TIEBRAKERS to prevent RIGGING THE MATCH

[dlavery]

I'm just going to go stick my head in the oven.

Two years ago, virtually EVERY team screamed and yelled about how much they hated the 4-vs-0 scenario. It was boring, no fun, a waste of time, and not challenging. More than one team said it would be their last season specifically because there was no more "competition" in the competition. I even had one person nearly tackle me in the stands just before the awards ceremony, and practically beg me to PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE ask FIRST not to stick with the "complete cooperation" games.

Now here we are two years later, and all of the sudden everyone is all up in a lather about the potential situation where - GASP! - teams will all collude to ignore the "competition" and just "cooperate" to the detriment of the game.

The only way this "intentional tie problem" will happen is if all four teams decide to accept a lower score than they could by winning. If even one team decides that they might prefer to WIN and ADVANCE OVER THE OPPOSITION, then the "intentional tie" scenario fails. Given the number of teams that were present in 2001, and are still around for this year's event, I have a hard time seeing the "intentional tie" situation happening.

In other words -
- you spoke
- FIRST listened
- you got what you asked for
- what is the problem?


-dave
(unfortunately, the oven is electric, so it will just hurt a lot...)