Masters Regionals Format needs to be changed
Monohan
pool. (The exception being the South Region.) If you look at the
schedules in the score reporter, you'll see that after round robin
pool play, #1 plays #2 in the championship, with the winner qualifying
to go to Nationals. At the same time, #3 plays #4. The winner of 3
vs 4 then plays the loser of 1 vs 2. This just aint right. #3 is
getting rewarded for losing in pool play, and #2 is getting punished
for winning. I think that in every region, there is a huge difference
in between the #1 and #4 teams, whereas there apparently was not much
difference between the #2 and #3 teams.
In four of the five regions that had just one pool, and so used the
above format, the team that won the pool play matchup of 2 vs 3, LOST
in the game to go. And why would we expect otherwise when that team
lays it all on the line in the championship game against a quality
opponent while their next round opponent (#3) is getting a warmup game
against a weaker opponent.
The format sucks.
Contrast this with the way most 'backdoor' formats are setup when
there are two pools. In the South region, where there were two pools,
after pool play, they had semis then finals, while the backdoor
bracket was also playing. Here, though, the teams that get sent to
the backdoor bracket may have easier opponents to go through, but this
advantage is neutralized because they have an extra game to play in
making it through that bracket. This is as it should be. In the
South, the game to go was a repeat of a semis matchup, and the same
team won both games.
Maybe with only one pool, the team that comes out as the one seed
should be automatically in, while 2 plays 3 again in the game to go.
Does 4 have any shot at going? Why are they allowed to be involved in
the way things work out?
If this continues to be the format in the future, I think we might see
teams lose on purpose to have an easier road. This would be
retarded. There should NEVER be motivation to lose a game based on
scheduling.
Monohan
D-Ho
100 percent true and accurate.
I played for Above and Beyond, and we took the second spot to
Regionals in a one-pool, five-team format, as described above. We
clearly had an advantage, in finishing 3rd in pool play, over the team
that finished 2nd in pool play. We played hard and didn't tank any
games, but after losing to the 2 seed on Day One to solidify our 3rd
place pool-play finish, it was hard to feel very disappointed. We
were in better position than they were. Which is not right.
-Hollander
jyw...@gmail.com
The team that finished 2nd in the pool definitely has an advantage
over the 3rd place finisher.
If the 2nd place team wins their first game on Sunday (a possibility
you seem to be ignoring), then their weekend is over and they receive
the top seed out their region. If they lose, then they still have
chance at nationals. If the 3rd place team wins their first game on
Sunday, then they still have to win one more game to qualify for
nationals, and they will not receive the top seed out of their
region. If they lose (another possibility you seem to be ignoring),
then their season is over. Although it may not have been demonstrated
in the small sample of games that occurred over the weekend, to
maximize your chances of qualifying for nationals and to maximize the
seed you receive at nationals, you should try to finish as high as
possible in your pool.
DeezNutZ
If the other regions only had 5 participants and the south had 10, why
could there not be additional teams sent to nationals from the south?
Maybe not strongest, but the growth is good. Maybe it is time to
start revisiting the Master's Division at Nationals. Why not move it
up to a 16 team tournament? Seems to me that Master's is a growth
division. A lot more 35+ players are coming up.
Marshall
could draw the format up to assume that the 1 can't be upset on Sunday
by the 2, or that the 4th-place finisher has no shot to upset one of
the teams that initially finished above them.
It seems like the end result of the argument would be requiring Semi's
as you suggest, which isn't without issue as well. For the sake of
argument, say the 4-seed is a significant drop from the other three
(this seems to fit a couple of regions this year). With semi's, the
1st-place finisher actually gets the easier, "warm-up" game, while 2
and 3 duke it out in a presumably-tough game to get to the finals.
Then, while the finals are playing out, you'd still have the loser of
that game playing the assumed-easier game in order to get to a
possible backdoor.
In other words, in this case you get essentially the same result, but
with it all taking one extra game to play out. It might even be more
lopsided, given that the assumed-weaker 4th place team is now playing
an additional game they have little hope of winning. The advantage is
that you could maybe skip the backdoor if it would be a 2v3 rematch
(and the 3rd game between those two teams that weekend). So it makes
the 2v3 game out of semi's arguably more fair, but perhaps at the
expense of relying on other assumptions.
Of course, a lot of the assumptions go by the wayside when the
distance between 1 and 4, or even just between 2/3 and 3/4, gets
compressed and anyone can beat anyone.
Giving the 1st-place finisher the 1st spot without further games might
be logical for some regions at some times, but would that seem
appropriate if it were, say, a three-way tie for 1st decided on small
point differences?
I guess in the end I think there are problems, and solutions with
their own problems. Anyone calling for Masters Wild Cards? Not sure
that's the solution either, of course...
Just thinking outloud a little.
Onward -
- Marshall
On Oct 8, 12:45 pm, Monohan <k...@sahale.com> wrote:
Parinella
D-Ho wrote:
> 100 percent true and accurate.
>
> I played for Above and Beyond, and we took the second spot to
> Regionals in a one-pool, five-team format, as described above. We
> clearly had an advantage, in finishing 3rd in pool play, over the team
> that finished 2nd in pool play. We played hard and didn't tank any
> games, but after losing to the 2 seed on Day One to solidify our 3rd
> place pool-play finish, it was hard to feel very disappointed. We
> were in better position than they were. Which is not right.
>
> -Hollander
I would probably agree that if the 4 seed isn't competitive, the 3
seed has an advantage over the loser of the 1/2 game. But since 2
should have a non-negligible chance of beating 1 (I certainly didn't
feel like it was a given that we were going to beat 2; this
uncertainty cost me $200 in increased airfare), it's better to be 2.
At the very least, give it a go for the 1st half and then pull up
stakes if it isn't going well. And if 3 and 4 are competitive with
each other, then it's possible that 4 will beat 3 (as happened in one
of the Regions, the only one where the loser of the final won the
backdoor game).
For the three regions (out of four where 3 beat 2) that had scores for
both games, none of the 1v2 or 3v4 games were close (losers scored 7,
6, 8, 8, 7, 3). So this isn't the stereotypical case where one of the
teams battles to lose by 1 at the cap and then almost immediately has
to play a team that won handily and quickly. It seemed like there was
plenty of time in our Region for 2 to regroup. It just looked like
they didn't play very well on Sunday (which was 20 degrees colder, a
little wet, and with more wind).
Could be other factors, too, like fatigue. I thought I read that
Throwback had a small team, so even if they had lost that pool play
game and finished 3rd, they still would have been at a disadvantage in
the game to go.
Unrelated question: for Masters, can we use results from the 1990s
between teams to aid in seeding?
danfri...@gmail.com
1v4 and 2v3, winners both go to Nationals and play each other for
seeding?
bt
wrote:
> I'm sorry...what's the argument against just having regular semis?
> 1v4 and 2v3, winners both go to Nationals and play each other for
> seeding?
As a player on the 4th seed masters team in the SW, we really
preferred the format of 1/2, 3/4 on Sunday. This still gave us a shot
on Sunday in spite of not performing up to our ability Saturday.
While our final scores may not have shown it, we had a shot at beating
both the 2 and 3 seeds - the SW has 1 dominant team (OAITW) and 3
close teams behind them, tho for sure we were not quite as good as
Ironwood and Faded in San Bernardino, our region has 4 solid teams (we
made nationals 2 years ago), and we prefer the current format.
bt
Postmasters #96
Monohan
> On Oct 8, 2:04 pm, "danfrisbee...@yahoo.com" <danfrisbee...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I'm sorry...what's the argument against just having regular semis?
> > 1v4 and 2v3, winners both go to Nationals and play each other for
> > seeding?
>
> As a player on the 4th seed masters team in the SW, we really
> preferred the format of 1/2, 3/4 on Sunday. This still gave us a shot
> on Sunday in spite of not performing up to our ability Saturday.
> bt
>Postmasters #96
Of course you preferred it. Cause the current format rewarded you for
sucking on Saturday. I was not aware of that there should be
situations where others should feel sorry for you for underperforming
and thus give you an easier road to go to Nationals.
As I see it, there are two solutions that are much better than the
current format:
1) Just have semis, with 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3. Both winners go. They
play finals for seeding. There's no need for double elimination on
Sunday. That's a concept that helps situations where a team may
finish lower than a team they haven't played. That's not the case
here, since all teams have already played each other in pool play.
2) The team that comes out as the one seed should be automatically
in, while 2 plays 3 again in the game to go. #4 doesn't deserve a
shot after losing so many games on Saturday. Play better. Come
prepared. Maybe practice on Friday if you need to.
Now, I can see a couple situations where either of these formats is
tough on someone. However, the frequency with which a deserving team
gets slighted is WAY lower than the current format (where, again, I
must re-emphasize that the #2 pool play finisher is getting the
shaft).
Situation 1: Three way tie at the end of pool play for 1,2,3. Here,
#1 gets a huge break in either format by getting to play the #4 or
just getting the automatic bid. But at least #2 and #3 are on equal
footing and get to battle again.
Situation 2: Three way tie at end of pool play for 2,3,4. Here #4
would completely get the shaft in format where #1 gets the automatic
bid, and they have a tougher road in the semis format. But, still, at
least they were always in a situation where they were motivated to win
and win big. That they didn't do it sucks for them. And 2 and 3 are
again on equal footing in either format and can battle again to decide
who goes.
Monohan
Rodney Jacobson
I think the reward for finishing 1st is too small here.
If there's an early pool upset, 4 might be a stronger team than 2 and/
or 3. A team could go undefeated in pool play, then lose a single
game and miss qualifying.
> 2) The team that comes out as the one seed should be automatically
> in, while 2 plays 3 again in the game to go. #4 doesn't deserve a
> shot after losing so many games on Saturday. Play better.
There could be a 3-way tie for 2-3-4, with all of them losing twice.
