BuzzerBeater Forums

BB USA > [NT] USA vs Spain

[NT] USA vs Spain

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
88255.6 in reply to 88255.4
Date: 5/4/2009 9:33:38 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
1919
Wonder if it's linked to Chile fielding a team of two today.

Except Chile did it on purpose as a strategy to minimize the point differential to 25 points.

This Post:
00
88255.7 in reply to 88255.5
Date: 5/5/2009 7:26:17 AM
The Ashkickers
III.12
Overall Posts Rated:
1515
Ah well, we will get em next time coach...

This Post:
00
88255.9 in reply to 88255.8
Date: 5/5/2009 10:36:13 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
1919
agreed. forfeiting should never be a viable tactic. hope the bb's fix this. that said, credit to the chilean coach for exploiting a loophole if it gets chile into the final four.

This Post:
00
88255.10 in reply to 88255.7
Date: 5/5/2009 10:37:38 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
303303
We're running out of next times, this is the nitty gritty.

NO ONE at this table ordered a rum & Coke
Charles: Penn has some good people
A CT? Really?
Any two will do
Any three for me
Any four will score
Any five are live
This Post:
00
88255.12 in reply to 88255.11
Date: 5/5/2009 4:18:22 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
1616
Thank you JuicePats for posting in our forum.

We were not sure of wining this match, we thank that it would be a hard match and we would need to do our best to get the victory.

This mistake has placed you in a difficult situation in this World Cup. You was a hard way too from the begining because the pool, but you are a great team and now you still have options.

Greetings from Spain and sorry about my english.

This Post:
00
88255.13 in reply to 88255.6
Date: 5/5/2009 10:11:52 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
103103
Except Chile did it on purpose as a strategy to minimize the point differential to 25 points.


Do you think that it would be a useful counter-measure to the intentional forfeit to make number of walkovers given the first tiebreaker (ahead of PD)?

This Post:
00
88255.14 in reply to 88255.13
Date: 5/6/2009 11:56:40 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
303303
I think this has been discussed at some point, not sure what the official decision is/was.

NO ONE at this table ordered a rum & Coke
Charles: Penn has some good people
A CT? Really?
Any two will do
Any three for me
Any four will score
Any five are live
This Post:
00
88255.15 in reply to 88255.14
Date: 5/6/2009 3:28:12 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
103103
I, for one, would be heavily in favor of it. My league has a potential tactical situation (that won't involve my team) whereby two teams fighting for fourth have at least some incentive to surrender an intentional walkover in one of their final games and thus improve their PD relative to the other team if he doesn't intentionally WO the game against the top team in our table. Now, as to whether or not it's a foregone conclusion that both teams would lose by more than 25, or a variety of other factors, it's a shame that such an option is even tactically viable on a moderate-to-high competitive level (yes, USA III isn't the NBBA or the worlds, but I think it emphasizes the nature of the problem that even in mid-level leagues the intentional WO may be a viable option under certain circumstances).