[ Edit | View ]
Date Posted: 14:17:16 02/21/17 Tue
mrjames, in your example, obviously it's a close call to say which of Team A or Team B is most deserving. We're splitting hairs here. But suppose one believes that Team A's second loss is "better" due to it having taken place against a tournament team, potentially a better loss than Team B's random loss. Who's to say that Team A isn't still more deserving?
And if Team A does lose in the tournament, does it deserve another bite at the apple, that is, another chance to beat the tournament winner? After all, Team B got its second chance to mitigate its second loss.
I guess the larger question is, "At what point do you stop counting?" America believes in second chances but then why not a third chance? If two is good, then three must be better, right? Fourteen games afforded every team an opportunity, home and away, even Steven.
I'm the first to concede that, given the looming threats to our free press and the separation of powers in our government, this particular issue does not rise high on the list of my concerns. But the inevitable clash between fairness and "entertainment/fan interest/extending the relevance of last season games for second division teams" just happens to be exacerbated this year because there is a chance -- only a chance -- that a 14-0 regular season champ will have to play a #4 seed on an eight-game winning streak on its home court. I'd rather have the answers to why Trump loves Putin, but the Ivy tournament is also on my mind.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]