I know its over for us....

It doesn't mean that winning a short series is a matter of "luck". It means it's about being better over such a small sample size, it's necessarily the way it would come out 10 series out of 20.

If the Tigers played the Cardinals in 20 7-game series, the Tigers might win 13 of those series. It just might not be this one.

to see the Tigers seemingly replicate the behavior of our A's in the ALCS. The things that are absolutely crucial to having a shot to win the series they're having a hard time with, namely pitching to their ability, playing solid defense, and taking good at-bats. They gave away at least one run in game 1, and at least 2 last night in game 3. They gave away countless at-bats in Game 1 and didn't look a whole lot better last night. Game 2 was a lot better, but even then they were doing 2005-2006 A's re-enactment theater by leaving so many guys on base with legitimate scoring chances.
I dunno... it's both refreshing and frustrating at times that the "best team" doesn't always win, especially when dealing with a small sample size like a play-off series. Refreshing in that a team who supposedly doesn't have a chance on paper can rise to the occasion and outplay their rival, and frustrating that a team you know is much better than they're playing seemingly can't get it together when it counts the most.
The only solution would be to just give the championship to whichever team has the best record at the end of the regular season, I guess, and not have play-offs at all.
But I don't think anybody would go for that, including myself.
Maybe instead of having a DS and CS they could have a round-robin of the 4 teams in each league making the play-offs, and then a longer World Series between the two teams winning the round-robin for the AL and NL?
Still not very realistic to imagine, and would things change that much over 11 games vs. 7, for example? Perhaps. Probably not.
In the end, if the play-offs weren't structured the way they are, or didn't exist, we wouldn't have the emotional excitement of championship-clinching hits or strikeouts or whatever. And that would probably be a shame, 'cause didn't we all grow up imagining those scenarios in our heads as the most awesome dream?
"Bottom of the ninth, 2 outs, two men on; they trail by 2 and they're down to their last strike... he steps back in the box... the pitcher stares in, and comes set..."
(I would usually strike out at that point in whatever backyard or park we were playing, which is why you don't see me in an MLB uniform these days...but it sure was fun to imagine!)

We were completely dominated by Detroit and I think using "what ifs" is a disservice to them.  I agree that it would be pathetic if the Cards won the series but I'm surely not counting the Tigers out yet.

I sure can't cheer for either of them and I have actually "dreamed" about the A's being in the WS... unfortunately I always wake up.

They have always been my NL team. So I really can't help but disagree with you on just about every point! I hope they KILL the Tigers! =)

but I have no idea why

I took third place.

It was a head to head league, with three rounds of playoffs.

Long story short, if I had been seeded one slot lower, I would have won the league and none of my playoff matches would even have been close. The team that ended up finishing second in the finals got hot in the semis and beat me. If I had finished one spot lower, I would have been in the opposite bracket, beaten the ultimate champions and then beaten that team in the finals.

What can you do?