BD versus Cavaliers...

[Cavie74]

I disagree... there was a pretty big debate during the year 2000 and it was decided then that the 21st century started in 2001... Anyone else remember this?

Mark this day. Tony is right!

From the United States Naval Observatory:

http://www.usno.navy.mil/USNO/astronomical...rm=21st+century

Edited August 14, 2010 by Cavie74

[JayM]

Actually a decade refers to any ten year span.

While you're correct that *if* one were to start at year 1 AD then the year's ending in "0" are always part of the previous decade, there's not a definitive answer to the actual question.

Most people refer to decades with shorthand terms such as the 80's or 90's. In *that* context it certainly makes sense to count from the 'zero' year up to the 'nine' year. Assigning 1980 to the '70's is just silly.

OTOH if one were to refer to the 200th decade, it would include the years from 2001 to 2010. IMO this usage is really not very popular.

Agreed.

The argument that decades begin with years ending in 1 is a red herring. The fact remains that when people refer to decades colloquially (e.g. the 80s), they are referring to a 10-year span of time beginning with a year ending in 0 (e.g. 1980) and ending with a year ending in 9 (e.g. 1989).

Edited August 15, 2010 by JayM

[CoHmempho04]

Decade can include any 10 years actually... you have to be specific... but of the last 10 years, 2001-2010... Average placement... Devils win. Overall great shows, Cavaliers win. 2001, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2010 are all my favorite Cavaliers shows (and 1995 of course).

Devils shows I liked... 2003, 2004, 2006...?

[azwethinkweizm]

2010 is the beginning of a new decade so it doesn't count.

You don't count 1990 in the 80's, let's get real here.

[silvertrombone]

Wow. Talk about

I was kind of thinking about including 2000 through 2010 just for argument's sake. Perhaps each is actually in a different decade, perhaps 2000 "officially" being the close of the 1990's makes Cavies less the corps of the 00's. If you take the 2000 title and punt it back to the 90's, fine. If you take 09/2010's undefeated BD as the cincher for that corps being tops, OK.

I guess it boils down to perspective but it sure does look like bias to me. To each his own. I'm more concerned, truth be told, that DCI finally made the major press this week...and look at what they had to say about it. Hmph.

Me, I want to say Cavies b/c they were so stinkin' awesome from 04 when I came back into the activity until 06. The three-peat has merit. BD still has never done that.

But like I said, BD's run since 2006 has been pretty close to historic. A point in 06 finals and a twentieth of a point in 08 and we're talking about a five-peat topped off by a two-year win streak.

I dunno. Didn't vote. But thank you all for debating when the calendar flips over between decades. I would never have guessed discussion would have turned on such a point. Amazing.

See you next decade...oh, wait...

[BDCorno]

I'm going with Cavies on this one, as the Cavaliers do have more titles, and they laid the groundwork for BD's success later on in the decade. In this case, you have to reward the master, not the student.

I'd call it a tie. Both groups influenced the activity heavily, and had quite similar success the past ten years. Just curious, what exactly how did the Cavs "lay the groundwork" for BD's success? A laughable comment if I've ever heard one. You couldn't find two corps or approaches more diametrically opposed! If it was by winning a bunch of titles in a short period of time, the BD laid that groundwork for the Cavs way back in the 1970s. Give both corps credit - they've created their own success, and should be lauded for it!

[corpsband]

Mark this day. Tony is right!

From the United States Naval Observatory:

http://www.usno.navy.mil/USNO/astronomical...rm=21st+century

Red herring.

A decade is *any* arbitrary 10 year period (as is a century for that matter).

When you enumerate a decade (200th decade, 21st century) you're establishing a starting and ending point. I don't know of anyone who refers to decades this way. In fact decades are normally referred to via the tens digits in a year. This establishes the starting point of the '50s or the '90s . Anyone who thinks the '90's include the year 2000 is...well...I'm sure there's some monty pythonism for it :)

[Big Bad Bari]

Red herring.

A decade is *any* arbitrary 10 year period (as is a century for that matter).

When you enumerate a decade (200th decade, 21st century) you're establishing a starting and ending point. I don't know of anyone who refers to decades this way. In fact decades are normally referred to via the tens digits in a year. This establishes the starting point of the '50s or the '90s . Anyone who thinks the '90's include the year 2000 is...well...I'm sure there's some monty pythonism for it :)

With the article quoted being from the US Navy, I would say your assessment of this being a "Red Herring" is very accurate indeed...

[Stryfe]

Cavies win 00-09, Devils win 01-10 which I won't ever consider a meaningful unit. I voted for Cavies.