Semifinals groupings

It’s really just two words:
Thank you.

Its a gentleman’s tourney—There is no correct way. Sorry if you missed your shot at the bigs. Lots of people gave their ideas here and all are approaches to be considered. Maybe a combo of some. Most were having a friendly debate of how to meet most of everyone’s concerns—i think maybe johnnyblazers summed that well.

Many alternatives. Infinite ways in fact.
Funny that you would say Dougess’ approach is too complex but Moose’s too simple and yours is just right. That would be acceptable if you were sacrificing your time running the tournament.

I don't think using points from the qualifying rounds to help higher seeds make the finals is a good thing to do....those rounds are just for qualifying...once you hit the tourney win and your in, no arguments, no hassle, you are just in...why make things more complicated than they need to be?

The serpentine seeding thing does make sense, but again, it won't matter that much...still gotta win!!

Good luck fellas, hopefully I win!! if not well then there's always next year.

Happy I did as well as I did for my first year.

Coach

Frankie, all I'm doing is describing how basically every tournament is seeded. And trying to do so in a friendly way. (My post that you objected to was bizarrely edited by a moderator, removing an innocuous sentence that resulted in the post arguably reading snippier than what I originally posted. But I've very much endeavored to be part of the friendly debate that you refer to.)

Not sure what relevance dougess's proposal has. And I never said Moose's method was too simple. Moose's method is in fact acceptable because it closely resembles the correct, serpentine method used by basically every other tournament in existence. It's not correct, but it's close enough. Also not sure what you mean by "missing my chance at the bigs." Like, having no luck comprehending those words arranged in that order. As Moose pointed out, I have no personal stake in this particular debate whatsoever. Just a giant nerd who can't help quibbling about technicalities, killing time until that angry mastermosser fellow from earlier comes back to elaborate on his ragepost.

I don't see how it matters whichever method is chosen or what the big broohah is all about.
you still have to win your league and you will be facing some of the top players in the game, no matter what the
format is.

It really doesn't matter to me what's "correct" and what's "not correct". I really wouldn't know either way. It's the easiest way for me to do it and when 1 person says "it's wrong" - the list had already been sorted and populated and entered into my spreadsheet. I would do it exactly the same way next year because of that.

Did we all forget that you would have gotten the 10-21 / 70-81 for League 1 as I have done for the past several tournaments until more than 1 person introduced a more "fair" way of loading the semi's ? That was a concession I agreed to and made.

But as far as it being "correct" or "easier" - that's my call. And let's face it, it really has no effect of whether or not you win the league. Only the most well made team that has the most "luck" in the playoffs will do that.

The semi's is really just keeping up interest so people dont drop from the tour early. It would be interesting to reasearch whether a semi-final player has ever won the Finals.

And by the way, since we are in the middle of loading - let's move on. The other most interesting thing to come out of this discussion involved next year possibly switching to Top 8 AND 12-24-24-24 which is still a MAJOR CHANGE and will require approval of the board. My take on this is that the 24 team leagues will use the loading formula we used for this year. (Whether "correct" or "easier" is used I really don't care)

I'm sure that SOM will be on board with giving 92 credits versus 81, and this probably also only makes sense if the participants is still over the 200 we had this year. No reason to expect that to decline if SOM chooses to promote it as they do all tournaments.

So, searching for what you think of that? In all leagues, divisions are randomized by the SOM engine. (Less work for moi)

Moose

I do not like the idea of 12-24-24-24. While it might improve the odds for the top 12 to garner that single spot in the finals, it also guarantees that 3 managers that finished outside the top 20 get into the finals. If the finals are supposed to be composed of the top managers, why would you promise spots to those that finished that far down the scoreboard.

To keep interest in the tournament up and to respond to something that was requested that seemed (to me) like a good idea. But this is still a long way from being approved and adopted. But hey, more comments welcomed.

Also, Riggodrill won't be playing in the Semi's and an invite has gone out to first alternate chaberlal

Riggodrill is on vacation and doesn't want to waste time staring at his computer screen. Thanks for graciously donating your spot to chaberlal who was really torn up about not making the dance.

It would be interesting to research whether a semi-final player has ever won the Finals.

I wondered this myself earlier and just perusing the results from the last several tournaments, other than labratory winning it all as a 14 seed (in 2014), all of the tourney champs have come from the top 9 dating back to the 2012 tourney (the earliest tourney with a link).

So, while the semi-finals are a great for keeping interest, history does not bode well for the SF winners winning it all.

But, hey, here's to bucking the trend!!!

I do not like the idea of 12-24-24-24. While it might improve the odds for the top 12 to garner that single spot in the finals, it also guarantees that 3 managers that finished outside the top 20 get into the finals. If the finals are supposed to be composed of the top managers, why would you promise spots to those that finished that far down the scoreboard.

I think the inherent flaw in your logic in that the top managers all reside within the top 20 finishers. With the playoffs being such a crapshoot and teams being able to earn anywhere from 1 to 75 additional points just for making the playoffs, I think it can skew an otherwise strong performance by a manager.

FrankieT posted a good example of this on page 4.

I would be interested to see how many managers have been consistently in the top 20 each year vs how many managers were one and dones (i.e. got "lucky").