|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Could alliance picks go this way
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. Last edited by rich2202 : 17-05-2016 at 15:19. |
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Could alliance picks go this way
Quote:
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? |
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Could alliance picks go this way
Quote:
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|