And last, bowling green!

St. X lost the title game. They deserved to lose it. They were outplayed by Trinity. I'm not sure if I could make that any more clear.

 

That doesn't mean that it can't reasonably be argued that St. X was the better team in 2005, especially given the mitigating circumstances in their sole loss.

 

Rockpride said he was sick of the argument that St. X had the better season, and that the argument was absurd. I say that, objectively, one could make the argument that St. X was the better team - i.e. would have won more often than Trinity if they played a series. That's all.

Ok, lets go over the basics of football.

 

There is ONE champion in ever league if you will. 1A, 2A, 3A, 4A, Division 1,2,3 in college. NFL has the superbowl..so on and so forth.

 

Does the runner up get the billing as the better team in any of them? NO.

Follow along carefully, I know this is hard for some of you to digest. The team, that has the best season out of any other team, is the one who WINS THE CHAMPIONSHIP. Ok, with that said, did St.X win the state championship in 2005? No, they did not..the team that had the best season overall won the championship and always does. That was the Trinity Shamrocks...case closed

"they were robbed on a spot"....if there was only one play in the game then maybe you could make a case....and so could Trinity on the 4th and 1 that they came up short on.....but the game wasn't about one play. Congrats St. X on a great season...and to Trinity on hanging tuff through a season of injury based adversity and bringing home their 16th State Football Championship and a shiny new Ring.

"they were robbed on a spot"....if there was only one play in the game then maybe you could make a case....and so could Trinity on the 4th and 1 that they came up short on.....but the game wasn't about one play. Congrats St. X on a great season...and to Trinity on hanging tuff through a season of injury based adversity and bringing home their 16th State Football Championship and a shiny new Ring.

They lost one game, to their biggest rival, when their starting QB broke his foot on the game's second play, and they were robbed on a spot that should have given them a first down that would have allowed them to potentially send the game into OT.

 

I think if St. X and Trinity had played 10 times this season, X would have won 7-8 of them.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

 

We've got our second winner!!!

 

:dancingpa :dancingpa :dancingpa

 

Stick em up Tigers! We're robbing you: :flame:.

Geez, guys...

 

Hasn't everyone agreed at some point that "the better team doesn't always win" ??

 

Each of the 4 winners in their title games proved only one thing...they played better ball than an opponent each week throughout the playoffs when it really counted.

Ok, lets go over the basics of football.

 

There is ONE champion in ever league if you will. 1A, 2A, 3A, 4A, Division 1,2,3 in college. NFL has the superbowl..so on and so forth.

 

Does the runner up get the billing as the better team in any of them? NO.

Follow along carefully, I know this is hard for some of you to digest. The team, that has the best season out of any other team, is the one who WINS THE CHAMPIONSHIP. Ok, with that said, did St.X win the state championship in 2005? No, they did not..the team that had the best season overall won the championship and always does. That was the Trinity Shamrocks...case closed

 

Apparently they don't offer classes in reading comprehension and logic over on Shelbyville road.

 

It is, to some extent, a matter of semantics - in how one defines what makes the best team. But I put forth a reasonable argument that St. X was the stronger team - i.e. the team that would win most often in a series - and you tried to refute it with an irrelevant point.

 

Imagine this hypothetical to show the problem with your assertion that the team that wins the championship always had the best overall season:

(Disclaimer: this is NOT supposed to be St. X and Trinity - it's a vastly exaggerated hypothetical)

Team A goes 6-5 against a weak schedule in the regular season and is blown out in a laugher by team B.

Team B goes undefeated throughout the regular season against the best schedule in the country, steamrolling all of their opponents.

 

Both team A and B advance to the finals where they meet again. A faced an easy playoff road, while B played the hardest teams in the country to get there and blew out some of them.

 

Before the finals game, team B's coach dies and its starting QB and TB get food poisoning. Team A wins the playoff game in a close battle on a poor call at the end of the game.

 

Would you still argue that team A "had the better season," or "was the stronger team" in every sense of the word? I think that contention would be absurd.

Apparently they don't offer classes in reading comprehension and logic over on Shelbyville road.

 

It is, to some extent, a matter of semantics - in how one defines what makes the best team. But I put forth a reasonable argument that St. X was the stronger team - i.e. the team that would win most often in a series - and you tried to refute it with an irrelevant point.

 

Imagine this hypothetical to show the problem with your assertion that the team that wins the championship always had the best overall season:

(Disclaimer: this is NOT supposed to be St. X and Trinity - it's a vastly exaggerated hypothetical)

Team A goes 6-5 against a weak schedule in the regular season and is blown out in a laugher by team B.

Team B goes undefeated throughout the regular season against the best schedule in the country, steamrolling all of their opponents.

 

Both team A and B advance to the finals where they meet again. A faced an easy playoff road, while B played the hardest teams in the country to get there and blew out some of them.

 

Before the finals game, team B's coach dies and its starting QB and TB get food poisoning. Team A wins the playoff game in a close battle on a poor call at the end of the game.

 

Would you still argue that team A "had the better season," or "was the stronger team" in every sense of the word? I think that contention would be absurd.

Every time I read a post like this I take a stroll down memory lane. It sounds so much like 94. I love it.

Apparently they don't offer classes in reading comprehension and logic over on Shelbyville road.

