On April 05 2012 00:59 opterown wrote: In tennis matches and anything similar like that, there's always seeding. I think IPL did right this time. It would suck to have, for example: HerO vs JYP, Mvp vs Puma. HerO and Puma drop to LR, where Hero drops out. This way, such matches will occur later in the tournament.
I assume since IGN has its own internal rankings system (see:power rank), then that's what they used to seed players?
While the RO128 matches can be lopsided, the Ro64 will be much more competitive! And since these aren't really broadcast, we're not missing much...
I think the Power Rank is a terrible example. It usually only encompasses the Top 10 current players.
I think they MAY (I haven't looked, but it would make sense) have used North American TLPD ELOs, which is a pretty fair method of seeding, if you don't want to randomize the bracket for some reason.
Haha I agree power rank itself is a bad example, but if you click around, there's a component that has computer-based rankings that they get from somewhere. That might be the source of their seeding. Anyhow, their seeding is fairly good, nothing toooo off that I can see? I don't think they used international TLPD since it doesn't fit very well with the current rankings etc. But that's probably a decently fair method.
I'm not saying anything is wrong with the seeding, I just think something is wrong with seeding players and then not disclosing HOW they were seeded.
On April 05 2012 01:12 Myles wrote:
On April 05 2012 01:10 VirgilSC2 wrote:
On April 05 2012 01:06 Myles wrote: March Madness is determined the same exact way. There is no system that decides a 1 seed meets x criteria while a 2 seed only meets y criteria. They look at how everyone played that year, and make a subjective decision on which teams like think are better than others.
March Madness determines it's rankings based on current NCAA results where the top teams from a pool of all Division 1 teams are selected to play.
This is an open qualifier.
Two completely different scenarios.
Very much so, but the way the select the rankings are very much the same - they look at past performance and make a subjective decision.
It's not a subjective decision. It's based off cold, hard numbers from Win/Loss ratios within the league.
No it's not. They don't look at the W/L of all the teams, put them in order, and then say 'Ok, there's the rankings'. They might look at a 30-9 team and give them a higher seed then a 34-4 team because of a variety of reasons like RPI, strength of schedule, injuries, ect, all which are subjective.
Here's how RPI is used to determine "strength of schedule" and performance against that schedule.
The basic formula is 25% team winning percentage (WP), 50% opponents' average winning percentage (OWP), and 25% opponents' opponents' average winning percentage (OOWP). For the 2004-05 season, the formula was changed to give more weight to road wins vs home wins. A team's win total for RPI purposes is 1.4 * road wins + neutral site wins + 0.6 * home wins. A team's losses is calculated as 0.6 * road losses + neutral site losses + 1.4 * home losses.
For example, a team that is 4-0 at home and 2-7 on the road has a RPI record of 5.2 wins (1.4 * 2 + 0.6 * 4) and 4.2 losses (0.6 * 7). That means that even though it is 6-7, for RPI purposes, it is above .500 (5.2-4.2).
This "weighted" record is only used for the 25% of the formula that is each team's winning percentage. The regular team records are used to calculate OWP and OOWP.
As always, only games against Division I opponents count in the RPI.
I'd rather have IPL's seeding even if it's "flawed" because that will still be better than a random bracket where you could get leenock vs mvp 1st round. These things should always have pros vs non-pros in the early rounds, which only seeding can guarantee. Hoping 8 koreans make it out of the open bracket.
On April 05 2012 00:59 opterown wrote: In tennis matches and anything similar like that, there's always seeding. I think IPL did right this time. It would suck to have, for example: HerO vs JYP, Mvp vs Puma. HerO and Puma drop to LR, where Hero drops out. This way, such matches will occur later in the tournament.
I assume since IGN has its own internal rankings system (see:power rank), then that's what they used to seed players?
While the RO128 matches can be lopsided, the Ro64 will be much more competitive! And since these aren't really broadcast, we're not missing much...
I think the Power Rank is a terrible example. It usually only encompasses the Top 10 current players.
I think they MAY (I haven't looked, but it would make sense) have used North American TLPD ELOs, which is a pretty fair method of seeding, if you don't want to randomize the bracket for some reason.
Haha I agree power rank itself is a bad example, but if you click around, there's a component that has computer-based rankings that they get from somewhere. That might be the source of their seeding. Anyhow, their seeding is fairly good, nothing toooo off that I can see? I don't think they used international TLPD since it doesn't fit very well with the current rankings etc. But that's probably a decently fair method.
