 4-championship year when the PDF was compiled was Stanford last year and it is now Stanford this year.
06-03-2018, 03:55 PM
While we wait for the regional final tonight, the board might be interested to hear that Mike White and the Oregon softball team flamed out of the WCWS once again, this time losing as the No.1 overall seed to No.6 Florida State, and a former assistant under Coach Rittman in Coach Lonny Alameda. Now Coach Alameda has her team in a winner-take-all game against UCLA in the national semifinals, for the right to play Washington for the national title. The Huskies look like the big favorites at this point to claim the first NCAA softball title for the Pac-12 since 2011.
While we wait for the regional final tonight, the board might be interested to hear that Mike White and the Oregon softball team flamed out of the WCWS once again, this time losing as the No.1 overall seed to No.6 Florida State, and a former assistant under Coach Rittman in Coach Lonny Alameda. Now Coach Alameda has her team in a winner-take-all game against UCLA in the national semifinals, for the right to play Washington for the national title. The Huskies look like the big favorites at this point to claim the first NCAA softball title for the Pac-12 since 2011.
06-03-2018, 06:38 PM
(06-03-2018, 03:55 PM)d4cohn Wrote: While we wait for the regional final tonight, the board might be interested to hear that Mike White and the Oregon softball team flamed out of the WCWS once again, this time losing as the No.1 overall seed to No.6 Florida State, and a former assistant under Coach Rittman in Coach Lonny Alameda. Now Coach Alameda has her team in a winner-take-all game against UCLA in the national semifinals, for the right to play Washington for the national title. The Huskies look like the big favorites at this point to claim the first NCAA softball title for the Pac-12 since 2011.
Lonni Alameda and Florida State qualify for the NCAA Championship series, blasting UCLA by a score of 12-6. As such, UCLA's season is over in softball. In turn, UCLA baseball is in trouble against Minnesota, so Stanford with a good opportunity to bring the title advantage into next year.
(06-03-2018, 03:55 PM)d4cohn Wrote: While we wait for the regional final tonight, the board might be interested to hear that Mike White and the Oregon softball team flamed out of the WCWS once again, this time losing as the No.1 overall seed to No.6 Florida State, and a former assistant under Coach Rittman in Coach Lonny Alameda. Now Coach Alameda has her team in a winner-take-all game against UCLA in the national semifinals, for the right to play Washington for the national title. The Huskies look like the big favorites at this point to claim the first NCAA softball title for the Pac-12 since 2011.
Lonni Alameda and Florida State qualify for the NCAA Championship series, blasting UCLA by a score of 12-6. As such, UCLA's season is over in softball. In turn, UCLA baseball is in trouble against Minnesota, so Stanford with a good opportunity to bring the title advantage into next year.
06-14-2018, 08:39 AM
Sort of surprised that after it's all said and done, Stanford finishes this year one ahead. After all, UCLA won three national championships this year, and was among the top few seeds in a few other sports this spring.
But we got four. Four national titles! That's an insane year. And, as usual, it was our women's teams carrying the bulk of the load, winning 3 of those 4 national titles and nearly doubling our men's teams in terms of counted Director's Cup points. With the women's tennis championship, Stanford women have now won a national championship in seven straight seasons, going back to the women's tennis title in the spring of 2016.
Spring 2018: Tennis
Winter 2018: Swimming & Diving
Fall 2017: Soccer
Spring 2017: Water Polo
Winter 2017: Swimming & Diving
Fall 2016: Volleyball
Spring 2016: Tennis
Has any school, let alone just a school's men's or women's teams, ever done something like that? (Adding the men doesn't add to the streak, as aside from the men's soccer team's three straight national titles, a Stanford men's team hasn't won a national title since men's gymnastics in 2011, so the spring of 2016 is where the current season streak starts.)
Not to mention the 42-year streak of winning a national title. We haven't had to wait until spring the last several years to keep that streak alive, but before that, it was a few straight years of leaving it until the last minute, but women's tennis (2013), women's water polo (2014 and 2015), and women's golf (2015) made sure it kept going.
But we got four. Four national titles! That's an insane year. And, as usual, it was our women's teams carrying the bulk of the load, winning 3 of those 4 national titles and nearly doubling our men's teams in terms of counted Director's Cup points. With the women's tennis championship, Stanford women have now won a national championship in seven straight seasons, going back to the women's tennis title in the spring of 2016.
