Non GL vs GL

"Kyp_Durron88;c-2243319" wrote:

"ImaSmakya;c-2243309" wrote:

"Kyp_Durron88;c-2243306" wrote:

"TVF;c-2243289" wrote:
We have told you why you're wrong, several times, you just refuse to accept it. Work on your roster.

You have not told me I'm wrong, nor do you have such authority.

True competition is dependent of fairness. Otherwise, what's the point of engaging? How is 3 GLs against none fair? Surely, you can do better than just saying "nope." Do you really think that is going to convince me? Your arguments are baseless and weak. You amuse me.

I'm a big hockey fan and particularly enjoy tournaments like the world juniors. Using your logic, Canada, US, Finland, etc... should have to sit their top two lines when they are going to play a team that they know they are going to beat 8-0, 10-0 (happens every year).

If they have to do that to give the opponent a chance to win, where is the incentive for the other team to get better? Why wouldn't that team keep going to the tournament with a sub par team because they know their opponent is going to be handicapped to give them a chance to win?

There's always a shot in hockey. There's enough chaos to allow for chance. I have seen many "terrible" teams rally and pull out a win. I work for a D1 program. I watch hockey every day and I know what I am talking about.

The possibility of success is the incentive. I am not arguing that it shouldn't be difficult. Just possible. 3 GLs against none is like Canada having a brick wall in front of the goal, plus a goalie, plus a stacked team. Just take away the brick wall. That's all I'm arguing.

And regardless of whether you think I cherry picked my GAC history, I have already shown you that it is possible.
If that's all you want, why are we still having this conversation?

Just out of curiosity, how often do you get matched against someone with 3 GL's? I'm guessing it is one GL far more often than it is 3.