ESPN Classic
- Thread starter Neil
- Start date
Amen, BRother!Neil said:
I don't why
but I always find myself rooting for Earl. He is poetry in motion when he plays, especially back then. I still think the 1 final match is WRONG in a double elimination tournament. Earl beat Django 13-4 the day before.
Earl didn't break well, Django did. Django got some rolls, Earl did not.
Django won 9-4. I laughed the day before when he played Efren, and they listed his nickname as Dtango, instead of Django.
but I always find myself rooting for Earl. He is poetry in motion when he plays, especially back then. I still think the 1 final match is WRONG in a double elimination tournament. Earl beat Django 13-4 the day before.
Earl didn't break well, Django did. Django got some rolls, Earl did not.
Django won 9-4. I laughed the day before when he played Efren, and they listed his nickname as Dtango, instead of Django.
Snapshot9 said:
This is when they started shortening the matches for television. Bad move! And shame on whoever let them do it!
In some venues, it just doesn't make sense.Snapshot9 said:
For example, if you have the SuperBowl, and then after the game is over, you say OK, now we gotta play the SuperBowl again next week, because the Patriots had no loss, and they even beat the Giants during regular season.
I know, I know... There are other arguments that could be made in reverse. But just saying, in some venues it doesn't make sense / not conducive...
Actually, the non-true finals format, is most notably done in pool. And thus, to outsiders, doesn't make sense.
No matter what, the player from the winner's side, still gets the benefit of having to play / win less matches. No matter which format is used, if you asked the players, whether they'd rather try to make it through on the winner's side, or lose in the first round and try to make it through the loser's side, then it would be obvious that going through the winner's side is the better option of the two.