The NASL finals has sparked a lot of arguments about the format. I wanted to know what you guys think the better format is. Personally, I think that double elimination is better, because in the end you know you get the best players. Even if you drop one bo3, you still have a chance to make it into the finals. There's many reasons that a player can drop the set and then they're out. I know some people will disagree and say that single elimination is fine since everyone has equal chances, or they are not as good as the player they faced or whatever reason. So let's hear some opinions.

Poll: Single or double elimination in tournaments?

Double Elimination (268)

84%

Single Elimination (50)

16%

318 total votes

Your vote: Single or double elimination in tournaments?

(Vote): Single Elimination
(Vote): Double Elimination

denzelz

United States604 Posts

July 09 2011 07:11 GMT

Honestly, who prefers single over double? As a spectator, you get more drama and games with a double and as a player, double elimination ensures that you are not out of the tournament because of one bad game.

Legend`

Canada381 Posts

July 09 2011 07:13 GMT

Short tournaments (eg: Vile Gaming weekly) OR tournaments with a small prize pool (eg: Hypercrew weekly) - single elimination to get it over with quickly.

Longer tournaments (NASL) or tournaments with a larger prize pool (GSL) should be double elimination.

Lobo2me

Norway1213 Posts

July 09 2011 07:14 GMT

Double elim does have a much bigger chance of having the best player at the event actually win it, so if there's time it should be done.

Dr. ROCKZO

New Zealand396 Posts

July 09 2011 07:15 GMT

I really don't see the benefit of Single Elimination, when compared to Double (which provides more games, and a better chance of the 'best' players making it through)

Sure it adds more pressure and creates a lot more tension when every game is a "it all comes down to this" but really, I think 3 games is severe overkill.

MrMotionPicture

United States4327 Posts

July 09 2011 07:16 GMT

I like what Legend said.
Longer tournaments should have double, because there is more money on the line.

FabledIntegral

United States9232 Posts

July 09 2011 07:17 GMT

I prefer single elimination for the sole reason I think it makes the finals better. I think it's stupid having the finals where one player has a massive advantage on the other (even if that is because he hasn't lost yet). Besides the finals themselves, double elim is more fun to watch, but the finals are *the* most dramatic part.

nodule

Canada931 Posts

July 09 2011 07:19 GMT

I really dislike the dilemma you get in double elimination where the winner bracket gets some advantage over the loser bracket winner, which is "fairer" but results in less epic finals

lunchforthesky

United Kingdom967 Posts

July 09 2011 07:20 GMT

Extended series is the worst rule ever. I prefer double elimination but it comes with the price of extended series which can lead to terrible finals and really anti climatic series.

I think using single elimination but not having any best of 3's (always 5 or more) would avoid the rng factor of single elim with bo3 but not lead to extended series or the Homestory scenario where Naniwa actually beat Huk, only to then lose.

IceSlipper

Australia1028 Posts

July 09 2011 07:20 GMT

#10

Obviously people prefer double (More games, higher chance of the best players making it to the end, etc..)

The issue here is obviously going to be time/scheduling, as double elimination requires twice the amount of games to be played in the same amount of time..

Another thing i always have a problem with in double elimination is making the final fair.. The rules seem to change from tournament to tournament as to what advantage the winner bracket finalist receives (sometimes the loser bracket has to win the series twice, sometimes its a 1set advantage like in HSC3, sometimes its just an extended series..)..

The method i like best is making the loser bracket player win the series twice.. Seems fair to me that everyone else gets a second chance, why shouldnt the winner bracket finalist?

Never the less, double elimination, either way..

blabber

United States4448 Posts

July 09 2011 07:36 GMT

#11

It's weird to have the winner of a tournament lose a series earlier in the tournament.

DusTerr

2520 Posts

July 09 2011 07:56 GMT

#12

On July 09 2011 16:36 blabber wrote:
It's weird to have the winner of a tournament lose a series earlier in the tournament.

I'm also more familiar with seeing the winning player/team advance and the losers go home. From small tournaments or playoffs (NFL) to large ones (NCAA march madness).

If we need more games, lets go BO5 or 7 instead of BO3.

Double elim can also get confusing with different rules (face an opponent you already beat 2-0 and you get an advantage etc).

just my .02

StutteR

United States1903 Posts

July 09 2011 07:57 GMT

#13

We've known about the format for months and now we're bitching about it?!

RPR_Tempest

Australia7799 Posts

July 09 2011 08:00 GMT

#14

Double elimination is overrated. Single is the way to go. No second chances, that's how it should be.

zylog

Canada943 Posts

July 09 2011 08:01 GMT

#15

I actually prefer single elimination. It seems like most sports use single elimination formats for tournaments, and almost certainly for their playoffs. The double elimination is just so messy; if one player loses early on but is successful later, he has to play a ton of games with little rest. Conversely the finalist from the upper bracket has a ton of rest, and has to lose two series in the finals. It just takes away a lot of the excitement. The finalists don't meet as two equals, one player comes in with too much of an advantage.

That being said, the matches at the NASL finals feel too short. There were several months of lead-up to this, and for someones season to end with a quick best of 3 seems too brief. With the amount of downtime shown in the first day of the finals, it feels like a best of 5 could have been fit into the schedule. While I understand they were probably allotting extra time to avoid running late, I doubt having such extended periods of non-action between matches was good either.

EnSky

Philippines1003 Posts

July 09 2011 08:05 GMT

#16

I'm fine with single elimination. But at least it should be Bo5.

IceSlipper

Australia1028 Posts

July 09 2011 08:22 GMT

#17

On July 09 2011 16:57 StutteR wrote:
We've known about the format for months and now we're bitching about it?!

Whos bitching? Its a discussion, wake up.
That post (and this one for that matter) are less valuable than any of the so called 'bitching' as you claim..

windsupernova

Mexico5280 Posts

July 09 2011 08:25 GMT

#18

Single elimination with BO5 or BO7.

Extended series are a terrible terrible thing.And I don't really want more games for the sake of more games

StutteR

United States1903 Posts

July 09 2011 08:26 GMT

#19

On July 09 2011 17:22 IceSlipper wrote:

Show nested quote +

Whos bitching? Its a discussion, wake up.
That post (and this one for that matter) are less valuable than any of the so called 'bitching' as you claim..

Try reading the LR thread -_-

jinorazi

Korea (South)4948 Posts

July 09 2011 08:27 GMT

#20

On July 09 2011 17:25 windsupernova wrote:
Single elimination with BO5 or BO7.

Extended series are a terrible terrible thing.And I don't really want more games for the sake of more games

i agree. i dont mind the single elimination but atleast make them bo5 and bo7 for semi and on.