Modified Finals Format for DE tournaments

[jsp]

This is carryover from the John Morra thread. I thought I'd start a new thread specifically debating the finals format

I understand the arguments against a true double-elimination tournament where the winner of the one-loss side has to win two in a row. But I still feel the undefeated player should be rewarded for not losing a match. A single race finals (such as Turning Stone, US Open, etc.) doesn't reward the hot-seat winner.

Why not a modified finals format such as this? If the hot-seat winner makes it to x games first, then he wins. Otherwise, the race is to x + y games.

For example if this was used in Turning Stone, then John wins if he makes to 9 games first. If Jayson is first to 9 games, then the race extends to 13.

I think Jayson would have won either way, but at least John gets rewarded with a slight advantage for staying undefeated up until the finals (and especially for beating Jayson earlier).

I'm sure this idea has been around (if it is I don't know exactly what format this is called), but why isn't it more popular? It's definitely more fair than the status quo format, and it doesn't nearly have the baggage overhead that comes with a true double-elimination finals. So why not this modified format?

 

[Renegade_56]

If it's a DE tournament then the winner is the single player who was not beaten twice,,,,,, can't get much simpler than that.

 

[spartan]

This is carryover from the John Morra thread. I thought I'd start a new thread specifically debating the finals format

I understand the arguments against a true double-elimination tournament where the winner of the one-loss side has to win two in a row. But I still feel the undefeated player should be rewarded for not losing a match. A single race finals (such as Turning Stone, US Open, etc.) doesn't reward the hot-seat winner.

Why not a modified finals format such as this? If the hot-seat winner makes it to x games first, then he wins. Otherwise, the race is to x + y games.

For example if this was used in Turning Stone, then John wins if he makes to 9 games first. If Jayson is first to 9 games, then the race extends to 13.

I think Jayson would have won either way, but at least John gets rewarded with a slight advantage for staying undefeated up until the finals (and especially for beating Jayson earlier).

I'm sure this idea has been around (if it is I don't know exactly what format this is called), but why isn't it more popular? It's definitely more fair than the status quo format, and it doesn't nearly have the baggage overhead that comes with a true double-elimination finals. So why not this modified format?

Correct correct
Obviously unfair to the undefeated player on winner side. Maybe it was not true DE in past but that does not mean they should not look into changing it. Playing 2 matches race to 9 instead of extended race to 13 means 5 to 10 extra racks. That means extra 30 to 60 mins. The final other day started 1 hrs+ later and there was time to start it 30 min earlier . Start at 630pm and finish at 930 to 10pm which is still not late.
OR if they are not going to play best of 2 matches (race to 9) then they should reward the undefeated player in DE with a prize money- maybe $2K ($1K each from winner and runner up prize so winner gets $7 instead of $8K and runner up gets $4K instead of $5K)
So make it like the final is a separate round and single elimination and different from the DE round.

 

[9andout]

Damn I thought you were talking about an up coming DELAWARE tournament! Haha!

 

[AtLarge]

... Why not a modified finals format such as this? If the hot-seat winner makes it to x games first, then he wins. Otherwise, the race is to x + y games. ...

I think Tony Robles' Predator Tour is using that format; it seems to work well.

 

[itsfroze]

=============

 

[jsp]

I think Tony Robles' Predator Tour is using that format; it seems to work well.

Is that so? For the life of me I can't understand why such this format isn't more popular. It's a great compromise.

 

[sjm]

The guy who gets to 9 first is nearly always the same guy who would get to 13 first. My preference would be to give the guy in the hot seat two on the wire to start the match.

Anything but a second set!

 

[Paul Schofield]

So the player who went through the entire tournament without losing a match is out and finishes in 2nd place when and if he loses his first
match in the finals.

DE is another pet topic of mine. I will ask you a question. After the one set final, should the player from the losers side win, who has got the best record? Isn't that good enough that the player with the best record wins?

The best way to wreck a finals is to have it be a MAYBE finals. Just giving a little different perspective.

 

[AtLarge]

DE is another pet topic of mine. I will ask you a question. After the one game final, should the player from the losers side win, who has got the best record? ...

I posted about that in another thread earlier tonight: http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=5042225&postcount=3

[By "game" in what I quoted, I imagine you meant race or set, unless it is 14.1.]

 

[itsfroze]

=============

 

[rennerb6]

50/50%. Tough take on DE! [IMG][/IMG]

 

[jsp]

DE is another pet topic of mine. I will ask you a question. After the set final, should the player from the losers side win, who has got the best record? Isn't that good enough that the player with the best record wins?

