A philosophical Question: What's more important, the highs or the lows?

As Texas rounds 3rd this weekend and barrels down to home with a collision course at the plate with A&M, and reading the threads recently, it got me thinking:

What, philosphically is the most important when judging a man and a team.

A) Is it more important to have scaled a mountain, even if you broke your ankle on an anthill before or after?

B) Or is it important to not succomb to adversity unreasonably and show a weakness in mind, body, and spirit?

A) is the team that beats up on cupcakes and wins the games against inferior competition on their schedule (e.g. Texas, Indiana, etc.) but loses in a match of equals or +/- 10% of equally matched teams.

B) represents teams who might have won against an equal or +/- 10% of a team that is good and equal, but have lost to a team they had no reasonable expectation to lose and a loss which points to internal failures like broken culture, leadership, chemistry, mental toughness, coaching, etc. (e.g. Ole Miss, Tennessee, Alabama).

The only team who has largely done a good job this year, though not without some tough losses (but not egregious or "bad" losses) is Georgia. And they are completely disrespected this year.

Why?