So when is Jeff going to Walz off with his first NC?

[Phil]

That's something of a stretch in most fans' opinion, I'd daresay, and I'm no fan of Frese. Has any assistant coach ever been credited with a National Championship?

Perhaps Barmore in 1982.

I thought he was a co-head coach, but I notice that neither the Women’s Basketball Hall of Fame nor the Basketball Hall of Fame mentions him as the coach of the 1982 National Championship team. If he was technically considered an assistant, I think many would agree he deserved a lot of the credit (which is not a slam against Hogg, just a recognition of the relative roles.)

 

[DobbsRover2]

Ah yep.


1) I don't play poker, silly game. 2) I have found people who do play poker don't know much about sports. 3) you don't seem to be able to grasp the concept of upsets.


Just a couple small examples of "upsets", there are many, many, many more. That's why they call it an UPSET, the underdog, the lesser team, wins. Concept has been around for a long time. It's really not that difficult to understand.

Upsets are cool things, that's why they play the games. Sometimes the better team does not win. Sometimes luck, sometimes the lesser team just outplays them. If the better team always won, sports wouldn't be much fun.


Well for one, why were they not #2???? hmmmm? First you say polls don't count, then they do, then they don't even support your position.

RIDICULOUS!!!!!!!!!!

Just for your information, though I'm sure this will go over your head......being the better team on the day, game, inning, 5 minute stretch, etc. is quite different than being the better team.

1. Anyone who doesn't play poker at all is clearly subfunctional, and there is little more about that matter to discuss.

2. Polls do count (mainly for poking vicious fun at other teams), but there are many during a season, and the one that I said did count was the final one. But if you love the early-March ones better, that's just peachy. Personally I prefer the results of last year's final poll better, and that's what I use to describe a team. Not "that #1 Baylor team," but that "#4 Baylor team," etc. And no, Louisville was the runner-up in the tournament, but they finished #3 behind UConn and ND in the final poll. If you cannot accept that, please go hash it out with all the coaches who voted it that way.

3. The better team always wins. ND was better than UConn on three of the days they played the Huskies last year, but not on the semifinal night. The better team won all four games. I will allow a small amount of quibble room concerning oddly errant clocks, referees and umpires who seem to have been slipped a little (lot of) cash, any late-season National League games in 1951 in which the NY Giants had their center field bleachers spy stealing signs, and of course that horrendous 1972 US-Russia Olympic basketball game involving the Brit referee who should have been immediately executed, but other than that --- the better team always wins. Was Stanford a better team than Harvard in February of 1998? Most certainly. Was the #1 seeded Cardinal squad a better team than the Crimson after losing stars Nygaard and Folkl in the week before the game? Nope, and again the better team won. Your attempts to spuriously redirect the discussion into irrelevant things like other days, or nanoseconds, or leap years, or whatever it is you are hung up on is just a time-waster. Done and settled.

 

[RadyLady]

nah...

Would you offer an explanation of your view, or are you just stirring the pot?

 

[meyers7]

1. Anyone who doesn't play poker at all is clearly subfunctional, and there is little more about that matter to discuss.

And I would say anyone who does is clearly subfunctional. And would possibly use you as an example.

2. Polls do count (mainly for poking vicious fun at other teams), but there are many during a season, and the one that I said did count was the final one. But if you love the early-March ones better, that's just peachy. Personally I prefer the results of last year's final poll better, and that's what I use to describe a team. Not "that #1 Baylor team," but that "#4 Baylor team," etc. And no, Louisville was the runner-up in the tournament, but they finished #3 behind UConn and ND in the final poll. If you cannot accept that, please go hash it out with all the coaches who voted it that way.

Personally I don't care about the polls (i.e. don't prefer ones over the others). But I'm sure you preferred the final one because it supported your position more than the others. Hence you could disregard the ones that didn't support your position. It's very convenient.

3. The better team always wins.

Well that right there just proves you don't know a damn thing about sports. I really can't help you. Sorry. You'll just have to go on living in your little fairyland.

