Ring 6
PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
2021 Weekly Picks Winner
2022 Weekly Picks Winner
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2004
- Messages
- 63,761
- Reaction score
- 14,113
What is an upset? When the team you EXPECT to win doesn't. That means what you EXPECTED was wrong, not that the result was wrong.So there are no such things as upsets in championship games? The better team is always the one that wins the championship games?
I'm not working hard at all, I am simply responding to your comments.Andy, you're working very hard to argue a pointless point.
It isn't pointless, otherwise you are also working really hard to argue a pointless point, since you keep responding as well. Duh.
ExactlyThe goal is to win the championship, not some mythical "best" team title.
And also best, since you don't need a 'mythical' best when you determine it on the field. The team that is better at winning non-Championship games is not better than the team that is better at winning Championship games if we agree the goal and singular purpose of every team is to win a championship. We agree on that right?The team that wins the championship is the *CHAMPION*, by definition.
If the goal is Championships, the best team is the one that is best at winning Championships and every other consideration pales in comparison.
This is not correct, because you are considering every game equal to a championship which simply isn't realistic.But we all know that there are occasions where a worse team wins a single game, even if that game is the championship.
No they weren't.Villanova was not a better team than Georgetown. They were worse in every single way
They were better at achieving their ultimate goal. They were equal at getting to Championships, and Villanova was better at winning Championship games.
You don't need to guess at who was better. You don't need to look at stats and other performances to figure out who would win. They played the game.
Teams get one chance. The one that would be better with multiple chances is irrelevant.but on one magical night they played a once-in-a-generation perfect game, performing in a way that they could never hope to reproduce if they tried a hundred, or even a thousand, times.
So you would rather be a member of Georgetown than Villanova?So they deserved to be the NCAA Champions. That was the goal, and they achieved it. But they were not *better*. They were better that one magical night, and that's all that matters to them.
You would rather be good at getting there and looking pretty doing it than actually winning?
Thats fine if that's what you prefer, but I just don't understand how you can define success by 'shoulda won'.
Clearly we are not going to agree on this.
Then why do you continue to insist on not accepting what my defition of 'better' is? I've explained it clearly.
I dismiss that your definition of who you think should win is better than mine of who actually achieves the singular goal shared by all teams.
Its OK, but just if you wish to dismiss my defintion, which one to do offer in its place?
None of the examples you gave are better by my definition, yet you keep giving them, and don't offer an alternative (clear) definition.