| |
BGonline.org Forums
1988 Chicago Point Editorial on seeding
Posted By: Phil Simborg In Response To: Its time to think about major changes in tournament backgammon (Bob Koca)
Date: Monday, 20 February 2017, at 12:59 a.m.
Reprinted here with permission from Bill Davis:
Last month's Michigan Summer Backgammon Championships were directed by experts, and therefore, very few problems developed. The only serious complaint concerned the method by which the expert players were initially entered onto the Championship draw sheet.
Director Carol Joy Cole utilized a practice common to many tournaments. Prior to the Calcutta auction, 16 of the best players were designated "seeds" based on skill, tourney results and regional considerations. Although byes were random, the seeded players were spaced throughout the draw sheet; thus no five-player group contained more than one seed.
Rick Barabino, a yound expert from Boston, was very upset when he learned of this seeding (it was not stated on ay handouts). He immediately lodged a strong protest with Ms. Cole, arguing that the modified random draw was clearly biased against the unseeded players. Bruce Hall of North Carolina took his protest one step further, vowing "I'll never come to this tournament again unless the draw is totally random."
Both players were technically correct. Ms. Cole's method of seeding was slightly biased in favor of the seeds. With a completely random draw, four experts (for example) could end up in a group of four. From a weak player's standpoint, this would be great. Three experts would be losers after two rounds.
Given this inequity, why would the Flint Backgammon Club, the Chicago Bar Point Club and others contijue using a modified random draw? Perhaps for tourney excitement.
Seeding the best players is not unusual in tournament play. All major tennis tourneys are seeded based on past performance And thew NCAA has seeded their basketball tournament for 50 years. Organizers do this to ensure relative balance in their events and provide the best chance for a high caliber finals.
Sill, why give the experts enven the smallest advantage? For one thing, seeding them adds personality to our game. It rewards past performance and gives the average player something to strive for. Also, spacing the seeds protects the average player from being stuck in a bracket of "heavy hitters."
Perhaps Mr. Barabino and Mr. Hall were also a bit upset that they weren't seeded at the Michigan tournamwent. Maybe they should have been rated ahead of borderline seeds like 1986 Summer Champ Jim Wilson of Michigan. But this was a Michigan tournament. In Boston, Mr. Barabino would undoubtedly be seeded ahead of Mr. Wilson. Likewise for Mr. Hall in North Carolina.
Seeding is not as important for high entry fee tournaments such as the World Cup. In most cases, the mammoth prize money ensures spectator interest no matter who reaches the finals. And invitational events should not be seeded because all invitees are supposedly experts. But for regional tournaments, seeding is a good idea. Personality recognition and the potential for excitement gained is worth the non-seeded players' minimal equity lost.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.