Let's put it into another perspective. Imagine it doesn't say CT and TIE, but instead this is a function of how good a pep talk the coach gives the team in the locker room, or how much time he spends drawing plays on the board.
Continuing with your analogy then:If a coach does a poor job preparing the team and/or gives a bad pep talk for the game. But the next game, the coach gets back to work and prepares like he normally does, and now they play even better?to push this further:The coach becomes a total slacker for a week, and the team is unprepared and is not motivated by their coach. Then, he decides to get back to the usual preparation and bam, the team is several levels better. Huh?
Koz,The "new" system would still allow weaker teams to surprise better teams by CT'ing.
Except the magnitude of this effect is severely diminished, because the better teams won't be able to TIE. That's my point.
Couldn't you effectively end agreements like this by giving no enthusiasm bonus is both teams TIE?I realize there is some downside to this...but just thought I throw it out there.
Couldn't you effectively end agreements like this by giving no enthusiasm bonus if both teams TIE?I realize there is some downside to this...but just thought I throw it out there.SteveBruins
Except the magnitude of this effect is severely diminished, because the better teams won't be able to TIE. That's my point.Actually, that's our point.Right now, all the best teams are TIE'ing almost every game. So when we do run into a minnow, our enthu is so high that even an ill-conceived CT on the minnow's part (which would result in them losing subsequent games against lesser competition) would not result in a "shock" victory for the minnow.That's the first good point you've made.