 

It is, to some extent, a matter of semantics - in how one defines what makes the best team. But I put forth a reasonable argument that St. X was the stronger team - i.e. the team that would win most often in a series - and you tried to refute it with an irrelevant point.

 

Imagine this hypothetical to show the problem with your assertion that the team that wins the championship always had the best overall season:

(Disclaimer: this is NOT supposed to be St. X and Trinity - it's a vastly exaggerated hypothetical)

Team A goes 6-5 against a weak schedule in the regular season and is blown out in a laugher by team B.

Team B goes undefeated throughout the regular season against the best schedule in the country, steamrolling all of their opponents.

 

Both team A and B advance to the finals where they meet again. A faced an easy playoff road, while B played the hardest teams in the country to get there and blew out some of them.

 

Before the finals game, team B's coach dies and its starting QB and TB get food poisoning. Team A wins the playoff game in a close battle on a poor call at the end of the game.

 

Would you still argue that team A "had the better season," or "was the stronger team" in every sense of the word? I think that contention would be absurd.

Unfortunately for you, I go by the law of competition. If the Indianapolis Colts go undefeated, but lose in the Super Bowl to say, the Chicago Bears, who has the better season. The Bears do, because all year long, they did what was neccesary to win the final game of the year. Its silly to even argue this. How you judge a season is how you end the season. Its a shame, because not all X fans have acted this way. The season is the tool to prepare you for the post season. Every coach will tell you this, in any sport. You do not base success on the season, but what you do at the end.

In case you have not noticed, if you are not like most Trinity fans, you are not entititled to an opinion and what opinion you do have is always wrong. If you have enough courage to post your opinion, please be ready to be flamed.

 

Why is it that you guys wont let someone have an opinion and let it be. You must argue every poster?

And last, bowling green!

 

 

Last!!! So your saying every team ahead of them would have played Lex Cath better and done as well all season as they did. They had one bad game, while I think Catholic proved they were better I feel Bowling Green had an off game which hurt them.

Unfortunately for you, I go by the law of competition. If the Indianapolis Colts go undefeated, but lose in the Super Bowl to say, the Chicago Bears, who has the better season. The Bears do, because all year long, they did what was neccesary to win the final game of the year. Its silly to even argue this. How you judge a season is how you end the season. Its a shame, because not all X fans have acted this way. The season is the tool to prepare you for the post season. Every coach will tell you this, in any sport. You do not base success on the season, but what you do at the end.

 

I don't disagree with 90% of what you say in this post. I'll just drop it.

Why did the Rocks react so strongly to Clubberlangs posts? I believe it's because they know he is right. Trinity had a great game Friday night and won the Championship. The team deserves the accolades it has received. Congratulations, Shamrocks. But this hardly convinces me that St. X did not have the all-around better team in 2005. St. X played far from their best game last Friday. Everything that could go wrong for the Tigers did. Injuries are part of football, but Brent Curley's broken foot on the second or third play of the game interfered with the team's ability to establish a consistent passing or running attack during the game. There were questionable calls and spots that mostly went against the Tigers. If this year's St. X team and this year's Trinity team met ten times, St X would win 8-9 out of those meetings. Trinity was the best team on the night of December 2. But St. X is the best team in the state. The strong reaction of Trinity fans to Clubberlang's post is an effort to deny a truth that I suspect even they realize.

Why did the Rocks react so strongly to Clubberlangs posts? I believe it's because they know he is right. Trinity had a great game Friday night and won the Championship. The team deserves the accolades it has received. Congratulations, Shamrocks. But this hardly convinces me that St. X did not have the all-around better team in 2005. St. X played far from their best game last Friday. Everything that could go wrong for the Tigers did. Injuries are part of football, but Brent Curley's broken foot on the second or third play of the game interfered with the team's ability to establish a consistent passing or running attack during the game. There were questionable calls and spots that mostly went against the Tigers. If this year's St. X team and this year's Trinity team met ten times, St X would win 8-9 out of those meetings. Trinity was the best team on the night of December 2. But St. X is the best team in the state. The strong reaction of Trinity fans to Clubberlang's post is an effort to deny a truth that I suspect even they realize.

 

I love the way you guys are reacting to Trinity's SIXTEENTH championship. It confirms all of the cliches about x. Get over it. At the end of the season you lost to the best team in the state. It really does sound like 94 all over again.

Why did the Rocks react so strongly to Clubberlangs posts? I believe it's because they know he is right. Trinity had a great game Friday night and won the Championship. The team deserves the accolades it has received. Congratulations, Shamrocks. But this hardly convinces me that St. X did not have the all-around better team in 2005. St. X played far from their best game last Friday. Everything that could go wrong for the Tigers did. Injuries are part of football, but Brent Curley's broken foot on the second or third play of the game interfered with the team's ability to establish a consistent passing or running attack during the game. There were questionable calls and spots that mostly went against the Tigers. If this year's St. X team and this year's Trinity team met ten times, St X would win 8-9 out of those meetings. Trinity was the best team on the night of December 2. But St. X is the best team in the state. The strong reaction of Trinity fans to Clubberlang's post is an effort to deny a truth that I suspect even they realize.

 

:laugh:

 

These types of posts make me so VERY HAPPY, every single time. EVERY TIME.