Redbirdgrad wrote:Cdizzle wrote:Who changed what argument? And who lost an argument to begin with? I get so confused sometimes with all the grasping for relevance straws.
Who is grasping at relevance? You made a claim that was refuted with facts.
Original claim: Getting to the finals in St. Louis can involve beating 2 teams of questionable quality. It doesn't mean you suck, but that alone is a tremendously weak argument to be a 'good' team.
Refuted claim: See above posts with games and box scores of good, solid semifinal games showing those games weren't against teams of "questionable quality". This was shown as an understanding of where BirdsEyeView would have thought we had "good" teams to make the finals of those tourneys. "Bad" or even "mediocre" teams, don't win those 4 games I pointed out to you as examples.
You then tried to backtrack and say those were only "1 game" and you had to look at the season as a whole... then tried to reference where good teams may have laid an egg in "1 game" negating the stance you just took.
It's ok for a point you make to be wrong. I know you're used to winning everything under the sun, but being wrong about 1 point on a message board isn't the end of the world man.
Your conclusion assumes that bad and mediocre teams don't ever beat good and great teams. And that's a terrible assumption. Bad and mediocre teams beat good and even great teams. It happens all the time. One bad team doesn't do it a lot in one season, but lots of bad teams beat lots of good teams in aggregate.
I seem to have done a lot of 'backtracking' I don't remember. I suppose you also forgot to read the parts where I tried very hard to maintain thread civility and not direct my comments specifically at any given team. If you would really like to get into the specifics of relevance, mediocre/good/great both at the conference and national level, specific to the 2 teams you want to talk about, I'm game. But you're going to start not having any fun very quickly.