BuzzerBeater Forums

Might be that is already the case. Have to guess that most teams MTIE, hence the attention when a team that has a history of not MTIE'ing changing their stance. I'm not sure if most teams do it every game, but I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case.

Last edited by brian at 2/17/2010 4:28:17 PM

I've done it almost every game this season, except for a couple games. And in those couple games, it would have been a good idea for the opponent (and me) to TIE.

As long as it's an infinitely better idea for both teams to TIE every game, it will happen almost every game.

I've probably done it for maybe half the games. Granted, I've only offered it maybe once or twice ever, I just let everyone else offer it to me.

I'm sure that's a good idea for exactly one of you, and I'm sure you'll be nice enough to thank the other teams for voluntarily getting out of your way.

I'll be sure to be grateful to all at the end of the season.

If you would lose on a TiE vs. TiE, you would almost certainly rather lose on a TiE vs. a normal by a few more points.

Not really, because in absence of an agreement the "better" team would just also Normal. And then neither team gets any enthusiasm boost for the next game.

I guess I agree that there are a few, rare chances that a mutual TIE doesn't make sense....but they are few and far between.

Last edited by stogey23 at 2/18/2010 3:05:33 AM

If your theory is correct then why don't past results support a more variable mix of success? In almost 11 seasons the best team usually wins. Since season 3 there's been 14 cup and league trophies split amongst 3 teams. The balance of power from top to bottom has been extremely static.

I think your analysis is ignoring the huge effect of HCA too. Barring a CT vs a TIE a weaker team has little chance on the road to a stronger team, even with a normal vs a tie. Therefore the stronger team can comfortably tie almost all their home games. Since using a CT in the regular season is terrible waste of resources considering the small effect of one league win and future potential losses it causes, including shortening a cup run, it almost never happens.

So all the posturing you laid out above really only comes into effect when a stronger team plays on the road to a weaker team, a situation where the result could go either way. To survive weak teams really need to ensure they win home games since road wins are tough for any team. What benefit is it to the weaker team not to mtie in these games? If they don't mtie the stronger team isnt going to lay down a throw a winnable road game because they couldn't secure or offer/accept a mtie. The weaker team would likely not want to tie and throw a winnable home game.

Enthusiasm is important but it's not more important than wins and losses. Not even considering the reality of MTIE, in both cases above the weaker team is at the same, if not greater, disadvantage based on the ability of stronger teams have higher enthusiasm from being able to tie more games with less risk.

Now, keep in mind the teams that have been around and played each other for 5+ seasons are likely MTIE their games, so newer teams that come in with less resources decide not to accept MTIE for tactical/moral reasons are at even more a disadvantage.

Try to look past how you've rationalized this system to yourself since that's not how it's playing out in reality. This system is hurting weaker teams.

Last edited by brian at 2/18/2010 5:35:21 AM

Brian nails it on the head.

I will say that having CT'd a cup game there has been no need to offer mutual TIE's to my league opponents :-)

In other news, yay for playoff enthusiasm options in the cup quarterfinals.

My personal feeling is that the worst thing I can do for team's chance of league success is to lose a game in which both teams played normal.

In other news, yay for playoff enthusiasm options in the cup quarterfinals.

Upon further reflection, yay for playoff enthusiasm options when I've got the stronger team and boo when I need to make a gap in talent.