NCAA tournament 2016

[Rosey]

Also, Cornell, with all its heartbreaking losses in the NCAA's over the past 20 years, deserves to win a national title before these teams that have only been good the past few years.

I'm not sure if you meant this rhetorically or not, but this is obviously not how the game actually works.

According to the rules, the team that does well enough to get an NCAA bid and then manages to win four games in a row deserves to win the national title. There is currently no handicapping based on performance in past seasons, a school's hockey tradition, or how much fans have suffered. The only thing that matters is winning the right games at the right time, something that Yale and Union have done, and that Q is now possibly doing.

Thanks for this completely useless post.

Wait, so you're saying that the post outlining the facts is completely useless, but the post whining about how it isn't fair or right or just that Cornell wasn't handed a NC is more useful?

I'll admit that I care very little anymore: life is too short for shitty entertainment. I've been a bad fan for a long time, but I'm a full-on apostate now. Sometimes, you need the reality check that only people like myself can give you.

[KeithK]

Also, Cornell, with all its heartbreaking losses in the NCAA's over the past 20 years, deserves to win a national title before these teams that have only been good the past few years.

I'm not sure if you meant this rhetorically or not, but this is obviously not how the game actually works.

According to the rules, the team that does well enough to get an NCAA bid and then manages to win four games in a row deserves to win the national title. There is currently no handicapping based on performance in past seasons, a school's hockey tradition, or how much fans have suffered. The only thing that matters is winning the right games at the right time, something that Yale and Union have done, and that Q is now possibly doing.

Thanks for this completely useless post.

Wait, so you're saying that the post outlining the facts is completely useless, but the post whining about how it isn't fair or right or just that Cornell wasn't handed a NC is more useful?

I'll admit that I care very little anymore: life is too short for shitty entertainment. I've been a bad fan for a long time, but I'm a full-on apostate now. Sometimes, you need the reality check that only people like myself can give you.

Kyle, I think your facts are wrong. Winning four straight gaes in the tournament has nothing to do with being "deserving". It just means that you played better at the right time. I think most of us know that "deserve" in a sports context is a purely emotional statement. Emotion is a totally justifiable reason to explain why someone roots for one particular team over another. After all there really is no rational reason to let your happiness be dictated by a bunch of kids wearing red who have knives strapped to their feet.

[imafrshmn]

Also, Cornell, with all its heartbreaking losses in the NCAA's over the past 20 years, deserves to win a national title before these teams that have only been good the past few years.

I'm not sure if you meant this rhetorically or not, but this is obviously not how the game actually works.

According to the rules, the team that does well enough to get an NCAA bid and then manages to win four games in a row deserves to win the national title. There is currently no handicapping based on performance in past seasons, a school's hockey tradition, or how much fans have suffered. The only thing that matters is winning the right games at the right time, something that Yale and Union have done, and that Q is now possibly doing.

Thanks for this completely useless post.

Wait, so you're saying that the post outlining the facts is completely useless, but the post whining about how it isn't fair or right or just that Cornell wasn't handed a NC is more useful?

I'll admit that I care very little anymore: life is too short for shitty entertainment. I've been a bad fan for a long time, but I'm a full-on apostate now. Sometimes, you need the reality check that only people like myself can give you.

Kyle, I think your facts are wrong. Winning four straight gaes in the tournament has nothing to do with being "deserving". It just means that you played better at the right time. I think most of us know that "deserve" in a sports context is a purely emotional statement. Emotion is a totally justifiable reason to explain why someone roots for one particular team over another. After all there really is no rational reason to let your happiness be dictated by a bunch of kids wearing red who have knives strapped to their feet.

+1

[scoop85]

Also, Cornell, with all its heartbreaking losses in the NCAA's over the past 20 years, deserves to win a national title before these teams that have only been good the past few years.

I'm not sure if you meant this rhetorically or not, but this is obviously not how the game actually works.

According to the rules, the team that does well enough to get an NCAA bid and then manages to win four games in a row deserves to win the national title. There is currently no handicapping based on performance in past seasons, a school's hockey tradition, or how much fans have suffered. The only thing that matters is winning the right games at the right time, something that Yale and Union have done, and that Q is now possibly doing.

Thanks for this completely useless post.

