EPTCBW Season 2 (Spring '11) - Page 19
| Forum Index > BW General |
|
Archaeo
United States397 Posts
| ||
|
hacklebeast
United States5090 Posts
On May 29 2011 12:55 Kororo wrote: So it was pointless playing GT? Also, isn't TZHS the highest in their division? Kinda. Akskdsl was wrong about it being the top 2 teams, so If it is worth something, it is significantly less than what he thought. And TZHS is top of their division now, but their 1 loss was vs rutgers, and rutgers has one more game to play, against winless MIT. If they win (which is likely) then they will both be 3-1 with RU holding the tie breaker. | ||
ArvickHero
10387 Posts
On May 28 2011 02:45 hacklebeast wrote: I vote for: (((DBHS vs GT) vs UCSD) vs CMU) vs (RU vs ((TZHS vs MIT) vs (UO vs CEM))) Works off of the assumption that MIT loses their last 2 games, so adjust if they win one. I like this system the best. Gives almost all teams the chance to play.. I suggest a Bo7 format (players repeat if necessary) with 5 consistent maps throughout the playoffs (so that it isn't a pain to prepare for many new maps, and gives top teams the opportunity to analyze, and to be played in a weekly fashion). | ||
|
Crunchums
United States11143 Posts
(((DBHS vs GT) vs UCSD) vs CMU) vs (RU vs (TZ vs (CEM vs Ottawa))) This is the product of removing MIT and awarding any unplayed MIT games to their opponents (since CEM and Ottawa would be the last two in their division the only effect this has is putting rutgers ahead of TZ) I think this makes the most sense since MIT is the reason we have to compensate for stuff in the first place >__> | ||
|
hacklebeast
United States5090 Posts
But I don't know the back story of MIT, so if they have been that unresponsive, then I understand why you would want to leave them out. The other question is Bo5, or Bo7? I think that straight up PL format with Bo3 Bo7 is a bit excessive, but everyone (except CEM) has at least 5, which is enough for 5 1v1, 2v2, ace match. | ||
|
Murderotica
Vatican City State2594 Posts
| ||
|
Crunchums
United States11143 Posts
| ||
|
Sharkified
Canada254 Posts
On May 29 2011 12:44 Zepish wrote: Also, I think hacklebeast's playoffs system is a good idea! No it's not... it makes us not in itT_T | ||
|
Zepish
Canada160 Posts
On May 28 2011 02:45 hacklebeast wrote: I vote for: (((DBHS vs GT) vs UCSD) vs CMU) vs (RU vs ((TZHS vs MIT) vs (UO vs CEM))) Works off of the assumption that MIT loses their last 2 games, so adjust if they win one. I was talking about this one. | ||
|
Murderotica
Vatican City State2594 Posts
| ||
|
l10f
United States3241 Posts
On May 29 2011 17:36 Crunchums wrote: How about (((DBHS vs GT) vs UCSD) vs CMU) vs (RU vs (TZ vs (CEM vs Ottawa))) This is the product of removing MIT and awarding any unplayed MIT games to their opponents (since CEM and Ottawa would be the last two in their division the only effect this has is putting rutgers ahead of TZ) I think this makes the most sense since MIT is the reason we have to compensate for stuff in the first place >__> That takes too long. We can't play after 3rd week of June, so I vote for top two from each area E1 vs W2, E2 vs W1 and a finals. On May 31 2011 03:32 Murderotica wrote: In that system UCSD gets an easier path despite having a worse record than TZH, and it basically means that the entire season was just for position for for any sort of elimination which I think is rubbish. As in, the people who were more successful during the season don't get that great of a benefit, becauseEVERYONE gets to play in playoffs? Why not just have playoffs in the first place then based off of last season lol.. In regular PL finals there are only 4 teams in play-offs, I think it should be the same way here but tournament style due to there being 2 divisions. So, E1 vs W2, W1 vs E2, winner vs winner = finals. basically this. | ||
|
]343[
United States10328 Posts
| ||
|
ArvickHero
10387 Posts
On May 31 2011 03:32 Murderotica wrote: In that system UCSD gets an easier path despite having a worse record than TZH, and it basically means that the entire season was just for position not for any sort of elimination which I think is rubbish. As in, the people who were more successful during the season don't get that great of a benefit, becauseEVERYONE gets to play in playoffs? Why not just have playoffs in the first place then based off of last season lol.. In regular PL finals there are only 4 teams in play-offs, I think it should be the same way here but tournament style due to there being 2 divisions. So, E1 vs W2, W1 vs E2, winner vs winner = finals. The system Crunchums last suggested (not Zepish) both UCSD and TZH have the same path, and UCSD does not necessarily have a worse record than TZH anyways (UCCS dropped out remember? Might as well have been 3-1 for UCSD). Plus, if you have been following Proleague for the last 2 years or so, you'd know that its top 6 teams out of 10 advance, not 4. | ||
|
l10f
United States3241 Posts
On May 31 2011 06:10 ArvickHero wrote: The system Crunchums last suggested (not Zepish) both UCSD and TZH have the same path, and UCSD does not necessarily have a worse record than TZH anyways (UCCS dropped out remember? Might as well have been 3-1 for UCSD). Plus, if you have been following Proleague for the last 2 years or so, you'd know that its top 6 teams out of 10 advance, not 4. That point aside, I think it's silly to have a playoff where every team participates, like Murderotica said. E1 vs W2, W1 vs E2 please. | ||
|
Crunchums
United States11143 Posts
On May 31 2011 06:22 l10f wrote: That point aside, I think it's silly to have a playoff where every team participates, like Murderotica said. E1 vs W2, W1 vs E2 please. that works too... but MIT and Rutgers still need to finish their match >__> | ||
|
Murderotica
Vatican City State2594 Posts
On May 31 2011 06:10 ArvickHero wrote: The system Crunchums last suggested (not Zepish) both UCSD and TZH have the same path, and UCSD does not necessarily have a worse record than TZH anyways (UCCS dropped out remember? Might as well have been 3-1 for UCSD). Plus, if you have been following Proleague for the last 2 years or so, you'd know that its top 6 teams out of 10 advance, not 4. Your first point is irrelevant because I was responding the suggestion above mine. You're right about PL though, I can't believe I miscounted like that lol that is shameful. I can see it being 6 teams, I just find the 4-team system 1. easier, 2. faster, 3. more fair due to the difference in league size, 4. more appropriate to a season-based league with so few teams. EDIT: The third place teams in both leagues don't even have winning records o__O; | ||
|
Murderotica
Vatican City State2594 Posts
On May 31 2011 06:28 Crunchums wrote: that works too... but MIT and Rutgers still need to finish their match >__> He said it will be happening sometime this week. | ||
|
hacklebeast
United States5090 Posts
| ||
|
Murderotica
Vatican City State2594 Posts
On May 31 2011 06:30 hacklebeast wrote: I understand why you want a 4 team playoffs, but why do you want a crossing of east and west? Because it makes more sense to give E2 and W2 an opportunity to play against someone other than E1 and W1 respectfully for the semi-finals, because more likely than not they are the teams that they lost to and losing twice to the same team to get knocked out of a league is lame. There is the chance that say E2 is better than W1, and then E2 will earn a finals position from beating the best team in W - meaning a better finals, because the stronger team advances. Imagine if you don't cross E and W, and E2 is > W1, but they get knocked out by E1 and then E1 vs W1 is a blow-out rape. That's not fun. The possibility of that happening in either direction (either W2 > E1 or E2 > W1) is too good to miss. Also, playing against diff. teams is more fun anyway n_n; | ||
|
ammeL
United States211 Posts
| ||
| ||