#4 deserves a shot.
I'd prefer saying #1 is automatically in, #2 gets a bye, and 3v4 to
see who plays #2 for the 2nd bid. This clearly would reward both #1
and #2.
However, giving #2 the option to play #1 for 1st is even better for
#2. Obviously nobody would ever agree to swap their #2 Sunday
schedule for #3's. It's only -after- the games are played that people
complain about it. If they complained before playing Sunday, clearly
we'd just tell them to tank the final and take treat it as a bye.
da chef
We were the #3 on Sunday morning.
We were not assured of anything nor had any clear advantage.
Coming off a late Saturday loss to Tombstone (the #2) we went off to
eat dinner at 2 and 2 and certainly had
no reason to feel like we were a shoo in.
But when I arrived to the fields Sunday morning, I saw my boys ready
to rumble.
The team that scored 10 on us the day before scored a only 3.
In the back door game, we played with passion and desire and overcame
a very strong Tombstone team.
Total team effort and we won the mental game as well.
Even with the other format you STILL have to play the backdoor game to
go. If you really want to go that is.
For that matter, it really doesn't matter where you are in the course
of the tournament.
Follow a tough loss with an improbable win to go forward.
That has happened countless time this year alone in the many tourneys
throughout the country.
Losing in the championship game, while unplanned, does happen.
You have about 30 to 40 minutes to pick yourself up mentally and
perform your best.
Congrats to all the teams that did just that this past weekend.
chef
#12 A&B
danfri...@yahoo.com
> > 1) Just have semis, with 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3. Both winners go.
>
> I think the reward for finishing 1st is too small here.
> If there's an early pool upset, 4 might be a stronger team than 2 and/
> or 3. A team could go undefeated in pool play, then lose a single
> game and miss qualifying.
I don't think the Sunday format should have to account for the
possibility that 4 might be better than 2 or 3. Single elim Sunday
formats assume that the seeds are correct (and that's why we play
Saturday).
I think 1 would rather have to beat 4 than have to beat 2. If 1 and 2
are really close, 1 could lose a long, close game to the 2 and then
have to play 3, who only had to play 4.
jyw...@gmail.com
> Now, I can see a couple situations where either of these formats is
> tough on someone. However, the frequency with which a deserving team
> gets slighted is WAY lower than the current format (where, again, I
> must re-emphasize that the #2 pool play finisher is getting the
> shaft).
>
As I said earlier, you are completely discounting the opportunity #2
is getting on Sunday to receive the top seed out of the region by
winning only one game. If that doesn't happen, they still have
another shot at nationals. #3 has to win two games to receive only
the second seed. If they lose either game, they have no chance at
nationals.
#2 is NOT getting the shaft. If you need me to geek out and throw
some numbers at you, I will.
Also, I think you are being presumptuous is saying that #2 will expend
more energy in losing their game against #1 than #3 will in winning
against #4. Now, obviously, #2 will be more emotionally drained after
losing to #1 than #3 will be after beating #4, but you cannot assume
that they will be more physically drained. And... if a team is unable
to bounce back from an emotional loss, do you really want that team
representing your region at nationals? To me that's the beauty of the
backdoor-based formats. It picks out the teams that can survive the
emotional highs and lows of the entire weekend. It picks out the
teams that are best suited for the fiercer competition of the next
level of the series.
D-Ho
The first assumption, in crediting an advantage to Sunday's 3 seed, is
in fact that the 1 seed is a "sure thing" (whatever that may mean)
against the 2. The second (and secondary) assumption, is that the 3
seed is a "sure thing" against the 4. If these assumptions are
"true" (and who believes in truth in the relativistic schema of our
age?), as it seemed to be to me, then:
The 2 seed enters the game to go with a loss, having played a
difficult game.
The 3 seed enters with a win, having played an easy game.
So while Jim P. can say that he didn't take anything for granted
(which, why should he? he's gotta' beat that team, and it would make
no sense to underestimate them), most of us did in fact take it for
granted that Big Ego would win easily. I wonder if the 2 seed ALSO
took it for granted, and went deeper into their bench in order to
conserve energy to play us in the game to go. I don't know what was
said in their huddles, but this would have been a reasonable strategy,
from my perspective.
I suppose greater parity, through the top 4 teams, would make this
argument (i.e., that the 3 seed has an advantage over the 2, in this
format) untenable. I just didn't see that there was such parity. Of
course, I'm cynical and full of rage. And for some reason, posting on
rsd for the first time ever, to make an argument without much
substance. I FELT it was an advantage to be the 3 seed... but I also
felt like the Mets were a World Series lock, and look how that turned
out.
I will also point out that every argument here assumes something
(e.g., that emotional fortitude trumps physical superiority), and then
I will fade into the oblivion that is not rsd.
-DHo
will....@gmail.com
I don't think any of us want to see Jason "geek out", b/c I saw the
title of his PhD dissertation, and the only words I understood in it
were "The" and "of".
That said, most, if not all, of the "advantages/disadvantages" that
exist in the UPA formats manual are related not to the format, but to
the relative strength of the teams competing in it. Of course the
teams' behavior comes into play, in terms of how hard they try and
when. But even if we assume everyone tries hard all the time, there
will still be real or perceived advantages depending on the strength
of the teams.
When there are 3 teams at the top that are relatively equal in
strength (the case in many regions), the backdoor seems to be the way
to go for that 2nd bid. Of course there is no room for error, as Jason
points out. But the smoother ride through weaker teams has certainly
played to the backdoor winner's advantage numerous times entering the
game to go in a 3-top-team-heavy region.
Of course is there is one very strong team, and then 3 or 4 teams of
equal strength below that (also the case in many regions), then the
backdoor is a terrible route to take. The team that gets to receive
the beat-down in the finals has a chance to rest while the winner of
the backdoor is scratching and clawing their way to the game to go.
You can see how this plays out by taking a look at the Mid-Atlantic
Women's Regionals, or even the MA Open for that matter. The loser of
the finals seemed to have a pretty clear "advantage". Even in the case
of the Masters formats with 4 teams in the mix on Sunday, advantages
change depending on how strong the 4 teams are relative to each other.
It can go a number of ways.
The formats are set up to be as fair as possible to make sure that
teams have a shot to win games when they know what is on the line and
what isn't. Evening the playing field is done to some degree by
minimizing unmatched byes leading into most games to go. Beyond that,
it is basically impossible to subjectively decide where the cutoff is
between teams in terms of strength and then adjust the format based on
that decision.
Will D
Monohan
> to bounce back from an emotional loss, do you really want that team
> representing your region at nationals? To me that's the beauty of the
> backdoor-based formats.
This is exactly the point! THIS IS NOT A BACKDOOR FORMAT! IT IS A
SIDE DOOR FORMAT WITH AN EASIER ROAD! A backdoor format would have
the three seed playing another game. This is the punishment they have
to overcome for not being as good in earlier play. No such thing
exists with the current format. Again, I say its stupid. And the
results from this year agree with what I'm saying.
Monohan
Dill Weaver
the format manual to depend not only on the
number of teams and the number of bids, but
also on the strength stratification of the
teams.
Format 5.1 for use when the 1 seed won't lose
and the 2,3 and 4 seeds are close ....
Format 5.2 for use when the 1, 2 and 3 seeds
are close, but 4 ain't.
Dilly
jyw...@gmail.com
Call it whatever door you want to call it, but I don't see anything
wrong with making #2 earn that second spot to nationals.
That being said, your suggestion of changing the format to give #1 the
top seed and making #2 and #3 play for the second spot would actually
DECREASE #2's chances of making nationals and INCREASE #3's. I agree
that your format gives #2 a better chance at earning the second seed
out of the region, but that's because it completely removes their
chance at the top seed. Again, that is a significant factor that you
keep ignoring. #3's chances increase, under your format, because
you're not making them play a game-to-go-to-the-game-to-go. Again,
the possibility of #3 losing that game is a significant factor that
you keep ignoring.
If you really want to punish #3 while rewarding #2, why not suggest
ending the tournament after pool play?
Finally, the reason that you will often see #3 beating #2 on Sunday is
because the two teams are usually evenly matched. When two evenly
matched teams play each other twice, they often split their games. It
would happen under your format just like it happens under the current
format. People make a big to-do about it when it happens (funny how
you don't hear anything when it doesn't), but that's the nature of the
competition, not a flaw in the format.
waiting...@gmail.com
late chiming in, but I was enjoying turkey with my family yesterday
(they graciously postponed our Thanksgiving lunch).
We decided early on not to overthink the possibilities given that the
top 3 teams were likely a LOT stronger than the other 2, and there was
a potential advantage to finishing third. Although we had a core of 10
players from Tombstone, the rest were pickups from Toronto, Ottawa,
North Bay and 1 lone American (whom we were nice to, I promise). So we
decided that we would play as hard as we could Saturday while not
shortening our bench. We needed the time to get familiar with each
other. I think we lost to DoG 15-10 Saturday, and then beat A&B 14-10
to take second seed.
Saturday night, we talked a lot about how to play the first game
Sunday morning. We felt that we had not played as well as we could
have against DoG on Saturday and believed that we could beat them. A &
B had had suprising difficulty with Not Dead Yet (whom they faced in
3/4 game) on Saturday, so it wasn't a given that their game would be a
walk. We shortened our bench considerably and played a good hard first
half against DoG. Messy weather, a fair number of d's and turns by
both teams led to a long first half. We had a huck go a hair astray
that would brought us to 6-7. Instead, they scored to take the half
8-5, and would receive to start the second half. By this time, A&B had
long dispatched NDYet (15-2?) and were resting. So we made the
decision to open our bench for the second half. DoG rolled over us for
the win.
