It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Newz Forum: BASKETBALL: Dean's List: The Office-Secretarial Theory of Bracketology

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 03:44 PM
link   
As we should all come to accept, even the blondest of secretaries can win an office pool. This is what they mean by "March Madness"...
 

And now that it's Bracket Time, all you guys who faithfully watched college basketball all season must come to the crippling realization that you know nothing about college basketball - never mind the tournament - and you never will. Office pool success, after all, is a hideous concoction of dumb luck, odd odds and questionable chance that's randomly served, never ordered. Or is it?

In a desperate effort to get inside the mind of the mysteriously successful office secretary, I've decided to use the most arbitrary, yet distantly logical method of picking the winners this year. To paraphrase assistant greenskeeper Carl Spackler of Caddyshack, "I have to laugh. Because I've often asked myself - my foe, my enemy is an office secretary. And in order to conquer her, I have to think like an office secretary, and whenever possible, to look like one." Except for the whole part about looking like an office secretary, that's my hunch. And this is their secret...

The office secretary knows next to nothing - if anything - about any of the teams in the tournament and very little about the game of basketball itself. So right off the bat, you can throw records and other concrete measure of success right out the window. Do pay a little attention to seeds, though. She's on to those. And she doesn't go by prestige either. Because she knows practically nothing about the history of the game. However, her picks just might be made with mascots in mind. I'm talking head-to-head match-ups, costume on costume, no holds barred. And she should be particularly prone to picking cats. Because girls, especially office secretaries, like cats. Lions, Tigers, Bobcats, Wildcats - you name it, they love it. Oh, and colors, too. Girls like pretty things, and colors are pretty pretty. So they'll be sure to pick teams named after colors. Unless they're up against cats. Because cats beat colors. Every time...

This, people, is the "office-secretarial theory of bracketology," the key to the locks of the tournament, the coolest stool in the pool. And here's what is says...

Final Four: Wildcats all the way. Office-secretarial rationale: Since Wildcats are the craziest cats ever and like totally unstoppable, No. 3 Arizona, No. 5 Villanova, and No. 2 Kentucky will emerge from their respective brackets in Chicago, Syracuse and Austin. Kentucky will beat Villanova in one semifinal, because they have bluegrass in Kentucky, and blue is a nice color, and in the other the semifinal, Arizona will destroy whoever comes out of Albuquerque, 'cause it's Wildcats all the way baby! And finally, it'll be Arizona over Kentucky in the final because that's where the office secretary probably went...

Upset special: No. 13 Vermont over No. 4 Syracuse. Office-secretarial rationale: This one's easy. It's Catamounts over Orange, cats over colors, all the way...

Bonus upset special: No. 12 Wisconsin-Milwaukee over No. 5 Alabama. Office-secretarial rationale: Even easier. Panthers over Crimson Tide, cats over (water) colors, every time...

Double-secret bonus upset special: No. 11 Northern Iowa over No. 6 Wisconsin. Office-secretarial rationale: Forget about Mars and Venus. Guys are like weasels, and girls are like cats. And since girls are better than guys, it's Panthers over Badgers, cats over weasels, all the way. Tongue-in-cheek, I'm Dean Christopher...








[Edited on 15/3/05 by TRD]




posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 10:07 PM
link   
Dean, you make these picks based on the assumption that the office secretary knows the mascot of these schools.

What seemed to work in the pool at my office last year for a couple of the women folk was "Where would I rather visit?" Using this theory, oone woman chose pacific to win it all.

How was that succesful? We give the last place tema thier money back...



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 11:13 AM
link   
Main Entry: tongue-in-cheek
Function: adjective
: characterized by insincerity, irony, or whimsical exaggeration

When you overanalyze humor, Gibbs, you suck...the life out of it.

-DC


TRD

posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 11:49 AM
link   
I thought it was rather amusing, thats how i picked last year and i didn't do that bad at all. I just picked the places i had heard of lol! I know people that gamble this way by picking greyhound and horses ie..because my uncle has that name or i've been there, thats my fav colour ect ect and they have a good deal of success...



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by deanchristopher
Main Entry: tongue-in-cheek
Function: adjective
: characterized by insincerity, irony, or whimsical exaggeration

When you overanalyze humor, Gibbs, you suck...the life out of it.

-DC


apologies all around...I've been working plenty of extra hours this week, I'm feeling a bit drained...

And I wanted to point out the system that Myra used last year, thought it clever and in an ironic way, successful.



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join