Though you'll have to explain your last statement to me.
Yeah, I caught it also after I later reread the post. The last statement should of read that if they "would have
tied Finland they would have been rooting for the Soviets and
with a loss to Finland they could have posibly won no medal at all."
If the USA lost to Finland, both would have 3 points (and Finland would win the tiebreaker?). Then if either the USSR or SWE won their game, they would win gold, Finland would win Silver, and the US bronze.
Yes, An American loss assured them they they would not win gold in any scenario. Finland would win the tiebreaker over the USA because they beat them and the winner of the Soviet and Sweden game would have taken Gold. With Finland taking Silver and the USA getting Bronze.
But if the USSR and Sweden tied, all teams would have 3 points (I guess this is the scenario you are talking about).
The first tiebreaker was head to head, the second goal differential, and the third was a goal differential quotient. The USA could have been left out of the medals if they were beaten badly by Finland and the USSR and Sweden tied.
But if the US tied Finland, they would have four points, and there's no way both the USSR and Sweden would gain 2+ points in their match, so US was guarenteed Silver that way, correct?
Yes they would be assured Silver. This is where they'd be rooting for a Soviet win over Sweden because they won the tiebreaker over the Soviets by beating them and would therefore win Gold. If Sweden won they could have still possibly won Gold but then it would of went into the goal differential tiebreakers which depended on that final days scores.
A USA win meant Gold, a tie guaranteed a medal and possibly Gold, a loss could have meant anything except Gold including being left totally out of the medals.
