MARCH MADNESS - ROUND 3 [BRACKETS POSTED]

[Jablowmi]

[quote:5372ecc5c5="TheGoodDoc"][quote:5372ecc5c5="Semper Gumby USMC"]Done by [b:5372ecc5c5]bracket records [/b:5372ecc5c5]and [b:5372ecc5c5]not[/b:5372ecc5c5] by [u:5372ecc5c5]SOM's manager rating[/u:5372ecc5c5], [i:5372ecc5c5]yes[/i:5372ecc5c5]?[/quote:5372ecc5c5]



No, i think seeding is done by the SOM manager ratings at the beginning of the tourney.[/quote:5372ecc5c5]

the Doctor is correct - we made this change before the end of the 1st season

[bjs73]

Originally, it was setup to be bracket records.

However, Jablowmi modified it for simplicity sake in the middle of round 1 to be seeded by rankings throughout the whole tourney. That's the way they do it in the basketball tourney after all.

And I can understand wanting to simplify it also from an administration stand point.

[Semper Gumby]

When they beem Kirk, Spock, and Scotty down?

I wrote this before Round 2's start -

[quote:2c19d41139]Since I'm one of the bottom seeded teams, I figure I have a dog in this fight but not necessarily an axe to grind on the outcome.

While I may have missed the bracket-tology during one of my business trips but I'm not sure this stratification unsures each League / Division race jumps off from the same starting point.

Perhaps the assumption is we are all equally situated in skill base thus the divisional make-up is moot yet it seems the Top Seeded team in the East Conferences are provided a leg up on their bracket mates.

For example, in Bracket 1 / Eastern Division - the ranking difference between the 1st / 2nd seeded teams is (East Division) is 17 and its last ranked team is 35 rungs.

On the other hand, in the Bracket 1 / Western Division, we have a 5 ranked place difference between the 1st and 2nd seeded teams and a 23 rung difference over the 4th seeded team in that division. [/quote:2c19d41139]

Arguably, the proof came in the pudding in my world.

In [b:2c19d41139]Bracket 2[/b:2c19d41139], the East would have advanced just one team had the tie breaker not gone to BCManager.

So, why do I feel someone has suited me up for that red suit of the Star Trek rent-a-security force? :cry:

[BC Manager]

What tiebreaker? I tied for 7th. :)

[TheGoodDoc]

Understandable SemperGumby, and to be honest, I was hoping that it would be based on records, too. But the people spoke and agreed for it to be based on original seedings. C'est la vie.

Just for the record, East Division Bracket 1, who has the #1 over all seed incidentally, is going to advance 3 teams in a VERY competitive, tight league. So we didn't see any bias here.

For Round 2, the west divisions have a total of 9 teams into the next round, the central 8, and the east 7. Round 1 had an equal distribution of advancing teams (12 each), so it doesnt seem like being placed in one has too much an advantage. Plus, if you consider that two # 1 East Seeds have been eliminated from the tourney, you can't really say that the East #1 have a leg up.

Seeding is really just an easy way to place us in the next bracket and it really doesn't bear much useful information (although that 101 wins by Panzer has me questioning that sentiment :-), since I think that at this point, ANY manager who is still alive is to be considered a formidable opponent, regardless of the seed.

Good luck in Round 3, everyone. see you in there in a week.

[Semper Gumby]

[quote:8c85837a98]Understandable SemperGumby, and to be honest, I was hoping that it would be based on records, too. But the people spoke and agreed for it to be based on original seedings. [/quote:8c85837a98]

Just my point -

In the NCAA tourneys, the teams generally play roughly the same number of games (give or take a few Alaska shootouts) and then are - arguably - ranked by competition played. Therefore, the Cleveland State Vikings running the table aren't going to get the same respect as Duke Blue Devils running its table of games.

Since TSN's manager rating is weighted towards the number of teams played (lowest # played in the Top 25 - 13 games with most above 22 games) - it would seem fair in these rounds to consider using a lottery system to bracket the teams. :)

Given we've played two rounds now and by game design should have eliminated the lower seed teams, the remaining rounds brackets should be based on an equal footing.

If I had a middle rating versus near the bottom, I'd be very interested in setting the table up so I could play a team like mine. :D


OF COURSE, I don't expect anyone to change the rules but you can't fault my ownership group for trying to turn-up the competition off the field too.

[Sykes25]

Exsqeeze me? Baking Powder?

Manager rating... da da da

I have no desire to pad my W/L record to offset my ten 60-102 experimental sqauds that bury my winning pct. Most of the managers at the high end of the rating scale have much better W/L records than I do, so I can't help but feel that the general complaint is focused towards having the #1 seed owned by a manager with a sub .500 record.

The premise was to keep the brackets to mirror the NCAA pool. Discussion of anything else can be saved for the next tournament. Feel free to stick me in the West of bracket 3 or 4 for that tourney so I can roll from the bottom instead.

Panzer beat all of us in the 2000+ win challenge. It was this sorry manager who lost in the finals though. Given my finals record in the 80's of 4-12, I expected nothing less. I will get my revenge hopefully should Panzer and I make it to round 4. 8)

I'm not getting snippy here. I'm just contributing to the discussion. :lol:

[Jimmy_C]

I don't care who I get matched up against...
I don't care what division I'm playing in...
I don't care about any other managers rating...
I don't even care if the other teams all have cheerleaders and I don't...

Eventually, If I'm going to win, I will have to be able to beat anybody. So all of the above (except maybe the cheerleader thing) does not matter.

[Jablowmi]

I was going to stay away from this but will jump in (a little). I really don't understand the "controversy." Each bracket is equally weighted based on manager rating, which, though flawed, includes win %, playoff experience and, most importantly, overall experience. A guy that has played 20 times is, in most cases, going to be better than one that has played once. Also, I don't understand why anybody would believe that overall record in the tournament is a better indication of the "power" of the team.

[Panzer ace]

I just thought the manager rankings was a convenient way to 'rank and go.' I dont think anyone really looks at the rankings as the only measurement. Its just a TSN list to encourage more teams. Using record from the first two rounds would be just as flawed. It is just too small of a sample.
I think every 'vet' in round 2 is capable of winning any league they are in. There are always things to debate about how a tournament or league is run. In this league, a manager could win a championship in round #1 and #2, finish 5th in round #3, and they are out. Another manager could come in 8th in round #1 and #2, wildcard in #3 and get a couple of hot cards and win the finals. Are they the 'best ever?' Is this fair? Maybe, but they are the winner this season. Sticking with the TSN rankings just makes the job of seeding easy for Jablowmi. I just look at this tourney as an excuse for a bunch of 'vets' to get together, 'bang heads' and talk a little trash.
Sykes, no reason to be worried. You a very worthy #1 seed. Anyone who has played in a league with you knows that.
PLAY BALL!!! :)
PS.
I still like 'pistols at dawn' as the 3rd tie breaker. 8) [/b]