Semifinals groupings

It depends on how you define top managers. I am defining top managers as those that did the best in the tournament. If we dont think those are the top managers, why bother to wait 6 rounds give byes? We can just go through and vote on the 9 managers that everyone thinks are the best and let them into the finals. Or maybe not give any byes and make everyone fight their way through a semifinal league. But if we are going through the trouble to play 6 qualifying events, then those should be determinant.

In reality, the 12 finals spot should all go to those that earned the most points in qualifying rounds. But in order to keep everyone interested and playing through the events, a tradeoff is made. Everybody that does reasonably well gets a shot at a golden ticket by winning a 24 team league. However, the exchange for that should not be penalizing those who did better by limiting how many of the high scorers can get into the finals.

Either the points earned during the 6 events count for something or they dont.

I consider you one of the strong managers (having won a championship in the past and all), but over the last several years you been in the top 20 almost the same number of times that you have been outside the top 20. Which just goes to show that even the strong managers can have an "off" year.

The 12-24-24-24 proposal guarantees the first 12 a spot in the finals, whereas the 24-24-24 does not. With that said, while I do not like that it does not give all of the semifinalists an equal shot at the finals, I do like that it expands the number of teams that make the semis and rewards the first 12 for just missing the top 9.

You stated the problem correctly, if we really think that manager 10, 11, and 12 deserve to be in the finals, then there is a remarkably easy solution to it. In that scenario, manager 13 is out of luck, regardless of his performance in the tourney. The line was moved to 9 for the reason you stated, to generate sustained interest among a larger pool of managers for remaining 3 slots. It does become a bit of problem to try to steer towards a desired outcome (i e. manager 10, 11 and 12 should have a better chance than say manager 40). The seeding makes sense because it disperses the teams roughly equally and opens the possibility that manager 10,11, and 12 could get the three tickets--but it also opens the possibility (probably more likely) that none will get it. Add the additional 12 man league, and the problem just recreates itself in a slightly different form. The thing is this, the line has to be drawn somewhere and kind of like manager 13 above, if you are on the wrong side of the line, that's where you are. At least in this scenario you have a chance where manager 13 has none.

I am not convinced there is an elegant solution.

I agree totally that managers can have an off year, but they shouldn't get a break because of reputation or past strength. The Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers...all of them year to year put out a strong team (it pains me to say that by the way) but they still have to play 162 games to get into the playoffs.

I understand your point about guaranteeing 1 spot in the finals. I just view that as being less of a positive than guaranteeing 3 spots to teams outside the top 20 is a negative.

My opinion. That's all.

As to goffchile's points, I agree that being on the wrong side of the line sucks (I was 10th 2 years ago) but if you are on the wrong side of the line then everybody goes in with the same chance. I dont actually think 10, 11 and 12 should have a better chance. That's just the realities of cutoffs. I just don't like the idea that we are guaranteeing that we cant have 10, 11 and 12 all make it in.

I agree there is not an elegant solution. I think we are simply looking for the least worst solution, and in my opinion, some number of similar leagues with all the semifinalists equally dispersed makes the most sense. Of course, no matter what happens, I enjoy the competition of the tournament enough that I am going to continue play under any format.

I am not convinced there is an elegant solution.

Agreed, there is no perfect solution.

So, with the assumption that we will always have semi-finals, it comes down to how do you "reward" the first 12 players who missed the cut. You can guarantee one of them a spot in the finals or just let them fight it out amongst the 72 semi-finalists.

You can guarantee one of them a spot in the finals or just let them fight it out amongst the 72 semi-finalists.

It seems pretty simple when you boil it down that way.

The part that gets me is guaranteeing the spots to the lower ranked teams.

The managing records around rank 81 are already pretty underwhelming IMO. Expanding the playoffs down another 12 ranks will only exacerbate that. And 3x24 is more aesthetically agreeable than 3x24+12. I lean toward retaining the current system.

Top 6 get in and then 6 leagues of 12 seems most elegant to me, getting rid of 24 team semi leagues that are rarely played and the winning of which is like winning the lottery. But I guess the thought is that they want to make sure more than 6 managers make the finals. Someone has to make the call on that and it ain't me so it's fine (and I did get into the finals last year that way). I think I would rather keep the existing system than the proposed change, though.

I agree that Freeman's solution is the most "elegant" and fair. Six byes, and six 12-team leagues to fill the other six spots in the finals, with all the semifinalists seeded evenly among the leagues.

Nobody (except the byes) would be guaranteed (or guaranteed NOT) to have a place in the finals. But, the top-ranked semifinalists do get an "advantage" for doing well, because they will all be in leagues with lower-ranked competition.

And, if the idea is to get more managers into the semis, or to adjust things according to the total number of Tour participants, it could as easily and elegantly be five byes with seven 12-team leagues, or four byes with eight 12-team leagues...or even seven byes and five 12-team leagues...to be determined before the tourney begins, depending on the number of participants.

Reducing the number of byes would also give the other managers that much more incentive to participate.

Just because I am seeing so many things that I am not sure I am following, the proposal below is being clarified.

The 12-24-24-24 format changes those that get the bye directly to the finals as Top 8
9-20 to play in a 12-team semifinal with the WS winner getting spot #9
21-93 go into (3) 24 team semifinal with the WS winner getting spots #10-#11-#12

You can TALK about Top 6 and 6 semifinals - but IMHO this is too drastic of a change and has no chance of gaining hold.

MM