Runboard.com
You're welcome.

~TALK SMACK IN EXILE~
Revolutionizing the way we... uhm, talk smack.


runboard.com       Sign up (learn about it) | Sign in (lost password?)

Page:  1  2  3  4 

 
AUEaglesBH Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 08-2012
Posts: 63
Karma: -1 (+1/-2)
Reply | Quote
Re: First Three Years of Pool Play - A Look Back


quote:

neutron man wrote:

 Winning 2 of 3 group games should be enough to advance to the next round, and it sucks that in this case, a tiebreaker (that is not head-to-head result) would decide who moves on.



It definitely sucks to not advance with 2 wins, but as someone on a team it happened to this weekend, I think the way it's set up is fine. We knew what the tie-breaker was and that we couldn't afford to give up too many runs in our last game, but we did. If we'd kept Arizona to 2 fewer runs (or not allowed 3 unearned runs to GW in the final inning of our win) we'd have won the pod. Instead we're golfing next weekend. It sucks, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.

We played well enough to win two games, but not well enough to win the pod. C'est la vie.

Last edited by AUEaglesBH, 10/Aug/15, 4:41 pm
10/Aug/15, 4:40 pm Link to this post Send Email to AUEaglesBH   Send PM to AUEaglesBH
 
neutron man Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 07-2007
Location: Fairfax, VA
Posts: 131
Karma: -6 (+9/-15)
Reply | Quote
Re: First Three Years of Pool Play - A Look Back


quote:

AUEaglesBH wrote:

It definitely sucks to not advance with 2 wins, but as someone on a team it happened to this weekend, I think the way it's set up is fine. We knew what the tie-breaker was and that we couldn't afford to give up too many runs in our last game, but we did. If we'd kept Arizona to 2 fewer runs (or not allowed 3 unearned runs to GW in the final inning of our win) we'd have won the pod. Instead we're golfing next weekend. It sucks, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.

We played well enough to win two games, but not well enough to win the pod. C'est la vie.



I think I ultimately agree with you. It's the one aspect of the pod system that I would like to improve, but it may not be possible to improve without giving up some of the advantages gained by the pod system that are more valuable.

Case in point, while I really like a mini bracket like JBell9 is advocating, I know that a primary impetus for the change to the pod system in the first place was that the order of games does not matter in the first weekend, which is an enormous advantage when the number of games to play is so close to the total number of time slots available. We may have been lucky to have a couple of consecutive perfect-weather first weekends, but that's certainly not a good enough reason to forget the many years when that wasn't the case. I certainly appreciate the hard work of the commissioners and the tournament committee, and making their life slightly simpler as it regards possible weather-related rescheduling is suitable justification for sub-optimal tie-breaking as far as I'm concerned.
10/Aug/15, 6:01 pm Link to this post Send Email to neutron man   Send PM to neutron man
 
NINJA Terp Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator

Registered: 07-2007
Posts: 1183
Karma: 55 (+85/-30)
Reply | Quote
Re: First Three Years of Pool Play - A Look Back


quote:

JBell9 wrote:
MINI-BRACKET!!! Been pushing this since the pods started. A four-team round robin has six games. A four-team mini-bracket has five. Three of the four teams are guaranteed three games (when you take the SE weekend into consideration).



I recall you advocating for this a while back and being compelled (for lack of a better term) by it. Certainly, it takes tie-breakers out of the game.

Refresh my memory, but you would have 1-4 as Game 1, 2-3 as Game 2 and W1-W2 as Game 3 with W3 being the 'mini-bracket winner'; then, L1-L2 for Game 4, W4-L3 with this winner as the 'mini-bracket runner-up'? Hopefully, I'm remembering this correctly.

Scheduling would be interesting - if you wanted each 'last game of the mini-bracket each day' to produce a team that advances, I'd assume that you'd suggest G1/2/3 on day 1, and G4/5 on Day 2? If I'm an older player on the team that 'wins' the mini-bracket, I'm likely not coming back for Day 2 given that there would be nothing to do but drink.

Going G1/2 and then G3/4/5 could work with 17 mini-brackets - there're enough game slots on Sunday to accommodate while giving all teams at least one game each day. Further, it guarantees that there are no games that don't mean anything (aside from those 2-0 vs 0-2 games in the current group format).

