Actually, KB, could you share your straw man picture with me? You just implanted this notion that I am arguing UK and UConn should have been 1 seeds out of thin air.
No, I'm arguing that you NEED to argue that. Now you don't know what a strawman is or what parity is. You're doing great in this one, IP. Perhaps what you need to do is google "define: parity". Maybe at that point you'll kindly acknowledge what you're saying is nonsense.
Like before, tell me what parity means, or what you think it means, report back. I'm done arguing with the 3rd grader who stole your computer. The guy is a focking retard.
KB, because you type out "you NEED" or "you don't know" doesn't actually shift the fabric of reality to make those statements true. They just make you look like a pompous man in desperate need of enlightenment. I do agree with you that I am doing great, however. So you have that going. Nothing about "the state of being equal" was represented by the tournament when it concludes with two historical powers.
This is your argument. It's a garbage argument. It's almost as bad as the conferences they played in. Or their conference records. Try again.
Well, no, there's no point conversing on this because you haven't stated a position other than the terrible one above. Which is terrible for the reasons given above, which are records and conference strengths. You know, facts. #fact I don't even know how seeding plays into your argument. But I do know that if you make UConn and UK 6 and 7 seeds rather than 7 and 8, it makes a parity argument no less terrible.
There was just a massive amount of parity in this CBB this year. I know it, HH knows it, BPV knows it....freaking Marcellus knows it. And IP should freaking know better.
And tennis, and smirks, and songs, and kicks in the [penis], etc. Nice to meet you, Jay. I'm kidbourbon.
I'm not sure how parity and the quality of the job the Selection Committee did seeding the teams are correlated.
I think it's in response to people saying that 7 vs. 8 for the title is obvious parity. I guess IP is saying that those teams should actually have been seeded higher than that, which is supposed to weaken the parity argument, but it really doesn't by much. I don't think a single college basketball fan would have considered either of those teams "dominant" or "elite" at any time since November, but they played for the title anyway.
I don't know enough history to know whether it's diminished, but it's pretty clear to me that it isn't very big. And I'm not sure how UConn's 2011 title under a now-retired coach is supposed to disprove any of that.
I'm not trying to draw a correlation. If I am being told "there is parity, because look at all the upsets" I am immediately going to point out that the seeding sucked which enhanced the number of upsets. One can't claim the number of upsets is due to parity if one admits the seeding sucks. I brought it up because if the main support for team Parity seemed to be the number of upsets and the seeds of the teams in the championship game. It is a circular argument.
No seriously. How is UConn's 2011 title under a now-retired coach relevant to the question of the spread between the top and middle of the draw in 2014?
