2011 PC Tournament Final Standings

[Fulty]

For more than 2 months, the top of this page has said "Top 36 finishers qualify for 3 Semi-finals Leagues".

[Fulty]

I now realize that the argument of "just not enough teams" is a selfish ploy with no merit - raised by 2 teams in the top 24 who want to increase their odds at other's expense.

Last year's tournament had 86 teams start and 68 teams compete in every league. The semi's consisted of 36 teams (like this year's plan). For the 2011 PC, we had 87 teams start and 68 teams finish - the same number as last year. Any argument about "not enough teams" is merely self-serving.

[mesquiton]

[quote:a6063d1731]edgecitytx wrote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually the Rules say:

Semi-Finals
the top 24 or 36 (TBD) Managers only [/quote:a6063d1731]

The Commish has already determined this. I checked with him a couple of months ago to see if the number of Semi-Finals teams had been set for this year, so I could note it on the standings. He determined 36, same as last year. That's when the standings started saying "top 36".

[J-Pav]

[quote:03435396d8="Fulty"]I now realize that the argument of "just not enough teams" is a selfish ploy with no merit - raised by 2 teams in the top 24 who want to increase their odds at other's expense.[/quote:03435396d8]

This statement has been with me for a week now, and I finally reached the tipping point to put out a reply when no one else would.

[b:03435396d8]mbertolli[/b:03435396d8] and [b:03435396d8]exwallman[/b:03435396d8] are neither selfish nor is their argument without merit. I submit the following:

Why do we have a "tour" at all anyway? I think it started as a fun way for the more committed managers to have an opportunity to claim full bragging rights to say "Look at Me Mom, I'm The Best of the Bunch!"

[b:03435396d8]Mike[/b:03435396d8] can't say this, and neither can [b:03435396d8]cristano[/b:03435396d8] without getting ridiculously flamed, but if there is any intellectual honesty in what we're trying to do in determining "who's the best", then we have to agree that it's the person accumulating the most wins/points over 5-7 leagues. This year [b:03435396d8]Mike[/b:03435396d8] is that manager.

However, 2-12 are thinking "No! That should be me because..." Hence, we all agreed on a twelve man winner take all league to decide things.

Do you believe you are the best manager? If you do, I'm guessing you agree with what I stated above. If you do not, I'm guessing you would argue for the format that best serves where you [i:03435396d8]do[/i:03435396d8] think you rate. In my opinion, that is the truly selfish argument without merit.

And now we skipped the 24 man shootout and went straight to the even more inclusive 36 man tournament. No offense to anybody (I've been there myself), but playing five leagues to eliminate less than half the field is just plain stupid. It penalizes the number one point getter the most, and numbers 2-12 in the order that they finished.

I argued for this when I finished 13th one year and when I finished 20th another, precisely because it was not self-serving at the time it was argued. Currently in 7th, it sounds like I too am being selfish to some, but whatever.

It was argued in return that it's neat when the guy at the bottom sneaks in to win it all as [b:03435396d8]spider[/b:03435396d8] did last year. I think it's awesome too. So by that logic, why don't we make it the Top 60 because that would be even better still! But the folks who argue the loudest are not in that group, they're "higher up." Letting in 37-60 would hurt [i:03435396d8]their[/i:03435396d8] chances.

In the end, we play a "tour" now for a lottery ticket, not for the way to settle "who's best". That's fine by most of us, I suppose. But to call veteran players selfish and without merit deserved some sort of reply on their behalf.

[TomSiebert]

There are some great points here and an overall solid argument.

Really, the "Winner" of the tournament should be the person who accumulates the most points over five leagues. If somebody's won three championships, or been in the money four of five leagues (or more!), they are truly a great player.

But the idea of a "Finals" is a lot of fun. Maybe next year, no matter how many teams are involved, after the five leagues we ramp it back to the top dozen managers and that's it? Because, really, as much as I'm hanging on by a thread and hoping I can squeak in at #36, even if I were to run the table and somehow win this thing, there's no way I'm half the player of the top half dozen or so guys in the current standings.

tws

[Spider 67]

Speaking as "the guy at the bottom (who) sneaks in to win it all as [b:f1c0e06715]spider[/b:f1c0e06715] did last year," I think that total points should be the accepted way to determine the winner of the tournament (and prizes that go along with that title). It was fun to pull this thing out last year, but I didn't think the prizes were deserved.

I would suggest a different "wrinkle" on the process of determining the winner - a 7-week tournament. The first five weeks would be used to narrow the field down to the top 24 competitors. Only those 24 would participate in week 6 - still accumulating points as in weeks 1-5. Then the top 12 participate in week 7 - accumulating points as in weeks 1-6. The top total points would win the tournament.

This year, for example, mbertolli's lead would be difficult to overcome without either superb performance against the top competitors (or the highly unlike flameout by Mike).

(I'm not suggesting this for the current year - only for future tournaments)

Spider

[mesquiton]

The last Event 5 league has finished its regular season, the top 36 positions appear to be safe. Three of the 36 managers are in the last league's playoffs, which start Monday. One or two of them will be in the league finals, which will affect their seed(s), which can affect division alignments in all 3 Semi-Finals Leagues.

So, probably the week after next to determine Semi-Finals brackets, just in time for the holidays!

[TomSiebert]

Slip in at #36, after a harrowing week. :D

Only made it because the poor guy who came in at #37 had NL/AL league violation(s) that reduced his score. I'm not proud.

Probably don't deserve to be here, and will almost surely get stomped by mbertolli, mesquiton, J-Pav and other luminaries, but as the cliche goes: "I'm just happy to be here!" :roll:

tws

[Spider 67]

Have to give a "tip of the hat" to blackjack57, who reported his own violation - even though it resulted in missing the final 36. Nice display of good sportsmanship!!

[travelingjack]

To be honest someone in my NL league sent me a message pointing out the violation and then I reported it on the board. In a moment of early onset senility I had dropped Freddy Sanchez after he was (iniviteably) injured (drafting him is my biggest regret, why did I do that???) and picked up Will Rhymes.

Forgot about the NL only restriction completely until a couple days later when I got the message. I ended up using Matt Downs and Blake DeWitt the rest of the year, so it cost me more than just the violation points. Oh well, what are you gonna do? Good luck to the 36 who made it.