You can't even comprehend your own post and you're questioning my reading comprehension?
Direct quotes from you:
"Generally, when teams roll into the playoffs without being tested, they will start strong but fail to hold on to the end because the team has not faced real adversity. While I agree the B1G messed up the schedule which caused UMD to play only B1G teams, by playing only weaker teams, UMD missed out on the seasonal conditioning of adversity."
This is wrong on two levels. First, if I was to accept your premise that Maryland missed out on the seasonal conditioning of adversity, it's irrelevant to why they didn't win the title. You posit that teams that aren't tested start strong but fail to hold on, but the Terps did the opposite; they were in deep holes in the fourth quarter against ND and UVA, and then battled back. What you are describing in terms of failing to hold onto leads is exactly what ND did in the quarterfinals against MD and the opening round against Drexel, and what UVA nearly did in the semis and finals. If those battle tested ACC teams had so much experience dealing with adversity, why where they the ones struggling late in the game compared to the less adversity-trained Terps?
Second, as I pointed out in my last post (reading comprehension!), Maryland WAS tested. That's just objectively the truth; they were down three goals late in the 4th quarter against Hopkins in the season finale, and made a brilliant comeback. They were down almost the entire game in the rematch in the B1G semis, and flipped the script in the 4th quarter. And if we're being fair, they were certainly tested in the first Rutgers match, which was a back and forth one goal game until the 4th quarter, when the Terps steamrolled them for 8 goals.
Those are the things I disagreed with you on. I never made any false allegations or accused you of saying anything other than what you said. I never said you were trying to disrespect Maryland. I never said UVA was lucky to win. All I said was that dominant as they were, Maryland did face adversity in the B1G against Hopkins (not debatable, that's a fact), and that the reason they didn't win the title wasn't because they didn't know how to deal with adversity (they responded terrifically to adversity against both ND and UVA). Ironically, the conclusion to be drawn from my post is that the reason they lost to the Hoos was because UVA was just better. I don't know how you could construe my comments as saying UVA was lucky. Just because I think Maryland was the most resilient team doesn't mean I thought they were the best.
"I suggest you re-read my posts, I never said UMD had an inability to handle adversity. Quite the contrary since I fully recognize that UMD belonged in the top three. I did state that the B1G conference play only failed to prepare UMD. There is a huge difference between what I said and your false allegation. Reading comprehension is a good thing.
Ironically, you make my point when you argue JHU and Rutgers challenged UMD in league play. The score on Monday shows the conference play was not enough to prepare UMD for the win."
You're changing the argument in this section. Maybe this was what you intended to say the first time. But saying that the quality of competition didn't prepare them as well as it could have is quite different from saying that they were never tested in games (objectively not true) and thus didn't react well once they found themselves in a game that they weren't dominating (again, they actually did respond very well to adversity -- when faced with a deficit, instead of folding they rallied and fought back)
