I'll most likely watch the NCAA Sweet Sixteen games on Friday. The tournament is a microcosm of everyday life. As in life, so many things are probabilistic like the outcome of a given game, with no apparent meaning or significance. (The competitive drive, exhibition of athletic ability, and the desire to win, not necessarily winning or the outcomes of a game, are what gives high-level athletic competitions significance to me. The appreciation of this should foster mutual respect among competitors.) Certainly, it is probable that upsets would happen as they are within the realm of possibility and that renders "that upsets will happen" a trivial prediction in tournament of 32 games in the first (technically second) round, but it is harder to predict what specific upsets will happen. Anyone who "predicted" 14th seed Mercer would upset 3rd seed Duke based on factors that can be known before the game is lying. They just made a wild guess and got lucky.
One psychological reason that people in general enjoy watching "upsets" is that it demonstrates that a disadvantaged team (lacking talented players) can prevail with persistence and will over a more talented team. (I will admit that my favorite basketball game that I watched, not including the one's at my high school, is 11th seeded VCU's victory over 1st seeded Kansas in 2011 in the regional finals.) One often sees his/herself in such analogous situations in life where one perceives themselves to be in disadvantageous circumstances, and one can identify with the underdog in in such cases hoping that one can prevail with one's determination to triumph. But in other cases, the disadvantages are so overwhelming that is simply just hopeless, like a 16th seed facing a top seed.
As Paul would say:
Ash: Here you go. Already know which Pokemon you're using?
Paul: Of course.
Dawn: I'll bet I know how you based your picks: on your opponent's strategy and type advantage.
Paul: You bet right. I looked at the options and chose my three best Pokemon.
Ash: Your three best?
Brock: You sound really confident, Paul.
Ash: I'm not going to lose either. I'm gonna give it all I got and win so I can battle you in the finals.
Paul: You're pathetic. Every trainer competing here at the Sinnoh League has won eight badges. Giving it all you got means nothing.
From "League Unleashed".
Paul is correct. Mere dedication and desire would not suffice at high-level competition, especially when one's competitive share similar dedication and desire; one would need the ability to adapt, plan, formulate strategies, not to mention a natural edge, innate talent, in order to win. "Luck" (defined as the occurrence of highly improbable favorable events or sequence of events) does help too, but by definition, one has no control over luck, so it is imprudent to rely on it. In the case of the NCAA tournament, due to the relatively small talent gap in the latter rounds and equal amounts of dedication present on both teams, it seems mere probability is the most important factor for determining the outcome of a single game.
This is not solely the case in sports or games, but in life in general, such as in the classroom or in the labor market where outcomes are zero-sum.
One psychological reason that people in general enjoy watching "upsets" is that it demonstrates that a disadvantaged team (lacking talented players) can prevail with persistence and will over a more talented team. (I will admit that my favorite basketball game that I watched, not including the one's at my high school, is 11th seeded VCU's victory over 1st seeded Kansas in 2011 in the regional finals.) One often sees his/herself in such analogous situations in life where one perceives themselves to be in disadvantageous circumstances, and one can identify with the underdog in in such cases hoping that one can prevail with one's determination to triumph. But in other cases, the disadvantages are so overwhelming that is simply just hopeless, like a 16th seed facing a top seed.
As Paul would say:
Ash: Here you go. Already know which Pokemon you're using?
Paul: Of course.
Dawn: I'll bet I know how you based your picks: on your opponent's strategy and type advantage.
Paul: You bet right. I looked at the options and chose my three best Pokemon.
Ash: Your three best?
Brock: You sound really confident, Paul.
Ash: I'm not going to lose either. I'm gonna give it all I got and win so I can battle you in the finals.
Paul: You're pathetic. Every trainer competing here at the Sinnoh League has won eight badges. Giving it all you got means nothing.
From "League Unleashed".
Paul is correct. Mere dedication and desire would not suffice at high-level competition, especially when one's competitive share similar dedication and desire; one would need the ability to adapt, plan, formulate strategies, not to mention a natural edge, innate talent, in order to win. "Luck" (defined as the occurrence of highly improbable favorable events or sequence of events) does help too, but by definition, one has no control over luck, so it is imprudent to rely on it. In the case of the NCAA tournament, due to the relatively small talent gap in the latter rounds and equal amounts of dedication present on both teams, it seems mere probability is the most important factor for determining the outcome of a single game.
This is not solely the case in sports or games, but in life in general, such as in the classroom or in the labor market where outcomes are zero-sum.