Quote:
Originally Posted by rich2202
I remember a situation where the #2 seed was "lucky" during qualifications to be on strong alliances.
I can envision where #2 selected #3-#8, and they all declined. #3 then goes to team NNNN, who accepts (otherwise they are out of the playoffs). Let's say that #3 also wanted NNNN. #3 could select NNNN (NNNN had not yet declined), and NNNN would rather play with #3 because #2 is not so good.
Finding loopholes in the rules is not against "gracious professionalism". GP is fiercely competing while treating others with "respect and kindness". NNNN going to the #3 alliance is "fierce competition". It is no more "disrespectful" or "unkind" to Seed #2 than Seeds #3-#8 declining, and what team XXXX feels when they are not selected by anyone.
|
But such a system would necessitate having a 4th or even 5th round of picks, and it would effectively allow the #1 seed to get seeds #2 and 3 on their team, which would make for a very one-sided (albeit exciting) eliminations rounds.
Which leads to an interesting example: let's take your example a step further and make #1 choose #3 as well as their first pick. Who is now captain of the #3 alliance if #3 accepts? Is it the #4 seed or team NNNN?