On June 04 2011 09:37 Fubi wrote: How does the extended series rule even remotely make any sense?
It's to ensure that a player actually wins more than the other player before he gets past them. Observe.
Idra-MC 2-0. [Bo3] Idra has won twice.
If they meet again later and have another Bo3: Idra-MC 2-0. [Bo3] Idra-MC 4-0 total Idra has won four times.
Nothing wrong there. But what if MC wins the second time?
Idra-MC 0-2. [Bo3] Idra-MC 2-2 total Idra has won twice and MC has won twice. Wait, they're even. Why is MC advancing?
See the logic?
Ok, now do it with the extended series rule. Idra-MC 2-0. [Bo3] Idra has won twice.
Idra-MC 2-0. [Bo7 Idra 2-0+] Idra-MC 4-0 total Idra has won four times. Ok.
And again, what happens if MC starts winning in the best of 7?
Idra-MC 2-0. [Bo7 Idra 2-0+] Idra-MC 2-4 total Idra has won two times. MC has won 4 times. MC won more, so he deserves to advance.
But the logic would only make sense if the whole tournament encompasses these two players. In reality you must consider the tournament as a whole.
If player A beats player B, player A is rewarded by advancing, player B is punished by being put into the loser's bracket. Player B won 0 set, lost 1, Player A won 1 set, lost 0 at this point. They are already rewarded and punished accordingly to their result at this point.
Now, if player A loses to player C in the winner's bracket, player A is punished by being put into the loser's. If player B advances in the losers to meet player A, they are now both on even grounds. Player A has 1 win 1 loss, player B has 1 win 1 loss. Why should player A get an advantage over player B at this point?
Very well put. Although the system is flawed, hopefully everything else runs smoothly.