|
On June 10 2011 06:30 Rasun wrote:
Yeah the problem is, you can't seed based on who might be the open winner.
You make a very good point. My counter argument is that even though we do not know, we can be almost be certain that he will be a very strong opponent because it is open to everyone. I think most people will agree that the open bracket winner will likely be the top 3, if not the #1 player in the Finals.
As support to the argument, I will point out that even if he turns out to be a weak opponent, the wildcard factor is really screwed up. The first seed has to literally gamble on who his seed is or what his opponent's race will be.
So no matter how you look at it, being in first seed just sucks...which is very counter intuitive and unfair.
|
On June 10 2011 06:30 Rasun wrote:
Yeah the problem is, you can't seed based on who might be the open winner. You have to seed based on what is going to be for certain. Because the open winner is not yet determined, nor will the open winner have any match history or standing in the NASL, then they are the de facto lowest seed based on the information NASL has that came from the results of the season. Yeah the open winner could be Bomber, but since they don't know who will in fact be the open winner, and based on the fact that Bomber has no current standing with NASL, it is the most unbiased and fair way to seed based on the information that can be taken strictly from the tournament results so far.
Seeding exists fundamentally to provide a strong tournament setup, not specifically to rank players. You obviously can't rank an unknown player. Furthermore the ranks of the players are determined by the results of the tournament not the seeding. 11th seed or 16th seed in this case is a placement value, not a ranking. The argument is that seeding him 16th hurts the tournament setup by inflicting randomness to the top seeds path. 11th seed promotes better tournament flow.
|
On June 10 2011 06:22 PantsB wrote:
I think the best option is let the winner pick his opponent. It even adds a bit of drama/storyline.
I think this is by far the best solution. It'd give a lot of value to higher seeds and be interesting for the fans, especially if done at the offline tournament
|
Just watch July vs MoMan. I am sure he purposely loss that game because of the seeding. I'd hate to say it, but just watch the game.
|
On June 10 2011 02:42 dmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 02:34 Jayrod wrote:
Okay we'll see if people agree with this sentiment if Nestea or a similarly skilled player wins the online qualifier.
I really liked the idea of letting the #1 seed choose his his opponent, then letting #2 choose his until all of the matches are set. I think it leads to a really cool dynamic and should be considered. If you're going to have a convoluted set up in the first place you might as well be all the way convoluted.
I mean really... why not have 4 divisions of 12 players or something, cut the league off at 48 for next season and take the top 4 from each league for the playoffs... simple, clean, resembles REAL sports. I dont see why their are 3 different criteria for making the playoffs in this league... its like they bent over backwards to avoid the conversation that "X Division is harder than Y division", but that conversation takes place in literally every sport.
NASL "bracketology", for lack of a better term, has been so confusing that it completely removed the whole sensation found in REAL sports of just following your team throughout the season (not just during the last week or two when all the "if, then" statements came out about the results of the league games) and watching them jockey for the playoff spots. And if someone like me wins, that is completely awful? I actually really like that idea as well. I can see a few small issues with it like the top players only having to play their best matchup or something but the idea in general is pretty cool.
Well as it stands your reward for having the best record in NASL is getting to roll the dice on the quality of your opponent, whereas the #2 guy gets the 15th best player out of 16 that season
|
|
|
My feeling is that it is a poor set-up, but it's far too late to change now. To do so would be completely unfair and unprofessional.
Given the fact that players are throwing their games so as not to end up #1 seed, I can't help but feel NASL will change things for further seasons.
|
On June 12 2011 11:01 AndAgain wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Select threw his games against MC. The evidence is piling up.
yup,
i can't believe people are arguing the other way, this is what was obviously going to happen
|
Whos going to play in the open bracket? With such a huge prize pool for the final tournament, would it be wise to assume the likes of Mvp, Nestea, MarineKing?
|
On June 12 2011 11:25 W2 wrote:
Whos going to play in the open bracket? With such a huge prize pool for the final tournament, would it be wise to assume the likes of Mvp, Nestea, MarineKing?
Yeah... it seems like it should be someone really good, but I don't think anyone at all near that caliber has signed up (unless they're using an alias).
|
|
|
United States785 Posts
This type of seeding works fine when the top 50 ranked players are actually the 50 best players in the world. I would guess half of the actual top 50 didn't play in the NASL so when one of them wins the open tournament, it's going to be a disaster when they play the top seed. Imagine if Federer didn't show up to one tournament and because of that he was "unranked" for the next tournament so when he won the tournament with all the other unranked people he faced Nadal in the first round... that's ridiculous.
I'm pretty sure whoever wins the open bracket is going to be favored over the #1 ranked NASL player
Personally I think the top notch Koreans would be insane to ignore the open tournament... first prize is $50k which is an insane amount. If I'm Nestea I'm thinking "hey, I'm the best player in the world... wtf am I doing not trying to win this".
|
That's MVP? O_o
How do you know??
If so, I hope he signs up for NASL open.
|
That's MVP? O_o
How do you know??
If so, I hope he signs up for NASL open.
There's a thread about it. He uses the exact same hotkeys as MVP and someone asked him in a ladder match if he was MKP, he said no, they asked who he was then, and he said MVP.
|
On June 12 2011 11:22 EtohEtoh wrote:yup, i can't believe people are arguing the other way, this is what was obviously going to happen
Eh, as much as I would like to say they are throwing games because it helps our argument I don't think that is what is happening. I think what is more likely happening is that Select didn't put full effort into practicing for the match because it didn't mean a lot to him.
Also, I don't think it is too late to change the rule. I don't think until after the playoffs or open tournament (whichever comes first) starts is it too late.
I would love to see it as a simple change too (just open winner as 11th seed). I don't like the seeds choosing opponents idea, too complicated (people will claim it isn't but it is).
|
|
|
The "top seed" is pretty arbitrary anyway as it's based on the player's performance in one of 5 groups. It could easily happen that the top overall seed is a "worse player" than all the other seeds who did not share a group with him if the group is in any way easier.
I think if the seed were based on performance against everyone in the tournament in some way (e.g. through an elimination bracket) then it would be fair to claim that playing the open winner is almost certainly a disadvantage. This isn't the case though and you have to seed it somehow - I don't think some midway solution like having #6 seed play the open winner is any better at all because if you can justify the OP for #1 seed you can justify it for all but 15th seed. Having 1 vs 14, 2 vs 13, etc. and 15 vs open winner would be quite odd and might reward the last seed.
I don't know the prizemoney distribution but I do hope it goes deep enough to reward the top group performers enough even if they are taken out in round 1 of the playoffs.
|
The problem is being overlooked by many people. Bracket structure is inherently flawed for establishing a true ranked order of skill. Until someone opens up to the idea of drawing out a completely new system, we'll always be stuck with these tournament results that we have.
|
I think the best way would be allowing the 1-8th seeds to choose their opponent from the 9-16th seeds in order from 1st to 8th, so the 1st seed can choose anyone from 9-16, and the 8th seed gets left with whomever 1-7 did not choose.
As seen with some recent matches, players either don't want the #1 seed, or don't care about being the #1 seed, both of which lead to some "I'm not trying" matches. I think allowing the top seeded players to choose their opponent from the bottom seeded players would provide incentive to try all the way to the end of the tournament.
|
No-one needs a "true ranked order of skill", we just need some brackets for a tournament. Doing highest seed <-> lowest seed is perfectly fine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
