Semifinals groupings

Rick, sorry about your loss.

Paul

Basis for the 12-24-24-24 is a 12 team league is assumed to be a better odds of winning than a 24.
However, if one considers a given-year's standings--with 6 teams at varied caps and stadium restrictions--as a de facto indication of objective manager skill at an accuracy equivalent to the points earned in a rank listing, then I guess one would not accept that assumption.

I just offered it based on Moose's prior discussion of waning player interest when not contenders, SOM's view on participation, and the idea that a 12 team league is objectively better than a 24 team league.

Seems we all agree that some top xx managers who just missed the automatic bids should be given some type of consideration for a berth. But we disagree that being 1 of 12 opponents is better than 1 of 24. That would have to mean there is a drastic drop in manager level past the artificial boundary selected AND that we have a precise ranking system correlated to manager skill--which is based on the tour's point system.

I do not agree that there is a precise correlation of points to manager skill--and that is especially my perception below the top few. Certainly not enough to say manager #34 is objectively better than #40 in a standard cap without a stadium restriction. If anything, the correlation gets weaker as one moves down the list. To wit:

1. A quick perusal of 20-81 right now doesn't appear to conclusively support the idea that a 24 team league with a serpentine is better than a 12-team league for odds of a berth. I've looked at that list--I had listed a sampling but deleted it because I don't want to disrespect anyone because they are all formidable managers on any given day. And I am in no position to pick and choose. I'd encourage scanning it, starting with RiggoDrill.

2. To get in the top 80+ required consistently good teams but maybe they had tough leagues, or are specialists in 80-100M caps, or who don't bother playing neutral stadiums, or didn't win a championship, etc. The finals is typically 80M-100M and there are no more artificial stadium rules. It's mano-a-mano.

3. The standings are padded by 7 extra points for division winners with finals wins and 6 for WC who are finals winners.

Suffice to say I think the perception of one's odds being demonstrably better competing in a 24-team league with these guys is not supported by my experience here.
Not even mentioning those who weren't in the top 81 but are still formidable managers and previous tourney winners.

Last bit on this thought experiment. I don't care which way it goes, but I am a poster child for points not precisely correlating with managerial ability. I'm not a pushover but also not a #7.

Consider player A win totals for 5 events:
89-WC--won finals
75
75
87--Div Winner--lost semis 4-3
100--Div winner-won finals
Total points: 460

Player B:
89-Div winner--lost semis 4-3
87
81
87-Div winner-lost semis 4-3
96--Div winner--lost finals 4-3
Total points: 459

I think my math is right...so player A is better, by the numbers. In the current standings, it could be #47 vs #51. Is player B less likely to put up a formidable team by 4 position ranks, ie that much less an opponent for a #10 manager vs a #14? (that's a notional example--not actual)

Anyway, my overall point isn't to lobby for a particular way to do it. My point is I think too much faith is placed in the points as a proxy for managerial skill. Just look at the list.

My argument is not that there is a big difference between the final point totals, especially as you move down the list. My point is that the top teams, those who were closest to a golden ticket to the finals but fell just short, really do seem to be composed of perennially excellent managers every year. There may be exceptions of course, but if one looks at this years list and then looks at the numbers of trips to the finals leagues encompassed in those finishing 10-21, it doesn't seem fair (to me at least) to restrict that group to having only 1 rep to the finals while we give more chances to those farther down the list. Is it easier to win a 12 team league with the top 12 as opposed to a 24 team with a wide mix of player levels? ....*shrug*...who knows, but I cant think of any other tournament format where the top teams all play in 1 group for 1 spot in the championship while giving more chances to get into the finals to the teams that finished farther down. If we do that, what is the point of playing all the events in the first place?

And I do recognize the need to have a large number of people make it to the semis to avoid attrition in the later events. I for one am simply too competitive, enjoy the game too much and am willing to sacrifice a bit to hold to a commitment I made, to just quit playing at the end of the tournament.

