3 Teams Per Side Too Many?

[petek]

Originally Posted by MOEmaniac

I think it worked really good and that since the field size was increased it worked even better. And with more teams per side it made it so that not just one team could be the deciding factor in a match.

[Warning: one person arguing with himself here]

From a philosophical perspective, I agree on both points, and I thought the game was especially entertaining and exciting this year.

I think this question might be rephrased to "which is more important: striving toward field dominating performance, or gracious professionalism?"

(Making a rash generalization) I expect that many teams which had otherwise dominating performance negated by weaker partners would argue that this 3 vs 3 performance-averaging approach makes luck too important a factor in seeding.

My own team might fall into this category, but I am not ready to blame the system. Even though we don't believe our seeding in Atlanta represented what we actually did on the field, we had a great year and Atlanta pointed out those areas where we had weaknesses. Maybe the GP way to look at this is that 3 vs 3 raises the bar for strong teams.