PDA

View Full Version : ACC Champs (Well, Kinda)!



burnspbesq
02-08-2014, 11:15 PM
Ccongrats to Duke's men's fencers, who beat Carolina 19-8 today. Combined with last week's win over ND, the Blue Devils are undefeated against ACC competition.

In other news, women's tennis beat the Heels, 4-2, at the ITA National Team Indoors.

Well done, people!

msdukie
02-09-2014, 12:16 AM
I thought there was an announcement that fencing was going to become an ACC Championship sport post-expansion (Duke (and all ACC schools) have been independents) ? When is this happening?

burnspbesq
02-09-2014, 01:57 AM
I thought there was an announcement that fencing was going to become an ACC Championship sport post-expansion (Duke (and all ACC schools) have been independents) ? When is this happening?

Next season. I don't think Duke competes against BC in a dual meet this year.

msdukie
02-09-2014, 06:40 PM
Next season. I don't think Duke competes against BC in a dual meet this year.

Thanks!

burnspbesq
02-09-2014, 11:59 PM
Duke 16, UNC 11.

Note to Facilities: a broom is needed at Card Gym, stat!

westwall
02-10-2014, 12:51 AM
Duke 16, UNC 11.

Note to Facilities: a broom is needed at Card Gym, stat!

--Normally I find your posts informative and interesting although a bit lengthy. This one seems truncated and cryptic. I am slow due to my advanced age so, to what sport are you referring?? And what does "TCB" mean in this context?? (I don't find anything relevant on the official Duke website.)

bedeviled
02-10-2014, 01:06 AM
@ westwall,
TCB = likely referring to 'Taking care of business'
Broom = Duke "swept" men's and women's fencing vs UNC (unless burnspbesq is referring to a quidditch match)

westwall
02-10-2014, 01:25 AM
@ westwall,
TCB = likely referring to 'Taking care of business'
Broom = Duke "swept" men's and women's fencing vs UNC (unless burnspbesq is referring to a quidditch match)

Bedeviled: your analysis is helpful although the explanation of " broom" could be a stretch. Anyway, fencing is indeed the sport in question.
Thanks. (I still think the original post was unduly cryptic.)