My concern over putting 8 through and then having four 24 team leagues is we have become the NBA where over half the teams get into the playoffs.

Looking at the other tournaments, I think the mystery tourney is too restrictive (finish top 12 in points or bust), the 20XX doesnt give you enough advantage for finishing high (you get a straight draft for 3 players and a ballpark but everybody plays in the semis and the four playoff teams go through from each of 3 12 team leagues). I like the golden ticket idea to really make the events worth something, so to keep the ~same number of semifinals teams, you would fill 1/2 the finals with the top 6 teams, and then do 6 semifinals leagues seeded by finish to get the last 6 finals teams. That would be 78 playoff teams vs the 81 we have in the current format AND it would get rid of the lottery aspect of the 24 team leagues.

Anyway, I am not saying I have the answers. I just saw a problem with the semifinal leagues as they were proposed and thought it was worth a discussion.

I'm sorry for your loss Moose.

I don't have a strong opinion about the semi-finals except I do agree the 10-21 v. 70-81 matchup isn't as fair to the higher seeded teams; I was in that 10-21 bracket last year (#12 I think) and felt it would have been more fair to seed a different way. It doesn't affect me much this year since I'm middle of the semis pack, but I like the serpentine seeding idea that has been proposed.

Sorry for your loss, Moose.

Since we are on the topic of Barnstormer semifinals and advancing to the finals, I 'd like to throw my earlier suggestion into the discussion.

I suggest some type of “home field advantage” based on performance in the first 5 events. I suggest a continuation of the Barnstormers point system with the semifinal managers’ points being reset to 1/5 of their accumulated points. The Barnstormers points earned in the semifinal round would be added to the reset level to determine who advances to the final league. For this year there is a 59 point differential between 10th and 81st which would result in an approximate 12 point lead for manager #10 over #81 to start the semifinal.

Thanks Moose for organizing and supporting this tournament through the years and my condolences for your loss.

My thoughts on this is that there really is no way to keep everyone happy. A couple of yrs ago if I'm not mistaken, after 1-9 byes, we had two-12 team semifinals and one 24 team "lotto" ticket, for a total 57 playoff berths (we now have 81). Not sure how much of BS Tourney is used as a marketing vehicle for the game but giving a chance to more people for the playoffs does keep more players actively involved.
The real issue is how you balance keeping more players involved with awarding those who scored at the top a real and earned chance at getting a finals berth and you have a much better chance in a 12 than 24 team league. Maybe next year we could expand to four 12 team & one 24 league and 7 auto byes this way the number of those who have a chance for the playoffs will stay around the same number... I think if you do a serpentine format in creating leagues you might address some concerns about competitive balance though those rankings are pretty interchangeable (except for a few dominant guys. This is like the issue before where other managers would not join leagues because of tough competition.) Most managers are adept at putting together a competitive team, the occasional dominant one, as well as the occasional clunkers from time to time.

Sorry Moose for your loss. Losing a parent is epic. I hope you have lots of positive memories mixed in and can share them with friends and family.

What you just suggested Mighy Moose is the best way to place the semifinals. Condolences to you and your family. If any managers drop from the semis I would definitely like to play(finished tied for 83rd). I will keep checking the forum and email to see if you need/invite me. Best of luck everyone.

I would support a combination of Frank's and Dougess' suggestions. Both seem well thought out and both support rewarding doing well in the preliminary events, each in their own fashion.

I boycotted the tour in 2015 and 2016, if I recall, because the bonus for winning a ring was a 20 point bonus. Naturally I was not reticent about expressing my concerns about what I deemed the excessive largess of points showered on the winner of an event.

I have been consistent in advancing positions that support evidence based outcomes (sorry can't help the psychobabble) i.e. rewarding aggregate wins as a determinant of the tour's rankings of managers rather than playoff wins for the simple reason that success over 810 games is a better reflection of performance than success over a maximum of 50-70 post season games.

I really like Frank's and Dougess' proposals.