|
Re: Disrupting Alliances
Separate post, because I forgot I wanted to address the topic of "weaker" alliances somehow letting down their division on Einstein. Which is what JB987 seems to be suggesting by stating the division suffers from a scorched earth selection strategy. If that's not the case, then my apologies, and I suggest more artful phrasing than "the price you pay" and divisions "suffering".
Frankly, this makes no sense. Teams are under no obligation whatsoever to put the interests of the division ahead of their own. For all the encouragement of cheering on your division on Einstein, the whole process is obviously focused on individual teams striving to get as far as they can. Not on a particular division trying to win on Einstein. If they latter were the case, there wouldn't be a point to alliance selections at all. You'd just have a panel of experts pick the division alliance most likely to cream the other divisions.
It's nonsense even if your position is just that it's somehow morally wrong to do alliance selections in a fashion that "weakens" the division. If that were the case, then it'd be morally wrong for any of the "weaker" alliances to pick a non-Top 8 powerhouse team before the "strongest" alliance had a chance at it for a second pick. The only morally right strategy would be for everyone to stay out of the way of the formation of an otherwise completely improbable mega-alliance of 3 powerhouse teams.
So no, I don't think there's a thing wrong with a "scorched earth" selection strategy, and I don't think teams should worry one whit that they might be "weakening" their division by pursuing it.
__________________
The difficult we do today; the impossible we do tomorrow. Miracles by appointment only.
Lone Star Regional Troubleshooter
|