Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="CaptainJ, post: 3318361, member: 1553"] [B]Good points, I was considering them myself earlier.[/B] Even if your assumption gave the slightest window of possibilty, I think the end of regulation was a brilliant illustration of why one can not just use such assumptions in lieu of actual facts. I'd argue the remarkable events in the final moments of regulation to get to OT were a bigger defiance of the odds than the trainers letting JB play Hughes and the Cuse still losing. Like I said, I can see the logic and I agree a case[I] is [/I]there at least possibly for increased probability, but it's not exactly a slam dunk(and we've seen this team miss even those on occasions). I don't think we even need to get into a complex[I] Butterfly Effect[/I] discussion to agree on things like points Hughes would have had(as well as possession, etc) would be taking the same away from other SU players, for better or worse. Maybe we can also agree the team played better as a whole(though the bar was set low) after he left? (Auctually, you already did in the quote). I get that the announcers are hated, but one of them pointed that out, as well as mentioning his replacement being the fellow who brought the initial change in energy...(which would likely not been the case otherwise). I'm [I]not [/I]even trying to win a batle of odds here, simply making a case this is not a slam dunk/given, and [I]far [/I]stranger things gave happened in sports and/or real life. ([I]I think the following is a great example of how someone can have what I am will assume was a sincere belief and be way off base, and it didn't require to rematch to see it[/I]) If I recall correctly, you also scored Wilder as beating Fury in the first fight(which I took great exception to even before the 2nd fight and believe I made note of before such), when some folks(Kellerman?) say he didn't win [I]any [/I]rounds other than the ones where he knocked Fury down(and maybe not even one of those!), and that did stick in my memory and make me feel confident enough to stand up to someone who is both respected [I]and [/I]likeable(which may not exactly feel pleasant, to put it mildly), and hopefully inspire others who may wonder if they have minority opinions to not waste time using that as a consideration about sharing their points, and maybe they [I]shouldn't necessarily be as concerned about publicly disagreeing with a popular member for the first time in 15 years as I was before adding this edit.[/I] No hard feelings, but if you won't say your statement was [I]not a 100% certainty[/I], I am not sure what else can be said, and we cab agree to disagree[B]([I]not that it even matters[/I], beyond an exercise of critical thinking and an illustration of what I personally consider one of the larger problems in society(the infotainment industry in particular), [/B]with many who are willing to accept as a statement of fact, when they are even more clearly than this example not). (Bonus feature for anyone who likes cinema, and movies that can make one think...somewhat related to the topic at hand) BTW, for anyone interested, the movie [B]"The Butterfly Effect" has 2 [I]extremely [/I]different versions[/B](not just endings, and no I do [I]not [/I]mean the sequels) [B]between the theatrical and the director's cut[/B], and see's Ashton Kutcher surprise a good many viewers in his portrayal of a serious roll...with very different outcomes for our protagonist, based on (if I recall correctly) one small variable toward the beginning of the movie. I highly recommend both versions. [URL='https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0289879/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0']The Butterfly Effect (2004) - IMDb[/URL] Memory isn't always my strong suit unlike SWC, but I'm not sure if I recall any films with a director's cut that better made the movie as different as the theatrical version, while still making sense. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?