Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuttyman54
IRI was the last straw, but not the only instance of this occurrence, and it was not an anomaly. 2010 was a particularly bad year for ties due to the low "resolution" of scores that year....
I agree with you that it's much more exciting (in general) to play out ties...but after having been through WPI 2010, I understand the necessity of having tiebreakers in place.
|
I went and took a look at the first 15 regionals of 2010... after all, 2010 was regarded as "a particularly bad year" due to the game design. 12/15 had no tiebreaker matches. 2/15 had one tiebreaker match. WPI had five tiebreaker matches.
I'll admit that five tiebreakers is a bit excessive, and could be seen as being responsible for delaying the completion of the event, however there were a total of 22 elimination matches played, including the tiebreakers. An event should be prepared for 21 elimination matches, assuming each of the seven series goes to three matches. So technically, even with all those extra tiebreakers, the event would have gone one match... six minutes... beyond what would be achieved in a "longest case" scenario using the current rules.
I submit that based on the 2010 elimination rounds that tiebreakers are an anomaly and are rarely (if ever) the root cause for an event running beyond time limits.
I'll admit that there needs to be something in the rules to allow events to finish at a reasonable time, however I'll also submit that saving six minutes is hardly worth giving up the "tiebreaker" match. And while I'm happy to admit that this totally falls into the category of "first world problems", I'll argue that we should settle ties on the field... in the finals at the very least!
Jason
P.S. at the other two events that had tiebreakers, they both ocurred in the finals... the perfect time!
Oh, yeah... full disclosure... I'm a bit of a hockey fan, and playoff games aren't considered "epic" until at least the third overtime period, so there might be a bit of a pre-existing bias.