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