| |
BGonline.org Forums
Ohio State ABT Results/and a question-Longish
Posted By: Sean Garber In Response To: Ohio State ABT Results/and a question (Phil Simborg)
Date: Wednesday, 1 April 2015, at 1:23 a.m.
I like the idea of a full double elimination tournament (compared to a single elimination tournament). I dislike the way most double elimination events are bracketed where the 'fighters' bracket champion has to win 2 or 3 more matches. My solution: Play down to one winner in the zero-loss bracket, as is normally done. Call this player 'A'. In the fighters bracket, play down to a final 2, players 'B' and 'C'. Player 'A' would then play one match vs both 'B' and 'C'. If 'A' wins both matches, 'A' is the champion. Otherwise, the winners of the AB and AC matches would play in the final. Using this format in a 16 player tournament, a 6-1 player wins the tournament. It would not matter when the loss occurred. In a 256 player tournament, the winner of the zero loss bracket would have to go 10-1 to win the tournament, while fighters bracket players would have to go 11-1 in all cases, only needing one more win than the zero loss bracket player. This method is much, much more fair than the normal way of bracketing a full double elimination tournament. It also is still a legitimate double elimination tournament, unlike the one match final solution. Problems-- ABT points. If you win a tournament with the above format with an undefeated record, you will get fewer ABT points than if you win with one loss. With an undefeated player, there is a tie for the 2/3 spot. Collusion. There is more opportunity for collusion late in the tournament. I won't make this post even longer here explaining why, since most readers here can easily figure this out. The solution to this problem is creative prize money distribution. An undefeated winner would get more money than a one loss winner.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.