FastTuohy wrote:
Let's Do This! wrote:
Damn man I thought you were reasonable guy!
I explained why he did it. He look at the winners and picked the first years where successive teams went over a hundred
Starting in 1996 1997-1998 you had the winners winning with scores barely breaking a hundred. 100, 101, 108. He just looked at the results and pick the years where he started seeing that
It had nothing to do with him knowing the field expanded in 98 or him saying that. He should have started from 98 and explain that then
He did it for maximum trolling effects. Did he mention that five of the last six years the winner has been under a hundred?
I think (ie my opinion) is that you think (ie your opinion) that is what he did. There is a valid basis to do what he did. But you state your opinion as a fact.
My bad I kind of missed your intention. I thought you were saying that starting from 96 had a valid reason when you are really just saying that the older dater is less relevant or accurate to the current situation...