Quote:
Originally Posted by Travis Hoffman
Does any of the below really surprise anyone?
Folks are welcome to correct any of these.
This is in reference to #3 rule change only.
PRO #3 (or NOT-CON - neutrality in posting infers pro. Being on the planning committee infers pro - makes sense, right?): - 33 (W)
- 67 (W)
- 68 (W)
- 234 (W)
- 341 (W)
- 829 (W)
- 868 (SQ)
- 907 (W)
- 3940 (W)
- 4334 (W)
CON #3 (or ain't no big thang we'll beat it anyway, or triples are overrated, or we should add 10 points to the coop bridge as an option, or....  ): - 48 (L)
- 340 (L)
- 359 (L)
- 461 (L)
- 548 (L)
- 744 (L)
- 772 (L)
- 2056 (L)
 - 2168 (L)
- 2337 (L)
- 3193 (L)
- 3310 (L)
I also know of one other longbot team attending who is not in favor of #3 but does not believe the net disadvantage toward longs will be that large. I'm tending to agree with that person, but I am of the mind that any unfairness at all is blar.
|
This is an interesting list. Your addition of "ain't no big thing, we'll beat it" and "triples are overrated" to opposing the change is really inaccurate though. Go back, read Tyler's post. Him and anyone with similar opinions are definitely in the pro (or at least neutral) camp