US Open draw and rules

mikepage said:
Yes, and I think we should view many more tournaments as "two-stage" events like this.

For example you might have
256 -->32
128-->8
64-->16
64-->4

AND --the point I really want to make--

128-->2
64-->2
32-->2
16-->2
8-->2

In each case the first stage is double elimination and the second stage is single elimination that can have the same or a different match format. For instance, the second stage can be longer races or have a "win by 2" component, etc.

Notice that by framing it like this, we have just gotten rid of the godawful feature of a sometimes-second-set in the finals for a double elimination tournament. And we've done it in a logically consistent way. The purpose of the first stage is to qualify for/advance to the second stage.

We no longer have to say a tournament is "modified" double elimination or double elimination with a sheepish asterick. We can acknowledge that that really has all along been a stupid format...

Note that if you set up a tournament in Cuescore, which is being used for tournament series in many different countries, tournament formats are coded like above--There is not even an option for what is sometimes called "true" double elimination.
Click to expand...

https://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=492580
 
FeelDaShot said:
I see your point here that the first rounds are simply a qualifier for the final 16. That's okay to do it that way but you have to stop and reseed all of the players before continuing with the final 16 bracket. Otherwise, it won't work out correctly.

When they seed the tournament, the #1 and #2 ranked players are put on opposite sides of the bracket to allow them both to eventually meet in the finals and finish #1 and #2. However, in this format, when the #1 & #2 players meet, they will be in the semi finals (aka winners side final). The other semifinal would be the finals of the loser's side. This forces the #2 seeded player into 3rd place only by losing to the #1 player, who he's supposed to lose to.

For example, at the expo this year, James Aranas and Raymart Faraon were the last two standing on the winners side. This would put them as #1 and #2 in the tournament. James Aranas won which knocked out Faraon and give him 3rd place. Now Oscar Domingez won the losers bracket to play James Aranas in the finals for 1st/2nd.

So if James Aranas is the #1 best player and Raymart Faraon is the #2 best player, Oscar Dominguez was able to skip ahead of Faraon to finish #2 without ever having to prove that he's better. In fact, he actually lost to Faraon earlier in the tournament. See what I mean? It's not fair. They need to at least reseed the final 16 and start over the best two players meet in the finals, not semi finals.
Click to expand...

This is not how the US Open is doing single elimination. The 8 winners on the loser's bracket will be redrawn to play the eight winners on the A side. Shown here: https://cuescore.com/tournament/bracket/?id=5185877

This is the correct way to go double -> single elimination. The SBE bracket does it wrong imo.
 
sjm said:
I'll agree that this is possible, but, in forty three years of attending pro tournaments, I don't remember anyone choosing to lose for this reason, and I have countless friends among the pro players.

As you correctly note, the limitation of this method is that a one loss player may be eliminated while another one-loss player wins, but the event is best viewed as a qualifier up to the last sixteen.

At the Olympics, the guy who qualifies third in his semifinal heat for the 100-meter run might edge out the guy who won that same heat later on for the gold. Even though each of them beat the other, all that matters is who won in the final stage. A case can be made that the guy who won his heat and came second in the next stage outperformed the guy who came third in his heat and then won gold, but it doesn't matter. Qualifying is qualifying, and once you have qualified, you on exactly even footing with everyone else who qualified, regardless of how you got there.

The same principle is in play here.
Click to expand...

in a field like this it's too big of a gamble to purposely aim for the losers side, it simply won't happen. in smaller tournaments with lesser players i would guess it's not an uncommon tactic. i know i have done it
 
pucksnpool said:
This is not how the US Open is doing single elimination. The 8 winners on the loser's bracket will be redrawn to play the eight winners on the A side. Shown here: https://cuescore.com/tournament/bracket/?id=5185877

This is the correct way to go double -> single elimination. The SBE bracket does it wrong imo.
Click to expand...

Ahhh ok, thanks for pointing that out. I'm so glad they're not doing it the same way as the SBE.
 
Last edited:
iusedtoberich said:
https://www.facebook.com/pg/usopen9ball/videos/?ref=page_internal

IDK if this was already posted, but just found this live video of the draw from one week ago. As mentioned, the 128 players were seeded. The 128 unseeded players were literally drawn out of a bag by Matchroom Emily, and stuck on the main draw board in order.
Click to expand...

We used to seed either 16 or 32 players in past U.S. Opens (128 or 256 player fields). The rest of the players were then randomly drawn into the remaining spots on the board. There was never a problem (other than someone complaining about who got the seeds) by doing the draw this way. We also used the current ranking lists to determine the seeds (both U.S. and International).
 
gxman said:
everyone needs to calm down and enjoy the show...
Click to expand...

poolbum said:
aaaaaaauuuuugggggghhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

CCE1055C-640C-4476-8E25-09BDD399941F.jpeg

——————
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top