Wait, so you're saying that the post outlining the facts is completely useless, but the post whining about how it isn't fair or right or just that Cornell wasn't handed a NC is more useful?

I'll admit that I care very little anymore: life is too short for shitty entertainment. I've been a bad fan for a long time, but I'm a full-on apostate now. Sometimes, you need the reality check that only people like myself can give you.

Kyle, I think your facts are wrong. Winning four straight gaes in the tournament has nothing to do with being "deserving". It just means that you played better at the right time. I think most of us know that "deserve" in a sports context is a purely emotional statement. Emotion is a totally justifiable reason to explain why someone roots for one particular team over another. After all there really is no rational reason to let your happiness be dictated by a bunch of kids wearing red who have knives strapped to their feet.

As shown by the run of the Syracuse basketball team to the final four -- no one would have put them among the top 25 teams heading into the tournament.

[Iceberg]

Here's an important point. I turned the game on at 1-0 at some point in the second period. From that point on, at least, Q made Lowell look like they had never previously played hockey.

Q didn't play all that well against RIT for the first 40 minutes...and then they showed up in the 3rd. RIT's problem was that they weren't very good at getting quality shots.

[KeithK]

Also, Cornell, with all its heartbreaking losses in the NCAA's over the past 20 years, deserves to win a national title before these teams that have only been good the past few years.

I'm not sure if you meant this rhetorically or not, but this is obviously not how the game actually works.

According to the rules, the team that does well enough to get an NCAA bid and then manages to win four games in a row deserves to win the national title. There is currently no handicapping based on performance in past seasons, a school's hockey tradition, or how much fans have suffered. The only thing that matters is winning the right games at the right time, something that Yale and Union have done, and that Q is now possibly doing.

Thanks for this completely useless post.

Wait, so you're saying that the post outlining the facts is completely useless, but the post whining about how it isn't fair or right or just that Cornell wasn't handed a NC is more useful?

I'll admit that I care very little anymore: life is too short for shitty entertainment. I've been a bad fan for a long time, but I'm a full-on apostate now. Sometimes, you need the reality check that only people like myself can give you.

Kyle, I think your facts are wrong. Winning four straight gaes in the tournament has nothing to do with being "deserving". It just means that you played better at the right time. I think most of us know that "deserve" in a sports context is a purely emotional statement. Emotion is a totally justifiable reason to explain why someone roots for one particular team over another. After all there really is no rational reason to let your happiness be dictated by a bunch of kids wearing red who have knives strapped to their feet.

Then again, if we want to talk about "deserving" a right to be  national champion I could go off on my rant about post-season tournaments and at-large bids.  But that's so last decade.

[Rosey]

Also, Cornell, with all its heartbreaking losses in the NCAA's over the past 20 years, deserves to win a national title before these teams that have only been good the past few years.

I'm not sure if you meant this rhetorically or not, but this is obviously not how the game actually works.

According to the rules, the team that does well enough to get an NCAA bid and then manages to win four games in a row deserves to win the national title. There is currently no handicapping based on performance in past seasons, a school's hockey tradition, or how much fans have suffered. The only thing that matters is winning the right games at the right time, something that Yale and Union have done, and that Q is now possibly doing.

Thanks for this completely useless post.

Wait, so you're saying that the post outlining the facts is completely useless, but the post whining about how it isn't fair or right or just that Cornell wasn't handed a NC is more useful?

I'll admit that I care very little anymore: life is too short for shitty entertainment. I've been a bad fan for a long time, but I'm a full-on apostate now. Sometimes, you need the reality check that only people like myself can give you.

Kyle, I think your facts are wrong. Winning four straight gaes in the tournament has nothing to do with being "deserving". It just means that you played better at the right time. I think most of us know that "deserve" in a sports context is a purely emotional statement. Emotion is a totally justifiable reason to explain why someone roots for one particular team over another. After all there really is no rational reason to let your happiness be dictated by a bunch of kids wearing red who have knives strapped to their feet.

To some extent, I think we are both begging the question. (In the original sense, not the modern sense.) I am saying that the rules of the tournament define who is deserving of the NC: the winner of the tournament. You are saying that "deserving" means something entirely subjective, which means it isn't well-defined. To use scoop's example, some people might think Syracuse is deserving of the Final Four because they played hard at the right time; others think they barely qualified and that it would be a travesty were they to win the NC. So which group is right?