And then a couple sentences later you go and contradict yourself:

I will allow a small amount of quibble room concerning oddly errant clocks, referees and umpires who seem to have been slipped a little (lot of) cash, any late-season National League games in 1951 in which the NY Giants had their center field bleachers spy stealing signs, and of course that horrendous 1972 US-Russia Olympic basketball game involving the Brit referee who should have been immediately executed, but other than that

You really are not very good at this are you.

3. ND was better than UConn on three of the days they played the Huskies last year, but not on the semifinal night. The better team won all four games.

Ummm NO. You can't have both teams be better than each other. One team is better. Have you no concept of language????

Here, see if you can do this. Which team is better the 2012/13 UCONN or the 2012/13 ND teams. Not any specific night, just who is the better team? That's what we are talking about. Go ahead. I'll wait.

 

[DobbsRover2]

And I would say anyone who does is clearly subfunctional. And would possibly use you as an example.


Personally I don't care about the polls (i.e. don't prefer ones over the others). But I'm sure you preferred the final one because it supported your position more than the others. Hence you could disregard the ones that didn't support your position. It's very convenient.


Well that right there just proves you don't know a damn thing about sports. I really can't help you. Sorry. You'll just have to go on living in your little fairyland.

And then a couple sentences later you go and contradict yourself:


You really are not very good at this are you.


Ummm NO. You can't have both teams be better than each other. One team is better. Have you no concept of language????

Here, see if you can do this. Which team is better the 2012/13 UCONN or the 2012/13 ND teams. Not any specific night, just who is the better team? That's what we are talking about. Go ahead. I'll wait.

In reply,
1. I am hardly hardcore poker fan, but anyone who has such an antipathy toward the game(s) is clearly of the subfunctional type that would prefer say Arsenal over say West Ham. Just neuron-challenged.
2. It's hardly a matter of "convenience" to use the final poll of the season to sum up a team's status on the season, but it is very convenient for me to point out that your logic is sadly fractured.
3. One team wins and one team loses. The loser cries in many cases that it was "the better team" because, well you know if they had played like they were capable of, they would have won. Crying gets you nowhere, except maybe some penalty kicks in soccer that hopefully misfire to the left. My fairyland does include the possibility of corrupt officials, but unless you're a totally ugly cynic (please don't take that as a complete statement of your character, even if it is really meant that way), you will not say that I am contradicting myself when I acknowledge that there are a few rare cases of evildoing that do not invalidate the general true principle that you so foolishly ignore.
4. Obviously you have no sense of time or an awareness that things change. One team is dominant and plays like a world beater the first time they play a team and are the better team, but then its top two stars suffer ACLs and the team also just decides to gun like crazy and goes down in a second meeting with the team, and its opponent is clearly the better team. So both ND and UConn were the better team at different times last season, and you should get yourself a watch.

 

[diggerfoot]

There are two different concepts being bantered here: better team potentially or overall and better team when it counts. The better team when it counts might not be the better team potentially or overall, they might not be able to win on less than A+ performance, but they call forth that performance when it counts. The better team potentially or overall can win on subpar performances, but might lose as well on a B performance or lower. Baylor is an example of a team that did not draw upon an A+ performance when it counted most; UConn is an example of a team that did.

 

[DobbsRover2]

There are two different concepts being bantered here: better team potentially or overall and better team when it counts. The better team when it counts might not be the better team potentially or overall, they might not be able to win on less than A+ performance, but they call forth that performance when it counts. The better team potentially or overall can win on subpar performances, but might lose as well on a B performance or lower. Baylor is an example of a team that did not draw upon an A+ performance when it counted most; UConn is an example of a team that did.

