In the absense of a seeding event I agree that it seems an oversight to not have crossovers at the first event of the mixed season. Once the first game of the mixed tour has been played I strongly believe that all positioning should be determined by actual game results and not by submission of feedback and "manual re-seeding" between events.
Whilst this shedule would suit MT2 & MT3 well and I appreciate the efforts of the competition committee, I fail to see how this can be an ideal way of starting the season. Looking forward, are there any intentions of introducing a "Mixed Tour 0" next year for seeding purposes? Cheers, Craig. 2008/6/5 Justin Parkhurst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Felix et al > > I recognise the difficulty in seeding teams and such, please don't think my > comment was critical of the effort put in by tournament organisers to try > to > do this. > > Yes, there tends to be limited movement, but with no MT0, we have to > recognise the possibility for mis-seeding. Right now, the team seeded 24th > (Naoise Murphy) can finish as high as 13th, while the one seeded 25th (Emu > 2) can only finish 21st. having only a few crossover games can help redress > this (see sugestion below). > > I'm glad there may be some accommodation for possible mis-seeding after > MT1 - but I see two potential problems with the system proposed (teams > appeal or put a case forward): > > 1st - it relies on subjective judgement. E.g. I write after the tour and > say > 'I think we were underseeded because our point differential on the weekend > was 75-10 (or whatever). OK, that sounds good... but what about another > team where it was a 60-20 point differential? There is no clear line really > which means it gets tricky. > > 2nd - By re-seeding after MT1 and before MT2, I could imagine some teams > feeling rather short-changed. A team that gets bumped down below another > team they never played, may argue it is unfair - there is no way of knowing > who is the better team. > > So personally, I still think adding some kind of crossovers on Saturday > solves both these problems. You get to actually play a team in the bracket > above to prove your worth to move up, and a team which looses to a team > below can't really argue with that if they played and lost. > > This does not need to be complicated. You could just have 6 crossovers > which > lets teams at the top of their pool after Saturday have a shot at the > bracket higher: > > e.g.: > > A4-F1 > B4-E1 > (so top of E and F have a shot at the 5-12) > > C4-H1 > D4-G1 > (so top of G and H have a shot at 13-20) > > E4-K1 > F4-J1 > (so top of J and K have a shot at 21-28) > > This is only 6 games, and only teams that won or lost their pools have to > do > it - but I think it adds a good corrective element, it does not require any > additional schedule changes if you do it Saturday at 6:00 (to give teams a > rest if they just played), and I'd imagine most teams would want the > opportunity to do it if they win their pool. > > I'm curious though if other teams agree at all, or think Felix's suggestion > is better? > > -Justin > > > __________________________________________________ > BritDisc mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.fysh.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/britdisc > Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/staying-informed > -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07813710027 __________________________________________________ BritDisc mailing list [email protected] http://www.fysh.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/britdisc Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/staying-informed
