Colonels, you've got coaches here who are giving you rational explanations for what you did wrong in your game who have combined to win a total of about four times as many National Titles as you have total seasons. These guys know how to play the game, yet you refuse to listen to any of their advice/explanations. What does that say about you, I wonder? I'm now convinced that your whole agenda is to argue just to argue, and damn whether you're right or not.
I like to think that I've got at least a few brains rattling around in my skull, Gill is a freaking genius, Dalter is an extremely intelligent person, a-in-the-b obviously is a very educated, smart person, etc. and so on. Yet, you seem to pretend that none of us know anything about how HD works, how probability works, how chance works, or how randomness works.
Should you have won this particular game? Yes, more often than not, but the better team simply doesn't win every time. Players simply don't perform up to their ratings every time. Sometimes your players will perform to less than what their ratings indicate and sometimes the other team's players will perform to the maximum of their ratings. When these occurrences happen, you are primed for an upset. It happens, in real life and in HD. Does it suck when you're the better team and lose? Of course it does, but it happens.
What you seem to be implying by starting this thread is that the better team should win every time. If you disagree with this and agree that the better team shouldn't always win, then you're agreeing that upsets should occur from time to time. And if you're agreeing that upsets should occasionally happen, then what was the point of the thread? If it was to better understand why your team lost the game, then you were looking for help whether you want to admit it or not.
Look, you are obviously a well-educated person, your intelligence comes across very clearly in your posts. And there is nothing wrong whatsoever with taking a stand when you believe your point or idea to be correct. It's actually admirable at times. But when you do it every time for every point that you try to make, it doesn't come off as admirable anymore, it comes off as stubborn and bull-headed. It also gives the impression, as I said earlier, that you are arguing just to argue. This may be hard for to believe or even understand, but there's nothing wrong with conceding that you may have been off base with an argument, or that someone may know a little more about something than you do. It's called humility and, hold your breath, people in general tend to appreciate humility a lot more than bull-headedness. Just something to think about.......