Spring 2018: Tennis
Winter 2018: Swimming & Diving
Fall 2017: Soccer
Spring 2017: Water Polo
Winter 2017: Swimming & Diving
Fall 2016: Volleyball
Spring 2016: Tennis
Has any school, let alone just a school's men's or women's teams, ever done something like that? (Adding the men doesn't add to the streak, as aside from the men's soccer team's three straight national titles, a Stanford men's team hasn't won a national title since men's gymnastics in 2011, so the spring of 2016 is where the current season streak starts.)
Not to mention the 42-year streak of winning a national title. We haven't had to wait until spring the last several years to keep that streak alive, but before that, it was a few straight years of leaving it until the last minute, but women's tennis (2013), women's water polo (2014 and 2015), and women's golf (2015) made sure it kept going.
Sort of surprised that after it's all said and done, Stanford finishes this year one ahead. After all, UCLA won three national championships this year, and was among the top few seeds in a few other sports this spring.
But we got four. Four national titles! That's an insane year. And, as usual, it was our women's teams carrying the bulk of the load, winning 3 of those 4 national titles and nearly doubling our men's teams in terms of counted Director's Cup points. With the women's tennis championship, Stanford women have now won a national championship in seven straight seasons, going back to the women's tennis title in the spring of 2016.
Spring 2018: Tennis
Winter 2018: Swimming & Diving
Fall 2017: Soccer
Spring 2017: Water Polo
Winter 2017: Swimming & Diving
Fall 2016: Volleyball
Spring 2016: Tennis
Has any school, let alone just a school's men's or women's teams, ever done something like that? (Adding the men doesn't add to the streak, as aside from the men's soccer team's three straight national titles, a Stanford men's team hasn't won a national title since men's gymnastics in 2011, so the spring of 2016 is where the current season streak starts.)
Not to mention the 42-year streak of winning a national title. We haven't had to wait until spring the last several years to keep that streak alive, but before that, it was a few straight years of leaving it until the last minute, but women's tennis (2013), women's water polo (2014 and 2015), and women's golf (2015) made sure it kept going.
But we got four. Four national titles! That's an insane year. And, as usual, it was our women's teams carrying the bulk of the load, winning 3 of those 4 national titles and nearly doubling our men's teams in terms of counted Director's Cup points. With the women's tennis championship, Stanford women have now won a national championship in seven straight seasons, going back to the women's tennis title in the spring of 2016.
Spring 2018: Tennis
Winter 2018: Swimming & Diving
Fall 2017: Soccer
Spring 2017: Water Polo
Winter 2017: Swimming & Diving
Fall 2016: Volleyball
Spring 2016: Tennis
Has any school, let alone just a school's men's or women's teams, ever done something like that? (Adding the men doesn't add to the streak, as aside from the men's soccer team's three straight national titles, a Stanford men's team hasn't won a national title since men's gymnastics in 2011, so the spring of 2016 is where the current season streak starts.)
Not to mention the 42-year streak of winning a national title. We haven't had to wait until spring the last several years to keep that streak alive, but before that, it was a few straight years of leaving it until the last minute, but women's tennis (2013), women's water polo (2014 and 2015), and women's golf (2015) made sure it kept going.
06-14-2018, 10:14 AM
Yes, fantastic year all around, esp. with UCLA so strong in so many sports. The amusing upside to the Directors Cup scoring change is that in some ways it could benefit us- we're probably one of the most gender imbalanced schools in terms of points accumulations, and I remember a few years in the late 00s early 10s when we didn't even score points in all ten men's sports, and so we were leaving points on the table. Now, as long as we score points in men's basketball and baseball, we can otherwise run wild with our women's teams. (And note that our men also seem to have secured the Anyone But Stanford Cup, suggesting we were more balanced than our Directors Cup points would suggest.)
As always, proud to be a Stanford fan. GO CARDINAL!
As always, proud to be a Stanford fan. GO CARDINAL!
Yes, fantastic year all around, esp. with UCLA so strong in so many sports. The amusing upside to the Directors Cup scoring change is that in some ways it could benefit us- we're probably one of the most gender imbalanced schools in terms of points accumulations, and I remember a few years in the late 00s early 10s when we didn't even score points in all ten men's sports, and so we were leaving points on the table. Now, as long as we score points in men's basketball and baseball, we can otherwise run wild with our women's teams. (And note that our men also seem to have secured the Anyone But Stanford Cup, suggesting we were more balanced than our Directors Cup points would suggest.)
As always, proud to be a Stanford fan. GO CARDINAL!
