- Posts: 922
- Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 6:55 am
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.
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.