That's a very interesting suggestion, but honestly, instead of excluding this part completely, I'd rather change it in a way that if two players are tied by points and by number of games, that we compare them by the next set of points (semifinal) and even further if necesarry (QF and so on) until we find who was better at the later stage of the tournament. I think that would be more fair than solving it like we do today, and it would still solve all ties.
Also, we might implement this rule even before the start of 2012 season if people agree on that (for example, starting with Wimbledon 2011, but I'll settle for what most people agrees on, of course).
P. S. This thread is really old and some of the rules stated here have long been changed. I'll try to create a new, updated version, in the following days.
This suggestion of yours is already written to the rule
, see point 3:
How to solve ties
1. The player who is closest in games guessed.
2. The player who guessed the winner.
3. The player who got the most correct picks in the semi final. If the same, move backwards to quarterfinal and so on.
4. The player who posted the fastest post in the final. If no one posted in the final go backwards to the semis and so on.
I don't know if those rules to solve a tie are old
because I checked the Birmingham thread, and there are the exact same rules for solving a tie.
So, in this RG case, you can see that both KeishukeHonda and longtin23 got exactly the same points in each round. It's rather unlikely to happen though, but can happen once in a blue moon.
Another thing I thought that could be used in this case (only if there's still a tie, like in RG case), is to re-look at their picks round by round and give a higher place to the one who picked the most unexpected winner. I'm not sure how to determine this, maybe look at how the bookies have evaluated the player's chances before the match (matchstat.com can be used for example).