No need for your last sentence...."of course you do". I am not attacking you. We have a difference of opinion or view on luck. Relax man it's not that serious. When you use the word luck I believe you discredit effort, teams ability to make plays, make things happen at crunch time.
Coaching and effort changed our fortune/luck. I get what you are saying. Going to Atlantic City selecting a slot machine and winning millions is luck. It took no skill to do that, you were fortunate to select that machine at that time. Going to AC and winning the world poker tourny involves some luck or good fortune but you as a player will determine the outcome based on your poker skill level. You can impact the game in your favor by playing well or making plays. You can't say STJ play in the second half did not change their fortunes. Here is the problem.... what about ASU luck? Hitting those shots in the first half but not the second. They were lucky to get the lose balls, lucky to get calls. It gets to the point were nothing is based on skill...just luck. In every game the winner is fortunate and the loser is unfortunate thats a given. The bottom line is we made more plays when it counted. This is the last I am going to say on this....look forward to your response.
Look. What I'm saying is that the word luck has several meanings. I used it according to one definition. You took me to mean another definition. I clarified what I meant, at length, when I used the word according to the first definition, which definition I provided. Unperturbed, you went right back to discussing the definition that I explicitly renounced, and here you are back to it again: what about ASU luck? If I didn't know better I'd think you were having me off. But I do know better, and there's a certain point in a discussion like this where it takes all my enormous powers of self control to not let loose with a stream of invective, because this dialogue is slightly less pointless than driving a railroad spike into my eye. I say 'I'm not talking about luck' and you say "what about ASU luck" and are parsing the difference between skill and luck as if the previous half dozen posts never occured. This is what this conversation is like to me:
F: I'm a little hoarse today.
P : You can't be a little horse, you don't have a tail.
F: No, not horse, hoarse. I mean my throat is sore. I have a frog in my throat.
P: Oh okay, I see what you mean, hoarse. But you only have two legs, whereas a horse has four. And a frog is green.
F: No, not horse, hoarse, meaning my throat is sore, not horse meaning equine.
P: Okay, I see what you mean, I get what you're saying. But you don't have any fur and anyway a little horse would be a pony, whereas a little frog would be a tadpole.
F: WTF? I meant hoarse, not horse. Get it? Hoarse with an A, not horse meaning the animnal. Hoarse meaning there's something wrong with my throat, not horse meaning a four legged animal of the genus equus.
P: Oh yeah sure, I get what you mean, but horses whinny, whereas you talk, so how can you be a little pony?
And so on, and so on.
So to recap: We're not having "a difference of opinion or view on luck" because I'm not talking about luck. I'm not talking about SJ's luck, or ASU's luck. I'm not talking about lucky bounces, lucky calls, lucky shots, or lucky sweaters. Luck is not involved and luck did not enter into the discussion. There was no luck. I was not implying that the SJ victory was the result of good luck, or that the ASU loss was the result of bad luck. SJ won the game because SJ scored more points than ASU. What I meant by using the word "lucky" was completely discrete and seperate from what you mean when you are discussing "luck." They are two different things. Utterly and completely different words, with utterly and completely different meanings. In fact, the only bad luck was that I used the word lucky, which has more than one meaning, instead of merely using the word "fortunate," which would have perhaps led to less confusion on your part.