No, you mean you're waiting on understanding my point. Whether I did a good job in helping you, apparently not, but ultimately it's on you. I am willing to go back and forth as long as needed.
I get that is it tough to understand the nuance in contending the committee should adjust the weighting of the season award portion and just the best four teams. For example, Cincy had a better record and singular best win in comparison to UGa, but UGa was the higher seed. They should do more of that. Be less punitive to losses, and be more about whether the invited teams can beat the one-seed on their best day. Or, expand the playoffs. As we've noted, that is not two contradictory positions, like you once thought.
You are being unhinged, but that's okay. You're not standing up to me, if anything I view you as doing pretty much what I would hope, even if unknowingly so on your part- I've enjoyed your continued willingness to stick with it and keep on ironing out our difference in opinion. Whether you think that is a fight, I don't care. It is not that I don't hear your feedback, I don't care unless it is not about the reasoning in our contentions. That is why we're still discussing- most times you are trying to find holes in my contention, and that is great and what is desired. Although, obviously most often I have disagreed with your rebuttal, but that is why we keep responding. Disagreement will be a longer convo than agreeing. Nearly all post contentions because they believe in them, you and me both included, and such claims are an invitation to challenged and defended.