No. Because the player on the winner's side doesn't have the opportunity to match the record of the loser's side given a straight one-set finals. Why should the winner's side winner get penalized for losing his first match in the finals?

If it is chosen that the finals will consist of only one set, then to compensate for this inherent unfairness there should be some reward/advantage given to the winner's side player.

 

[bdorman]

I know I've watched some tournaments that used a single match where the undefeated player had to reach X number of games and the loserside opponent had to win X+3. I think it makes perfect sense; the reward for being undefeated is that you've got 3 games on the wire in the finals.

 

[jsp]

I know I've watched some tournaments that used a single match where the undefeated player had to reach X number of games and the loserside opponent had to win X+3. I think it makes perfect sense; the reward for being undefeated is that you've got 3 games on the wire in the finals.

Games on the wire obviously does give an advantage. But IMO such an advantage is a bit too blatant. Something just rubs me the wrong way that the winner of the tournament could lose more games than he/she wins in the finals, undefeated player or not.

That's why I think the solution presented in the OP (supposedly used on the Predator Tour, according to AtLarge) is superior. Because no matter how you slice it, the winner of the finals still has to win more games than the loser. And yet there is still an inherent advantage given to the winner's side player as a reward for remaining undefeated up to that point.

 

[DogsPlayingPool]

I like that Paul started a thread to at least discuss possible alternatives to the current way of doing things. At TS it seemed a little unfair that only a couple of matches before Morra beat Shaw for the hot seat but then loses the tournament because he didn't beat him again. So it ends up 1-1 between the two but Shaw wins.

It's perfectly logical to want DE through the final, i.e. a free roll first set for the hot seat winner. But it isn't always practical. I suppose the single set final can be rationalized as a final between the two "champions" - the champion of the east bracket against the champion of the west bracket.

But this kind of thing isn't entirely without precedent (or at least comparison). Look at the other major sports that have playoff systems to crown a champion. Doesn't matter who had the best record in the regular season or how many times one team beat another during the year. Come the playoffs it's a do over and one game (or one series) decides who moves on.

Is a single elimination final really unfair? I get the imbalance, but everyone knows up front this is the deal, so it's at least equitable - everyone gets the same deal going in.

I'd like to see all pro events go to SE like most other major sports. It would be more exciting as every match is do or die. Of course, given the economics of pool these days that probably wouldn't fly. But one of the problems with pool is DE takes so long, making it more expensive for the players and a tougher sell to broadcasters.

Perhaps another way to handle it would be to at least put a prize on winning the hot seat, say $2K in the case of the TS event and the winner gets $6K instead of $8K. If Morra wins he wins $8K total. If Shaw wins he wins $6K and Morra earns 2nd place money plus $2K for the hot seat.

Good discussion.

 

[Paul Schofield]

But this kind of thing isn't entirely without precedent (or at least comparison). Look at the other major sports that have playoff systems to crown a champion. Doesn't matter who had the best record in the regular season or how many times one team beat another during the year. Come the playoffs it's a do over and one game (or one series) decides who moves on.

Yes sir. Does everyone remember the 2008 Super Bowl with Giants (10-6 regular season) and the Patriots (16-0 regular season). Giants win the championship! NFL Football is the most successful sport on the planet in the history of mankind. I can take a lesson.

 

[hang-the-9]

Yes sir. Does everyone remember the 2008 Super Bowl with Giants (10-6 regular season) and the Patriots (16-0 regular season). Giants win the championship! NFL Football is the most successful sport on the planet in the history of mankind. I can take a lesson.

With playoffs the top seeded team still has some sort of advantage. A bye in the first round of the playoffs, easier team to play, home field.

Not in pool though in a tournament. But in a league the top team does usually get a bye if possible and is matched up vs the weaker team.

 

[Dockter]

With the way it worked at TS can you blame a player for dogging a match sending them self to the b side? If you take a look at the bracket and see that you have a tough opponent if you win yet there are a couple weaker players on the b side and there is no advantage in the championship for being undefeated what is the smarter move?

 

[DogsPlayingPool]

With the way it worked at TS can you blame a player for dogging a match sending them self to the b side? If you take a look at the bracket and see that you have a tough opponent if you win yet there are a couple weaker players on the b side and there is no advantage in the championship for being undefeated what is the smarter move?

Not sure I get this. Wouldn't you still be better off trying to stay on the winners side as long as possible?