Message board »Message Board home »Sign-in or register to get started
Online now: 2 members: TABLE SETTER 11, dillydilly; 132 anonymousDiscussion: Feedback on this idea?
| Posted | Discussion |
| Oct. 7, 2011 coop3636 514 posts | Feedback on this idea? What is everyone's opinion on the following: I think the team that wins the finals of the winners bracket should automatically be home team in the first game of the Chamionship. They earned that right. If it goes to the IF game, flip for home team as usual. Just aking for opinions. Lets hear them Brett Cooper.. Monster #36 |
| Oct. 7, 2011 Pricer Men's 50 621 posts | Agree |
| Oct. 7, 2011 mad dog Men's 65 4191 posts | coop,don't know when it changed,but it used to be that way all the time.i agree as the undefeated team of the winners bracket,you should have the home team the first game of the champ games........ |
| Oct. 7, 2011 the wood Men's 65 1123 posts | The undefeated team need only win one game out of two... isn't this advantage enough? Should the team with the overwhelmingly best seeding record get an 'automatic home team' in round one? Didn't they earn it as much as the undefeated team? BW |
| Oct. 7, 2011 Gary19 Men's 50 2609 posts | The better record should always be home team. Should be standard practice. Why is softball becoming Socialistic? |
| Oct. 7, 2011 the wood Men's 65 1123 posts | Gee, Gary, for a guy with your obvious educational pedigree, it surprises me that you blatantly misuse the word 'socialism'. According to Google Research it actually pertains to 'an economic system whereby property is held commonly and not individually'. Perhaps I've overlooked the connection that 'must exist' between the undefeated team automatically being the home team and socialism. Where is the economic angle in all of this? Should we presume that the best seeding record also be given home team in order to avoid the stigma of socialism? Maybe you meant to say 'communism' since it pertains to political and economic issues. Disappointedly, BW |
| Oct. 7, 2011 Gary19 Men's 50 2609 posts | Actually, and your point is sort of well-taken, this is more an economic issue than a political one. Not rewarding teams for having the best record, in other words not rewarding those by allowing them to prosper from their personal achievements above the mean, allows everyone artifically equal access to goods and services (in this case, championships). This has nothing to do with a political system and the rights of the individual, but much rather an economic system of propering through one's own hard work and accomplishment. Yea, I know everyone theoretically has an opportunity to win. This is strictly in the more limited context of rewarding teams at iterative stages of the process for what they have accomplished thus far. Intellectual enough for you, Bob? :) |
| Oct. 7, 2011 stattad Men's 65 235 posts | I definitely agree. When we won the winner's bracket in Laughlin this year we lost the flip for the championship game. We lost that game and lost the flip in the if game as well. Luckily we won that one to win it. R&R 60s |
| Oct. 7, 2011 Tate22 Men's 60 280 posts | I've advocated this idea for years. The performance required to win the winners bracket game deserves a reward. There is no logical argument to deny this well-earned benefit. The NFL, MLB,NBA, NHL all reward best records with home field advantage in the playoffs, why should SSUSA be any different. This is just one more example where SSUSA treats winning and good performance as bad for the game. Yo, Woody (Guthrie?) Perhaps the socialism reference is accurate, as this rule seems intended to redistribute un-earned wealth. IF you want home team advantage, go get it! But then, we live in a world where 200-pound girls have the court-mandated right to be cheerleaders! Let the winnahs win! Don Newhard Nighthawks 50 M+ |
| Oct. 7, 2011 the wood Men's 65 1123 posts | Gary, a double elimination tourney usually rewards the team that emerges with less than two losses... not necessarily the one that went undefeated in the winner's bracket. Should we reward the runners in the NY Marathon that lead at the halfway pole? (3/4 pole?) Both the home team and the visitors get 21 outs apiece... Having been on both sides of a double dip, I can say with great certainty that it takes a lot more than home field advantage to come out on top... every time that we won it was because we scored more runs... and vice versa. I don't really care as much as about home field advantage as just 'taking care of business'. This is even more important in senior events since our endurance isn't what it was. Going into a DE event we ALL know that it's better to stay in the winner's bracket. This hasn't changed in 40 years. I will say this though... in re-reading the original post of this thread I notice that he said in the first game only, not the 'if' game. Given this, I really don't care one way or the other... it's more about execution than about home team advantage. BW |
| Oct. 7, 2011 Gary19 Men's 50 2609 posts | And the NBA rewards the team that wins the final round with the O'Brien trophy, but the better record in the regular season gets home court advantage in each series leading up to that. Well, at least for the most part, though I do think that division winners get priority (but I digress). |