I guess I'm mostly saying that talking about which team is more "deserving" is pointless. In the subjective sense, it doesn't signify anything about whether or not a team *should* win, and frankly says more about the fan than the team. In my locker room, after every loss I hear statements like "We should have won that game"... but I *never* hear "We deserved to win that game." Never. There is a huge difference between the two statements in the implied level of entitlement.

[KeithK]

Also, Cornell, with all its heartbreaking losses in the NCAA's over the past 20 years, deserves to win a national title before these teams that have only been good the past few years.

I'm not sure if you meant this rhetorically or not, but this is obviously not how the game actually works.

According to the rules, the team that does well enough to get an NCAA bid and then manages to win four games in a row deserves to win the national title. There is currently no handicapping based on performance in past seasons, a school's hockey tradition, or how much fans have suffered. The only thing that matters is winning the right games at the right time, something that Yale and Union have done, and that Q is now possibly doing.

Thanks for this completely useless post.

Wait, so you're saying that the post outlining the facts is completely useless, but the post whining about how it isn't fair or right or just that Cornell wasn't handed a NC is more useful?

I'll admit that I care very little anymore: life is too short for shitty entertainment. I've been a bad fan for a long time, but I'm a full-on apostate now. Sometimes, you need the reality check that only people like myself can give you.

Kyle, I think your facts are wrong. Winning four straight gaes in the tournament has nothing to do with being "deserving". It just means that you played better at the right time. I think most of us know that "deserve" in a sports context is a purely emotional statement. Emotion is a totally justifiable reason to explain why someone roots for one particular team over another. After all there really is no rational reason to let your happiness be dictated by a bunch of kids wearing red who have knives strapped to their feet.

To some extent, I think we are both begging the question. (In the original sense, not the modern sense.) I am saying that the rules of the tournament define who is deserving of the NC: the winner of the tournament. You are saying that "deserving" means something entirely subjective, which means it isn't well-defined. To use scoop's example, some people might think Syracuse is deserving of the Final Four because they played hard at the right time; others think they barely qualified and that it would be a travesty were they to win the NC. So which group is right?

I guess I'm mostly saying that talking about which team is more "deserving" is pointless. In the subjective sense, it doesn't signify anything about whether or not a team *should* win, and frankly says more about the fan than the team. In my locker room, after every loss I hear statements like "We should have won that game"... but I *never* hear "We deserved to win that game." Never. There is a huge difference between the two statements in the implied level of entitlement.

I don't think it's possible for someone to use the term "begging the question" correctly in this day and age. I think it's actually illegal in some states :-)

But you're right. If I define "deserve" as a subjective, emotional thing it means something entirely different than if we define it based on the rules.

[Jim Hyla]

Also, Cornell, with all its heartbreaking losses in the NCAA's over the past 20 years, deserves to win a national title before these teams that have only been good the past few years.

I'm not sure if you meant this rhetorically or not, but this is obviously not how the game actually works.

According to the rules, the team that does well enough to get an NCAA bid and then manages to win four games in a row deserves to win the national title. There is currently no handicapping based on performance in past seasons, a school's hockey tradition, or how much fans have suffered. The only thing that matters is winning the right games at the right time, something that Yale and Union have done, and that Q is now possibly doing.

Thanks for this completely useless post.

Wait, so you're saying that the post outlining the facts is completely useless, but the post whining about how it isn't fair or right or just that Cornell wasn't handed a NC is more useful?

I'll admit that I care very little anymore: life is too short for shitty entertainment. I've been a bad fan for a long time, but I'm a full-on apostate now. Sometimes, you need the reality check that only people like myself can give you.

Kyle, I think your facts are wrong. Winning four straight gaes in the tournament has nothing to do with being "deserving". It just means that you played better at the right time. I think most of us know that "deserve" in a sports context is a purely emotional statement. Emotion is a totally justifiable reason to explain why someone roots for one particular team over another. After all there really is no rational reason to let your happiness be dictated by a bunch of kids wearing red who have knives strapped to their feet.

