> In any case, Matt, to
> accuse others of "lying" and/or tricking you when not told what
you
> wanted to hear smacks of an immature mindset unable to accept the
> consequences of your own decisions if they turn out badly for you.
The facts of the matter are these:
We (Vanderbilt) had no problem or objection with the playoff (except
for the extra time it would generate for everyone). Harvard bested
us and deserved to move on: well done. We played badly as a whole
in the resulting rounds; this is undeniable, which makes us perhaps
not seem to be an "upper-tier" team for ACF Nats, anyway.
This is the problem: you very clearly stated that Raj and Surabh
differed on how to determine the tie-breaker. Whether you were
mistaken or fibbing, that was the message you gave us. This was the
actual objection Matt raised. Perhaps you merely were mistaken. I
hope that is so & will assume that it is.
The crux of the issue is to have a clearly-stated tie-break procedue
& to GYST well in advance. There are no sour grapes on my part,
only a lovely sparkling wine, at least until the next seminar paper
is due next week.
-Robert Trent