Message board »Message Board home »Sign-in or register to get started
Online now: 3 members: Crummy, Mike Kinard, hman15; 100 anonymousDiscussion: New idea for combining divisions
| Posted | Discussion |
| July 6, 2009 Bob50 Men's 60 242 posts | New idea for combining divisions There seems to be a renewed call for combining Major and Major Plus divisions. I am a proponent. Maybe though we need to transition to it in this manner: 1) Eliminate seeding games 2) Instead of seeding games play double elimination bracket play within your division--Major or Major Plus 3) After this bracket play is completed combine both divisions for another double elimination bracket 4) This satisfies a 4 game guarantee of play for each team in every tournament this format is used 5) It gives the separate divisions a champion and transitions to a combined tournament with more teams to play each other 6) Normal rewards are given out provided at least 4 teams are in bracket play 7) Should not cost associations any more since it is a four game guarantee as opposed to five games 8) Gives the Major teams a taste of Major Plus without taking away play within their division 9) Determines a true Major Plus champion by having more teams to play. 10) Seeding is determined by a blind draw at the Captains meeting and for the combined divisions by a pre-determined seeding based on the finish of the initial double elimination bracket play 11) AA and AAA may want to adopt this same tournament format 12) MVP and All Tournament Player selections are chosen/determined for the overall tournament. |
| July 6, 2009 #6 Men's 60 1173 posts | Bob50, I think you may on to something.Now if we can get the associations to try this, we will see how it works.Stay safe and play hard. |
| July 6, 2009 jim16 Men's 65 180 posts | Bob, Its good for us all to try and think of new formats that will work, its certainly progressive. However, there is a flaw in your premise. Double elimination format takes twice as many games as the 2 game pool. A 6 team double elim takes 11 games. A 6 team 2 game pool only takes only 6 games. Your format is a lot more games expensive and also time consuming. If a team were to win both double elim formats they might play a whole lot of games, not 4. |
| July 6, 2009 taits Men's 65 4548 posts | The following was taken from tournamentdesign.org, Since I can't figure out exactly what type of double elim tournaments SSUSA runs I'll throw it in. I say that because of the sometime half day wait between games. ---- Double and triple elimination tournaments are great fun, but the basic, traditional format most often used is flawed. The problem is that the single player who comes out of the top (winner's) bracket does not play until a single opponent comes out of the bottom (loser's) bracket or brackets. In the examples posted above, the no-losses player skips 2 rounds of play in the double elimination tournament and 5 to 6 rounds of play in the triple elimination. Therefore, a player who loses his first one or two games must play several more games to get to the championship than the player who wins his first few games. Also, spectators are deprived of getting to see possibly the best player participate in the tournament as much as his opponents. These balanced elimination tournaments fix the problem. I stuck to the following ideas in designing them: • Players with different numbers of losses can play each other at any point. That complicates the brackets because it's not always known ahead of time whether a loser moves on or is eliminated, but that issue can be handled neatly by using 'if necessary' games. • No player shall sit idle for more than one round consecutively. • Even out how often each player plays each other player as much as is practical. Avoid immediate replays. • The flexibility of the design means that it's unknown exactly how many players will be left in the tournament in the later rounds. In the triple elimination tournaments, make the last couple of rounds double elimination to simplify the brackets. In the double elimination tournaments, just make the final game single elimination. designed by Joe Czapski One thing is for sure, the tires on this car are out of alignment. That is due to many factors, and since most of us drive a car or truck you should be able to relate that to the game we love. The car no longer steers straight when you release the wheel as it should. |
| July 6, 2009 Bob50 Men's 60 242 posts | Jim16, The initial double elimination round replaces 3 seeding games not two. Essentially my suggestion replaces a 5 game minimum guarantee with a four game minimum guarantee and it is fairly simple. It amounts to a small double elimination bracket and a combined division double elimination bracket round and it replaces 3 seeding games and our normal double elimination bracket round. The question is would there be more games played in the initial smaller bracket round within one division compared to 3 seeding games. I think it becomes about a wash in total games or slightly fewer under my suggestion. The difference is under my suggestion the games become more meaningful. |
