From: The Ghost Of Edward M. Kennedy on 21 Jun 2010 10:39 If the US draws 0-0 and England draws 2-2, the advancing team will be the winner of a RANDOM draw. The athleticism involved in a random draw is simply AM-ZING! The good news is that the odds of England scoring twice is near absolute zero. --Tedward
From: xyzzy on 21 Jun 2010 10:57 On Jun 21, 10:39 am, "The Ghost Of Edward M. Kennedy" <e...(a)o.com> wrote: > If the US draws 0-0 and England draws 2-2, the advancing team > will be the winner of a RANDOM draw. > > The athleticism involved in a random draw is simply AM-ZING! > The good news is that the odds of England scoring twice is > near absolute zero. > > --Tedward No less random than a shoot-out (IMO)
From: unclejr on 21 Jun 2010 10:59 On Jun 21, 9:39 am, "The Ghost Of Edward M. Kennedy" <e...(a)o.com> wrote: > If the US draws 0-0 and England draws 2-2, the advancing team > will be the winner of a RANDOM draw. > > The athleticism involved in a random draw is simply AM-ZING! > The good news is that the odds of England scoring twice is > near absolute zero. I thought that this was going to be a post about diving. -Junior
From: stephenj on 21 Jun 2010 11:11 The Ghost Of Edward M. Kennedy wrote: > If the US draws 0-0 and England draws 2-2, the advancing team > will be the winner of a RANDOM draw. to be fair, in our football, playoff tiebreakers (and we're basically talking about making the playoffs here) can boil down to a coin flip as well. it's just that it is more likely here in the WC, because a 3-game schedule creates fewer opportunities than a 16-game scchedule for statistical distinctions (e.g., record within division, conference, etc.) before it boils down to that.
From: The Ghost Of Edward M. Kennedy on 21 Jun 2010 11:25
"stephenj" <sjaros3(a)cox.net> wrote >> If the US draws 0-0 and England draws 2-2, the advancing team >> will be the winner of a RANDOM draw. > > > to be fair, in our football, playoff tiebreakers (and we're basically > talking about making the playoffs here) can boil down to a coin flip as > well. > > it's just that it is more likely here in the WC, because a 3-game schedule > creates fewer opportunities than a 16-game scchedule for statistical > distinctions (e.g., record within division, conference, etc.) before it > boils down to that. Well then maybe the problem is the dumbass 3-game schedule. Maybe even amature college baseball has an answer. --Tedward |