I will acknowledge that most sports fans do operate on assumptions of good and better regarding the status of two teams which is often based on standings, or betting lines, or polls, or some other concrete number or position. And sports fans see their perceptions blown away each day as the Mets somehow beat the Braves, or Ball State beats UTenn, or the heavy favorite in a high school state championship football game gets destroyed. Humans do believe in a lot of things that have no reality in the real world, as mentioned for instance in a Cracked article. Not all of these deluded people are Arsenal fans, though many surely are. Being that we do not have a full grasp going into all games of which squad has the "better team," I prefer the admittedly strange method of letting the teams decide who is better, unless of course I can monetarily augment a referee's life in a way that will help my favorite team.

 

[DaddyChoc]

Would you offer an explanation of your view, or are you just stirring the pot?

stirring

 

[diggerfoot]

I will acknowledge that most sports fans do operate on assumptions of good and better regarding the status of two teams which is often based on standings, or betting lines, or polls, or some other concrete number or position. And sports fans see their perceptions blown away each day as the Mets somehow beat the Braves, or Ball State beats UTenn, or the heavy favorite in a high school state championship football game gets destroyed. Humans do believe in a lot of things that have no reality in the real world, as mentioned for instance in a Cracked article. Not all of these deluded people are Arsenal fans, though many surely are. Being that we do not have a full grasp going into all games of which squad has the "better team," I prefer the admittedly strange method of letting the teams decide who is better, unless of course I can monetarily augment a referee's life in a way that will help my favorite team.

Pro playoffs are a series. The team that wins game one does not always win the series. You've set up your argument in a way to suggest that, had they played a series, Louisville would have swept Baylor, since winning when it counted was tantamount to proving they were the better team once the playoffs started. So I'll ask you, did you really intend that? Are you confident that if they played a series Louisville would have won every game or at least a majority of the games? If your answer is "yes," what we have is a difference of opinion. I don't think Louisville would beat Baylor in a series. My opinion is not based on numbers or rankings so much as I felt that Baylor had both the best center and best point guard in the game last year. Baylor would have learned from game one and adjusted, while Louisville had less room for adjustments or playing even better. Neither you nor I would "win" that argument, though actually I was trying to be more like a mediator in this. If you genuinely think that by winning that one game Louisville established they would win the majority, we would have to agree to disagree.

If you don't think Louisville would win a continued series, that undermines your claim for "when it counts = better." (my paraphrasing). To me a more incredible "upset" was Villanova over Georgetown. Villanova shot something like 70% in that game, even when well-defended. Ain't no way that was going to continue throughout a series; history provides overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

If you choose a third option, that the question is speculative and irrelevant because there are no series in college basketball playoffs, "what ifs" or potential should not be considered in assessing a team, that's fine up to the point of failing to see that one of the reasons for playoff series professionally (along with other reasons) is that not everyone agrees with your view that one game is sufficient for assessing teams.

 

[meyers7]

In reply,
1. I am hardly hardcore poker fan, but anyone who has such an antipathy toward the game(s) is clearly of the subfunctional type that would prefer say Arsenal over say West Ham. Just neuron-challenged.

At least you are not a ManUre or Chelski fan. I followed the Hammers a little when Spector was there.

In reply,
2. It's hardly a matter of "convenience" to use the final poll of the season to sum up a team's status on the season, but it is very convenient for me to point out that your logic is sadly fractured.

Considering your posts this thread I would stay away from mentioning "logic" if I were you. Not really your wheelhouse.

3. One team wins and one team loses.

Except soccer. And one team is better and one team is worse. And it is separate from who wins and who loses. Although the better team usually wins. The rest of the time they call it an upset. (it's a real word, used in the sporting world although you don't seem to comprehend it)

In reply,
but unless you're a totally ugly cynic (please don't take that as a complete statement of your character, even if it is really meant that way),

I take pride in being cynical. As to ugly....well I ain't no Matthew McConaughey. But I've ok with that.

you will not say that I am contradicting myself when I acknowledge that there are a few rare cases of evildoing that do not invalidate the general true principle that you so foolishly ignore.

Kind of like how you ignore the concept of better teams and upsets???

