Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2004 10:18:20 GMT -5
But I just told you, it doesn't make that big of a difference. When teams are really close, it might change the chances by 5 - 10%, but they have to be really close for that to happen. The variation in play and even ability is larger than the difference between 25 and 30. It's not a big issue. But these teams ARE very close. That's the point. I'm not saying 30 pts is ideal. But it's better than 25. I still don't think a 6-5 score (or less) proves anything... |
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Aug 10, 2004 10:22:27 GMT -5
But these teams ARE very close. You are underestimating how close they have to be for it to have a significant effect. It basically has to be just off of dead heat. Even at this level, there is a difference between teams I would suggest. 25 or 30, the variation in play is a much bigger factor. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2004 10:27:36 GMT -5
You are underestimating how close they have to be for it to have a significant effect. It basically has to be just off of dead heat. Even at this level, there is a difference between teams I would suggest. 25 or 30, the variation in play is a much bigger factor. Could be, but I'm basing it on the fact that there does not appear to be any clear-cut #1 team. Every tournament had a different champion and most matches seemed to go 5 games. Seems as if any one of 5-6 teams could win Gold. I would prefer that luck be as small a part of that outcome as possible. |
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Aug 10, 2004 13:55:16 GMT -5
Could be, but I'm basing it on the fact that there does not appear to be any clear-cut #1 team. Every tournament had a different champion and most matches seemed to go 5 games. Seems as if any one of 5-6 teams could win Gold. I would prefer that luck be as small a part of that outcome as possible. As teams get closer and closer in ability, then luck becomes more and more of a factor. That's one thing that gets in the way here, that in order to make the game to 30 significant, they have to be very, very close. But if they are very, very close, then luck gets to be more and more important. In the end, the difference due to luck grows a lot faster than it can be overcome by increasing the number of games. Sure, going to 30 helps a little, but it pales compared to the luck factor at that point. I still like the mercy rule approach. I should write up a proposal for the rules committee... |
|