While I would love to say that we were too tired for the game to go,
the reality is that the better "team" won. They have played more
together and it showed. Was fatigue a factor? Definitely. We are
Masters, and while the "yutes" can run forever, we only had 2 of them,
and for the rest of our top guys 13 hard points had an impact. Would
we have beaten them has our spots been reversed? Impossible to say,
but we would have been stronger than we were. Would we change how we
approached any of our games? Probably not. I've never played to lose a
game from the start, and never will. The only way we could have
finished third was to roll over against A&B in pool play. We didn't
drive 9.5 hours to roll over, least of all to an NYC team. In
hindsight, it would have been to our advantage to sit our top players
earlier against DoG. But as I said, we felt that we had a realistic
chance at the #1 seed.
What to change? Hard to come up with a format that works for all
combinations of team calibres for the 5 teams. In this situation I
believe that A&B was rewarded for their loss to us Saturday. But how
can you know in advance that it will work out that way when most of
the teams haven't faced each other prior to Regionals? As one post
suggested, our reward for finishing second was two cracks at a spot at
UPAs. One thought might be to have the 3/4 game in the time slot after
the 1/2 game so at the very least, the loser of 1/2 has a bye to
recover as reward for finishing second.
Anyway, we gave it our best shot in each and were beaten by two good
teams. We would like to wish them both the very best in Sarasota, and
will look forward to having another crack at the UPA champs next year
in Vancouver.
On a completely unrelated aside, this was the first time for most of
us that we have played with observers, and with the exception of line
calls/offsides/timing of pulls timeouts etc,, we all felt that they
really slowed the game down. I'm pretty sure that we won more than we
lost in going to observers, but it wasn't worth the delays. I suppose
that if you have a team that is intentionally fouling and then
contesting, that they would give you relief, but in our game against
NY there were a fair number of calls, and they seemed to drag on far
longer than they would have otherwise. We had a 30 second discussion
"guideline" at our Nationals and it kept the games moving far more
effectively than observers. You don't agree - send the disc back and
keep playing.
David Lewis - Tombstone
DJ
While it does apear that the #3 has an advantage under this format, I
don't think it really affected the outcome. If DoG and Tombstone had
had a barnburner, down to the wire game and we had played the next
game immediately after, maybe, but in this case there was a good
amount of time to rest and get ready for the next game. And it was
only the second game of the day. When we lost to Tombstone on
Saturday, that was A&B's 4th straight game (on an unbelievably
unseasonably warm muggy October?! day) while the canadians were coming
off a bye. So its not accurate to view Saturday's game as the "truer"
result and the outcome of Sunday's game being a benefit of the
schedule/format.
waiting...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Just to be clear, I don't think that I implied that Saturday's game
was the truer result. I certainly didn't intend to. You guys beat us
in the game that mattered.
My only point was to respond to concerns expressed about how the
format could affect the result, and how in many tournaments this fall
in the double clipped format, the team that loses the 1/2 game also
seems to lose the game to go. In our case, we had a hard first half
against DoG with a short bench (our decision) which meant that we were
tired. Yes, we had about an hour off, but as I mentioned, many of us
have been Masters eligible for longer than we care to admit, so we
were still feeling that first game in our legs. A & B had a snooze
fest and then 2 hours off. It would seem to be reasonably easy to
infer that in this case, finishing third would have been advantageous
for us, whether it would have changed the result or not.
David
Parinella
DJ wrote:
> While it does apear that the #3 has an advantage under this format, I
> don't think it really affected the outcome. If DoG and Tombstone had
> had a barnburner, down to the wire game and we had played the next
> game immediately after, maybe, but in this case there was a good
> amount of time to rest and get ready for the next game. And it was
> only the second game of the day. When we lost to Tombstone on
> Saturday, that was A&B's 4th straight game (on an unbelievably
> unseasonably warm muggy October?! day) while the canadians were coming
> off a bye. So its not accurate to view Saturday's game as the "truer"
> result and the outcome of Sunday's game being a benefit of the
> schedule/format.
They had a bye earlier in the day, not immediately before this game.
And the reason you had four games in a row was that you wanted a bye
in the first round.
> On Oct 9, 2:32 pm, waitingfor....@gmail.com wrote:
> > Saturday night, we talked a lot about how to play the first game
> > Sunday morning. We felt that we had not played as well as we could
> > have against DoG on Saturday and believed that we could beat them. A &
We certainly felt that way. Going into the tournament, I had all
three teams as equal, or at least close enough to equal that any
advantage was smaller than, say, losing the flip. My goal on Saturday
was to finish top two so as to get two shots on Sunday. Knowing the
format, we were indifferent to finishing 1 or 2, other than wanting to
win every game. So, winning our first close pool play game 15-10
against Tombstone gave us some leeway and let us relax a bit for our
following game against A&B, which we won 15-11. (I should mention
that there was a game-changing play late in the first half against
Tombstone as Steve Mooney came up with a diving end zone block to
prevent a break. Without that play, the game certainly could have
turned out differently.)
After Saturday's play, I bumped us up a little, but not so much that I
felt overconfident like most years.
> > walk. We shortened our bench considerably and played a good hard first
> > half against DoG. Messy weather, a fair number of d's and turns by
> > both teams led to a long first half. We had a huck go a hair astray
> > that would brought us to 6-7. Instead, they scored to take the half
> > 8-5, and would receive to start the second half. By this time, A&B had
Again, this was a pivotal point that could have made everything
different. I point this out only to highlight that even in
retrospect, none of these games was a sure thing, and thus you are
better off being 2 in this situation than 3. Let's just run some
numbers. Say 2 is only 25% likely to beat 1 and 50% likely to beat 3
if playing them first, but only 40% likely after losing to 1. Trying
to win the 1v2 game gives you a 25% chance at taking first and a 75% *
40% = 30% chance at taking 2nd, for a 55% overall chance, versus a 50%
chance if you completely tank 1v2 or if you had finished 3rd. You
probably won't know the actual probabilities accurately enough to say
with any confidence that you're better off at #2, but you'd have even
less confidence saying you're better off at #3.
> > What to change? Hard to come up with a format that works for all
> > combinations of team calibres for the 5 teams.
Would it be so bad to have multiple acceptable formats if they are
available? The trouble with a one-size-fits-all format is that if it
fits every situation acceptably (which is arguable), it won't fit most
of the situations as well as another format. Well, maybe not, if
we're talking about the basic structure of the tournament. But the
order of games seems to be something that should be tailorable,
especially if you don't have great confidence in the seedings.
In this situation I
> > believe that A&B was rewarded for their loss to us Saturday. But how
> > can you know in advance that it will work out that way when most of
> > the teams haven't faced each other prior to Regionals? As one post
> > suggested, our reward for finishing second was two cracks at a spot at
> > UPAs. One thought might be to have the 3/4 game in the time slot after
> > the 1/2 game so at the very least, the loser of 1/2 has a bye to
> > recover as reward for finishing second.
Maybe a better solution would be to build a little extra time into the
break between the end of those games and the start of the 2/3 game. I
think there was an extra 15 minutes over what is prescribed, but 30 or
even 60 would be better if time permits. (The captains could agree to
move that up since there are no other games for either team after it.)
> > On a completely unrelated aside, this was the first time for most of
> > us that we have played with observers, and with the exception of line
> > calls/offsides/timing of pulls timeouts etc,, we all felt that they
> > really slowed the game down. I'm pretty sure that we won more than we
> > lost in going to observers, but it wasn't worth the delays.
You guys were called for offsides twice. On the first, we were
pulling upwind and one of your guys, I think, was tapping his foot
that was supposed to be on the line and timed it incorrectly so his
toe was in the air when the pull went off. Of course, it was our best
upwind pull of the game and we had to repull and everyone started
griping about how a violation by the other team cost us. But then
later you went offsides on defense and we got the disc at midfield, so
we eventually did benefit from it.
I suppose
> > that if you have a team that is intentionally fouling and then
> > contesting, that they would give you relief, but in our game against
> > NY there were a fair number of calls, and they seemed to drag on far
> > longer than they would have otherwise. We had a 30 second discussion
> > "guideline" at our Nationals and it kept the games moving far more
> > effectively than observers. You don't agree - send the disc back and
> > keep playing.
There were two similar calls that we got good looks at, both with long
discussions before dragging in the observers. Huck, D/boink, defender
crashes into the receiver and prevents a second effort. We were about
20 yards away from both and got good views, but couldn't agree as to
whether either pass was catchable. On the first one, I wasn't even
sure if the contact prevented the receiver from making a bid, as he
had landed a bit awkwardly on his own before the contact. The second
one was very close to the back line but I thought still catchable, and
the defensive contact definitely prevented any bid. Very funny call,
though, as Arnold only reluctantly called the foul, saying, "I
normally don't call that, but there was an identical play that you
called a foul that was upheld by the observer, so I'm calling it now.
I'm all about balance." After the call was upheld, I yelled out, "I
thought it was a 10% better call than the other one, but these guys
[my teammates] thought it was uncatchable."
waiting...@gmail.com
> You guys were called for offsides twice. On the first, we were
> pulling upwind and one of your guys, I think, was tapping his foot
> that was supposed to be on the line and timed it incorrectly so his
> toe was in the air when the pull went off. Of course, it was our best
> upwind pull of the game and we had to repull and everyone started
> griping about how a violation by the other team cost us. But then
> later you went offsides on defense and we got the disc at midfield, so
> we eventually did benefit from it.
>
forward before the pull was released. Okay, letter of the law and all,
but no advantage was gained. Surely a warning would have been more
appropriate given that it was our first "offense". To make matters
worse, YOU then have to run all the way down the field because you
didn't notice the offside call and then re-pull and do that nice
sprint again!!! That makes no sense to me whatsoever. A smart team
near the end of a hard game could take advantage if it was going to be
their first offside. I know....SOTG.. don't break the rules even when
it is to your advantage.