| Oct. 7, 2011 the wood Men's 65 1123 posts | Gary, using your own analogy, the NBA rewards the teams with better records by allowing them home court advantage. They earned it. Trying to persuade me or whomever that having both teams be subject to a coin flip (50/50 chance for each) is socialistic is like feeding me Govt Cheese and calling it Filet Mignon. Get real. The 'home team advantage' is an intangible... it isn't like a 5 run equalizer or the flip flop rule. Each team has an equal chance because they get an equal amount of outs. 'Home team' definitely does provide a psychological benefit... but this isn't tatamount to socialism... any more than home court advantage going to the team with THE BEST RECORD. For what it's worth, home team (who bats last) is not as much of a benefit as home court/field (my arena v. your arena). Don, MD and others who actually play in double elimination events... step right up. I respect your opinion because you're actually out there doing it. When playing against your teams I'd gladly give this up (home team) if we were the undefeated team. I'm quite sure that you've earned it. Gary, if we ever play each other 'home team' won't matter because it's only a virtual game. You can have it... BW |
| Oct. 7, 2011 the wood Men's 65 1123 posts | On 2nd thought: The gag is on me... Gary, I felt that you were actually arguing for the team from the loser's bracket. I stand corrected. However, I still feel that a coin toss is best for everyone... it is the most fair. Don, my fault on your post as well. BW |
| Oct. 7, 2011 mad dog Men's 65 4191 posts | wood, i have always thought the team that is coming out of the winners bracket(undefeated team)deserved to be the home for the first champ game.it used to be that way many years back,not sure when it changed to a flip for it.now the second game should be a flip no matter what as both teams will have a loss then. you are right it is better to stay in the winners bracket,less games,less energy expended,etc.like you i have been on both sides of getting double dipped(mostly doing it),but by being the home team for that first game and undefeated,made it easier to win the tourney.we were rarely double dipped. |
| Oct. 7, 2011 Webbie25 Men's 70 2413 posts | My gosh, am I getting old? (yes) But, I never remember being awarded home team for winning the winners bracket, ever. The advantages of doing that are less games and fresher legs, and they have to beat you twice. Always seemed fair to me. |
| Oct. 7, 2011 mad dog Men's 65 4191 posts | it was that way in the 80's and early 90's webbie when i play tourney's,i then moved overseas to work for the navy and missed 5 years of stateside ball(95-00),and when i came back all kinds of rules had been changed.E class had been added also..... |
| Oct. 7, 2011 the wood Men's 65 1123 posts | Webbie: I do not recall any such notion either. It was always a coin toss... IMO, giving either team home team (w/o coin toss) is unnecessary. But since I screwed this post up already I believe that I've said too much... or nothing at all. Again, my fault. I will add though that in Bullhead City events they award 1/2 a run to the visiting team... in every game, not just the finals. There are never ties so the event stays on schedule, for the most part. Teams seem to 'roll with it' pretty well... more teams opt for visitors than you would usually see. BW |
| Oct. 7, 2011 mad dog Men's 65 4191 posts | guys it might have been a local thing,but it did happen in 2 different cites i lived in(Seattle,and Sacramento),we also did it in Italy with the military tourney's i played in.i think maybe it was to be able to end the tourney with 1 game at the end,and it was always perceive the home team would have the advantage,so the undefeated team would get the home team advantage....... |
| Oct. 8, 2011 ds60 3 posts | I have suggested to the Associations for years that the higher seeds from pool play be home team throughout bracket play. At least it would make the pool play mean something. Most everyone I've suggested this to, agrees. (Except the Senior Associations). |
| Oct. 8, 2011 Jawood Men's 50 943 posts | I don't ever remember the team that comes out of the winners bracket getting to be the home team in the first game of the championship, but I would be in favor of that. Being the home team is obviously a HUGE advantage and the team that hasn't lost has EARNED that right. Here is something "out of the box". In any game, the coin flip determines home team for two, maybe three innings. After that, the team that is winning, is the home team for the rest of the game. This takes the importance out of a flip of the coin. If the scored is tied, then you would have to go with whoever had won the toss. Mad dog, who did you play for when you lived in Seattle? |
| Oct. 8, 2011 mad dog Men's 65 4191 posts | jawood,i played for krieg's construction out of whidbey island(USSSA C),and played in the over 40 league in bremerton.was only there for 2 years(93-94) then had to go to Italy to work.... |
