Strat-O-Matic Baseball 365

Hi everyone, I hate to consider changing the rules after signups have started, but it has been brought to my attention that we MAY want to consider expanding on the current playoff format. For those of you new to this tournament, we traditionally take the top 12 teams from the cumulative standings after the 4 rounds and have them play in a finals league in which the winner is crowned as the tournament champion. So why consider changing? Well it really comes down to the number of participants. The tournament averaged 125 participants from 2016-2018, went down to 104 in 2019, and then jumped to 143 last year (largely from me doing some heavy recruiting and cold calls to get people to join, LOL). With a lot of new players re-discovering strat during 2020, I think there's been a surge in 365 play which has led to 20 players signed up already that did not participate last year. So I think we are going to see our numbers above 150, maybe closer to 200. So, it begs the question - are 12 playoff teams enough for a tournament of 150-200 participants? I'd like you all to consider the following options, and let me know by responding to this thread or via private message. Please let me know what you think. This will not be a "most votes win". This is not democracy, I'm a dictator! I want to consider the well thought out responses, and I am particularly interested in hearing from those of you who have played in this tournament a lot more than the 4 times I have and those of you who have made the top 12 more than 1 time I have. The opinions of those veteran players will have more weight to me than others as I see this as your tournament.

Option 1 - Do nothing, keep it at 12 playoff teams
There are two key things that I think makes this tournament unique. One is that it is so hard to make it to the palyoffs because we only allow 12 players in. It makes it such a tough and interesting challenge. Secondly, I like that the tournament doesn't last almost a full calendar year like others. We tightly stagger the first 4 rounds and then jump into one final round so we can wrap it all up in a little over 6 months instead of dragging it out longer.

Option 2 - Expand to 20 playoff teams
With this option, the top 8 participants after the 4 rounds would get a bye into the finals. Participants 9-20 would then play a league in which the 4 playoff teams from that league would make up the rest of the participants advancing to the finals round. With this small expansion, it gives more participants a chance and keeps more participants in contention throughout the first 4 rounds. The downside is that the top 8 participants would have to wait 2 months for this qualifying round to be completed before they get to start the finals.

Option 3 - Expand to 28 playoff teams
With this option, the top 4 participants after the 4 rounds would get a bye into the finals. Participants 5-28 would then play in one of two leagues in which the 4 playoff teams from each league (8 teams total) would make up the rest of the participants advancing to the finals round. With this expansion, it gives even more participants a chance and keeps even more participants in contention throughout the first 4 rounds. The downside again is that the top 4 participants would have to wait 2 months for this qualifying round to be completed before they get to start the finals. Another downside is that the participants that finish 5th or 6th in the first 4 rounds did a lot to get in that position and then may not get the opportunity to play in the finals.

Option 4 - Expand to 36 playoff teams
With this option, nobody would get a bye into the finals. The top 36 participants would play in one of three leagues in which the 4 playoff teams from each league (12 teams total) would make up all of the participants advancing to the finals round. With this expansion, it gives a lot of participants a chance and keeps many participants in contention throughout the first 4 rounds. The downside is that the top fews participants would be at risk of getting upset in this play-in round and not make the finals after having a great first 4 rounds. However, to give the very best participants an advantage, I would give the top 3 players after the 4 rounds decide which decade mystery set they want their league to have - so the top 3 decide which set is used for each of their qualifying league. Also we would obviously "balance" these 3 leagues via a "snake order" such that league one would be participant rank 1-6-7-12 and so on, league 2 would be participant rank 2-5-8-11 and so on, and league 3 would be participant rank 3-4-9-10 an so on.

Option 5 - Variable Playoff Format
With this option, we would use Option 1 above if we have less than 150 participants, Option 2 or 3 if we have 150-175 participants, and Option 3 or 4 if we have more than 175 participants. I'm open to tweaking the treshold numbers of 150 and 175 in this option. Or maybe we keep it simple and say Option 1 if we have less than 175 and Option 4 if we have 175 or more.

