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 

 
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:

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.



That's correct. The winner of Game 3 would be 2-0 and advance as the top team out of the bracket. The winner of Game 5 would be 2-1 and advance as the second team.

quote:

neutron man wrote:

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.



This is a possibility, no doubt. At the same time, the current format means teams may refrain from putting subs in even if they're winning big because they have to think of runs allowed for the tiebreaker. This takes that out of play in those first two games so if you're up or down big, you can sub in without having to worry about that since winning is the only thing that determines advancing.

As for the other talk about consolation games or anything else that can be done, all of those are options if we don't have inclement weather. If the consolation games involve the 2-0 teams, that may overcome Eddie's concern about those teams not coming out for Day 2. But if we do have rain, the mini-bracket has a built in cushion of 17 time slots to deal with it which we don't currently have.

And one correction, I threw out the suggestion of condensing the field into 16 brackets so only 32 teams advance, eliminating SE play-in games. If we had 68 teams that would only require two 5-team mini-brackets, not four like I originally stated.
12/Aug/15, 8:20 am Link to this post Send Email to JBell9   Send PM to JBell9
 
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


As with all of Bell's stuff - compelling and thought provoking. I agree with Maurer that this is certainly something to look into and hopefully the powers-that-be take a peek. It would eliminate competitively meaningless games - which I think is a good thing in a tourney of this magnitude.

Jason [who the eff is Josh?!?] - I'd recco putting a white paper together to float it out to your commish to push it up to the sports chairs. What's the worst thing that'll happen?

(It would, however, force me to re-do my code when I simulate the tourney... Perhaps I can advocate the wife for a new laptop as an Xmas present?)

If you wanted to give the 0-2 teams a third game, maybe you toss in a consolation bracket mid-late Day 2 on Field 1? ('Officially', you could use this to give an 'official' finish placing.) I've seen it attempted, but I don't know of the potential efficacy. I do recall cringing a bit at the Toilet Bowl from a few years back.

Last edited by NINJA Terp, 12/Aug/15, 2:46 pm
12/Aug/15, 9:17 am Link to this post Send Email to NINJA Terp   Send PM to NINJA Terp
 
OhYouAteOneToo Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 07-2007
Posts: 180
Karma: 2 (+12/-10)
Reply | Quote
Re: First Three Years of Pool Play - A Look Back


I like the system we have now. It allows everyone to play three games and know when their games will be played, barring weather. While the format being proposed has it's upsides, one downfall is not know when your games will be or how many you might have to play. Many people have families and need to make plans, etc. Waiting around to see who wins a game before you play that team doesn't mesh well with that. Just my 1/2 a cents worth on the matter.
13/Aug/15, 10:58 am Link to this post Send Email to OhYouAteOneToo   Send PM to OhYouAteOneToo
 
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:

OhYouAteOneToo wrote:

I like the system we have now. It allows everyone to play three games and know when their games will be played, barring weather. While the format being proposed has it's upsides, one downfall is not know when your games will be or how many you might have to play. Many people have families and need to make plans, etc. Waiting around to see who wins a game before you play that team doesn't mesh well with that. Just my 1/2 a cents worth on the matter.



There's not a lot of planning to it. As an example, if you play in the earliest set of games on Saturday, you know when the schedule comes out if you're playing at 7:00am (G1) or 8:10am (G2). If you win, you play the other winner at 9:20am (G3) and you're done.

The losers of G1 and G2 play on Sunday at, say, 11:40am (G4), which will be known when the original schedule comes out, and the winner of that game plays the loser of G3 at 12:50pm.

At worst you have to block off 3 1/2 hours on Saturday and 2 1/3 hours on Sunday. It's not much different than the current setup in that regard.
13/Aug/15, 3:42 pm Link to this post Send Email to JBell9   Send PM to JBell9
 
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


quote:

JBell9 wrote:

quote:

OhYouAteOneToo wrote:

I like the system we have now. It allows everyone to play three games and know when their games will be played, barring weather. While the format being proposed has it's upsides, one downfall is not know when your games will be or how many you might have to play. Many people have families and need to make plans, etc. Waiting around to see who wins a game before you play that team doesn't mesh well with that. Just my 1/2 a cents worth on the matter.



