Quote:
Originally posted by Koci
If each team gets their own score, that will only make matters worse. If you say "I won't touch your stacks if you don't touch mine," it is all the easier to say yes, and you will ALWAYS reap the benefits in that case. You no longer would even have to worry about winning the match.
The best idea I can come up with is to just go with a scoring system similar to all sports out there: 2 (or 3) points for a win, 1 point for a tie, 0 points for a loss. That way, maximizing points for both sides doesn't help both sides, and immediately stops any possibility for collusion. Then at the end of the competition, points are used as a tiebreaker (e.g. 3 teams are undefeated at the end of competition, and whoever has the greatest point differential is in first).
Of course, in the larger competitions where teams don't play as many matches, the number of teams tied at a certain position increases, placing more emphasis on points, but at least there is less emphasis than there is now.
|
I can see where you're coming from. I still think this will make teams think about doing only the bare minimum to win a game. FIRST wants high excitement- high scoring close rounds that are constantly moving, fast, furious, and not fixed. In other words- they are
trying to remove the domination team and level the playing field while bringing in more and more viewers.
Sorry about writing three messages in a row people. I simply did not see the messages before each sending.