I'm not saying anything is wrong with the seeding, I just think something is wrong with seeding players and then not disclosing HOW they were seeded.
On April 05 2012 01:12 Myles wrote:
On April 05 2012 01:10 VirgilSC2 wrote:
On April 05 2012 01:06 Myles wrote: March Madness is determined the same exact way. There is no system that decides a 1 seed meets x criteria while a 2 seed only meets y criteria. They look at how everyone played that year, and make a subjective decision on which teams like think are better than others.
March Madness determines it's rankings based on current NCAA results where the top teams from a pool of all Division 1 teams are selected to play.
This is an open qualifier.
Two completely different scenarios.
Very much so, but the way the select the rankings are very much the same - they look at past performance and make a subjective decision.
It's not a subjective decision. It's based off cold, hard numbers from Win/Loss ratios within the league.
No it's not. They don't look at the W/L of all the teams, put them in order, and then say 'Ok, there's the rankings'. They might look at a 30-9 team and give them a higher seed then a 34-4 team because of a variety of reasons like RPI, strength of schedule, injuries, ect, all which are subjective.
Here's how RPI is used to determine "strength of schedule" and performance against that schedule.
The basic formula is 25% team winning percentage (WP), 50% opponents' average winning percentage (OWP), and 25% opponents' opponents' average winning percentage (OOWP). For the 2004-05 season, the formula was changed to give more weight to road wins vs home wins. A team's win total for RPI purposes is 1.4 * road wins + neutral site wins + 0.6 * home wins. A team's losses is calculated as 0.6 * road losses + neutral site losses + 1.4 * home losses.
For example, a team that is 4-0 at home and 2-7 on the road has a RPI record of 5.2 wins (1.4 * 2 + 0.6 * 4) and 4.2 losses (0.6 * 7). That means that even though it is 6-7, for RPI purposes, it is above .500 (5.2-4.2).
This "weighted" record is only used for the 25% of the formula that is each team's winning percentage. The regular team records are used to calculate OWP and OOWP.
As always, only games against Division I opponents count in the RPI.
Doesn't seem very subjective to me.
The individual stats aren't subjective, it's how they are used that is subjective. They look at all the individual stats, among other things, and subjectively determine which teams are best based on them. For example, this 39-0 team has the best stats in everything all year, but they just lost their two top players - they likely aren't going to be a top seed despite everything about their season saying they should be.
I honestly can't believe this is even debatable. If it was an objective ranking then there wouldn't be a huge discussion every Monday after Selection Sunday about what teams the committee got wrong.
Damn. Nony keeps getting tough draws. Second round Leenock, third round Dimaga (assuming these guys win, of course)? The brackets look really interesting though. I'll be waiting with baited breath through most of the weekend. I'll take a break for SOTG at Pax East of course, but who won't?
On April 05 2012 01:32 Mauldo wrote: Damn. Nony keeps getting tough draws. Second round Leenock, third round Dimaga (assuming these guys win, of course)?
I hate to break it to you, but id put my money on HasHe anyday.
On April 05 2012 01:32 Mauldo wrote: Damn. Nony keeps getting tough draws. Second round Leenock, third round Dimaga (assuming these guys win, of course)?
I hate to break it to you, but id put my money on HasHe anyday.
Not going to lie, that's what I'd do as well if I was a betting man. Sadly:/
On April 05 2012 00:59 opterown wrote: In tennis matches and anything similar like that, there's always seeding. I think IPL did right this time. It would suck to have, for example: HerO vs JYP, Mvp vs Puma. HerO and Puma drop to LR, where Hero drops out. This way, such matches will occur later in the tournament.
I assume since IGN has its own internal rankings system (see:power rank), then that's what they used to seed players?
While the RO128 matches can be lopsided, the Ro64 will be much more competitive! And since these aren't really broadcast, we're not missing much...
I think the Power Rank is a terrible example. It usually only encompasses the Top 10 current players.
I think they MAY (I haven't looked, but it would make sense) have used North American TLPD ELOs, which is a pretty fair method of seeding, if you don't want to randomize the bracket for some reason.
Haha I agree power rank itself is a bad example, but if you click around, there's a component that has computer-based rankings that they get from somewhere. That might be the source of their seeding. Anyhow, their seeding is fairly good, nothing toooo off that I can see? I don't think they used international TLPD since it doesn't fit very well with the current rankings etc. But that's probably a decently fair method.