Option 6 - 5th Round of Cumulative Points Playoff Format [New Option]
With this option, we let the top 24 play another season. There would be 2 leagues for the semi-final with the seeds distributed evenly between the 2 leagues. The points accumulated in these 2 leagues would simply add to the players already accrued points so the Standings page stays relevant. At the end of these 2 leagues, the top 12 will play in the finals just like we’ve done for years. In this format the #1 seed would most likely make the final 12 even with a bad season in their semi-final league and the #24 seed would most likely need a crazy good season and championship to make it. But the format gives hope to a bunch more guys.

So that's it. Please let me know what you think. Again, the spirit of this is to set a good and reasonable ratio/balance between players participating and players qualifying for the playoffs. A ratio of 200 participants to 12 playoff teams is not a great ratio that inspires participation, unless you think that presents a challenge that contributes to this being a good tournament. Looking forward to hearing from you on this.

Juiced JC

I like the 36 team option. It gives us 1 more tournament. I usually only play the mystery tournament and like the competitive level of play in these tournaments. With as many participants as we have the top 36 would still be a pretty
exclusive field. If you lose in the opening round, you probably would have lost in the championship round anyway. i am fine with any decision. I just like adding 1 more tournament if I am lucky enough to make into the top 36 or 12 this year.

In my humble opinion, expanding the playoffs to the point where it diminishes the 4 qualifying tournaments is a mistake. The top 12 right now makes a pretty exclusive club, but expanding to 36 teams puts the very best teams from the 4 rounds at risk by simply having one non-playoff team in round 5. The 28 team proposal does much the same; although the top 4 teams are safe there often isn't a lot of difference between #1 an #5. I believe that the 20-team proposal gives us the best of both worlds - the playoff teams are increased without putting the very best teams from the 4 main seasons at risk.

But that's just my 2 cents. I'll still play regardless of what's decided.

No need to expand. Just keep it at 12 qualifiers. Expanding the length of the time to complete the overall event offsets any benefits to expansion.

I liken the situation to a Powerball lottery compared to a state lottery. The probability of winning the grand prize are slimmer than last year and that's just the way it goes. The more who buy lottery tickets the less chance at winning the grand prize, but, the achievement, albeit not monetary, will be greater. If last year's event is thought of as a state lottery, then, consider this year's event to be a powerball lottery.

Since each of these individual leagues run exactly the same as the regular 12 team Mystery leagues do (SOM awards credits to two teams) there is adequate reward for all participants relative to financial commitment. In other words. we are still getting our money's worth whether there are 120 participants in search of the grand prize or 240 participants in search of the grand prize.

The person finishing in 13th place still gets the same opportunity for rewards per dollar spent as she/he would have had it been regular leagues instead of a tournament.

Sorry for the confusion in the original post - I had two Option 2s. Fixed now.

I've added a new option, Option #6, after getting it as a great suggestion (thanks Scott). With this option we could still set a threshold whereby we keep it as it is if we have say less than a certain signup nu,ber, and use Option #6 if we get more than a certian number signed up.

I really like the idea of expanded playoffs - too many people will lose interest in this tournament if the finals are too exclusive. I'm Ok with any of the options, but I do think Option #6 might be the best of both worlds.

I think Option 6 is a good choice if there are more than 144 participants. You do want maximum effort from participants and an increased chance is motivating.Decreases the probability our beloved commissioner will have to dig up fillers.The job is hard enough.

I' m for expansion. Hated to see the guy last year not get in the final 12 due to a tiebreaker.
I like option 6 but would be for any expansion.

Considering the size of the tournament, 144 teams last year, limiting playoffs to 12 teams seems extreme. If MLB had 144 teams, 30 teams would make the playoffs post-wildcard. That seems more than reasonable.

Thus either the 24 or 36 team option seems most fair, and as has been mentioned could increase interest. I personally would opt for the 36 with no byes. If you are that good you can weather the trial, and this is the most skill-based tournament going.

(Disclaimer: I finished 24th last year with two 1sts and a 2nd, following a 60's team that collapsed in the final third.)