[ben281]

hey guys,
i would have to agree with petek. and i also like his refraising of the question. i do see a problem in a bad team riding there way to the top on pure luck. but it is more of a challenge for a team to be the absolute best. 3v3 does seem to be more action intensive and better for a spectator sport. though it did get a little confusing, i do no thing field size is what we are talking about here. was it worth the risk of letting a bad team get to the top by luck alone, or does this even happen?
responding to an earlier statement. In statistics, there is something called the Law of Large Numbers, which shows (in a nut shell) how when your sample size is large enough, the mean will approach the median. 7 games over say 5 or 6 is not enough for (statistically) to make that much of a difference, but of course it will change who is in the top 8. But to truly get the top 8 teams, at least 100 games would have to be played per team.
what does every one think?
Ben
TEAM 281