As always, proud to be a Stanford fan. GO CARDINAL!
06-14-2018, 10:50 AM
(06-14-2018, 10:14 AM)2006alum Wrote: Yes, fantastic year all around, esp. with UCLA so strong in so many sports. The amusing upside to the Directors Cup scoring change is that in some ways it could benefit us- we're probably one of the most gender imbalanced schools in terms of points accumulations, and I remember a few years in the late 00s early 10s when we didn't even score points in all ten men's sports, and so we were leaving points on the table. Now, as long as we score points in men's basketball and baseball, we can otherwise run wild with our women's teams. (And note that our men also seem to have secured the Anyone But Stanford Cup, suggesting we were more balanced than our Directors Cup points would suggest.)
As always, proud to be a Stanford fan. GO CARDINAL!
For the CapOne Cup, it seemed to help that we won a Group B title (and the treble points that go along with it), and no other school won two Group B titles.
Also, including a regional sport like lacrosse in Group B is just absurd. If you're going to distinguish between sports, then it's fine to pick the biggest-revenue sports like FBS football and basketball and a high-visibility sport like baseball. But other sports should be among the most widely-played at the Division I level so you're rewarding schools appropriately. Soccer fits that test well enough, as 205 schools have a DI men's soccer team. But there are just 71 DI varsity men's lacrosse teams, far fewer than several Group A sports like men's tennis (256 DI teams) or men's golf (292!). Even wrestling (76 DI teams) outpaces lacrosse. (I couldn't readily find the number of track and field teams, but I'm confident that number is much higher than 71.) The only reason to include it at that level is to favor Eastern schools at the expense of the rest of the country (i.e., us).
Also, it seems silly to give FCS football the same points as FBS football. It's a lesser level. Based on the most recent standings I saw, North Dakota State was in a tie for 3rd with Michigan and Villanova. In no universe is NDSU's athletic department on par with Michigan's. (I'm sure this particular issue has been discussed at length, so I apologize for bringing it up again, but it's still ridiculous.)
Ugh, sorry. I know you folks know all this. I just haven't given much thought to this particular trophy in quite some time, so I'm shocked all over again.
(06-14-2018, 10:14 AM)2006alum Wrote: Yes, fantastic year all around, esp. with UCLA so strong in so many sports. The amusing upside to the Directors Cup scoring change is that in some ways it could benefit us- we're probably one of the most gender imbalanced schools in terms of points accumulations, and I remember a few years in the late 00s early 10s when we didn't even score points in all ten men's sports, and so we were leaving points on the table. Now, as long as we score points in men's basketball and baseball, we can otherwise run wild with our women's teams. (And note that our men also seem to have secured the Anyone But Stanford Cup, suggesting we were more balanced than our Directors Cup points would suggest.)
As always, proud to be a Stanford fan. GO CARDINAL!
For the CapOne Cup, it seemed to help that we won a Group B title (and the treble points that go along with it), and no other school won two Group B titles.
Also, including a regional sport like lacrosse in Group B is just absurd. If you're going to distinguish between sports, then it's fine to pick the biggest-revenue sports like FBS football and basketball and a high-visibility sport like baseball. But other sports should be among the most widely-played at the Division I level so you're rewarding schools appropriately. Soccer fits that test well enough, as 205 schools have a DI men's soccer team. But there are just 71 DI varsity men's lacrosse teams, far fewer than several Group A sports like men's tennis (256 DI teams) or men's golf (292!). Even wrestling (76 DI teams) outpaces lacrosse. (I couldn't readily find the number of track and field teams, but I'm confident that number is much higher than 71.) The only reason to include it at that level is to favor Eastern schools at the expense of the rest of the country (i.e., us).
Also, it seems silly to give FCS football the same points as FBS football. It's a lesser level. Based on the most recent standings I saw, North Dakota State was in a tie for 3rd with Michigan and Villanova. In no universe is NDSU's athletic department on par with Michigan's. (I'm sure this particular issue has been discussed at length, so I apologize for bringing it up again, but it's still ridiculous.)
Ugh, sorry. I know you folks know all this. I just haven't given much thought to this particular trophy in quite some time, so I'm shocked all over again.
