Thank you for a cogent response to a
well-intended but obviously misguided query. [And, while these
are certainly comments regarding the format of the
ICT, I'm also interested in hearing other people's
opinions, and am therefore posting them in this
forum.
[By the way, my comment comparing playoff field
composition just was a reference to what kind of system would
yield an equal size of championship-contending fields.
I was not making any comments regarding tournament
structure, nor was I arguing that the results would be
comparable.]
I'm not against ladder play as a concept, but certain
features of it do trouble me greatly, among which is the
justification for giving the top-ranked team a bye every other
round. While I understand the logistical need for this
arrangement, it's still somewhat troubling--to me at least,
why the team initially ranked #1 can play as little
as twice and win only once during ladder play, while
the team that starts #2 must play no fewer than three
times, and win twice, in order to enter the championship
finals.
Once again, just giving my 2 centimes'
worth.
--AEI