I asked the observer after the game for some sort of rationale for the
defensive team not being able to have the option of letting the pull
stand and he had none...mumbled something about too hard to figure out
on the fly. We should have had the offside count against us, AND you
should have been able to have us play the pull where it landed,
perhaps even with a defensive setup with us frozen. Then again, if you
really want to get rid of offsides, there's always lethal injection.
Oh wait, this isn't South Region - sorry.
>
> > > that if you have a team that is intentionally fouling and then
> > > contesting, that they would give you relief, but in our game against
> > > NY there were a fair number of calls, and they seemed to drag on far
> > > longer than they would have otherwise. We had a 30 second discussion
> > > "guideline" at our Nationals and it kept the games moving far more
> > > effectively than observers. You don't agree - send the disc back and
> > > keep playing.
>
> There were two similar calls that we got good looks at, both with long
> discussions before dragging in the observers. Huck, D/boink, defender
> crashes into the receiver and prevents a second effort. We were about
> 20 yards away from both and got good views, but couldn't agree as to
> whether either pass was catchable. On the first one, I wasn't even
> sure if the contact prevented the receiver from making a bid, as he
> had landed a bit awkwardly on his own before the contact. The second
> one was very close to the back line but I thought still catchable, and
> the defensive contact definitely prevented any bid. Very funny call,
> though, as Arnold only reluctantly called the foul, saying, "I
> normally don't call that, but there was an identical play that you
> called a foul that was upheld by the observer, so I'm calling it now.
> I'm all about balance." After the call was upheld, I yelled out, "I
> thought it was a 10% better call than the other one, but these guys
> [my teammates] thought it was uncatchable."
Interesting to know if Arnold would have called the foul without
observers given the previous call, which was, as you say, virtually
identical. No observers, both go back and we end up with the same net
result without having wasted 3-4 minutes each time.
Once you give people the observer option, I think that you remove the
incentive to come to some sort of agreement on the field. Playing a
hard physical game against another team and being able to resolve
things yourselves is one of the joys of playing Ultimate. We played 2
games over two days against you guys that had lots of physical play, a
certain number of calls, but we worked it out (although Al was pretty
pissed at Mooney Saturday when he talked him out of his contest :) ).
But then on Sunday, it was the same player on our team who matched up
against Al and they worked out the calls. He did tell me on the
sidelines that the foul he called on that hammer that he turfed in
front of you was iffy.
Hope you guys win and we get another crack at you.
Cheers
Mark -Mortakai- Moran
> us that we have played with observers, and with the exception of line
> calls/offsides/timing of pulls timeouts etc,, we all felt that they
> really slowed the game down. I'm pretty sure that we won more than we
> lost in going to observers, but it wasn't worth the delays. I suppose
> that if you have a team that is intentionally fouling and then
> contesting, that they would give you relief, but in our game against
> NY there were a fair number of calls, and they seemed to drag on far
> longer than they would have otherwise. We had a 30 second discussion
> "guideline" at our Nationals and it kept the games moving far more
> effectively than observers. You don't agree - send the disc back and
> keep playing.
My understanding is that current training for Observers now strongly
suggests that the Observers 'should' be coming to the players if the
discussion goes on for an extended period of time (e.g., longer than
about 15-20 seconds). In the first 15 seconds or so, both players
involved should have made their point - counter point - and counter-
counter point, and most discussion beyond this doesn't work to resolve
and determine what to do with the disc, so after this time, the
Observer is more likely to step in and tell the players to resolve or
go to him/her.
Gotta keep the game moving.
Adam Tarr
> That being said, your suggestion of changing the format to give #1 the
> top seed and making #2 and #3 play for the second spot would actually
> DECREASE #2's chances of making nationals and INCREASE #3's. I agree
> that your format gives #2 a better chance at earning the second seed
> out of the region, but that's because it completely removes their
> chance at the top seed. Again, that is a significant factor that you
> keep ignoring. #3's chances increase, under your format, because
> you're not making them play a game-to-go-to-the-game-to-go. Again,
> the possibility of #3 losing that game is a significant factor that
> you keep ignoring.
>
> If you really want to punish #3 while rewarding #2, why not suggest
> ending the tournament after pool play?
That is, indeed, the logical extension of Keith's line of reasoning.
He's apparently willing to say "if there's a three-way tie that
bounces you, tough shit". So why even bother having a 2v3 game? The
results of pool play should be respected there, too.
We use bracket play for determining the critical qualifying place for
several reasons, but one of the main ones is that it creates a
situation where everyone knows in advance of a game exactly what is at
stake. Without bracket play, your "game to go" could have been the
first game of pool play, but you wouldn't know it until the end of the
day.
We don't award first place without playing finals in any two-day
format in the manual, and I don't see any reason why this format
should be an exception.
> Finally, the reason that you will often see #3 beating #2 on Sunday is
> because the two teams are usually evenly matched. When two evenly
> matched teams play each other twice, they often split their games. It
> would happen under your format just like it happens under the current
> format. People make a big to-do about it when it happens (funny how
> you don't hear anything when it doesn't), but that's the nature of the
> competition, not a flaw in the format.
Well said.
danfri...@gmail.com
Adam Tarr
> Again, this was a pivotal point that could have made everything
> different. I point this out only to highlight that even in
> retrospect, none of these games was a sure thing, and thus you are
> better off being 2 in this situation than 3. Let's just run some
> numbers. Say 2 is only 25% likely to beat 1 and 50% likely to beat 3
> if playing them first, but only 40% likely after losing to 1. Trying
> to win the 1v2 game gives you a 25% chance at taking first and a 75% *
> 40% = 30% chance at taking 2nd, for a 55% overall chance, versus a 50%
> chance if you completely tank 1v2 or if you had finished 3rd. You
> probably won't know the actual probabilities accurately enough to say
> with any confidence that you're better off at #2, but you'd have even
> less confidence saying you're better off at #3.
Jason, Jim just saved you the trouble of geeking out. You can tweak
these numbers over a pretty wide range and still end up with the
conclusion that you are better off coming into Sunday as one of the
top two. Additionally, note that Jim (implicitly) assumed a 100%
chance of winning the 3v4 game. Maybe this is an acceptable
approximation in the northeast, but it's not generally true. I bet
Postmasters would take issue with applying that assumption to the
southwest, for instance.
> Would it be so bad to have multiple acceptable formats if they are
> available? The trouble with a one-size-fits-all format is that if it
> fits every situation acceptably (which is arguable), it won't fit most
> of the situations as well as another format. Well, maybe not, if
> we're talking about the basic structure of the tournament.
There's a couple issues here. One is, obviously, the amount of
complexity that would be needed to have formats for "5 teams, 2
advance, dropoff between 1 and 2" versus "5 teams, 2 advance, dropoff
between 3 and 4", et cetera, et cetera. The other problem, which you
have no doubt figured out by now, is that this introduces an enormous
amount of subjectivity to the formats. Right now, the only subjective
thing about the formats is the seeding.
> But the
> order of games seems to be something that should be tailorable,
> especially if you don't have great confidence in the seedings.
We do allow some tailoring of schedules in cases where there are field
space or travel issues, as well as cases where old, arrogant know-it-
alls complain incessantly. (I kid because I love.)
> Maybe a better solution would be to build a little extra time into the
> break between the end of those games and the start of the 2/3 game. I
> think there was an extra 15 minutes over what is prescribed, but 30 or
> even 60 would be better if time permits. (The captains could agree to
> move that up since there are no other games for either team after it.)
I like this idea. Brian Bogle suggested the same thing a week ago in
the wake of some non-masters backdoor upsets. This idea works
particularly well in the "master's regionals" (i.e. 5/2) format,
because you only have two scheduled games for the entire day. It's a
little harder in formats where the final game to go is the fourth game
of the day.
Adam Tarr
wrote:
> So again, what's the problem with 1v4, 2v3?
Sorry, I did mean to address that. The problem is that you are having
two parallel games to go. We try to avoid that, and in stead build
formats that culminate in a clear game to go for the final spot. The
only exceptions to this are some of the odd number sectional formats,
like 9 teams 7 advance.
A good example of a case when this would suck would be a dominant #1
team, and a three-way tie for second. The loser of the 3-way tie is
shut out of an opportunity to resolve that three-way tie in their
favor in bracket play. It's better to give the winner of the three-
way tie a benefit (two games to go) but still allow all three teams a
shot at qualifying through bracet play without defeating the #1 team.
danfri...@gmail.com
> The problem is that you are having
> two parallel games to go. We try to avoid that, and in stead build
> formats that culminate in a clear game to go for the final spot.
Is this for the benefit of the "fans" or the players? Not being
snippy, just curious. This doesn't sound like a problem to me.
> A good example of a case when this would suck would be a dominant #1
> team, and a three-way tie for second. The loser of the 3-way tie is
> shut out of an opportunity to resolve that three-way tie in their
> favor in bracket play. It's better to give the winner of the three-
> way tie a benefit (two games to go) but still allow all three teams a
> shot at qualifying through bracet play without defeating the #1 team.
That's an interesting argument, though I'm not convinced that the "two
games to go" benefit is worth the risk the position has. A couple
years ago in this format we got to face Berzerkapiggy after they
finished a universe point game with Shazam. We had little chance of
beating them normally, and had lost to them soundly on Saturday. But
as tired as they were, they didn't have the wheels to pull away from
us in the game to go and we beat them in our universe point game.
That certainly didn't prove that we were the more prepared team in any
way (we scored maybe 6 on Shazam, they scored 14). Could you say it
was their fault for playing all out to win a close game, while we had
a cake walk over the 4 seed? We loved watching them get tired,
knowing it was our only chance to beat them.
Teams that don't want to have to get through the 1 seed are gonna have
to play hard on Saturday. The 3-way-tie situation increases the
importance of Saturday play, whereas right now you only have to finish
above the bottom two teams on Saturday to move on. This is another
plus for me.