(06-14-2018, 10:50 AM)ColoradoTree Wrote:(06-14-2018, 10:14 AM)2006alum Wrote: Yes, fantastic year all around, esp. with UCLA so strong in so many sports. The amusing upside to the Directors Cup scoring change is that in some ways it could benefit us- we're probably one of the most gender imbalanced schools in terms of points accumulations, and I remember a few years in the late 00s early 10s when we didn't even score points in all ten men's sports, and so we were leaving points on the table. Now, as long as we score points in men's basketball and baseball, we can otherwise run wild with our women's teams. (And note that our men also seem to have secured the Anyone But Stanford Cup, suggesting we were more balanced than our Directors Cup points would suggest.)
As always, proud to be a Stanford fan. GO CARDINAL!
For the CapOne Cup, it seemed to help that we won a Group B title (and the treble points that go along with it), and no other school won two Group B titles.
Also, including a regional sport like lacrosse in Group B is just absurd. If you're going to distinguish between sports, then it's fine to pick the biggest-revenue sports like FBS football and basketball and a high-visibility sport like baseball. But other sports should be among the most widely-played at the Division I level so you're rewarding schools appropriately. Soccer fits that test well enough, as 205 schools have a DI men's soccer team. But there are just 71 DI varsity men's lacrosse teams, far fewer than several Group A sports like men's tennis (256 DI teams) or men's golf (292!). Even wrestling (76 DI teams) outpaces lacrosse. (I couldn't readily find the number of track and field teams, but I'm confident that number is much higher than 71.) The only reason to include it at that level is to favor Eastern schools at the expense of the rest of the country (i.e., us).
Also, it seems silly to give FCS football the same points as FBS football. It's a lesser level. Based on the most recent standings I saw, North Dakota State was in a tie for 3rd with Michigan and Villanova. In no universe is NDSU's athletic department on par with Michigan's. (I'm sure this particular issue has been discussed at length, so I apologize for bringing it up again, but it's still ridiculous.)
Ugh, sorry. I know you folks know all this. I just haven't given much thought to this particular trophy in quite some time, so I'm shocked all over again.
This whole CapOne thing is such cr*p as it only exists because ESPN wanted something emblematic of its "stewardship" of college sports, and because it wanted something that would play well to its mainly east-of-the-Mississippi ratings audience (and during football off-season). And it keeps backfiring because they keep trying to adjust the bar to keep Stanford from (seemingly) winning every year. You can bet that if Penn St or Michigan or Duke won, ESPN would be all over it in airtime and coverage. When we win -- crickets.
It's really not worth our attention. I'd rather endure the yearly ritual of questioning Shaw's playcalling.
(06-14-2018, 10:50 AM)ColoradoTree Wrote:(06-14-2018, 10:14 AM)2006alum Wrote: Yes, fantastic year all around, esp. with UCLA so strong in so many sports. The amusing upside to the Directors Cup scoring change is that in some ways it could benefit us- we're probably one of the most gender imbalanced schools in terms of points accumulations, and I remember a few years in the late 00s early 10s when we didn't even score points in all ten men's sports, and so we were leaving points on the table. Now, as long as we score points in men's basketball and baseball, we can otherwise run wild with our women's teams. (And note that our men also seem to have secured the Anyone But Stanford Cup, suggesting we were more balanced than our Directors Cup points would suggest.)
As always, proud to be a Stanford fan. GO CARDINAL!
For the CapOne Cup, it seemed to help that we won a Group B title (and the treble points that go along with it), and no other school won two Group B titles.
Also, including a regional sport like lacrosse in Group B is just absurd. If you're going to distinguish between sports, then it's fine to pick the biggest-revenue sports like FBS football and basketball and a high-visibility sport like baseball. But other sports should be among the most widely-played at the Division I level so you're rewarding schools appropriately. Soccer fits that test well enough, as 205 schools have a DI men's soccer team. But there are just 71 DI varsity men's lacrosse teams, far fewer than several Group A sports like men's tennis (256 DI teams) or men's golf (292!). Even wrestling (76 DI teams) outpaces lacrosse. (I couldn't readily find the number of track and field teams, but I'm confident that number is much higher than 71.) The only reason to include it at that level is to favor Eastern schools at the expense of the rest of the country (i.e., us).
Also, it seems silly to give FCS football the same points as FBS football. It's a lesser level. Based on the most recent standings I saw, North Dakota State was in a tie for 3rd with Michigan and Villanova. In no universe is NDSU's athletic department on par with Michigan's. (I'm sure this particular issue has been discussed at length, so I apologize for bringing it up again, but it's still ridiculous.)
Ugh, sorry. I know you folks know all this. I just haven't given much thought to this particular trophy in quite some time, so I'm shocked all over again.