I'm not saying anything is wrong with the seeding, I just think something is wrong with seeding players and then not disclosing HOW they were seeded.
On April 05 2012 01:12 Myles wrote:
On April 05 2012 01:10 VirgilSC2 wrote:
On April 05 2012 01:06 Myles wrote: March Madness is determined the same exact way. There is no system that decides a 1 seed meets x criteria while a 2 seed only meets y criteria. They look at how everyone played that year, and make a subjective decision on which teams like think are better than others.
March Madness determines it's rankings based on current NCAA results where the top teams from a pool of all Division 1 teams are selected to play.
This is an open qualifier.
Two completely different scenarios.
Very much so, but the way the select the rankings are very much the same - they look at past performance and make a subjective decision.
It's not a subjective decision. It's based off cold, hard numbers from Win/Loss ratios within the league.
No it's not. They don't look at the W/L of all the teams, put them in order, and then say 'Ok, there's the rankings'. They might look at a 30-9 team and give them a higher seed then a 34-4 team because of a variety of reasons like RPI, strength of schedule, injuries, ect, all which are subjective.
Here's how RPI is used to determine "strength of schedule" and performance against that schedule.
The basic formula is 25% team winning percentage (WP), 50% opponents' average winning percentage (OWP), and 25% opponents' opponents' average winning percentage (OOWP). For the 2004-05 season, the formula was changed to give more weight to road wins vs home wins. A team's win total for RPI purposes is 1.4 * road wins + neutral site wins + 0.6 * home wins. A team's losses is calculated as 0.6 * road losses + neutral site losses + 1.4 * home losses.
For example, a team that is 4-0 at home and 2-7 on the road has a RPI record of 5.2 wins (1.4 * 2 + 0.6 * 4) and 4.2 losses (0.6 * 7). That means that even though it is 6-7, for RPI purposes, it is above .500 (5.2-4.2).
This "weighted" record is only used for the 25% of the formula that is each team's winning percentage. The regular team records are used to calculate OWP and OOWP.
As always, only games against Division I opponents count in the RPI.
Doesn't seem very subjective to me.
The individual stats aren't subjective, it's how they are used that is subjective. They look at all the individual stats, among other things, and subjectively determine which teams are best based on them. For example, this 39-0 team has the best stats in everything all year, but they just lost their two top players - they likely aren't going to be a top seed despite everything about their season saying they should be.
I honestly can't believe this is even debatable. If it was an objective ranking then there wouldn't be a huge discussion every Monday after Selection Sunday about what teams the committee got wrong.
I think we got the discussion a bit wrong. It shouldn't really be a matter of subjective vs objective. imo, the important thing is that the rules for how the seeds are done are decided and made official well in time, so that the players in question have the opportunity to improve their seed. So no matter how arbitrary or stupid the rules are, everyone will have the same chance to adaprt if they are informed in time.
In this case, if the IPL ranking is made from previous small online tournament (I dont think this is the case, but as example), IPL should go public that these tourneys will be used to set seeds in the open bracket in time so that players have a chance to sign up and play in the online tourneys.
So imo, important question is how the seeds are done here in IPL, and when was it announced. Not sure if this is public information (it should) or where to find it. Not that I have looked around much, maybe it is in some announcement somewhere... And we are a bit off-topic I feel.
On April 05 2012 00:59 opterown wrote: In tennis matches and anything similar like that, there's always seeding. I think IPL did right this time. It would suck to have, for example: HerO vs JYP, Mvp vs Puma. HerO and Puma drop to LR, where Hero drops out. This way, such matches will occur later in the tournament.
I assume since IGN has its own internal rankings system (see:power rank), then that's what they used to seed players?
While the RO128 matches can be lopsided, the Ro64 will be much more competitive! And since these aren't really broadcast, we're not missing much...
I think the Power Rank is a terrible example. It usually only encompasses the Top 10 current players.
I think they MAY (I haven't looked, but it would make sense) have used North American TLPD ELOs, which is a pretty fair method of seeding, if you don't want to randomize the bracket for some reason.
Haha I agree power rank itself is a bad example, but if you click around, there's a component that has computer-based rankings that they get from somewhere. That might be the source of their seeding. Anyhow, their seeding is fairly good, nothing toooo off that I can see? I don't think they used international TLPD since it doesn't fit very well with the current rankings etc. But that's probably a decently fair method.