To some extent, I think we are both begging the question. (In the original sense, not the modern sense.) I am saying that the rules of the tournament define who is deserving of the NC: the winner of the tournament. You are saying that "deserving" means something entirely subjective, which means it isn't well-defined. To use scoop's example, some people might think Syracuse is deserving of the Final Four because they played hard at the right time; others think they barely qualified and that it would be a travesty were they to win the NC. So which group is right?

I guess I'm mostly saying that talking about which team is more "deserving" is pointless. In the subjective sense, it doesn't signify anything about whether or not a team *should* win, and frankly says more about the fan than the team. In my locker room, after every loss I hear statements like "We should have won that game"... but I *never* hear "We deserved to win that game." Never. There is a huge difference between the two statements in the implied level of entitlement.

I don't think it's possible for someone to use the term "begging the question" correctly in this day and age. I think it's actually illegal in some states :-)

But you're right. If I define "deserve" as a subjective, emotional thing it means something entirely different than if we define it based on the rules.

And there's nothing wrong with either usage. Which is why I think that Kyle coming down so hard wasn't necessary. I find it hard to believe that anyone posting here doesn't understand "the rules" for winning a championship. And I'd guess that 90+ % of the readers understood that BearLover was expressing emotion and not facts.

Oh well, it's the off season.

[ugarte]

Also, Cornell, with all its heartbreaking losses in the NCAA's over the past 20 years, deserves to win a national title before these teams that have only been good the past few years.

I'm not sure if you meant this rhetorically or not, but this is obviously not how the game actually works.

According to the rules, the team that does well enough to get an NCAA bid and then manages to win four games in a row deserves to win the national title. There is currently no handicapping based on performance in past seasons, a school's hockey tradition, or how much fans have suffered. The only thing that matters is winning the right games at the right time, something that Yale and Union have done, and that Q is now possibly doing.

Thanks for this completely useless post.

Wait, so you're saying that the post outlining the facts is completely useless, but the post whining about how it isn't fair or right or just that Cornell wasn't handed a NC is more useful?

I'll admit that I care very little anymore: life is too short for shitty entertainment. I've been a bad fan for a long time, but I'm a full-on apostate now. Sometimes, you need the reality check that only people like myself can give you.

Kyle, I think your facts are wrong. Winning four straight gaes in the tournament has nothing to do with being "deserving". It just means that you played better at the right time. I think most of us know that "deserve" in a sports context is a purely emotional statement. Emotion is a totally justifiable reason to explain why someone roots for one particular team over another. After all there really is no rational reason to let your happiness be dictated by a bunch of kids wearing red who have knives strapped to their feet.

To some extent, I think we are both begging the question. (In the original sense, not the modern sense.) I am saying that the rules of the tournament define who is deserving of the NC: the winner of the tournament. You are saying that "deserving" means something entirely subjective, which means it isn't well-defined. To use scoop's example, some people might think Syracuse is deserving of the Final Four because they played hard at the right time; others think they barely qualified and that it would be a travesty were they to win the NC. So which group is right?

I guess I'm mostly saying that talking about which team is more "deserving" is pointless. In the subjective sense, it doesn't signify anything about whether or not a team *should* win, and frankly says more about the fan than the team. In my locker room, after every loss I hear statements like "We should have won that game"... but I *never* hear "We deserved to win that game." Never. There is a huge difference between the two statements in the implied level of entitlement.

Kyle, this is what someone who never interacts with people talks like. BearLover used the word "deserve" in a clearly non-literal sense to refer to the proverbial long-suffering fan and you are responding as if there is a real debate over whether the winner of the tournament deserves to go home with hardware.

[Rosey]

Also, Cornell, with all its heartbreaking losses in the NCAA's over the past 20 years, deserves to win a national title before these teams that have only been good the past few years.

I'm not sure if you meant this rhetorically or not, but this is obviously not how the game actually works.

According to the rules, the team that does well enough to get an NCAA bid and then manages to win four games in a row deserves to win the national title. There is currently no handicapping based on performance in past seasons, a school's hockey tradition, or how much fans have suffered. The only thing that matters is winning the right games at the right time, something that Yale and Union have done, and that Q is now possibly doing.

Thanks for this completely useless post.

Wait, so you're saying that the post outlining the facts is completely useless, but the post whining about how it isn't fair or right or just that Cornell wasn't handed a NC is more useful?