Monohan
> On Oct 8, 8:15 pm, "jywh...@gmail.com" <jywh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > That being said, your suggestion of changing the format to give #1 the
> > top seed and making #2 and #3 play for the second spot would actually
> > DECREASE #2's chances of making nationals and INCREASE #3's. I agree
> > that your format gives #2 a better chance at earning the second seed
> > out of the region, but that's because it completely removes their
> > chance at the top seed. Again, that is a significant factor that you
> > keep ignoring. #3's chances increase, under your format, because
> > you're not making them play a game-to-go-to-the-game-to-go. Again,
> > the possibility of #3 losing that game is a significant factor that
> > you keep ignoring.
>
> > If you really want to punish #3 while rewarding #2, why not suggest
> > ending the tournament after pool play?
>
> That is, indeed, the logical extension of Keith's line of reasoning.
No its not. Nowhere did I imply this. I AM saying that the 2nd seed
should have an EASIER route to nationals on Sunday than the 3rd seed.
Not one person who was in Santa Cruz last weekend would tell you that
that was the case. I'm not even saying that I know the best way to
accomplish this. I AM saying that the current format does NOT
accomplish this. If Throwback had played the weak-ass #4 in our
region, and Big Sky had played us, I'm confident in saying that
Throwback would be going to Nationals. They were the better team.
Yes they were missing some guys (who would have been at Nationals),
but that would not have been so evident except for the fact of who
they had to play to get to that game to go.
> He's apparently willing to say "if there's a three-way tie that
> bounces you, tough shit". So why even bother having a 2v3 game? The
> results of pool play should be respected there, too.
I am willing to say this, cause I think that this scenario happens
VERY infrequently. However, with the way the format is now, the lower
seed is given an advantage quite frequently. The results of this
years regionals bear this out. I am NOT saying that the wrong team
won the game to go in every situation, but its much more likely that
they did than should be the case.
Monohan
Burrp
jyw...@gmail.com
> On Oct 9, 1:07 pm, Adam Tarr <ahtarrNOS...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 8, 8:15 pm, "jywh...@gmail.com" <jywh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > That being said, your suggestion of changing the format to give #1 the
> > > top seed and making #2 and #3 play for the second spot would actually
> > > DECREASE #2's chances of making nationals and INCREASE #3's. I agree
> > > that your format gives #2 a better chance at earning the second seed
> > > out of the region, but that's because it completely removes their
> > > chance at the top seed. Again, that is a significant factor that you
> > > keep ignoring. #3's chances increase, under your format, because
> > > you're not making them play a game-to-go-to-the-game-to-go. Again,
> > > the possibility of #3 losing that game is a significant factor that
> > > you keep ignoring.
>
> > > If you really want to punish #3 while rewarding #2, why not suggest
> > > ending the tournament after pool play?
>
> > That is, indeed, the logical extension of Keith's line of reasoning.
>
> No its not. Nowhere did I imply this. I AM saying that the 2nd seed
> should have an EASIER route to nationals on Sunday than the 3rd seed.
> Not one person who was in Santa Cruz last weekend would tell you that
> that was the case.
What would they have been saying if #2 had beaten #1 in the first
round Sunday morning, followed up by #1 beating #3 in the game-to-
go?
In any case, you are confusing the easier road to the second spot to
nationals with the easier road to nationals. I agree that, with the
current format, #3 may have a higher probability of earning the SECOND
spot, but they do not have a higher probability of earning the FIRST
OR SECOND spot. Once you recognize the reward that #2 receives by
getting a shot at the top seed out of the region and the reward they
receive by not having to play a game-to-go-to-the-game-to-go, neither
of which get rewarded to #3, I think we can put this thread to rest.
> I'm not even saying that I know the best way to
> accomplish this.
Leave the format alone or end the tournament after pool play.
Alex Peters
finals except for 2 guys who walk out onto the field, drop the pull,
walk 70 yards, and repeat x15, and then play in the backdoor. The
idea that playing the 4 seed to get to the backdoor game-to-go is
better than being in the finals is just fucking retarded. If you're
in the finals you can choose to try to win that game or save your
energy, and STILL have a shot in another game. Why would anyone
choose to take the 3 seed and play when they could essentially take
the 2 seed and a bye?
jyw...@gmail.com
> Give #2 the choice on Sunday of taking the 2 or 3 seed.
I bet they'd pick the 2 seed every time. Wow, I can't believe I just
wrote all those posts. You made my argument in a simple one-line post.
jyw...@gmail.com
> Jason, Jim just saved you the trouble of geeking out.
I knew it would only be a matter of time before that would happen.
Anyone willing to analyze the expected value of throwing a dump pass
can't resist making this simple probability argument.
owy...@hotmail.com
> On Oct 9, 1:07 pm, Adam Tarr <ahtarrNOS...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If Throwback had played the weak-ass #4 in our
> region, and Big Sky had played us, I'm confident in saying that
> Throwback would be going to Nationals.
What was the score between Troubled v Big Sky on Saturday? 14-15
(including time cap shenanigans). Considering the previous days
encounter and how Big Sky was playing on Sunday, Troubled's victory
would not have been a given. In the grand scheme of things, your
'confidence' in this matter is irrelevant.
Big Sky was not happy with the losses to either team on Saturday, and
came prepared on Sunday knowing what had to be done. One could argue
that Throwback conceded the 1v2 match after halftime in order to rest
and prepare for Big Sky (loose-lipped sideline comments exposed).
> They were the better team.
I can assure you there are no less than 30 guys from California,
Idaho, Alberta, Washington, and Wyoming who whole-heartedly reject
your simplistic assumption. Losing on universe point in finals last
year was not forgotten; never underestimate the power of redemption my
friend.
One size never fits all, but objectivity trumps subjectivity. Maybe
increasing the number of Masters team (as suggested before) would have
benefitted the NW region with a power bid; its very likely that if
Throwbacks did get a bid, we would be seeing all 3 NW teams in semis.
But that wasn't the case as everyone knew at 8:59 am on Saturday
morning.
Here's a thought: maybe Throwbacks would be going to Nationals if you
hadn't abandoned them to whore yourself out to someone elses Troubled
Past; ever consider that?
Burrp
> The
> idea that playing the 4 seed to get to the backdoor game-to-go is
> better than being in the finals is just fucking retarded. If you're
> in the finals you can choose to try to win that game or save your
> energy, and STILL have a shot in another game. Why would anyone
> choose to take the 3 seed and play when they could essentially take
> the 2 seed and a bye?
Wicked facking retahded, I'd say.
Burrp
> On Oct 9, 8:53 pm, Burrp <beerme...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Give #2 the choice on Sunday of taking the 2 or 3 seed.
>
> I bet they'd pick the 2 seed every time.
I agree.
Tim Cobb
of playing ultimate, so I figured I would chime in.
Monahan is right. The team that loses the finals always faces an
uphill climb to get their heads out of their ass before the game to
go. Especially if the finals is close.
The last 4 years at NE regionals that has been the case. Our first
year, 2004, the Canucks fought us really hard in the finals and then
had a really tough game against the Upstate NYers to go.
In 2005, Glum also played us tight in the finals, then was unable to
overcome Salt in the game to go.
In 2006, A&B got pretty whupped by Glum in the finals, and then had to
pull out a 7 point run miracle in the 2nd half to salvage their season
vs Koob.
And we all have read about 2007 enough already.
It seems like you have to find a way to bake in an extra game on
Sunday for the 3 seed. Maybe 3-4-5 have to play round robin in the
morning Sunday to determine who gets in? This seems like a stupid
idea, but it does accomplish the goal.
You guys are right that having 2 chances at nationals is an
advantage. But that rational thought is really hard to embrace when
you are emotionally wrecked by having blown your first chance.
Not sure what the solution is, but Monahan is right in asking the
question. It has been going on for too long without being addressed.
danfri...@gmail.com
thom...@stanford.edu
<danfrisbee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1v4, 2v3.
Followed by a finals and a backdoor game, then a game-to-go? It adds
an extra game for everyone but only two games (max) are played Sunday
anyway.
Saki
> 100 percent true and accurate.
>
> I played for Above and Beyond, and we took the second spot to
> Regionals in a one-pool, five-team format, as described above. We
> clearly had an advantage, in finishing 3rd in pool play, over the team
> that finished 2nd in pool play. We played hard and didn't tank any
> games, but after losing to the 2 seed on Day One to solidify our 3rd
> place pool-play finish, it was hard to feel very disappointed. We
> were in better position than they were. Which is not right.
>
> -Hollander
>
> On Oct 8, 12:45 pm, Monohan <k...@sahale.com> wrote:
>
> > In five of the six regions, there were only enough teams for single
> > pool. (The exception being the South Region.) If you look at the
> > schedules in the score reporter, you'll see that after round robin
> > pool play, #1 plays #2 in the championship, with the winner qualifying
> > to go to Nationals. At the same time, #3 plays #4. The winner of 3
> > vs 4 then plays the loser of 1 vs 2. This just aint right. #3 is
> > getting rewarded for losing in pool play, and #2 is getting punished
> > for winning. I think that in every region, there is a huge difference
> > in between the #1 and #4 teams, whereas there apparently was not much
> > difference between the #2 and #3 teams.
>
> > In four of the five regions that had just one pool, and so used the
> > above format, the team that won the pool play matchup of 2 vs 3, LOST
> > in the game to go. And why would we expect otherwise when that team
> > lays it all on the line in the championship game against a quality
> > opponent while their next round opponent (#3) is getting a warmup game
> > against a weaker opponent.
>
> > The format sucks.
>
> > Contrast this with the way most 'backdoor' formats are setup when
> > there are two pools. In the South region, where there were two pools,
> > after pool play, they had semis then finals, while the backdoor
> > bracket was also playing. Here, though, the teams that get sent to
> > the backdoor bracket may have easier opponents to go through, but this
> > advantage is neutralized because they have an extra game to play in
> > making it through that bracket. This is as it should be. In the
> > South, the game to go was a repeat of a semis matchup, and the same
> > team won both games.
