Cactus Web Site special offer: Orders over $75 will receive a free Angel of God 2023 National Promo card while supplies last.
You want to know what the top 1/3 of the field did against each other? Fine.Martin Miller: 7-1John Earley: 2-2Jonathon Greeson: 6-2Connor Magras: 1-1 (with a timeout loss as well)Matt Townsend: 3-3Daniel Huisinga: 4-2Chris Ericson: 6-3Alex Olijar: 4-3Josh Brinkman: 4-3Jay Chambers: 2-2Caleb Stanley: 0-1Mark Underwood: 1-3 with a timeout winJames Roepke: 1-3James Courtney: 3-2Andrew Wester: 1-3Chris Egley: 1-0Jacob Arrowood: 1-3Brian Jones: 1-4Nic Marshall: 1-3Christian Fong: 0-4
What if we went at this from a different perspective? Instead of doing a top-cut for the last rounds of a tournament, what if we did like soccer in the olympics for the early rounds. All the people could be broken up into groups of 6 people who played round-robin for the first 5 rounds. Then we could do swiss with everyone after that based on the results so far. The people running the tournament could make sure that each group had no more than 1 or 2 of the people from Kirk's List or the top 20 RNRS players from the year, or whatever method people think is best.
I'm not quite sure you'd rather propose a complicated and roundabout way to achieve assumed "fairness" (which has a lot of problems I'll let someone else address) rather than simply implement a system that other CCGs have proved time and time again to work wonderfully.
OK, first things first. I am NOT proposing anything at this point. I'm actually OK with just continuing to do things the way we are. I'm just throwing out a different idea to see if anyone thinks it's worth considering.Second of all, I haven't "hardened my heart" against top-cut. I just continue to believe that it has an elitist feel to it because it limits people at the finish of a tournament with an obvious cut-off that tells everyone else that they're not good enough. I also believe that top-cut does NOT solve the fairness issue because some people would get in following weak early round competition while others would NOT get in following tough early round competition. (I'm glad that at least Korunks seems to also see this).Third of all, I understand people's hesitancy with Kirk's list, or RNRS, or I suppose we could go back several months to Alex's list. Perhaps they seem better to me because I seem to end up about the same place on all of them (19 Kirk, 18 RNRS, 18 Alex), and because most of the names there seem to be relatively accurate based on my experience having played most of them. Maybe we could be like the BCS and have some sort of formula that combined all those lists to make a master list, and then use that. The nice thing about using a list like that at the beginning of the tournament rather than the end is that it only set's people opening rounds, and leaves the finish in the hands of the players themselves. It makes everyone's strength of schedule about equal, but still let's everyone feel like they have a shot throughout the whole tournament.I guess basically, I just think that if we're going to force things, we should do it at the beginning of the tournament, and then open things up for the finish. This seems more fun and free than starting the tournament with total freedom, and then clamping down at the end.
So top cut is elitist but ranking players and establishing pools of players based on ranking is not elitist?
If it is top 32 after 6 rounds, then that makes it an 11 round tournament.
I was not going by double elim. I was going by the standardized top cut with single elim, with regular swiss rounds still going on for everybody under top cut.
I don't see much good coming out of getting into an argument over which idea is more elitist.
if a person did not make it into the top 32 by six rounds, they had zero chance of placing anyway
But it is the very idea that top-cut comes across as elitist that turns me (and YMT, and perhaps others) off to it. If you want to convince people that this is the way to go, then it is worthwhile to have the discussion of whether it is or not, and whether there is a less elitist way to accomplish the same goal.
Again, it's NOT all about placing. Some people (like me) play for the top 10. Some people play for the top 20. If you do a top-cut, then no one even has a chance to make it into that top number because they aren't there at a certain earlier point in the tournament. Without a top-cut they still have a chance to achieve their personal goal. With a top-cut it is no longer possible. To me, that is a detriment of the top-cut system.
Quote from: Master KChief on September 03, 2012, 07:34:51 PMI was not going by double elim. I was going by the standardized top cut with single elim, with regular swiss rounds still going on for everybody under top cut.I like the idea of double elim to the point of one undefeated person due to needing to decide second and third place.
Quote from: Westy on September 03, 2012, 08:19:20 PMQuote from: Master KChief on September 03, 2012, 07:34:51 PMI was not going by double elim. I was going by the standardized top cut with single elim, with regular swiss rounds still going on for everybody under top cut.I like the idea of double elim to the point of one undefeated person due to needing to decide second and third place.Winners of top 4 proceed to finals, losers of top 4 play each other to determine 3rd and 4th.
Quote from: Master KChief on September 03, 2012, 08:53:40 PMQuote from: Westy on September 03, 2012, 08:19:20 PMQuote from: Master KChief on September 03, 2012, 07:34:51 PMI was not going by double elim. I was going by the standardized top cut with single elim, with regular swiss rounds still going on for everybody under top cut.I like the idea of double elim to the point of one undefeated person due to needing to decide second and third place.Winners of top 4 proceed to finals, losers of top 4 play each other to determine 3rd and 4th.I've always liked single elimination with this.