OT: Objectively one of the more boring championship games of the past 25 years?

[MexicoHusky]

Considering the facts of the build up, I'm not sure I've seen a worse championship game.

I've seen blowouts. That's not new. But this was the preseason #1 vs #2. They both represented themselves well throughout the tournament. All evidence pointed to a pretty solid game. Obviously it wasn't. A bit shocking and disappointing.

 

[nomar]

Are we just going to ignore the OP's egregious misuse of the word "objectively"?

I'd argue he used "objectively" more properly than you employed "egregious."

As I said in earlier in the thread, the 2004 title game was well enough played but it wasn't competitive or exciting in any way. The 2011 title game was awful, unless you have a fetish for offensive incompetence.

I've probably re-watched the '04 game once since it happened. (OTOH, I've re-watched the Duke and Alabama games repeatedly.) I've never re-watched the 2011 title game and I can't imagine I'd ever want to.

 

[Brochacho]

You can't make a list of boring title games without 2011 being #1 on the list.

 

[Get a Job]

I'd argue he used "objectively" more properly than you employed "egregious."

As I said in earlier in the thread, the 2004 title game was well enough played but it wasn't competitive or exciting in any way. The 2011 title game was awful, unless you have a fetish for offensive incompetence.

I've probably re-watched the '04 game once since it happened. (OTOH, I've re-watched the Duke and Alabama games repeatedly.) I've never re-watched the 2011 title game and I can't imagine I'd ever want to.

Oh no you didn't!

Merriam-Webster defines objective as "expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations." The very concept of boringness is based on someone's feelings and interpretations. Therefore, the idea of something being objectively boring to an audience of more than one person makes little to no sense.

The same source defines egregious as "CONSPICUOUS especially : conspicuously bad : FLAGRANT." The OP's repeated incorrect usage of the word easily meets that definition in my opinion, especially since he even emphasized one instance using bold type. Now, admittedly, judging something as egregious or not is certainly a subjective thing. (See what I did there?)

 

[nomar]

Oh no you didn't!

Merriam-Webster defines objective as "expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations." The very concept of boringness is based on someone's feelings and interpretations. Therefore, the idea of something being objectively boring to an audience of more than one person makes little to no sense.

The same source defines egregious as "CONSPICUOUS especially : conspicuously bad : FLAGRANT." The OP's repeated incorrect usage of the word easily meets that definition in my opinion, especially since he even emphasized one instance using bold type. Now, admittedly, judging something as egregious or not is certainly a subjective thing. (See what I did there?)

Thank you for copying and pasting the dictionary definitions of "objective" and "egregious."

You seem to think that someone shouldn't use the word "boring" in the place of "uncompetitive" and "poorly played." Perhaps you think it's a "subjective" opinion to think UNLV whipping Duke by 30 points was "not competitive." And maybe you think saying a game with the final score of 53-41 had "bad offense" is "subjective." I don't. Those are all facts, not opinions. We live in a world where a lot of people refuse to acknowledge facts. I'm not one of those people.

They were both objectively non-competitive basketball games. The 2011 game was an objectively terrible basketball game. I have no problem with someone using the phrase "objectively boring" to describe a game that as a matter of fact was non-competitive and/or poorly played. (We're posting in the midst of a thread where there is universal agreement among the fans of the team who won the titles that the games were boring.) So I don't think he misused it at all, certainly not "flagrantly," but then again I don't engage in pedantry on message boards even though IRL I tend to be a grammar/spelling fanatic.

Can you point me to a single fact or metric that supports the conclusion that the 2011 title game was exciting? Is there someone disputing it? There might be someone out there who's not bored by John Cage's 4'33" but can you find someone who was riveted by the 2011 title game? I'd think that the only people who weren't bored to death watching the game were people who bet on the spread (anybody who bet on the over-under turned the channel at halftime).

 

[Colin G]

I'd argue he used "objectively" more properly than you employed "egregious."

As I said in earlier in the thread, the 2004 title game was well enough played but it wasn't competitive or exciting in any way. The 2011 title game was awful, unless you have a fetish for offensive incompetence.

I've probably re-watched the '04 game once since it happened. (OTOH, I've re-watched the Duke and Alabama games repeatedly.) I've never re-watched the 2011 title game and I can't imagine I'd ever want to.

As JC called 2011 Natty, it was a "defensive masterpiece"

 

[Get a Job]

Thank you for copying and pasting the dictionary definitions of "objective" and "egregious."

You seem to think that someone shouldn't use the word "boring" in the place of "uncompetitive" and "poorly played." Perhaps you think it's a "subjective" opinion to think UNLV whipping Duke by 30 points was "not competitive." And maybe you think saying a game with the final score of 53-41 had "bad offense" is "subjective." I don't. Those are all facts, not opinions. We live in a world where a lot of people refuse to acknowledge facts. I'm not one of those people.

They were both objectively non-competitive basketball games. The 2011 game was an objectively terrible basketball game. I have no problem with someone using the phrase "objectively boring" to describe a game that as a matter of fact was non-competitive and/or poorly played. (We're posting in the midst of a thread where there is universal agreement among the fans of the team who won the titles that the games were boring.) So I don't think he misused it at all, certainly not "flagrantly," but then again I don't engage in pedantry on message boards even though IRL I tend to be a grammar/spelling fanatic.

Can you point me to a single fact or metric that supports the conclusion that the 2011 title game was exciting? Is there someone disputing it? There might be someone out there who's not bored by John Cage's 4'33" but can you find someone who was riveted by the 2011 title game? I'd think that the only people who weren't bored to death watching the game were people who bet on the spread (anybody who bet on the over-under turned the channel at halftime).

I was only commenting on the use of the word "objective." Of course I agree that the 2011 final was boring! I just don't know how one can support the argument that it is objectively boring. I assume there is someone out there that disagrees with us that the game was boring. If that's true, then it settles the question as to whether or not a game's boringness is subjective or objective.

 

[nomar]

I was only commenting on the use of the word "objective." Of course I agree that the 2011 final was boring! I just don't know how one can support the argument that it is objectively boring. I assume there is someone out there that disagrees with us that the game was boring. If that's true, then it settles the question as to whether or not a game's boringness is subjective or objective.

We've got ourselves a deal. (Kemba's mom doesn't count.)

 

[boog204]

The OP was going for the last 25 years. Duke-UNLV was before that. But yeah, that one was an absolute non-contest. And I enjoyed it!

I was only 10, but I knew to hate Duke already and I enjoyed every second of that game. I actually rewatched it and UNLVs dominance was so next level. Duke could not even complete a pass for a while in the 2nd half.