Thanks, Andrew. It was a very even game and both sides were quite deserving. Glad I win this coin flip to get some revenge for the final a dozen or so seasons back.

As much as the Ballon D'or and other awards would have you believe that only FWs matter, sometimes it is the GKs who end the day as the most important player on the pitch. Maybe Budinaukas needs a re-naming to be Thibaut Courtois, just for his ability to win cup finals nearly by himself...

Apologies for the late payments on the end of March participation - I usually try to have everything in before an auction runs, but only noticed that week had been missed when I came to payout the most recent week's participation

Just read Steve's post more closely. Think Weighted Random History would probably be the best sort of solution, if folks decided a change was needed, but also require even more work to implement. Don't think it still comes close to landing on the correct side of the cost/benefit analysis, but I'm not the boss around here.

From my perspective, the structure of the game is un-changeable. The minute-by-minute random draws are so integral to the codebase that any change to the random shot chance distribution would be essentially a re-write of the entire game.

However, there probably are some workarounds that could be done via additional features. Note, these are still major structural changes to the code, but they are less than a full re-write. An example would be a 'bad luck' bonus shot. e.g. If you go, say, 2x or 3x the expected amount of time without a shot, then the next minute automatically gives a shot chance and the count resets. So, if you had a 10% shot probability and went 20 or 30 minutes without a shot chance, then the system would give you an automatic shot chance at that point.

Do I think that is needed? No. Do I think it is worth the major code effort? Also no. Do I think we have anyone available with both the skills and time needed to write that feature? Probably also no. But that is the direction I could imagine for a feature that reduces the tail end of outcomes without fundamentally re-writing the game. 

Personally, I think the broad distribution of outcomes from the minute-by-minute structure of these games is part of what make them so much fun. I think the structure is incredibly well thought-through and implemented.

Worth noting that away goals are terrible tiebreakers in real life. But, I really like how they play out in SESL

Away goals in the cecil cup are one of the best features, in my opinion. Adds extra complexity to the structure of setting out orders pre-match. 

Let's say you drew 0-0 home in a first leg. For the second leg? Pretty easy to put in a stall at G=0 late on. Best case the score is 1-1 or 2-2 and a draw will put you through. Worst case it's 0-0 and the stall will push you to penalties.

On the other hand Let's say you drew 4-4 in that same home first leg. Now makes it easy to press at G=0 late on, as most any draw will see you knocked out.

So what do you put for G=0 when you drew 1-1 in the first leg? That's where the fun comes in. An interesting problem to face.