I put a little something together after hearing a few of the arguments FOR and AGAINST single elimination. Some of the arguments for it, "The first 2 days of the tournament is pointless, all the pros crush the amateurs" and "The pros are spending more money to stay longer for tournaments. Some of the arguments against single elimination, well obviously you have 1 bad match and you're out. And the field is effectively cut in half eliminated a good % of prize money.
As an example, Florida open was 256 players double elim, SVB won 40k for first. AZ Open was 128 players, Grabe won 25k for first. 225k payout vs 125k payout. Obviously the money is the major concern. Each player is probably spending an extra $500 in travel expenses to stay 2 extra days.
Currently, I am against single elim, and here are a few others that might be against it as well:
There are tons of players that lost in the first/second round of matchroom events that went on to cash and in some cases won the event. I think they might have something to say about it.
In my opinion, I would have the first 2 rounds be all amateurs that play their way into a seeded bracket that starts 2 days later. This way you still get the amateurs, and the pros can save some money on hotels and food. Sure you might lose some amateurs because some are there to play a pro, but you might gain some that now know they arent showing up to get blown out by a pro.
Curious if I am missing some major glaring reason why single elimination is a good idea?
