How hard is it to finish top 9 in BSers to make the Finals?

No one plays 24 team leagues very much so that's probably something to be avoided in the future. There is the increased randomness and it's a sort of herculean task being asked of those who dont make the top 9.

You have to ask of a tournament system what are you trying to accomplishment with it? You want to cull the competition while also having a decent number of teams make the play-offs. Why not just have one round? Well, teams have vastly different schedules and you want competition concentrated after the first round to get a fairer idea of who is the best player (maybe an owner does great against weak competition but struggles when it gets better.).

But why give byes? The justification I guess is the players did very well over 5-6 events and they should be rewarded more than just a seat in the semi-finals. But you still have the issue that the competition was weaker and why should an owner get to skip the second stage when the competition is greater and wholly get to rely on how they did against the overall field to get them into the finals? You could--instead of winner take-all--keep a point system going into the finals (maybe with higher number of points in the semis) and just have 6 12 team leagues with top 12 points getters going to the finals. (one thing about the byes is that it deprives them--and the rest of us of playing them-- of the fun of competing against better competition.) Or, instead of conferring a point advantage, you could have two leagues of the top 24 and let the 4 play-off teams go to the finals out of those leagues while the next 48 teams have one winner from each 12 team league. The disadvantage is that they are perhaps facing tougher comperition but at least they only need to make the play-offs.

I think there is a strong argument to be made for rewarding the top finishing teams (although nine might be disputed) with a free pass into the Finals, if...

And the “if” is the problem.

If you could easily discern the difference between the manager success of number nine over number ten, then free passes would make sense. But if you can hardly tell the difference between manager nine and manager 39, then free passes make less sense.

If it weren’t for the math of 4-12-36, giving teams a bye would make sense. Unfortunately, no matter how you slice it, the 4-12-36 component makes anything beyond a 36 team semis and a 12 team Finals too cumbersome. You could make room by rooting out wildcards maybe, but then you get into the weeds with a wildcard team that is clearly better than the other divisional winners. Again, cumbersome.

I can only wonder too, how much scrambling goes on to find soft leagues when so much is at stake with a Top 9 finish? The elimination of bonus points and straightforward Top 36 semis and Final 12 seems like such a simple fix. A few less headaches for Commissioner Moose, to boot.

(Hat tip to FrankieT).

Oh, I think cherry-pickimg has been alleged. So much so that Moose came up withnan invite feature that seems to have cured the problem. The 36 then 12 ala 20XX is fine but then you really dont get much for scoring near the top. Might be a little selective for 250 entries, too.

Then maybe go to 72 as 1can1 was suggesting. Or even 84...

Two thirds of the field is eliminated in the five rounds (with the top 84 advancing). Top 12 get byes with next 72 teams making the quarterfinals. That gives you 12 byes plus 24 quarterfinalists for a 36 team semis and 12 team finals. Even more inclusive, I would think, and probably keeping interest up throughout the tournament as well.

The extra layer of playoffs probably means dropping the sixth event back to five, because you need those two months back somewhere.

The reason for giving more credit to the top teams is you must play in a different type of stadium in each round and when the semifinals and finals come you are eligible to use any so a favorite type of build in the semifinals is easier. The idea of barnstormers is to be able to play different caps and leagues.

I kind of like J-Pav's last idea.

I'm glad that a lot of people have jumped in here for some really good discussion.

I have a great board comprised of some of our most experienced players, most of who have been around from the very beginning and have watched first The Sporting News (TSN) and now SOM evolve and expand on the playability of the product.

Those board members have heard me request year after year for their opinions on what we might consider changing and that I always want to keep the core of the Barnstormers as it has always been and that I resist any major changes.

I was caught off guard this year by the membership jump and I understand that jumping to 24 team semi-finals was a disappointment for many, some of who even pulled out of the tournament when it was announced.

