Quote:
Originally Posted by Flash Demon
Yes, INDIVIDUALS can be upset and then others can rise to the top. TEAMS in all reality wouldn't be upset nearly as easy. It'd take 3 individual upsets to beat a team. 1 upset is already unlikely.
That's your logic.
|
You're just reinforcing my point that the two best teams, being less likely to be "upset", are deserving of reaching the final. What happens when you put the two best teams (which according to your own argument is the sum of the best players) together in round 1 is that one gets knocked out much earlier than they deserve to be.
So, according to what you're saying, Team 6 should absolutely crush Team 1, because Team 6 consists of three great players and would require 3 upsets. So Team 1 is eliminated in round 1 and gets the minimum number of points. However, if Team 1 were then to play any other team in the competition, they would win (once again, 3 upsets would be needed, according to your argument). So the second best team won't come second.
Now, if a lower seeded team were to beat Teams 1 or 6 fair and square, causing 3 upsets, then yes, they deserve the ranking points more than the "favourites". But they should get those ranking points by beating the so-called better team, rankings-wise. Getting more ranking points just because you had a kinder draw in Round 1 is quite frankly unfair.
If I were mach, Stiv or Darkness, I'd be spitting blood right now. The quality of their team doesn't deserve to have a good chance of being knocked out in Round 1.
I reiterate that major sporting competitions, including team events, have a seeding system for a very good reason. According to your argument a seeding system is never necessary. Let's think who is right: you, or every single major sporting body in the world...