And? What does luck have to do with either of those games? We blew the first game because of turnovers and missed FTs. That’s execution, not luck. Houston … we made a great comeback but Shead outfought us for a loose ball. The ball didn’t take a strange hop or deflect off a ref. And even if we pick it up, there is probably a 60 percent chance Houston wins in OT as the vastly superior team. We actually won our share of close games this year. We have no legit case that luck in close games hurt us.
Darthard lost his balance and fell over the ball to miss the rebound before Shead got it. I would call that bad luck. You would call that...poor athletic performance of outcome.
In the grand scheme of things, all luck, good/bad, is dependent upon preparation and execution. It technically doesn't exist. But you can attribute things as unlucky or lucky based on traditional outcomes in their relation to chance.
Chances of something happening or not happening, and so on, are generally held based on standards that we typically see. So you can attribute everything early on in a game leading to any outcome and saying, there is no luck, if they would have done (insert thing) then there is no way to leave something up to chance. And yet, most games, that end up being close and come down to the wire, are associated with luck, bad and good.
I disagree with you arbitrarily assigning "luck" or a "luck-based outcome" where you see fit. When the end of the outcome of the game is up to more chance of a player falling over and someone being where they need to be after a miss, vs citing early game performance as to why it is NOT luck. The idea of luck here would be subjective with, depending on your viewpoint, I could reasonably assume most to say Darthard falling past the ball, Moore missing the block, and Shead getting his own rebound and hitting a high stress fadeaway could be considered bad luck for OU.
