So, what's up with Chicago winning CBI Nationals after having four
losses in the round robin, over a Florida team that went undefeated
in the round robin? Everyone already plays everyone anyway in the
round robin, so what's the point of playoffs if a team has a three-
game advantage on the field?
Was Chicago a better team than Florida? They were 2-2 against each
other. Chicago just happened to lose to the right teams (three of
them, to be exact). It is CBI, after all, and stuff happens that
shouldn't in picking the best team at the tournament. Just one of
the reasons I don't like it. The imaginary TV audience is another.
Of course, everyone knew the playoff format ahead of time, unlike
NAQT ICT or ACF Nationals. That's bad, when CBI actually has a leg
up on NAQT and ACF as far as credibility of determining the winner.
What does that say about the circuit?