I'm not saying anything is wrong with the seeding, I just think something is wrong with seeding players and then not disclosing HOW they were seeded.
On April 05 2012 01:12 Myles wrote:
On April 05 2012 01:10 VirgilSC2 wrote:
On April 05 2012 01:06 Myles wrote: March Madness is determined the same exact way. There is no system that decides a 1 seed meets x criteria while a 2 seed only meets y criteria. They look at how everyone played that year, and make a subjective decision on which teams like think are better than others.
March Madness determines it's rankings based on current NCAA results where the top teams from a pool of all Division 1 teams are selected to play.
This is an open qualifier.
Two completely different scenarios.
Very much so, but the way the select the rankings are very much the same - they look at past performance and make a subjective decision.
It's not a subjective decision. It's based off cold, hard numbers from Win/Loss ratios within the league.
No it's not. They don't look at the W/L of all the teams, put them in order, and then say 'Ok, there's the rankings'. They might look at a 30-9 team and give them a higher seed then a 34-4 team because of a variety of reasons like RPI, strength of schedule, injuries, ect, all which are subjective.
Here's how RPI is used to determine "strength of schedule" and performance against that schedule.
The basic formula is 25% team winning percentage (WP), 50% opponents' average winning percentage (OWP), and 25% opponents' opponents' average winning percentage (OOWP). For the 2004-05 season, the formula was changed to give more weight to road wins vs home wins. A team's win total for RPI purposes is 1.4 * road wins + neutral site wins + 0.6 * home wins. A team's losses is calculated as 0.6 * road losses + neutral site losses + 1.4 * home losses.
For example, a team that is 4-0 at home and 2-7 on the road has a RPI record of 5.2 wins (1.4 * 2 + 0.6 * 4) and 4.2 losses (0.6 * 7). That means that even though it is 6-7, for RPI purposes, it is above .500 (5.2-4.2).
This "weighted" record is only used for the 25% of the formula that is each team's winning percentage. The regular team records are used to calculate OWP and OOWP.
As always, only games against Division I opponents count in the RPI.
Doesn't seem very subjective to me.
The individual stats aren't subjective, it's how they are used that is subjective. They look at all the individual stats, among other things, and subjectively determine which teams are best based on them. For example, this 39-0 team has the best stats in everything all year, but they just lost their two top players - they likely aren't going to be a top seed despite everything about their season saying they should be.
I honestly can't believe this is even debatable. If it was an objective ranking then there wouldn't be a huge discussion every Monday after Selection Sunday about what teams the committee got wrong.
I think we got the discussion a bit wrong. It shouldn't really be a matter of subjective vs objective. imo, the important thing is that the rules for how the seeds are done are decided and made official well in time, so that the players in question have the opportunity to improve their seed. So no matter how arbitrary or stupid the rules are, everyone will have the same chance to adaprt if they are informed in time.
In this case, if the IPL ranking is made from previous small online tournament (I dont think this is the case, but as example), IPL should go public that these tourneys will be used to set seeds in the open bracket in time so that players have a chance to sign up and play in the online tourneys.
So imo, important question is how the seeds are done here in IPL, and when was it announced. Not sure if this is public information (it should) or where to find it. Not that I have looked around much, maybe it is in some announcement somewhere... And we are a bit off-topic I feel.
That's what I was trying to get at in the first place.
I don't feel seeding is a bad thing, and I don't think IPL shouldn't have seeded the Open Bracket
What I have a problem with (and I said this before) is seeding without disclosing HOW they were seeded.
On April 05 2012 00:59 opterown wrote: In tennis matches and anything similar like that, there's always seeding. I think IPL did right this time. It would suck to have, for example: HerO vs JYP, Mvp vs Puma. HerO and Puma drop to LR, where Hero drops out. This way, such matches will occur later in the tournament.
I assume since IGN has its own internal rankings system (see:power rank), then that's what they used to seed players?
While the RO128 matches can be lopsided, the Ro64 will be much more competitive! And since these aren't really broadcast, we're not missing much...
I think the Power Rank is a terrible example. It usually only encompasses the Top 10 current players.
I think they MAY (I haven't looked, but it would make sense) have used North American TLPD ELOs, which is a pretty fair method of seeding, if you don't want to randomize the bracket for some reason.