>
> > Maybe with only one pool, the team that comes out as the one seed
> > should be automatically in, while 2 plays 3 again in the game to go.
> > Does 4 have any shot at going? Why are they allowed to be involved in
> > the way things work out?
>
> > If this continues to be the format in the future, I think we might see
> > teams lose on purpose to have an easier road. This would be
> > retarded. There should NEVER be motivation to lose a game based on
> > scheduling.
>
> > Monohan
I also agree with Keith 100%. He's referenced the facts (results in
other regions) which conclude that losing on day one gives you the
easier schedule. He's not blowing steam.
I've been in that #3 spot a while back and we stole that game to go
from the #2 seed after they fought hard as hell in the 1 vs 2 game. I
almost felt sorry for them in way - we played an easy game on Sunday
and then sat back and watched the 1 vs 2 burn every ounce of fuel then
we just out ran them.
Does this feedback make it to the UPA?
-Saki
da chef
Playing several games in the same day I think is an anomaly known only
to those who engage in Ultimate as recreation.
Knowing that it is both a mental and physical game, and having played
the sport for untold years, (you are a real Masters player aren't
you?)
do you think perhaps that you would be better prepared for these
situations. No?
The team that is both better physically prepared and mentally prepared
for the marathon tournaments that we do
should rise to the occasion. First game, second game, after a loss,
whatever.
nuff said, end the thread.
chef
Adam Tarr
wrote:
> On Oct 9, 2:27 pm, Adam Tarr <ahtarrNOS...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The problem is that you are having
> > two parallel games to go. We try to avoid that, and in stead build
> > formats that culminate in a clear game to go for the final spot.
>
> Is this for the benefit of the "fans" or the players? Not being
> snippy, just curious. This doesn't sound like a problem to me.
It's in the interest of fairness to the players/teams. If you don't
have a single game for the final spot, you will end up with situations
where the team that finished in the N+1 spot didn't lose to the team
that finished in the Nth spot. In the 1-pool formats, they will have
played in pool play, but:
- the result could easily be the opposite of the result from pool
play, and
- all things being equal, we'd prefer to decide things with a game in
bracket play
> > A good example of a case when this would suck would be a dominant #1
> > team, and a three-way tie for second. The loser of the 3-way tie is
> > shut out of an opportunity to resolve that three-way tie in their
> > favor in bracket play.
You weren't convinced by the 3-way tie for second scenario? Try this
one. The team that finished in 4th place brings a bunch of ringers on
Sunday who weren't there Saturday. They steamroll through 1 in the
semis and 2 in the finals to take the title. The top seed going into
the day goes home. They only lost to the eventual champs, and they
beat the #2 team the only time they played. They get no shot against
#2 in bracket play. Fair?
We *do* have parallel games to go for spots other than the last spot.
For instance, the semis are the game to go in 16/4, or 7/3, or lots of
sectional formats. But the last spot comes down to a single game in
every regionals format.
danfri...@gmail.com
This is for a 6-team format, where all teams have already played each
other once, and have played a pool play game Sunday morning. I'm
thinking 1v4 and 2v3, then finals to determine seed.
duro.o...@gmail.com
I played last 4 years in the NE masters Regionals and had seen the
scenario over and over.
Why do we play Regionals ?
To determine the best 2 teams in the region.
I think the objective, how to establish that should be based on:
* every game counts
* you must loose 2 games to be eliminated
This is not a regular tournament, where you want to play max # of
games and determine the BEST team only.
Here you need to determine the seeding for all teams as good as you
can.
Why do we actually have the backdoor "play in" games ?
To allow team who loses against seed #1 to play themselves back in.
But if you loose 2 games you are out.
So, when you compare a 16 team elimination with 5 teams elimination
the major difference is the # of teams
With 16 teams you do not have the chance to play head to head games
for ALL teams
With 5 teams you do.
I say for 5 teams:
just play the round robin, but play 3 games Saturday and 1 game Sunday
That way:
* every game counts, you have to play all out each game
* because teams are playing each other, we have the head to head games
to determine who is better.
I only see 2 problems
* 3 way ties => but that could be addressed by adding 2 games to
resolve it games (you only played 4 so far)
or predefining head2head tie breakers
* order in which the teams play and a really bad seeding can pitch #1/
#2 in the first game
but so be it
playing the same team twice the weekend does NOT makes asense to me.
You beat them once you are better.
I understand that equal teams can split games, but you gotta win when
it matters
You lose the game, screw you ...
I think this would accomplish the 2 objectives I set out in the
beginning
anyway my 2 cents
-Duro
#15 GLUM
Monohan
> >I'm thinking 1v4 and 2v3, then finals to determine seed.
Yes. Easy. Always applicable for all 'one-pool' situations. #1
still clearly has the best road. #2 vs #3--fair as it gets--(#2
should be allowed to call the coin/disc flip).
Monohan
jyw...@gmail.com
This format would penalize teams #1 and #2, compared with the current
format, and reward teams #3 and #4. The reason that you, and some
others, are having trouble seeing this is that you are judging the
current Sunday format, and here's the key part, BY ASSUMING SOMETHING
HAPPENED IN THE FIRST ROUND.. and that's it. If you are going to
suggest changing the complete Sunday format, then you have to judge
the current one BY ASSUMING SOMETHING HAPPENED IN THE FIRST ROUND AND
ASSUMING SOMETHING DIDN'T HAPPEN IN THE FIRST ROUND. You keep
putting yourself in the shoes of team #2 coming off of a loss waiting
to face team #3 coming off of a win, which, by the way, would
certainly be a possible scenario under this suggested change to the
format, and that would be after beating #3 in the first round of
Sunday, Does that sound better? If you are going to fairly judge the
current format you have to put yourself in the shoes of #2 coming off
of a win in round one. With the current format, you're cracking open
a cold one while patting each other on the back. With this format,
your weekend is just getting started. You, also, have to put yourself
in the shoes of #3 coming off of a loss in round one. With the
current format, you're taking off your cleats amongst uncomfortable
silence. With this format, the door to nationals is closing, but it
hasn't fully shut.
Oklahoma Zeke
Last year I trained for a year with a group in the SF Bay area to
compete at regionals- we got DQ'd after attending sectionals, which we
didn't even have to attend. Our fault, but a stupid call by the UPA
for the growth of the master's group.
We have enuff players for a solid national series, but, IMHO, the ORG
is in our way. Gray hair and knee braces don't look so good on camera.
Shiny shirts ands youth...that is the future.
I have given up on UPA and started teaching junior high kids out here
in the Coachella Valley (Palm Springsish, California). We also have
been added as an "official" program to the Parks and Rec Center for
the valley (Palm Desert, Indio, La Quinta, etc.).....it can be done
without the overlords.
I expect the youth programs will soon be under a non-UPA system here.
Perhaps we (oldsters) can evolve out of the grasp of the machine and
just play disc like we used to.
But in very COOL locations,
Cause we have earned it,
And can afford it.
;-)
next year, Masters in Aruba
up,
OklahomaZeke
aka Mike Gibson
Monohan
> On Oct 10, 11:37 pm, Monohan <k...@sahale.com> wrote:
>
> > > >I'm thinking 1v4 and 2v3, then finals to determine seed.
>
> > Yes. Easy. Always applicable for all 'one-pool' situations. #1
> > still clearly has the best road. #2 vs #3--fair as it gets--(#2
> > should be allowed to call the coin/disc flip).
>
> > Monohan
>
> This format would penalize teams #1 and #2, compared with the current
> format, and reward teams #3 and #4.
Are you high?
>The reason that you, and some
> others, are having trouble seeing this is that you are judging the
> current Sunday format, and here's the key part, BY ASSUMING SOMETHING
> HAPPENED IN THE FIRST ROUND.. and that's it.
No, I'm not. If #2 loses to #3, then they don't deserve to go. They
should have the right to face #3 on equal footing. Whoever wins gets
a shot at #1 seed. Perfect.
>If you are going to
> suggest changing the complete Sunday format, then you have to judge
> the current one BY ASSUMING SOMETHING HAPPENED IN THE FIRST ROUND AND
> ASSUMING SOMETHING DIDN'T HAPPEN IN THE FIRST ROUND. You keep
> putting yourself in the shoes of team #2 coming off of a loss waiting
> to face team #3 coming off of a win, which, by the way, would
> certainly be a possible scenario under this suggested change to the
> format, and that would be after beating #3 in the first round of
> Sunday, Does that sound better?
I don't give a shit about who's coming off a loss or win. With the
way we're saying it (1v4, 2v3), there is no coming off a loss. Coming
off a loss in the first round of Sunday is called going home.
Did you mean Saturday??? 'Cause 2 wont play be playing 3 twice on
Sunday. Get it? One of them loses. That one goes home. You're
missing something.
>If you are going to fairly judge the
> current format you have to put yourself in the shoes of #2 coming off
> of a win in round one. With the current format, you're cracking open
> a cold one while patting each other on the back.
Yes, #2 could certainly crack open a cold one and celebrate their
birth to Nationals as they're warming up to play the winner of the 1v4
game.
>With this format,
> your weekend is just getting started.
No, if #2 wins, they are in. They then play for seeding. Just like
every other bracket. I don't call one more game 'just getting
started'. Do you?
>You, also, have to put yourself
> in the shoes of #3 coming off of a loss in round one. With the
> current format, you're taking off your cleats amongst uncomfortable
> silence. With this format, the door to nationals is closing, but it
> hasn't fully shut.
Again, I ask: Are you high? You can't seem to think this through.
If 3 loses first game vs 2, THEY'RE DONE. GOING HOME. DOOR IS
CLOSED. TIGHT. ALL THE WAY. HANDLE IS BROKEN OFF. SOMEONE HAS
WEDGED A CHAIR IN THE OTHER SIDE. KEY IS LOST.