I'll admit that I care very little anymore: life is too short for shitty entertainment. I've been a bad fan for a long time, but I'm a full-on apostate now. Sometimes, you need the reality check that only people like myself can give you.

Kyle, I think your facts are wrong. Winning four straight gaes in the tournament has nothing to do with being "deserving". It just means that you played better at the right time. I think most of us know that "deserve" in a sports context is a purely emotional statement. Emotion is a totally justifiable reason to explain why someone roots for one particular team over another. After all there really is no rational reason to let your happiness be dictated by a bunch of kids wearing red who have knives strapped to their feet.

To some extent, I think we are both begging the question. (In the original sense, not the modern sense.) I am saying that the rules of the tournament define who is deserving of the NC: the winner of the tournament. You are saying that "deserving" means something entirely subjective, which means it isn't well-defined. To use scoop's example, some people might think Syracuse is deserving of the Final Four because they played hard at the right time; others think they barely qualified and that it would be a travesty were they to win the NC. So which group is right?

I guess I'm mostly saying that talking about which team is more "deserving" is pointless. In the subjective sense, it doesn't signify anything about whether or not a team *should* win, and frankly says more about the fan than the team. In my locker room, after every loss I hear statements like "We should have won that game"... but I *never* hear "We deserved to win that game." Never. There is a huge difference between the two statements in the implied level of entitlement.

Kyle, this is what someone who never interacts with people talks like. BearLover used the word "deserve" in a clearly non-literal sense to refer to the proverbial long-suffering fan and you are responding as if there is a real debate over whether the winner of the tournament deserves to go home with hardware.

It happens frequently that a lot of people seriously think that the winner of the tournament doesn't deserve to go home with the hardware. They get really riled up. Well, maybe they should just be content with their righteous indignation: that's a trophy of sorts.

[Rosey]

Kyle, this is what someone who never interacts with people talks like.

BTW, thanks for the free psychoanalysis, Dr. Star. All bills will be returned to sender. ::crazy::

[KeithK]

And there's nothing wrong with either usage. Which is why I think that Kyle coming down so hard wasn't necessary.

Probably. But it's just Kyle being Kyle.

[BearLover]

Also, Cornell, with all its heartbreaking losses in the NCAA's over the past 20 years, deserves to win a national title before these teams that have only been good the past few years.

I'm not sure if you meant this rhetorically or not, but this is obviously not how the game actually works.

According to the rules, the team that does well enough to get an NCAA bid and then manages to win four games in a row deserves to win the national title. There is currently no handicapping based on performance in past seasons, a school's hockey tradition, or how much fans have suffered. The only thing that matters is winning the right games at the right time, something that Yale and Union have done, and that Q is now possibly doing.

Thanks for this completely useless post.

Wait, so you're saying that the post outlining the facts is completely useless, but the post whining about how it isn't fair or right or just that Cornell wasn't handed a NC is more useful?

I'll admit that I care very little anymore: life is too short for shitty entertainment. I've been a bad fan for a long time, but I'm a full-on apostate now. Sometimes, you need the reality check that only people like myself can give you.

I'm done addressing your deliberately obtuse strawmans.  When's the last time you said something productive on here?

[Rosey]

Also, Cornell, with all its heartbreaking losses in the NCAA's over the past 20 years, deserves to win a national title before these teams that have only been good the past few years.

I'm not sure if you meant this rhetorically or not, but this is obviously not how the game actually works.

According to the rules, the team that does well enough to get an NCAA bid and then manages to win four games in a row deserves to win the national title. There is currently no handicapping based on performance in past seasons, a school's hockey tradition, or how much fans have suffered. The only thing that matters is winning the right games at the right time, something that Yale and Union have done, and that Q is now possibly doing.

Thanks for this completely useless post.

Wait, so you're saying that the post outlining the facts is completely useless, but the post whining about how it isn't fair or right or just that Cornell wasn't handed a NC is more useful?

I'll admit that I care very little anymore: life is too short for shitty entertainment. I've been a bad fan for a long time, but I'm a full-on apostate now. Sometimes, you need the reality check that only people like myself can give you.

I'm done addressing your deliberately obtuse strawmans.  When's the last time you said something productive on here?

I suspect all time spent on ELynah is unproductive. Thankfully, that's not the only reason to do something.