I can understand why fans are disappointed with the announcement of a tie. I also understand that many would want the judges to go back after scores were tallied and have one of the judges change a score on their original scoresheet to break the tie. My point was that accusing them of rigging the system to force a tie simply to keep more programs happy is unfair based solely on the fact that two teams end up with the same score.
I agree that it is statistically unlikely that two teams happen to get the exact same score (It "seems really weird"). That probability is not zero, however - especially when judges are really only working within probably 3 or 4 different numerical values they can give for each category for upper-level teams. (.7, .8, .9, 1.0 on top of the theoretical range.) My incredibly non-scientific observation is that it seems to happen about as often as you would expect it to. (It is rare, but not shockingly rare.)
Varsity and Worlds have in place automatic tie-breakers that kick in if the final scores end up equal. (I believe Varsity is the day two score, Worlds is fewest deductions.) They publish those in advance. To my knowledge, Jam Brands does not. If they do, and it is based on one of the days like Varsity, then that wouldn't apply to a one-shot competition. My guess is that next season, they will have a tie-break in place to avoid this scenario happening again.
I didn't get to see Cali's performance, and I am too biased to give a fair opinion of Cheetahs'. I have no idea who "really should have won". All of this is just based on assumptions of the way I think the scoring works.