This whole CapOne thing is such cr*p as it only exists because ESPN wanted something emblematic of its "stewardship" of college sports, and because it wanted something that would play well to its mainly east-of-the-Mississippi ratings audience (and during football off-season). And it keeps backfiring because they keep trying to adjust the bar to keep Stanford from (seemingly) winning every year. You can bet that if Penn St or Michigan or Duke won, ESPN would be all over it in airtime and coverage. When we win -- crickets.
It's really not worth our attention. I'd rather endure the yearly ritual of questioning Shaw's playcalling.
06-14-2018, 11:24 AM
Totally agree, the scoring system is bananas, and ESPN's disinterest in Stanford is palpable....
...Only reason to pay attention is to collect that $400k paycheck and, to quote the Steve Miller Band, Take the Money and Run.
...Only reason to pay attention is to collect that $400k paycheck and, to quote the Steve Miller Band, Take the Money and Run.
06-14-2018, 04:17 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-14-2018, 04:18 PM by FarmDad.01.)
(06-14-2018, 11:24 AM)2006alum Wrote: Totally agree, the scoring system is bananas, and ESPN's disinterest in Stanford is palpable....
...Only reason to pay attention is to collect that $400k paycheck and, to quote the Steve Miller Band, Take the Money and Run.
In a previous life, I grew up in New York City. My Top 40 radio station in the late 50s and early 60s was WABC. Its heaviest-rotation commercial was for a discount haberdashery in New Jersey along a Rte. 22 traffic island. Why bother to cross the George Washington Bridge to shop there, the commercial asked: "Money talks -- nobody walks."
I'd love to see Samuel L. Jackson and Jennifer Garner arrive in Palo Alto to present a $400,000 check. (Followed by Cap1/ESPN deeming coed riflery, M/W ice hockey and bowling to be Major [3x points] Sports.) Like lacrosse currently is?
(This post was last modified: 06-14-2018, 04:18 PM by FarmDad.01.)
(06-14-2018, 11:24 AM)2006alum Wrote: Totally agree, the scoring system is bananas, and ESPN's disinterest in Stanford is palpable....
...Only reason to pay attention is to collect that $400k paycheck and, to quote the Steve Miller Band, Take the Money and Run.
In a previous life, I grew up in New York City. My Top 40 radio station in the late 50s and early 60s was WABC. Its heaviest-rotation commercial was for a discount haberdashery in New Jersey along a Rte. 22 traffic island. Why bother to cross the George Washington Bridge to shop there, the commercial asked: "Money talks -- nobody walks."
I'd love to see Samuel L. Jackson and Jennifer Garner arrive in Palo Alto to present a $400,000 check. (Followed by Cap1/ESPN deeming coed riflery, M/W ice hockey and bowling to be Major [3x points] Sports.) Like lacrosse currently is?
06-14-2018, 08:05 PM
Thread drift warning...
I remember the commercials well from my time in the Big Apple suburbs through high school. Never did actually visit though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKa9dTW9ZHY
http://spectatorarchive.library.columbia...txIN------
Geaux Cardinal!
(06-14-2018, 04:17 PM)FarmDad.01 Wrote: In a previous life, I grew up in New York City. My Top 40 radio station in the late 50s and early 60s was WABC. Its heaviest-rotation commercial was for a discount haberdashery in New Jersey along a Rte. 22 traffic island. Why bother to cross the George Washington Bridge to shop there, the commercial asked: "Money talks -- nobody walks."
I remember the commercials well from my time in the Big Apple suburbs through high school. Never did actually visit though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKa9dTW9ZHY
http://spectatorarchive.library.columbia...txIN------
Geaux Cardinal!
Thread drift warning...
I remember the commercials well from my time in the Big Apple suburbs through high school. Never did actually visit though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKa9dTW9ZHY
http://spectatorarchive.library.columbia...txIN------
Geaux Cardinal!
(06-14-2018, 04:17 PM)FarmDad.01 Wrote: In a previous life, I grew up in New York City. My Top 40 radio station in the late 50s and early 60s was WABC. Its heaviest-rotation commercial was for a discount haberdashery in New Jersey along a Rte. 22 traffic island. Why bother to cross the George Washington Bridge to shop there, the commercial asked: "Money talks -- nobody walks."
I remember the commercials well from my time in the Big Apple suburbs through high school. Never did actually visit though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKa9dTW9ZHY
http://spectatorarchive.library.columbia...txIN------
Geaux Cardinal!
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »