True Double Elimination vs Extended Game Single Elimination Match

[sbpoolleague]

The MOST it can add is ONE additional match for the title

For anyone that has directed a lot of tournaments, this statement is totally misleading. Adding one more match in the earlier rounds of a tournament that has a lot of tables is trivial. Add one more match at the end of a tournament and you are also adding an entire ROUND. Big difference.

Frankly and IMO, as along as the format is set in stone at the start of the tourney, then it is what it is. When I choose a modified double elim format, I like to reward those players that make it to the single elim round via the winners bracket. Sometimes they get a little more money. Sometimes they get a game(s) in hand in their first match. That way the tourney is more streamlined and the folks in the winners bracket do not feel screwed.

If I was directing the US Open, the player from the winners bracket would race to 11 and the one from the losers side would race to 13 in the final.

 

[Paul Schofield]

Look at other match-sports. Tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling etc. Check out the Olympics. I don't know any top tier sport or competition that uses DE. There are many valid reasons for it's unpopularity.

IMO...There is no worse format on the face of the earth than DE. The very first step one could take to improve the format is to make a single match final, This is the right choice for the US Open. Good job.

 

[Cornerman]

As long as I know going in if it's extended or not, single elimination or not, I'm good anyway. I mean, we've all been there as players, right?

Freddie <~~~ can't count to double anyways

 

[BeiberLvr]

Look at other match-sports. Tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling etc. Check out the Olympics. I don't know any top tier sport or competition that uses DE. There are many valid reasons for it's unpopularity.

IMO...There is no worse format on the face of the earth than DE. The very first step one could take to improve the format is to make a single match final, This is the right choice for the US Open. Good job.

You know what's really funny.

All the people arguing for true DE because it's fair are the same people arguing against alternate break because it's fair.

 

[spartan]

I agree.

I suggest we guarantee him he will face an opponent who has already lost a match.

Lol
That would be reasonable advantage if it was halfway thru the tourney and it switched to SE
But if it is towards the end, a better advantage is if the winner plays the #148 player or better still he gets to pick who plays with him (ala MasterChef)

If I was directing the US Open, the player from the winners bracket would race to 11 and the one from the losers side would race to 13 in the final.

That's sound good except problem then is determining the lead to be given to the winners bracket . Too big or too small lead opens up can of worms

You know what's really funny.

All the people arguing for true DE because it's fair are the same people arguing against alternate break because it's fair.

Not me

 

[TheLoneSilencer]

A true double elimination is the only fair way to run this tournament. I will never agree with running a double all the way until the finals as you can run into the technicality that both only have 1 loss yet someone losing earlier is penalized less when all is said & done.

The argument that fans would get confused is beyond asinine as if they are following the tournament, it is a pretty good chance they understand what a true double elimination would be.

 

[HawaiianEye]

A true double elimination is the only fair way to run this tournament. I will never agree with running a double all the way until the finals as you can run into the technicality that both only have 1 loss yet someone losing earlier is penalized less when all is said & done.

The argument that fans would get confused is beyond asinine as if they are following the tournament, it is a pretty good chance they understand what a true double elimination would be.

If the fans don't know what true double elimination is, they are too stupid to be watching in the first place. Maybe they think they are at a badminton contest or something.

It is especially screwed up in the final when the person in the winner's bracket is the SAME person who put the opponent in the loser bracket.

I honestly don't care who won. I think a lot of people on here are just siding with the format because they are from the USA and Shane won. I am from the USA and I don't care if somebody from Planet X won.

 

[realkingcobra]

Double elimination in pool only exists so that the location can milk more sales money from the players and spectators by extending the time frame it takes to run an event....period. it gives the dead money players more time for their entry fee....but cost them more overall. Longer races like to 21, but with a match time limit of 3 hours....keeps things moving along on time....every time. The best player has a better chance of winning overall, and it allows for players to leave after they lose once....which cuts their expenses quite a bit. Tournament time is about half of the time it takes today to run the USO....which allows for more players to participate.