Monohan
jyw...@gmail.com
> Again, I ask: Are you high? You can't seem to think this through.
> If 3 loses first game vs 2, THEY'RE DONE. GOING HOME. DOOR IS
> CLOSED. TIGHT. ALL THE WAY. HANDLE IS BROKEN OFF. SOMEONE HAS
> WEDGED A CHAIR IN THE OTHER SIDE. KEY IS LOST.
>
> Monohan
My bad... I was referring to this suggested format..
*** 1v4, 2v3.
*** Followed by a finals and a backdoor game, then a game-to-go? It
adds
*** an extra game for everyone but only two games (max) are played
Sunday
*** anyway.
And see that you are referring to a simpler version...
*** I'm thinking 1v4 and 2v3, then finals to determine seed.
Now, let me ask... ARE YOU HIGH? This format clearly better for #3
and #4 and worse for #1 and #2 than the current one. Keep in mind
that when I say that, I'm considering all possible ways the teams may
compare strength-wise. I'm also considering all possible outcomes and
their likelihoods. With this format, #1 and #2 have a much harder path
to the top seed to nationals, (essentially) the same path to the
second spot, and a much easier path to elimination. With this format,
#3 and #4 have only one path to elimination compared with two paths
under the current format. They also have an infinitely better chance
of receiving the top seed!
Do yourself and everyone else a favor and start making some tree
diagrams. Consider all possible outcomes! Also, consider all the
possible ways that teams #1-#4 compare strength-wise.
jt
> > And... if a team is unable
> > to bounce back from an emotional loss, do you really want that team
> > representing your region at nationals? To me that's the beauty of the
> > backdoor-based formats.
>
> This is exactly the point! THIS IS NOT A BACKDOOR FORMAT! IT IS A
> SIDE DOOR FORMAT WITH AN EASIER ROAD! A backdoor format would have
> the three seed playing another game. This is the punishment they have
> to overcome for not being as good in earlier play. No such thing
> exists with the current format. Again, I say its stupid. And the
> results from this year agree with what I'm saying.
>
> Monohan
Just look at the MA masters region the previous 1 years and you will
notice that the 3 seed after saturday ended up beating the 2 seed on
sunday after losing to them the day before.
jt
Parinella
just over the edge.
You think 2 has a tough journey.
In your proposed format, 2 plays 3 right away, and if they lose, they
are out. 1 plays 4, and if they lose, they are out.
In the current format, 1 and 2 play each other right away. The winner
is in. The loser is then in the exact same position as they started
out in your format, except they are emotionally scarred from having
just lost (which may have been a factor of playing badly).
How is that possibly better for 2? If they want, they can put two
guys out there who catch the pull and throw a Callahan right away. Or
they can show up late, allowing the other team to assess the maximum
number of points without having to forfeit, and then do the above. Or
they can play 5 points hard as a warmup and if they're up 4-1, they
continue, otherwise they do the above. etc.
I hate to agree with Tarr in public, but there is no way that it is
better to be 3 than 2. It MAY be better to be 3 than to be the loser
of the 1/2 game if that game is hard, but that is outweighed by the
chances of actually winning that 1/2 game. And looking at the
particulars of the NW this year, is losing 15-7 harder physically on a
team than winning 15-6? And here's another point. On Saturday,
Throwback was in an almost identical position as they were Sunday, if
not mentally harder. They had just come off a double game point loss
at the cap to Troubled Past, while Big Sky had cruised 15-7 and
probably had a chance to rest. The winner of this game advanced to
the championship game and will have two chances to advance. And
Throwback won 15-7.
hech...@gmail.com
Keith is very loyal. He is so loyal, in fact, to a certain team with
a colorful past, that he refuses to play with any club team for more
than two years in a row, and usually bails after one. This is just
the last few years but: 2003 - Rhino, 2004 - national champ, 2005
rhino, 2006 Throwback, 2007 some other team that's not Throwback.
Jaded 4 Life.
Second, Keith has never been wrong. Arguing with him is pointless
because it only serves to prove to himself how right he is.
Third, If you play with the current 5 team format, in a large sense,
pool play is fairly pointless, other than determining what 1 team
doesn't get a chance to go. But perhaps a better argument against the
current format is the claim that the 1-2 game could be thrown at any
time so that the loser could conserve strength for the 2-3 game.
There should be an incentive to play until the end of the game (and
don't say winning is the incentive, when winning the 1-2 game is not
the primary goal at regionals for any team - getting to the show is),
when there clearly is a reward for doing otherwise in the current
format. Even the people arguing for the current format claim this and
state that teams should tank the second half if they think they have a
small chance so they can play the 2-3 game better (one example was
tanking after only being down 3). In games to go, the teams should
feel like they have to play hard until the end to give themselves the
best chance at nationals. In other, larger team formats, there is a
reward for making the finals - it's that the other team you play has
to play one more game than you - this allows for you to play hard in
the finals and still have a benefit for making the finals if you
lose. But what if there was this super ringer team that only sent
some of it's guys and ended up finishing 4th, but then dominate the
1? Let's wait until we see that even once, let alone 5 out of 6 times
before that carries any water...
Parinella
hech...@gmail.com wrote:
> Third, If you play with the current 5 team format, in a large sense,
> pool play is fairly pointless, other than determining what 1 team
> doesn't get a chance to go. But perhaps a better argument against the
I disagree with that. I felt it was quite important to get into that
1-2 game so it all didn't come down to a single game on Sunday.
There is no distinction, however, between finishing 1 and 2, which can
be construed as a negative of the format.
No real arguments with the rest of your post. Nicely done.
Parinella
hech...@gmail.com wrote:
> Third, If you play with the current 5 team format, in a large sense,
> pool play is fairly pointless, other than determining what 1 team
> doesn't get a chance to go. But perhaps a better argument against the
I disagree with that. I felt it was quite important to get into that
Adam Tarr
> Third, If you play with the current 5 team format, in a large sense,
> pool play is fairly pointless, other than determining what 1 team
> doesn't get a chance to go.
As Jason and Jim have pointed out multiple times, getting two shots to
go and facing a one elimination game in stead of two is a big benefit.
> doesn't get a chance to go. But perhaps a better argument against the
> current format is the claim that the 1-2 game could be thrown at any
> time so that the loser could conserve strength for the 2-3 game.
> There should be an incentive to play until the end of the game (and
> don't say winning is the incentive, when winning the 1-2 game is not
> the primary goal at regionals for any team - getting to the show is),
Other than point differential, there is never an incentive to play
hard to the end of a game when you are going to lose. If you have a
chance to win, then there is clearly an incentive to play hard. These
things are true in any game in any format. I know this in an absurdly
obvious statement, but you seem to be ignoring it.
> when there clearly is a reward for doing otherwise in the current
> format. Even the people arguing for the current format claim this and
> state that teams should tank the second half if they think they have a
> small chance so they can play the 2-3 game better (one example was
> tanking after only being down 3). In games to go, the teams should
> feel like they have to play hard until the end to give themselves the
> best chance at nationals. In other, larger team formats, there is a
> reward for making the finals - it's that the other team you play has
> to play one more game than you - this allows for you to play hard in
> the finals and still have a benefit for making the finals if you
> lose.
Really? Let's say you are down 10-5 in the finals in a 16/2 format.
Imagine somebody says, "let's open up the rotation, we need to be
fresh for the backdoor game". Are you going to respond, "no, don't
worry. The team we play in the backdoor game had one more game
today. Therefore, we have no incentive to lay down here. We should
fight until the bitter end with our top line."
No, of course not. Playing one fewer game is an advantage, sure, but
it does not mean you lack an incentive to save your legs for the next
game if you are losing. You can still lose the backdoor game even if
you have had fewer games played. Just ask Triple Lindy or Revolver or
Golden Spike.
Finally - everyone who lost one of these 2/3 masters regionals games
this weekend who has bothered to post has emphasized that the letdown/
fatigue/whatever was NOT the reason they lost the game to go. Every
one of them has been magnanimous in defeat and has emphasized that the
team that advanced played a better game. If you look at the scores,
none of those games were terribly close, and neither were any of the
finals losses. So it seems reasonable to take their statements at
face value, and believe them when they say that they lost to a better
team, not to an inferior team that benefited from an easier road.
Monohan
> First, regarding Keith's Loyalty, as addressed by the Big Sky player.
My 'Loyalty' is always capitalized. Thanks.
> Keith is very loyal. He is so loyal, in fact, to a certain team with
> a colorful past, that he refuses to play with any club team for more
> than two years in a row, and usually bails after one.
Not quite right, but close enough. Three years is the magic number.
Twice.
> This is just
> the last few years but: 2003 - Rhino, 2004 - national champ, 2005
> rhino, 2006 Throwback, 2007 some other team that's not Throwback.
Ahhh, my meandering life.
> Jaded 4 Life.
This part's right. Expect to see a bit of Teal in a couple of weeks.
(Don't tell the uniform police.)
> Second, Keith has never been wrong. Arguing with him is pointless
> because it only serves to prove to himself how right he is.
Right again. Man, you really know me well. Oh well, there's worse
things than always being right. Like not always being right, I guess.
> Third, If you play with the current 5 team format, in a large sense,
> pool play is fairly pointless, other than determining what 1 team
> doesn't get a chance to go. But perhaps a better argument against the
> current format is the claim that the 1-2 game could be thrown at any
> time so that the loser could conserve strength for the 2-3 game.
