Cal also leads Billy in vacated final fours. He has 200% more of those.....and probably still counting.

I'm just messing with you. You're still not giving him enough credit though - although I guess "essentially" your point is made. You can't have twice as much of nothing. I believe, Cal has infinitely more vacated final fours than Billy does. Where's themistocles on this?

Cal does indeed have infinite more vacated final fours than Billy. Has any other active coach had even one? Cal may have infinite more than every other active coach combined. Ouch

Yeah, I added the "in essence" to clarify that I wasnt being literal, ...and I was just messing with you too. Not a cal fan but I enjoy you guys posting here.

OK REM, I will put in roughly two cents on this topic. First, humans cannot avoid being biased creatures, because all of us are dominated by our Emotional Bodies, and for most, the rational aspects of our minds play little if any part in much of anything. This is just as true for the so-called Scientific Priesthood as it is for your average janitor, although the Scientists tend to have both a better vocabulary and considerably more training in argument, which, much like The Wizard of Oz, appears to make them more rationale. Honestly, I don't find those comments as comedic as most of you probably do, because there is usually a grain of truth in them, however biased they may be. Personally, I think that the Tournaments are highly over rated, as is the NBA draft, since so very, very few get very far in either. It is what the larger population does that most interests me, and I honestly subscribe to the old concept of athletics and sportsmanship, it is not whether you win or not, it is whether you do your best and do so honorably. Further, as I have noted over and over and over again, any ranking is both arbitrary and necessarily biased. Maybe that was 3 cents.

Interesting, however, I think the debate was a mathematical one. Cal has two vacated Final Fours . . .Billy has zero. Is the former an infinitely higher percentage than the latter? Discuss.

Impossible to define as a factor of multiplication or division. You simply have an integer of__ more by addition/subtraction. The reason that the result of a division by zero is undefined is the fact that any attempt at a definition leads to a contradiction. To begin with, how do we define division? The ratio r of two numbers a and b: r=a/b is that number r that satisfies a=r*b. Well, if b=0, i.e., we are trying to divide by zero, we have to find a number r such that r*0=a. (1) But r*0=0 for all numbers r, and so unless a=0 there is no solution of equation (1). Now you could say that r=infinity satisfies (1). That's a common way of putting things, but what's infinity? It is not a number! Why not? Because if we treated it like a number we'd run into contradictions. Ask for example what we obtain when adding a number to infinity. The common perception is that infinity plus any number is still infinity. If that's so, then infinity = infinity+1 = infinity + 2 which would imply that 1 equals 2 if infinity was a number. That in turn would imply that all integers are equal, for example, and our whole number system would collapse.

It's over 10 days old. That's the shelf life of a thread here. It's similar to a raw steak in the refrigerator. After a week it becomes dark, bloody, smells pretty damn bad, and hardly resembles what it originally was.

See, math and paradoxes are good times. Want to digress from the subject of this thread even further by talking about the "two envelopes" paradox with respect to this question? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_envelopes_problem