In reply,
4. Obviously you have no sense of time or an awareness that things change. One team is dominant and plays like a world beater the first time they play a team and are the better team, but then its top two stars suffer ACLs and the team also just decides to gun like crazy and goes down in a second meeting with the team, and its opponent is clearly the better team. So both ND and UConn were the better team at different times last season, and you should get yourself a watch.

Just answer the question. Which team was better. Simple question.

 

[doggydaddy]

stirring

I prefer mine shaken than stirred.

 

[Icebear]

Would you offer an explanation of your view, or are you just stirring the pot?

Guess

 

[RadyLady]

 

[DobbsRover2]

As to Meyers7, there is really only question to answer, since as I believe Tom Hanks once said in some movie, "There's no tieing in basketball," (unless you're talking about some Lady Vols 0-0 game from a century ago). You ask whether the Irish who had a 3-1 record against UConn was the better team, or whether it was the Huskies who lost three times but won when it counted the most? Clearly, ND was the better team on three days in January, February, and March, but then that best of all months rolled around, and UConn got much the better of the Irish. So once more, you pick which day you're talking about, and I'll see if I can help your thick noggin understand who was the better team.

And Digger, you are using unreal scenarios to ask ultimately pointless questions, like the Greek philosopher who tried to prove that a man could never catch a turtle under his "half-the-distance-in-half-the-time" scenario. If, if, if. If the Red Sox and Yankees only had a three game series in 2004, clearly the Yankees are the better team, but seeing as they needed a 4th win, they ended up not being the better team. Louisville and Baylor did not play 10 or 100 times last season except in maybe an WCBB video game. If you wish to dream up 100 alternate universes where they played a games that included some wins for Baylor and some for Louisville, that is your right, but I just checked the NCAA results again and it shows they played one game and that Louisville was the better team in the universe I live in. But for Meyers, I will admit that there could be times that a corrupt referee associated with Ming the Merciless unleashes a time-warping device that not only allows Baylor to win but makes Arsenal last year's UEFA champ. And though there obviously is a Ham in West Ham, there is equally an arse in Arsenal. And any notion that the better team does not win is definitely related to an expulsion of noxious air from there-a-butts.

 

[RadyLady]

As to Meyers7, there is really only question to answer, since as I believe Tom Hanks once said in some movie, "There's no tieing in basketball," (unless you're talking about some Lady Vols 0-0 game from a century ago).

Actually, he said "there is no CRYING in baseball"

careful of the link....Tom as Jimmy D uses some words in the clip....

 

[Icebear]

Bingo, RadyLady, from "A League of Their Own."

 

[diggerfoot]

As to Meyers7, there is really only question to answer, since as I believe Tom Hanks once said in some movie, "There's no tieing in basketball," (unless you're talking about some Lady Vols 0-0 game from a century ago). You ask whether the Irish who had a 3-1 record against UConn was the better team, or whether it was the Huskies who lost three times but won when it counted the most? Clearly, ND was the better team on three days in January, February, and March, but then that best of all months rolled around, and UConn got much the better of the Irish. So once more, you pick which day you're talking about, and I'll see if I can help your thick noggin understand who was the better team.

And Digger, you are using unreal scenarios to ask ultimately pointless questions, like the Greek philosopher who tried to prove that a man could never catch a turtle under his "half-the-distance-in-half-the-time" scenario. If, if, if. If the Red Sox and Yankees only had a three game series in 2004, clearly the Yankees are the better team, but seeing as they needed a 4th win, they ended up not being the better team. Louisville and Baylor did not play 10 or 100 times last season except in maybe an WCBB video game. If you wish to dream up 100 alternate universes where they played a games that included some wins for Baylor and some for Louisville, that is your right, but I just checked the NCAA results again and it shows they played one game and that Louisville was the better team in the universe I live in. But for Meyers, I will admit that there could be times that a corrupt referee associated with Ming the Merciless unleashes a time-warping device that not only allows Baylor to win but makes Arsenal last year's UEFA champ. And though there obviously is a Ham in West Ham, there is equally an arse in Arsenal. And any notion that the better team does not win is definitely related to an expulsion of noxious air from there-a-butts.