 

[wayne]

Double elimination in pool only exists so that the location can milk more sales money from the players and spectators by extending the time frame it takes to run an event....period. it gives the dead money players more time for their entry fee....but cost them more overall. Longer races like to 21, but with a match time limit of 3 hours....keeps things moving along on time....every time. The best player has a better chance of winning overall, and it allows for players to leave after they lose once....which cuts their expenses quite a bit. Tournament time is about half of the time it takes today to run the USO....which allows for more players to participate.

That is some really weird logic.

 

[realkingcobra]

That is some really weird logic.

Bars have been doing it for years!

 

[HawaiianEye]

Double elimination in pool only exists so that the location can milk more sales money from the players and spectators by extending the time frame it takes to run an event....period. it gives the dead money players more time for their entry fee....but cost them more overall. Longer races like to 21, but with a match time limit of 3 hours....keeps things moving along on time....every time. The best player has a better chance of winning overall, and it allows for players to leave after they lose once....which cuts their expenses quite a bit. Tournament time is about half of the time it takes today to run the USO....which allows for more players to participate.

I believe in longer races, too. At tournaments of this caliber, they should be 21.

 

[realkingcobra]

I believe in longer races, too. At tournaments of this caliber, they should be 21.

But....I'd prefer a maximum time limit on a match as opposed to a shot clock, the best would be the use of both....and 3 hours is plenty of time to decide a winner by who's ahead at the end of 3 hours...made it to 21 or not.

 

[HawaiianEye]

But....I'd prefer a maximum time limit on a match as opposed to a shot clock, the best would be the use of both....and 3 hours is plenty of time to decide a winner by who's ahead at the end of 3 hours...made it to 21 or not.

I have no problem with shot clocks or time limits, but I could see some players maybe getting a few games ahead and trying to put the "stall" on the opponent.

 

[sbpoolleague]

My favorite format for pro events is first round pool play followed by a single elim final. Mark Griffin used this format 4 or 5 years ago at the Riv for one of the big pro events.

This format guarantees all entrants a certain number of matches, which isn't a factor for top pros but it is for your lower ranked entrants. Using a random draw with some form of seeding will guarantee that one pool does not contain all the top players.

This format works great for World Cup soccer and it will work great for pro pool events too.

 

[Clawdog815]

U


Sent from my iPhone using AzBilliards Forums mobile app

 

[Sofla]

The USO used to be true double elimination, but I think I recall it was a race to 9 in those days. It was long before I followed the tournament. Anyone know when it switched, and why, and the length of the races then?

David Howard won it that way from the losers' side once (at least). I'd be curious to know if anyone else did, and if anyone won the first final but failed in the second, before the switch.

I do see the theoretical argument for returning to it, but have no problem with the way it is, either. Rules are often arbitrary and disadvantage someone, but there are always tradeoffs.

 

[Chops02]

i don't really mind either way as long as it's stated before the tournament starts and everyone knows.

as for the "why do the fans matter" mentality....if pool is ever going to become big again and get back on tv people better start considering the fans' opinions. they are the ones that tune in when it's on tv and give networks a reason to put it on tv.

 

[Skippy27]

But....I'd prefer a maximum time limit on a match as opposed to a shot clock, the best would be the use of both....and 3 hours is plenty of time to decide a winner by who's ahead at the end of 3 hours...made it to 21 or not.

As that time gets closer the person ahead starts playing slower and slower.

You even see this in the higher level APA tournaments that have a potential to go to sudden death.

Finding a perfect balance may not be possible as players will always find a way to take advantage of the rules because they have no integrity.

 

[CreeDo]

I definitely prefer the single race as a spectator. The whole idea of "he lost the big final match that everyone's watching, and now we're gonna redo that match again" is just weird and slow and anticlimactic. It's never felt natural to me.

It's nice for the player to have that extra bullet, but you can never make a tournament 100% fair for the players. Never. It's always been about who's playing well on that particular day. Once that's understood, you can dispense with some of the formalities.

Everyone gets one mulligan on their way to the finals. Once they're in the finals, that safety net goes away, they're on their own and there's no second chance.

 

[jasonlaus]

I just don't undetstand the "fans" that want it over after one set, or want a short race.

Me, as a fan, I want to see 5 set finals(races to 13) or a single race to 50, 75, or a 100.

Same as the races to 100 with Shane - I want to see as much top notch pool as possible. If you don't want to watch all the games, watch the end or the beginning
Jason