A few quick points; - the council want everyone out of the showers by 6.30pm - at least two groups worth of teams would be coming out of back-to-back games at 5pm, so a break of less than an hour is too short, and for teams in the four groups who didn't play last game, a break of a game plus more than an hour is too long. - the knock-on effect: the chances of a drastically over-seeded team meeting a drastically under-seeded team in a crossover are still -very- slim, so even if one of these games goes against seed, you still have an underseeded team playing about ten seeds lower than they should be, which is still going to be a problem (just a slightly lesser one).
The fundamental points being made are fair and were all considered in the run-up. Plenty of work has gone into minimising the risk of the peer pooled approach, and a change to the schedule affecting people's start times etc would be unfair at this stage. If one or two teams only get 1 close game at MT1 because they didn't send in seeding information and performed badly at MT2007, and all the other teams get 4+ close games, I'll consider it a far greater success than any open format could've been. I took the time to get the seeding as accurate as possible, so please take the time to see whether there are actually any significant problems before complaining about them. Felix (without approval from CC) On 05/06/2008, Justin Parkhurst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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
