LOL, yea. It took me a while to see where the true differences lie. I think Blitz is talking about teams only.
I have to admit that if you see each game as a final’s game, then the situation of team A winning over team B who are both tied should indeed give the win to team A (In a Koontz ruled tournament only!!).
Where team B won over team C that has beaten team A another faceoff is then not required.
This I feel ONLY applies to Koontz, ruled tournaments. Koontz tournaments are intended to be short brutal affairs, with maximum rule clarity and a total dedication to the concept that each game is a tournament finals.. This keeps them short, which is a major contributor to its attractiveness.
On the other hand there is Blitzes argument. After all, there should never be a tie, the winner should always be clear. And while with Koontz it is always clear, but maybe not always perceived to be fair, and considering I don not mind the occasional faceoff. Though, lets admit it. If there is a 3 way tied, where team A beats both team B and C, but then looses the faceoff due to whatever, also does not always make sense.
I’d stick to whatever rules the TO has placed ni the tournament, but with a Koontz rule, at least you know upfront what is going to happen when. You’d better just win it outright, and if you can’t, then eliminate those of the competition that can match you.. If you fail in those respects, then maybe you should not be allowed to win the tournament.
Food for thought..