cpacmel wrote:Those are some great computer #'s.
Game isn't played on the computer.
It's played on the court:
Evansville 71
Wichita State 67
FINAL
Don't worry, you will beat them in Wichita.
Again, not even my point. I didn't even try to make the point you are trying to argue against until someone made that assertion (which is illogical). Please try not to an invent arguments for me.
1. I never made an excuse for Wichita State.
2. I never argued that Evansville was a bad team (in fact, the basis of my argument is on perception, not ability)
3. I never argued that Evansville did not win
However, the end of result of that game does not mean Evansville is better than Wichita State. It means they were better for one game, and that they were better that day. That is not what I've tried to argue. If you insist on saying that they are better based on the result of that game, you ignore the rest of the team's body of work.
That is NOT the way to evaluate teams. It does not make sense. If it were true, I could make the argument that Radford is better than Duke, because Radford beat Citadel, who beat VMI, who beat Elon, who beat Florida Atlandic, who beat Arkansas State, who beat Western Kentucky, who beat DePaul, who beat Arizona State, who beat Arkansas, who beat Oklahoma State, who beat NCState, who beat Duke. Therefore, Radford > Duke.
Basketball does not work that way.
