From: The Ghost Of Edward M. Kennedy on
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
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
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
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
"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