|
I have never been an advocate of the x times loser's score approach. I like this year's scoring better than last year's scoring, since there is some incentive to run up your own score.
The cooperative agreements are really no different than an alliance planning to leave up opponent's stacks or making room on the ramp without the agreement.
In other words, if you explain to an opponent that it is in their best interest to avoid messing with your stacks, but don't form an agreement, you have assured that they might actually play the game strategically.
The agreement approach leaves you in the unfortunate position of either creating hard feelings in the negotiation or in the aftermath of the negotiation when things go wrong on the playing field.
Also, the announcers are actively encouraging teams to score for their opponents.
This scoring makes the planning to move up the rankings more challenging. But, challenging is a good thing.
The teams which are nationally competitive have factored this scoring/tournement philosophy into their designs. Somehow, the "best of the best" end up on top no matter what.
|