Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Throwdown


TWO strikes back!

Give it a read. We'll wait.

Welcome back. Now, once your done with the snarky and condescending prose, the links to unrelated material, and the complicated web of deflection, it boils down to this:

TWO prefers upsets by teams that are not normally in the spotlight.

Nothing wrong with this. It's just that it means you cannot win an argument.

Here lies our response which we smacked TWO with across the cheek:

You could have condensed that to: 'I prefer upsets. And because I assume that my opinion speaks for everyone, 'everyone prefers upsets'. Not so much a logical progression as a 'this is what I like'. You prefer little schools to have chances because they are unkown, we prefer the best 64 teams judged on a yearly basis. You prefer a circus sideshow of teams that no one has heard of, we calmly analyze the situation on a yearly basis. You have a kneejerk reaction to include a small school no matter what, we LOVE facts and judging cases based on facts.

Just for your review:

-The top of college hoops is as good or better than it has been in years

-The effects of this includes teams like Maryland competing against the top teams (they played 3 teams that were at one point ranked #1 in the country and beat 2 final four teams) regularly. There is a trickle down when the Big Conferences are dominant.

-Your point against us of 'if the big schools get more chances, of course they'll have more teams' is the same point we made about Boppers. They typically perform in a similar way to big schools (read unpredictable) so automatically giving them bids in some kind of bizarre affirmative bid action cannot be defended beyond your personal preference.

-This year was a special case with upsets in conference tournaments stealing bids and the dominance at the top of the college game.

Thanks! GJW

2 comments:

Jonathan Quayle Higgins III said...

Your frantic, hecticly organized prose belies your claims of calmness.

Amazing how someone who tells people they're in mensa (or, more specifically, tells people they once kissed a girl who was in mensa) can just ignore arguments. "I like upsets" would have been an acceptable summary if my argument had just been point #5. Please read points 2,3 and 4 and respond. Or don't.

I enjoyed your use of Trickle Down and Affirmative Action Theories, but Maryland playing against more top teams means nothing to me. Is there any indication that Maryland might be a top team? One crazy upset in the context of all of their terrible losses and 7-9 conference record should not distract from the obvious answer: No.

Why don't you have a wine cooler and try to relax yourself?

Live From the Palestra! said...

What is really amazing, is your ability to make a point, then ignore evidence that contradicts the point you just made. Your #1 is the key to this whole thing. GJW believes this, and is willing to judge each year differently. You simply default to 'mid-majors are unkown, I want the unkown, everyone loves upsets'.

We don't just love upsets. We love great games, close games, buzzer beaters, the emergence of unlikely heroes, and the best teams competing at a high level. Some years, the best teams come from unlikely places. This is just not one of those years. Your failure to recognize this is your undoing. And you only order vodka cranberry.