Is this kind of what you were thinking?
11/Aug/15, 7:25 am Link to this post Send Email to NINJA Terp   Send PM to NINJA Terp
 
JBell9 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 08-2013
Posts: 10
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: First Three Years of Pool Play - A Look Back


quote:

NINJA Terp wrote:

quote:

JBell9 wrote:
MINI-BRACKET!!! Been pushing this since the pods started. A four-team round robin has six games. A four-team mini-bracket has five. Three of the four teams are guaranteed three games (when you take the SE weekend into consideration).



I recall you advocating for this a while back and being compelled (for lack of a better term) by it. Certainly, it takes tie-breakers out of the game.

Refresh my memory, but you would have 1-4 as Game 1, 2-3 as Game 2 and W1-W2 as Game 3 with W3 being the 'mini-bracket winner'; then, L1-L2 for Game 4, W4-L3 with this winner as the 'mini-bracket runner-up'? Hopefully, I'm remembering this correctly.

Scheduling would be interesting - if you wanted each 'last game of the mini-bracket each day' to produce a team that advances, I'd assume that you'd suggest G1/2/3 on day 1, and G4/5 on Day 2? If I'm an older player on the team that 'wins' the mini-bracket, I'm likely not coming back for Day 2 given that there would be nothing to do but drink.

Going G1/2 and then G3/4/5 could work with 17 mini-brackets - there're enough game slots on Sunday to accommodate while giving all teams at least one game each day. Further, it guarantees that there are no games that don't mean anything (aside from those 2-0 vs 0-2 games in the current group format).

Is this kind of what you were thinking?



I should have started my original post by acknowledging the work that all of the sports chairs do and letting you know that I do appreciate it. This is what I think is a better alternative, not a complaint about how you folks are doing your jobs.

I would go with G1/2/3 on Day 1 for a couple of reasons, the biggest is that if you only schedule 34 games on Day 1 and have weather issues on Day 2, you obviously can't go back and reclaim those Saturday time slots. If you plan for three games per bracket on Saturday (there are two brackets that would only play two games), then you have 17 time slots worth of cushion that we don't currently have on Sunday to reschedule for either day.

A second benefit of having the extra slots on Day 2 is that, weather permitting, you could conceivably play the SE play-in games, and a couple more if necessary, to relieve some of the scheduling pressure from the following weekend. If you're one of the teams waiting around for four hours between games on the second weekend, that's rough.

Or, and I don't feel strongly one way or the other about this, you might be able to take 68+ teams and do 16 brackets (with 4+ of five teams) so you end up with 32 teams advancing instead of 36. That also eliminates the play-in games and helps out 2nd weekend scheduling.

Scheduling, and rescheduling, wouldn't be that difficult as long as teams from the same bracket aren't scheduled to play at the same time. If G2 gets rained out, those teams play in the G3 slot, G4 gets pushed back to G5, G5 gets rescheduled in one of the empty slots. It doesn't affect any other bracket's game times. And if mini-bracket games are scheduled consecutively, the teams are already there for any bump back.

Keep in mind we had weather issues the first year of pod play and the only reason it wasn't a huge scheduling nightmare was because we weren't re-seeding. So we had several teams who opted out of their third game with no effect. With re-seeding, that presents a problem.

You're right, there may be some people who choose not to come back for Day 2 if they've already advanced. Others who stay at the hotel will likely roll out to the fields anyway to watch some meaningful softball and enjoy Beer Truck Christmas in August. We've been fortunate the last three years with weather and 4-team divisibility. That won't always happen and, personally, I think this is a pretty solid proactive solution that eliminates tiebreakers and makes every game meaningful.
11/Aug/15, 10:26 am Link to this post Send Email to JBell9   Send PM to JBell9
 
MadDog2727 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 07-2007
Location: Zane Showker
Posts: 545
Karma: 7 (+22/-15)
Reply | Quote
Re: First Three Years of Pool Play - A Look Back


quote:

JBell9 wrote:
I think this is a pretty solid proactive solution that eliminates tiebreakers and makes every game meaningful.



