should it be all your opps or just the ones you beat or just the ones you lost to? I just want to make sure that we get the correct player to the playoffs.

Are you asking about SoS?

Oh - I think I understand now. It is a good question.

Do we punish a player for losing to lesser opponents (ie - 3-2 but lost to a 2-3), or reward for beating equal or better opponents (ie 3-2 but beat a 4-1).

Both ways take beating lesser players out of the equation.


At Wisconsin, with the "punish" system (records of your opponents you lost to) Jason would win. (losing to a 4-1 and a 5-0)

with the "reward" system (records of opponents who are at the same record or better) Jonny would win (beating a 4-1, while Bill and Jason only beat a 3-2s)

So which do we weigh heavier?

Therein lies the problem. At Wisconsin, and nowhere else to my understanding.

I am not changing the floor rules based on a single instance and I do not see a trend.

Actually it happens frequently, but most people overlook it. I was just using it as a clear example. I think too often people just look at what the computer program ranks, and forget the fact that it doesn't account for H2H.

Also - it is more likely to happen at GenCon than anywhere. It's not uncommon to have only four 4-1 (or better) records, therefore it doesn't matter as much. (it still does, but not as far as the finals are concerned.)

At GenCon there will be more players, and it will be a top 8 cut-off. More players will be tied, and it's unlikely that they will have all played each other.

I really think we need to get this in place before GenCon.


At GenCon - it will more than likely be 6 rounds. You have to be 4-2 (12 pts) or better to make it. So if we hold players accountable for who they LOST to, then it's very simple. You simply take the records of the 2 opponents each lost to, and rank them accordingly.

If there are 5 tied 4-2 (12pts) here's how it might play out:

A,B,C,D,E all tied at 4-2 with 2 slots remaining (seeds one through 6 are 5-1, or 6-0)

A lost to D (4-2) and the 6-0
B lost to 6-0 and a 5-1
C lost to 6-0 and A (4-2)
D lost to a 5-1 and a 3-3
E lost to A (4-2) and the 6-0

So - first check H2H, but there is no player that has beat all the other 4 so move on to:

SoS only for opponents a player lost to, then

A=10-2
B=11-1
C=10-2
D=8-4
E=10-2

So B advances and gets the 7th seed. D is eliminated and is the 11th seed.

Start over to re-check H2H

A beat C and E (everyone tied at this stage) so A is the eighth seed.

C and E are still tied and 9th and tenth place would be based on full SoS.


I think this accurately advances the best player in this tournament. With the system now (as we ruled it as Wisconsin, and Brad seems to agree) this would not happen.

They way we have it now, it would all come down to SoS, and if B played a chump in round 1 that went 0-6, then played a guy who went 1-3 and dropped - he would not make the finals. And he should be the 7th seed IMO.

You should be held accountable for who you lost to, and rewarded for beating good players. Beating chumps and guys who drop should not factor in either way.

At a minimum, we must carefully define when to use H2H and when not to.

Agreed.

MINIMUM

I like Tim's system, I think who you lost to is a good indicator as any other option.

After careful reconsideration, I have very slightly amended my initial suggestion. Here's my new suggestion:

1. Score

2. Record

(Drop # of full wins, since it is already covered in #1 and #2)

3. Head to Head - ONLY IF A PLAYER HAS BEATEN ALL OTHER(S) AT THIS LEVEL. (IE - if a total of 2 players are tied here and they played, the winner. If 3 players are tied here and 1 beat both the other 2, etc)

4. Record ONLY vs players with your same record or better. (How did you do against the best?)

5. Re-check Head to Head (Same criteria as #3 above)

6. Strength of Schedule ONLY vs players you lost to (Further exploring #4 with a similar principal; holding players accountable to who they lost to is very valid.)

7. Re-check Head to Head (Same criteria as #3 above)

8. Strength of Schedule ONLY vs players with your same record or better. (This eliminates the factor of beating the guy in the first round who ended up 0-5, or beating someone who dropped, hurting you in this step. It's basically saying we don't want to punish you for being paired against and beating players with lesser records. Also - note that YOUR record vs the best (step 4) is above SoS of who you lost to (step 6) and SoS against the best (step 8). I think it's more valid what you did than what they did. But they are different, and can further sift out tie-breakers.)

9. Re-check Head to Head (Same criteria as #3 above)

10. Full strength of schedule (gotta have it somewhere)

11. Re-check Head to Head (Same criteria as #3 above)

12. Roll off (it sucks, but will VERY rarely happen. Better than the current alphabetical or whoever was entered in the computer first). You HAVE to have a final tie-breaker in the very unlikely event that players are still tied after 10 steps)



I know 12 steps seems like it's complicated, but it's actually easy. Several steps are just re-checking H2H. You will RARELY go past #5, but it's good to have more tie-breakers just in case. And this way we have pushed full SoS (always the problem) much further down the list.


Examine it closely, I like this set-up.

Please consider it fully before anyone says, that's too complicated I don't like it.

I like it, and that's pretty much what we talked about this weekend as a good way to address it simply.

Even if it were the only instance, one real world example of the system failing should be enough to change it. Why wait until it's the trend?

I realize that a broken clock is right twice a day - but if it's broken, let's fix it.

In this case it's more like a clock that's 2 minutes off. Let's adjust it slightly to make it correct.

It seems like a big change, but it actually very small. But in some real world situations it will make a difference. Worst case scenario is that it is in place but never comes down to that. And that is fine. We might as well have it in place in case it does happen. It will effect nothing in earlier steps.

I just don't agree with the wording on your H2H rule. A scenario like that will likely never happen.

Why should it be the people you lost to instead of the people you beat?

Also your SOS against the best vs your overall SOS isn't any less random as you are paired randomly and cannot control how your opp does or which of your opps do well. The same could also be said about your wins as well.

Should you be punished because in rd 1 you played the little kid who rolled 3 disintigrations with boba bh and you were his only win on the day? I'm not sure what the answer to that is.

As for gencon I think we may have to say you only use head to head when someone has beaten all the other tied players and if that hasn't happened then go to SOS.

It means that at Wisconsin that Jonny would have been T4 (which is what I feel probably should be the right move) even though he lost to another player at the same pt level.

The way to think about this in the long run is that every 1 loss person will make the cutoff. So as long as you don't lose 2 then you will be fine. If you lose 2 then you are trying to get in on tiebreaks anyway (as there will be many x-2 players for 1 or maybe 2 spots in the top 8) SOS is really about the fairest way IMO (unless someone has beaten all other players at that point level) because who you play every rd is random (on some level) SOS tells you how good your competition was. We rank the BCS teams higher than we do the random non-conference teams because they play a harder schedule right? If it works for them, why can't it work for us?

The Lions beat the Bears, Eagles and Ravens, but lose to the Packers.

At the end of the season, the Lions and Packers are tied (8-8) for the Wildcard slot.

Guess who gets it?

but in this case the lions didn't lose to the packers. They never played. For some strange reason it was because the lions lost to the chiefs that let the PACKERS? get in the playoffs.

1. Score

2. Record

3. Head to Head - Has one player beaten all other players involved in the tie.

4. SOS vs players with your same record or better.

5. SoS vs players you lost to

6. SoS

7. Roll-off/Coin-Toss

That has nothing to do with the above quoted example...

I support this, as per our discussion on Skype tonight, this is the planned order of events based on Tim's ideas, and our discussion of needs.

+1

Actually this looks good. I assume you still recheck H2H after 4, 5, and 6. Pretty similar to my suggestion then, and I am completely fine with the minor changes.