Bluevelvet wrote:AO wrote:"UCSB was clearly the better team"; Of course they were; they won. I didn't say or imply to the contrary. My point was to bring perspective to the "why" they were a better team.
Good. We agree. I don't need you or anyone to tell me why UCSB was better than MIT. I saw the games. UCSB was bigger, faster & more athletic. MIT was out classed.
AO-You are correct. UCSB and MIT did not play every year. Good thing for MIT.
univduke21- You are right. The MIT games were in 2002 and 2004, so the entire discussion is a lot of quibbling over nothing. I think AO may be one of those east coast elitists who object to any comment that MDIA lacrosse may have already overtaken certain mediocre east coast D2 & D3 programs.
The point has been made. I see no reason to comment further.
Blue, your shrill "rebuttals" are entertaining, but baseless and devoid of fact or coherency, and hardly worth reading or responding to. Yet, this beautiful piece of conjecture you wrote about my motivation begs a rejoinder -not for your benefit, but rather for anyone else who has followed this thread lest they believe your spittle about "east coast lacrosse elitism" (whatever you believe that to be):
You wrote, I think AO may be one of those east coast elitists who object to any comment that MDIA lacrosse may have already overtaken certain mediocre east coast D2 & D3 programs.
I wrote way back in my first thread, "Having coached both D3 and club-ball, I can vouch-say that the majority of D3 programs see no shame or lost-face value in losing to a club program."
I don't need you or anyone to tell me why UCSB was better than MIT. Huh? My original post wasn't for your benefit, but rather to add clarity to your idiotic boasting about MIT's annual beheading at the hands of SB.
Please try and respond to this; I'm having way too much fun for it to stop.