I agree, I like the mini-bracket idea. It also eliminates the possibility of tiebreaker collusion between teams (which may never have happened to this point, but the possibility exists.) Let wins and losses determine who advances from each group, not confusing and arbitrary tiebreakers.

...and I'd definitely come back to watch day 2 even if we won the bracket in day 1.
11/Aug/15, 12:35 pm Link to this post Send Email to MadDog2727   Send PM to MadDog2727
 
Maurer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 07-2007
Posts: 530
Karma: 2 (+44/-42)
Reply | Quote
Re: First Three Years of Pool Play - A Look Back


I like the mini-bracket idea. I know it was brought up in the past and I liked it then, but didn't really think enough about it until now. I think there are a bunch of ways to do it, but I like how it Bell lays it out.

Not sure how much the powers-that-be would go for it, but I think it is definitely something that is worthy of discussion.

---
i can now be as big of a d-bag as i want without need of disclaimer!
11/Aug/15, 1:15 pm Link to this post Send Email to Maurer   Send PM to Maurer
 
Hollywood8JMU Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 07-2007
Posts: 608
Karma: 9 (+22/-13)
Reply | Quote
Re: First Three Years of Pool Play - A Look Back


So would this mini bracket still produce 2 people from the pod for the next weekend? Is it basically more pod games (if they are necessary)?
11/Aug/15, 1:50 pm Link to this post Send Email to Hollywood8JMU   Send PM to Hollywood8JMU
 
NINJA Terp Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator

Registered: 07-2007
Posts: 1183
Karma: 55 (+85/-30)
Reply | Quote
Re: First Three Years of Pool Play - A Look Back


quote:

Hollywood8JMU wrote:

So would this mini bracket still produce 2 people from the pod for the next weekend? Is it basically more pod games (if they are necessary)?



Believe that if you win two straight up, you're the 'mini-bracket' winner. Making it through the so-called loser's bracket would make you the 'mini-bracket' runner-up. I don't believe that there would be more, as that would give the potential for 7 games, vice 5.
11/Aug/15, 2:08 pm Link to this post Send Email to NINJA Terp   Send PM to NINJA Terp
 
AUEaglesBH Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 08-2012
Posts: 63
Karma: -1 (+1/-2)
Reply | Quote
Re: First Three Years of Pool Play - A Look Back


quote:

longshanks78 wrote:

You could also add a consolation game between the first 2 teams out in each mini bracket to guarantee each team 3 games.




Or have the consolation games played between teams from different mini-brackets. Since the biggest disadvantage of this idea (which I love) would seem to be for the team who loses their first two games, pairing them off in a consolation game against someone at a similar level from a different mini-bracket would give both teams a chance to get a tourney win against someone presumably closer to their own level of competition, even if it's just for fun. It also guarantees everyone (except the mini-bracket winner) 3 games on the first weekend.

11/Aug/15, 2:35 pm Link to this post Send Email to AUEaglesBH   Send PM to AUEaglesBH
 
neutron man Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 07-2007
Location: Fairfax, VA
Posts: 131
Karma: -6 (+9/-15)
Reply | Quote
Re: First Three Years of Pool Play - A Look Back


quote:

AUEaglesBH wrote:

quote:

longshanks78 wrote:

You could also add a consolation game between the first 2 teams out in each mini bracket to guarantee each team 3 games.




Or have the consolation games played between teams from different mini-brackets. Since the biggest disadvantage of this idea (which I love) would seem to be for the team who loses their first two games, pairing them off in a consolation game against someone at a similar level from a different mini-bracket would give both teams a chance to get a tourney win against someone presumably closer to their own level of competition, even if it's just for fun. It also guarantees everyone (except the mini-bracket winner) 3 games on the first weekend.



That is a solid idea right there. It eliminates possible rematches between the pod 4th place the team that defeated them in the opener and provides a better matchup. A possible drawback is that with the pod winner only playing 2 games, it is less opportunity to get players in who would be less likely to play the 2nd weekend. I suppose that you could have exhibitions between pod winners, but maybe that's getting a bit carried away...
11/Aug/15, 3:41 pm Link to this post Send Email to neutron man   Send PM to neutron man
 


Add a reply

Page:  1  2  3  4 





You are not logged in (login)
_uacct = "UA-1981555-2"; urchinTracker();