Hmmm. There are people who want shared meaning and there are people who want to be right. I've bowed out of a few BY discussions once it became clear I was dealing with the latter.

 

[DaddyChoc]

Guess

no need... you 2 have me all figured out.

that was silly question to ask from the start

 

[doggydaddy]

no need... you 2 have me all figured out.

that was silly question to ask from the start

It would help if you would quote the post or say the posters you mean.

I certainly haven't figured you out.

 

[DaddyChoc]

I dont want you to... and blocking me would be easier

 

[meyers7]

As to Meyers7, there is really only question to answer, since as I believe Tom Hanks once said in some movie, "There's no tieing in basketball," (unless you're talking about some Lady Vols 0-0 game from a century ago). You ask whether the Irish who had a 3-1 record against UConn was the better team, or whether it was the Huskies who lost three times but won when it counted the most? Clearly, ND was the better team on three days in January, February, and March, but then that best of all months rolled around, and UConn got much the better of the Irish. So once more, you pick which day you're talking about, and I'll see if I can help your thick noggin understand who was the better team.

Ok, the day before the semifinal. And based on what?

And I'm talking about sports, not just basketball. As I've said you seem to know very little about sports.

 

[meyers7]

It would help if you would quote the post or say the posters you mean.

I certainly haven't figured you out.

Oh I've got him figured out.

 

[DobbsRover2]

Ok, the day before the semifinal. And based on what?

And I'm talking about sports, not just basketball. As I've said you seem to know very little about sports.

I know absolutely nothing about sports because unlike most posters I just let the results and numbers speak for themselves, instead of trying to let the tookus do the work for me, which of course is the preference of Arse-nists. I checked last year's schedule and I can't find any mention of UConn and ND playing a game on the day before the NCAA semifinal, so it's hard to give any absolutely definitive statement about who was better on that day. But for your Better Team fantasy game wanker session, I can provide some numbers for you to decide who your imaginary winner is:

1. Notre Dame was 3-0 against UConn during games from early in the season, though both teams were seeded in #1 slots for the tourney.

2. Both teams were obviously 4-0 going into the semifinal game of the tourney, but UConn had crushed teams by an average margin of 39.25 points and won the regional final by 30, and ND had won games by 22.75 points and won their previous game over Duke by 11.

3. UConn was a 2.5 point favorite going into the game, and preview picks by the experts ranged from those who thought that UConn would be the BETTER TEAM by a few points and those who thought that ND would be the BETTER TEAM by a few points, with varying scenarios offered as to why one team or the other would win by a few points, none of them including that Stewie would pop for 29 points or that Diggins would shoot 3-15.

4. 87.5% of poll-takers on alexrgct's FF prediction poll thought that UConn would win and go on to capture the NC. That opinion was not shared in ND land. Plus a number of UConn posts suggested fretfully that Diggins was a UConn nemesis of supernatural proportions.

So putting together some facts here for your women's April 6, 2013 fantasy basketball Better Team game, get out your console and see where they take you in finding your pre-semifinal Better Team champion.

 

[DobbsRover2]

Bingo, RadyLady, from "A League of Their Own."

Right, that was the movie about UConn's 2002 to 2004 years in the Big East. And Tom Hanks playing Geno plainly says in this mainly unedited snippet from the script: "Because there's no crying in bas[k]e[t]ball. THERE'S NO CRYING IN BAS[K]E[T]BALL! No crying!" And it worked, because that constantly sulky weepy-girl Taurasi finally gave up her wallflower behavior and led them to some NCs.

 

[RadyLady]

Right, that was the movie about UConn's 2002 to 2004 years in the Big East. And Tom Hanks playing Geno plainly says in this mainly unedited snippet from the script: "Because there's no crying in bas[k]e[t]ball. THERE'S NO CRYING IN BAS[K]E[T]BALL! No crying!" And it worked, because that constantly sulky weepy-girl Taurasi finally gave up her wallflower behavior and led them to some NCs.

What did you say?