All that being said, I would like to give thanks to SOM for all of the changes to the platform that have made "tournaments" something that a lot of us look forward to. AND of the new improvements of the nearly perfected Live Draft App AND the INVITES feature. The latter, despite early criticism, will serve the entire membership who thrive on creating a great theme league. Going forward I will work with SOM to perfect this too.

Also we keep asking for more and better prizes and I grateful that they (SOM) are being more accommodating.

The board and I will be exchanging ideas as we get into the time before the next launch in 2021.

We have 18 consecutive tournaments on the books and I have some spreadsheets that show we may have had a couple of tours BEFORE 2003. Many players have been around for most of them. I'm happy to serve.

Keep your suggestions coming. I LIKE IT !!

I boycotted the tour two years, in 2015 and 16, because the bonus points at the time were just ridiculous. I believe that I would have tied for first the year before the first boycott year if there were no bonus points. The BS powers that be then reduced the bonus points and stated awarding points for playoff wins and I rejoined in 2017 and did finish 1st in the regular season back in 2017. Then in 2018 I won my second ring despite only finishing fifth in the standings. I believe I finished fifth last year as well.

There are clearly tiers of managers, the first tier of whom are able to make the final 9 fairly consistently. Bernie consistently is just on the bubble. So it goes. He is a fine manager and a dangerous opponent, but the history speaks for itself.

I did post at length what I thought would be an optimal approach to future semi's earlier in the year, as Frank noted.

But I read some of the suggestions on this thread with utter horror. First, winning a playoff series is a crapshoot any way you look at it. I think the biggest factor that should lead to making the BS finals should be aggregate wins. Period. I would even prefer that it just be regular season victories but with playoff mania so rabid in our culture, I would concede that adding 1 point for each post season game won is not unreasonable. But the extra bonus points for the winner of each playoff series reward luck more than consistency. What should be weighted more, your results over 810 games or two 4-7 game playoffs? If the metric being measured is skill, the answer is clear. If it is not skill, then why even have a tournament which ostensibly is a gauntlet designed to crown the most worthy manager each year.

Many managers have carefully studied what the best managers do and have have thus improved their performance immensely in the tour, and become top managers themselves. This has been quite evident in recent years, where the overall level of play in the BS tour has considerably improved. To my mind that is how it should be.

I think having all 24 team playoffs, including the finals, is probably the worst idea I have ever come across in all my years playing here. I understand the notion of having them to give people who don't finish in the top 33 a reason to get playing, hope does spring eternal. But the process of winnowing out the less successful is there for a reason. And 24 team playoffs are qualitatively greater crapshoots than 12 team playoff leagues.

One idea would be having two twelve team semi final playoffs to determine two of the finalists for managers finishing 9th through 33, and two more 24 team semi's for folks who finish 34-82. Based on this years attendance that means a almost 40% of the managers qualify for the bye or the semi's. This would require reducing the finalists getting byes to 8, but that is the trade off one gets for broadening the net of playoff managers. Again, the notion here is that the guys who finished 9th-33rd performed a hell of a lot better over 810 games than did the guys who finished in the 70's, and it is thus fair and just that their odds of making the finals should be twice as likely as the managers who performed poorly.

Personally if it were my tour to run, I would have 10 initial byes and two 12-team playoffs for the next 24, and standings are based purely on regular season wins.

But if one really insists on the dodo bird verdict approach to playoff management, that all who play have won or deserve prizes for participating, have a Division II Championship for the next tier of players. The guys who finish 33- 42 get seeded into the Division II finals and the remaining three playoff spots cast a wide net of the next 72 managers, bringing the totaL number of managers making the playoffs to 112, over 50% of the participants.

This potentially could make everyone happy. Skill gets rewarded in Division 1 and somewhat successful participation gets rewarded in Division II. Kind of like the NCAA and NIT tournaments in college basketball.

To TLD,

I once read a quote regarding mastering the piano. I can’t find it exactly now, but to paraphrase:

“You can either play, or you can’t.”

In your opinion, out of the field of BS managers, how many “can play”?

Two or three dozen can play very well. But only a handful can make the Top 9 consistently.