The Knicks were fortunate to win last night (trust me I watched most of the game). They were not lucky. I just don't think it is luck when you win because the other team plays badly. If they played badly and you won it was because you played better than they did, which is what it's all about. Luck is when something occurs that has nothing to do with the play of either team that affects the outcome, a bad bounce being the classic example. I hear it said that the Mets were lucky to win the 1986 world series. I don't buy it. The Bosox imploded, the Mets took advantage, they were the better team, just like last night the Knicks made their free throws and were better. Conflating good fortune and good luck doesn't clarify things, it confuses. These are two different concepts and they should be called two different things.

Doesn't it seem like sports that use sticks, bats or clubs are less predictable (and may involve more luck) than the ones that don't and the ones where there is no ball (I guess I'm thinking of track and field here) are the most predictable. Think about it, basketabll is the most predictable, followed by football. These sports appear to hinge more an pure athletic ability and preparation, then hockey and baseball being the least predictable, often turning on what appears to be luck. Golf is also unpredictable. I wonder of its the unpredictablity of the ball or puck coming off the bat, stick or club, and it being harder to control. Just something to think about it.

simply that there are two distinct concepts at play here. there is a major difference between winning because of a bad bounce or a bad call and winning because of a missed free throw. Although the other team missing a free throw is not in your control, it is in your opponent's control, and since a basketball game is a competition between two teams, winning because the other team played badly, and, therefore you played better than they did, is not luck, whereas winning because a ref blew a call or a stray air current blew the ball off course has nothing to do with the play of either team, and is luck. On your algebra test analogy I would say that you didn't get lucky, the other guy simply wasn't as good as you thought he was

Undefeated West virginia was #3; they lost to undefeated Louisville who moved up to #3; undefeated Rutgers beats undefeated Louisville, but does not move up to #3. Putting aside the issue of whether any of these teams is good enough to be considered third best in the country, what rationale is there for thinking that WVA and Louisville were good enough to be #3, but not a Rutgers team from the same conference playing the same quality of schedule, especially if they beat WVA.

I agree with King that from a fans point of view having a rematch is not exciting given that it would make moot Saturday's game, but if we believe Michigan and OSU are the two best teams then, in the absence of a playoff, they should play for the championship. Otherwise the system is a 100% sham

Can anyone name any other competitive sports league in the world where the championship is not determined on the field of play? I would guess there isn't one.

I believe the reason for this has something to do with the fact that the conference system predated the NCAA. Originally college football consisted of different conferences and independent schools. Conferences had champions, but there was no national umbrella, therefore no national championship. Winning your confernece was considered winning the championship. all you had after that was the end of season exhibitions, also known as bowl games. Now fans want college football to enter the 21st century rather than remain stuck in the 19th, but we can't seem to shake the old system

The Sox will sign this guy and it will be on their terms. The reason is the power relationship. He needs the Sox more than they need him. If he doesn't sign with Boston he goes back to Japan for two years where he earns in the 3-4 mil range. So he has no leverage to up the ante. The Sox can just walk away and spend their money on someone else and this guy knows that. that's why he will sign a long term deal for far less than market value

Can we forget about the extraneous garbage and just focus on the incident at issue. At worst, it was slightly over the line of acceptable conduct for a college basketball coach. King says it was a punch. I tend to think not, but the point is debatable. Anyway, I dare say that it is accepted by most people that at times a coach will touch his players to make a point.

Legally speaking it's an issue of implied consent and whether Knight's conduct was offensive to the kid. whether he used too much force is really between Knight, the kid his parents and the university. Unless the kid presses this it's not a criminal matter given the context. If another coach with a better reputation did this, let's just say hypothetically Rick Pitino, I think no one would care.

And could whoever that idiot is who said that the deranged footabll coach must be a Republican please keep politics out of a good old fashioned sports discussion. I guess this is what happens when a bunch of left wingers get themselves worked-up over a little physical contact in an all-american game like basketball, they go completely nuts. I guess only Republicans beat their kids. maybe you should go back to smoking your joint at your pacifist nudist colony