[rexhamer]

Now, on to Blog 5(MJ)

I noted that in Blog 5(MJ), you introduced the notion that you will use IEttR to refute many of my statements. I gave you a chance to provide some specific examples and all you offer is Mark Furman, which was the example to explain what IEttR meant. Therefore, your recent reply acknowledges that you don’t actually have ANY examples to offer relative to our debate. It doesn’t serve much purpose to announce that you will demonstrate “exceptions that disprove the rule” when you don’t have any exceptions! And thus, much of what you claim refuted 9-2, 17-3 and 14-15 is now out the window.

I will note here your attempt at what I will call “the old switcheroo”. You have been repeatedly frustrated in your efforts to find real world examples of “most successful” teams with fewer championships and a sub-.500 record in their championship round. So you have tried to turn this around and make me find some.

First of all – the Lakers are YOUR team and it is your contention that they can be “more successful” with the negatives noted above. The burden of proof remains on YOU to provide supporting evidence. Your attempt at “the old switcheroo” isn’t fooling anyone. You also weaken your case with the following contradictory statement:

Originally Posted by michaeljohn

I feel confident that any thorough investigation will uncover many cases where the most successful team in its domain will have fewer championships than a competitor.

If there are “many cases”, why couldn’t you find them? Why would it take “exhaustive research” to find any of these “many cases”? Besides, what would prevent me from simply stating, “I have done a thorough investigation and have found none”? Again, the burden of proof is on YOU to find these examples.

And then you tried this:

Originally Posted by michaeljohn

It may be possible in college football. I know of a few universities that keep losing bowl games. We can equate bowl games with finals I suppose. You might find in spite of the losses, they are the most successful team. It’s a big world, have fun!

Sorry – but the notion of national championships and bowl games does not hold. The formal system of BCS national championships has only been around a few years. And how would you determine most successful? Princeton has the most mythical championships based on the very early days of college football, and they have never been to a bowl game.

Equating bowl games with finals? I think not, as any prominent program with a winning record gets to go to a bowl game these days and most all of these games have absolutely nothing with the national championship.

Your erroneous approach to IEttR is summarized with this statement:

Originally Posted by michaeljohn

See, my whole point of IEttR is because rexhamer makes his points using always or never scenarios. In this case it was left up to him to prove every champion with the most titles is always the most successful because that is exactly what he claims

You could not be more wrong about IEttR – the whole point is for YOU to find the exceptions! My generalizations about 9-2, 17-3 and 14-15 were backed up by a comparison of the Celtics, Yankees and Canadiens. If you want to dispute that generalization, find the exception!

But again – you are the self-proclaimed king of Internet research – why can’t YOU find examples to make your case? The answer – they don’t exist. And we’re all waiting with bated breath for the big secret of your claim to have found one.