> There should be an incentive to play until the end of the game (and
> don't say winning is the incentive, when winning the 1-2 game is not
> the primary goal at regionals for any team - getting to the show is),
> when there clearly is a reward for doing otherwise in the current
> format. Even the people arguing for the current format claim this and
> state that teams should tank the second half if they think they have a
> small chance so they can play the 2-3 game better (one example was
> tanking after only being down 3). In games to go, the teams should
> feel like they have to play hard until the end to give themselves the
> best chance at nationals. In other, larger team formats, there is a
> reward for making the finals - it's that the other team you play has
> to play one more game than you - this allows for you to play hard in
> the finals and still have a benefit for making the finals if you
> lose. But what if there was this super ringer team that only sent
> some of it's guys and ended up finishing 4th, but then dominate the
> 1? Let's wait until we see that even once, let alone 5 out of 6 times
> before that carries any water...
Right you are.
Monohan
Lates.
Dill Weaver
> The format sucks.
>
Raise the antiwild card level to 6 teams.
For regionals with 6 teams, play Sunday like this:
Final pool play round then bracket play
1
-------+
2 a+---- 1st
-------+
La
3 ------+
------+ |
6 +------+ +----- 2nd
------+ | |
4 +-------
------+ |
5 +------+
------+
Hope your news reader uses monospace fonts.
For regions with fewer than 6 teams, Sunday play
is single elim.
Dilly
hech...@gmail.com
does the argument for 1/4, 2/3. And neither system is perfect.
Tarr, any argument can be extended to illogical conclusions as my is
in your 10-5 example - but I would argue that there is a better,
ultimate based reason to open up the rotation at 10-5 - simply that
your studs aren't getting it done, and that you should try something
new. I think my point is that I'd rather have a format where my team
has more incentive to make ultimate based and not format based
decisions whenever possible, especially when the goal of the
tournament (nationals, in this case) is on the line, and the current 5
team system doesn't fully accomplish this.
jyw...@gmail.com
Well, at least someone came up with a format that actually punishes
teams #3 and #4. It should be pointed out, however, that this
punishment is mostly to the benefit of teams #5 and #6 than #1 and
#2. If you prefer this format over the current one, then you are
saying that finishing 2nd in the pool is a MUCH better result than
finishing 3rd and that finishing 3rd is not much different than
finishing 6th. The current format says that finishing 1st or 2nd in
the pool is better than finishing 3rd or 4th which is better than
finishing 5th or 6th. Is it THAT important to punish team #3 any more
than they are already punished under the current format, if the only
way to do so is to give teams #5 and #6 (after playing a complete
round-robin, mind you) the same opportunity as #3 and #4?
marb...@gmail.com
the biggest problem is that all of the current formats fail to
distinguish between either 1 and 2 (the current format), 2 and 3
(where 2 and 3 play a game to go for the rights to play 1 in the
finals), or 1 through 4 (why semis is the worst format available).
So, with so few teams, why not just have pool play count for
everything? Say, 3 games on Saturday, 1 on Sunday, and tiebreakers if
necessary? Or, if teams don't feel like they're getting their money's
worth with that, play a double round robin. 4 games each day, its
feasible.
jt
>
> - Show quoted text -
i like the format and with the growth of the masters division, i think
the antiwildcard limit should be raised. 3 vs 6 does not really
benefit the 6th seed soo much. it does save the legs and does give a
better shot to the 2 seed which is earned during the so called
bullshit pool saturday games. The 2 seed does deserve a little more
than they are getting and this looks to be a better solution for sure.
jt
DavidLe...@gmail.com
>
> Finally - everyone who lost one of these 2/3 masters regionals games
> this weekend who has bothered to post has emphasized that the letdown/
> fatigue/whatever was NOT the reason they lost the game to go. Every
> one of them has been magnanimous in defeat and has emphasized that the
> team that advanced played a better game. If you look at the scores,
> none of those games were terribly close, and neither were any of the
> finals losses. So it seems reasonable to take their statements at
> face value, and believe them when they say that they lost to a better
> team, not to an inferior team that benefited from an easier road.
A clarification as I was one of those posters from a #2 team. In the
1/2 game we played our top players hard until half time at which point
it was 5-8. Could we have come back? Possibly, but as someone posted,
our goal was not #1 but a spot in Sarasota. We have now driven 9.5
hours, played 4 games Saturday in crazy heat, and now our top guys
have played a hard half in the rain and cold. If we play the rest of
the 1/2 game to win, and lose, we will have no chance to advance. So
we took our foot off the gas and DoG rolled. Would we have beaten #3
A&B if our spots had been reversed? Impossible to know. They were
definitely not an inferior team that benefited from an easier road.
They were however an equally matched team who gained an advantage from
the schedule, and from the fact that the 4th and 5th teams in our
Region were much weaker than the top 3.
David - Tombstone
h.infe...@gmail.com
Difficulties with the current format:
1) fails to distinguish between 1 and 2
2) in the game-to-go, the finals loser (whether they have tanked or
not) has lost momentum, whereas the winner of the 3 vs 4 game is
coming off a win. This, to some, unfairly upsets the balance between
roughly even teams towards the winner of 3 vs 4.
Double round robin is tempting, but I think 4 games each day, while
feasible, probably wouldn't fly with most in this division.
How about this instead?
Keep the current format, but distinguish between the Sunday seeds
using the point differential from pool play. If the higher seed won
the pool play match-up (very likely), they start the rematch with a
cushion. If the higher seed lost or tied the pool play game (i.e. in
some 3-way tie scenario, for example), there is no cushion and
everything plays out the way it normally would in the current format.
Using the stats from 2007 NE Masters pool play, here's how Sunday
might have looked...
DoG starts their 1 vs. 2 game up 5-0 on Tombstone, by virtue of their
15-10 win on Saturday. Tombstone makes early dent in lead, but poised
DoG fends off the early charge and gets to half at 8-4. The teams
trade after half to reach 10-6 DoG, and Tombstone decides to rest some
starters. DoG wins 15-7 and advances with the #1 seed.
Meanwhile A&B starts their 3 vs. 4 game up 5-0 on Not Dead Yet. A&B
rolls 15-2.
Game-to-go: Tombstone vs. A&B with Tombstone up 4-0 to start.
Tombstone needs to get their heads together, but have the 4 point
cushion. A well-rested A&B, however, is on fire. Tough to start down
4, but they know they put themselves in that hole on Saturday. Will
the cushion be enough for Tombstone?
Adam Tarr
> How about this instead?
> Keep the current format, but distinguish between the Sunday seeds
> using the point differential from pool play. If the higher seed won
> the pool play match-up (very likely), they start the rematch with a
> cushion. If the higher seed lost or tied the pool play game (i.e. in
> some 3-way tie scenario, for example), there is no cushion and
> everything plays out the way it normally would in the current format.
While I can tell you right out that the chances of this getting
implemented in the forseeable future are extremely low, I do find this
idea intriguing. I'd love to see some non-UPA event try out a variant
of this (perhaps capping the "cushion" at 5 goals or so).
As an aside, why not give the cushion to the lower seed if they earned
it? They lost the chance to finish first in the three-way tie, why do
they deserve to be punished again by not getting their points in the
game to go?
Bob Koca
> On Oct 12, 2:47 pm, h.infecti...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > How about this instead?
> > Keep the current format, but distinguish between the Sunday seeds
> > using the point differential from pool play. If the higher seed won
> > the pool play match-up (very likely), they start the rematch with a
> > cushion. If the higher seed lost or tied the pool play game (i.e. in
> > some 3-way tie scenario, for example), there is no cushion and
> > everything plays out the way it normally would in the current format.
>
> While I can tell you right out that the chances of this getting
> implemented in the forseeable future are extremely low, I do find this
> idea intriguing. I'd love to see some non-UPA event try out a variant
> of this (perhaps capping the "cushion" at 5 goals or so).
>
> As an aside, why not give the cushion to the lower seed if they earned
> it? They lost the chance to finish first in the three-way tie, why do
> they deserve to be punished again by not getting their points in the
> game to go?
>
Doesn't work because of the following situation:
Suppose that A,B,C are the top 3 teams and that so far in the
tournament.
B defeated C 15-11 and C defeated A 15 -14. In the last round A is
playing vs B and the score is now 14 - 7.
If A scores the next point then there is a 3 way tie with
differentials among tied teams of + 7 for A, - 4 for B and - 3 for C.
A gets first seed and C gets the second.
In the 1-2 game the game starts out equal since C defeated A (or C
actually gets a 1 point edge under Tarr's aside). Not so good for team
A.
Now suppose that A lets team B score a point before winning the
game. Then on the point diff tiebreak it would be A getting first and
B getting second.
In the 1-2 game A gets a 5 point (or more if the limit is not capped)
advantage in the game to win the region.
For overall chance of both winning the region and also advancing it
is well worth A taking the small risk of suffering a comeback and
letting
B reach the 8 - 14 score.
This is bad because the format shouldn't give definite value to
intentionally losing a point and there is also a big advantage to
being able to play one of the
games involved in the tiebreak in the last round.
Bob Koca.
Parinella
>
> - Show quoted text -
This is exactly how the pools at Nationals work, as you carry over the
results from the first day into the second pool. And in fact, a team
was sorta accused of throwing points in their last round game in order
to carry over a win. It has happened once so far in 8 years.
h.infe...@gmail.com
Adam: I like the idea of capping the head-to-head cushion at 5. And,
in response to your question about no cushion for the lower seed, the
goal was to find a reasonably simple fix to give upper seeds an edge
in Sunday games. I think that is what people are after. And I like
that teams need to earn the cushion through better overall play
against a common opponent. I think players can buy into that. A lower
seed complains about losing their head-to-head cushion? Play better on
Saturday!
Bob: Figured someone would produce a great tie-breaking scenario...
that is a good one. I looked at using tie-break differentials rather
than head-to-head. Seemed promising at first, but there are headaches
there too. There might be something there, but I don't see it. Can
anyone think of a fix?
Jim: Could you clarify that situation further? Did a team maybe-sorta
throw points to help themselves finish first, and their opponent
second in a Thursday pool play tie-break (and sending the team that
beat them to the kiddie pool)? Just trying to understand the
scenario... don't care who was involved...
Jon