Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.
Baxter the Teddy
Originally Posted by Tetriix
I understand the idea of the tie-breaker, but it just doesn't seem all that fair to me. I mean if you look at it in their group stage, after two games:
Azubu Blaze went 2-0.
MYM went 1-1.
Curse went 1-1.
Gambit went 0-2.
They were already behind the other teams in wins and losses. Yet after their third game, they won and because they won quickly, they got to go through? It just doesn't make a lot of sense since they lost twice in a row.
So? So what if they didn't win their first two games? Curse didn't win their last 2. MyM didn't win their last two(or first 2 as well, w/e)
It was 1-2 across the board and the rules which were written prior to the event, which ALL of the teams were aware of and knew was that in the event of a tie, the time would be the deciding factor.
Gambit looked at it and went "Huh, our only chance IF the other teams lose is to win as quickly as possible." They did and then they went and won the whole thing. All MYM or Curse had to do was WIN their game. I'm a Curse fan and THEY dropped the ball. If they'd won they'd be 2-1 and the problem wouldn't exist.
Gambit looked at their situation, understood the rules and said "This is our only chance" and it worked.