There's not a lot of planning to it. As an example, if you play in the earliest set of games on Saturday, you know when the schedule comes out if you're playing at 7:00am (G1) or 8:10am (G2). If you win, you play the other winner at 9:20am (G3) and you're done.

The losers of G1 and G2 play on Sunday at, say, 11:40am (G4), which will be known when the original schedule comes out, and the winner of that game plays the loser of G3 at 12:50pm.

At worst you have to block off 3 1/2 hours on Saturday and 2 1/3 hours on Sunday. It's not much different than the current setup in that regard.



Yea, Eddie and I already had a few email discussion about it. (NOTE: This was on our own, not directed by the powers-that-be). It wouldn't be much different than how we have pod play now. You really just have to know that if you win on Sat, you will play again immediately after or 1 hour later.

Sunday, same thing, if you win, you play another, if you lose you're done. And yes, it would all be laid out in advance like it is now.

---
i can now be as big of a d-bag as i want without need of disclaimer!
17/Aug/15, 1:42 pm Link to this post Send Email to Maurer   Send PM to Maurer
 
LettheBigDawgEat Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 08-2013
Posts: 16
Karma: 0 (+1/-1)
Reply | Quote
Re: First Three Years of Pool Play - A Look Back


I think the current format is quite solid. 4 team pods. Top 2 advance. That's three guaranteed games and all that is necessary for teams to have a fulfilling weekend.

As for tiebreakers, however, I'd personally opt for a runs/runs against ratio rather than a single runs allowed statistic. In that scenario, if you win each game 2-1, you are on equal footing with a team that wins each game 10-5. This ratio rewards both good offense and defense and would help teams sub players more easily knowing that their ratios won't be thrown off as much as the single "runs allowed" category would be.
18/Aug/15, 9:36 am Link to this post Send Email to LettheBigDawgEat   Send PM to LettheBigDawgEat
 
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:

LettheBigDawgEat wrote:

I think the current format is quite solid. 4 team pods. Top 2 advance. That's three guaranteed games and all that is necessary for teams to have a fulfilling weekend.

As for tiebreakers, however, I'd personally opt for a runs/runs against ratio rather than a single runs allowed statistic. In that scenario, if you win each game 2-1, you are on equal footing with a team that wins each game 10-5. This ratio rewards both good offense and defense and would help teams sub players more easily knowing that their ratios won't be thrown off as much as the single "runs allowed" category would be.



The tiebreaker issue isn't the only problem with the current format. Once we have a weekend with bad weather, or once we have a total number of teams that isn't divisible by four, there will be other problems with scheduling. If my look back at the last two years is accurate, we've had 35 pods and all but five have had an 0-3 team. And zero 1-2 teams have advanced to the second weekend, although that's a possibility that I don't think anybody would be excited about. Is it worth maintaining an unnecessary tiebreaker system and eliminating weather and non-4 scheduling flexibility for the sake of all these 0-3 and 1-2 teams who can only affect the second weekend by the number of runs they score?

In my opinion, the only legitimate argument to hang on to the current system seems to be a 3-game minimum for all teams that will allow subs time to play. But that's still not a guarantee and that problem is reduced when you only have to worry about winning and not how many runs you allow, or any other tiebreaking formula.
18/Aug/15, 6:09 pm Link to this post Send Email to JBell9   Send PM to JBell9
 
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'm buying into this system...of course I no longer have any say in the matter whatsoever (which is actually kind of awesome)! emoticon

I understand the argument regarding the guaranteed 3 games that everyone has now, but 4 years ago, 1/4 of the teams were only given 2 games in the double-elimination tournament. To me that is satisfactory since in reality after you've lost 2 games you're pretty much out of it anyway (I can verify that no 1-2 team has ever made it to the knockout round).

Take this year's tournament as an example: 68 seed Boston's 3rd game was against 1 seed Pitt...is that really valuable to either team? I get it that wanting to get more players into the game for both teams has an appeal, but is a 18-6 (run rule?) game necessary to play at that point?

If you wanted to ensure a 3rd game for someone like Boston, set up a late round robin thing with other teams with 2 losses and let it up to them if they want to get in more softball or drink their faces off.

---
i can now be as big of a d-bag as i want without need of disclaimer!
19/Aug/15, 12:28 pm Link to this post Send Email to Maurer   Send PM to Maurer
 


Add a reply

Page:  1  2  3  4 





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