Haha I agree power rank itself is a bad example, but if you click around, there's a component that has computer-based rankings that they get from somewhere. That might be the source of their seeding. Anyhow, their seeding is fairly good, nothing toooo off that I can see? I don't think they used international TLPD since it doesn't fit very well with the current rankings etc. But that's probably a decently fair method.
I'm not saying anything is wrong with the seeding, I just think something is wrong with seeding players and then not disclosing HOW they were seeded.
On April 05 2012 01:12 Myles wrote:
On April 05 2012 01:10 VirgilSC2 wrote:
On April 05 2012 01:06 Myles wrote: March Madness is determined the same exact way. There is no system that decides a 1 seed meets x criteria while a 2 seed only meets y criteria. They look at how everyone played that year, and make a subjective decision on which teams like think are better than others.
March Madness determines it's rankings based on current NCAA results where the top teams from a pool of all Division 1 teams are selected to play.
This is an open qualifier.
Two completely different scenarios.
Very much so, but the way the select the rankings are very much the same - they look at past performance and make a subjective decision.
It's not a subjective decision. It's based off cold, hard numbers from Win/Loss ratios within the league.
No it's not. They don't look at the W/L of all the teams, put them in order, and then say 'Ok, there's the rankings'. They might look at a 30-9 team and give them a higher seed then a 34-4 team because of a variety of reasons like RPI, strength of schedule, injuries, ect, all which are subjective.
Here's how RPI is used to determine "strength of schedule" and performance against that schedule.
The basic formula is 25% team winning percentage (WP), 50% opponents' average winning percentage (OWP), and 25% opponents' opponents' average winning percentage (OOWP). For the 2004-05 season, the formula was changed to give more weight to road wins vs home wins. A team's win total for RPI purposes is 1.4 * road wins + neutral site wins + 0.6 * home wins. A team's losses is calculated as 0.6 * road losses + neutral site losses + 1.4 * home losses.
For example, a team that is 4-0 at home and 2-7 on the road has a RPI record of 5.2 wins (1.4 * 2 + 0.6 * 4) and 4.2 losses (0.6 * 7). That means that even though it is 6-7, for RPI purposes, it is above .500 (5.2-4.2).
This "weighted" record is only used for the 25% of the formula that is each team's winning percentage. The regular team records are used to calculate OWP and OOWP.
As always, only games against Division I opponents count in the RPI.
Doesn't seem very subjective to me.
The individual stats aren't subjective, it's how they are used that is subjective. They look at all the individual stats, among other things, and subjectively determine which teams are best based on them. For example, this 39-0 team has the best stats in everything all year, but they just lost their two top players - they likely aren't going to be a top seed despite everything about their season saying they should be.
I honestly can't believe this is even debatable. If it was an objective ranking then there wouldn't be a huge discussion every Monday after Selection Sunday about what teams the committee got wrong.
I think we got the discussion a bit wrong. It shouldn't really be a matter of subjective vs objective. imo, the important thing is that the rules for how the seeds are done are decided and made official well in time, so that the players in question have the opportunity to improve their seed. So no matter how arbitrary or stupid the rules are, everyone will have the same chance to adaprt if they are informed in time.
In this case, if the IPL ranking is made from previous small online tournament (I dont think this is the case, but as example), IPL should go public that these tourneys will be used to set seeds in the open bracket in time so that players have a chance to sign up and play in the online tourneys.
So imo, important question is how the seeds are done here in IPL, and when was it announced. Not sure if this is public information (it should) or where to find it. Not that I have looked around much, maybe it is in some announcement somewhere... And we are a bit off-topic I feel.
That's what I was trying to get at in the first place.
I don't feel seeding is a bad thing, and I don't think IPL shouldn't have seeded the Open Bracket
What I have a problem with (and I said this before) is seeding without disclosing HOW they were seeded.
ok, I don't think anyone disagrees with that, so we can go back on topic!
Quick note because I am about to walk out the door to head to the airport...
Rankings were done based off our computer rankings, factored with the overall power rankings (fan poll + industry poll + computer rankings), then subjective opinion of the SC-knowledgeable IPL staff.
We're weren't trying to be evasive about this or anything.
On April 05 2012 00:59 opterown wrote: In tennis matches and anything similar like that, there's always seeding. I think IPL did right this time. It would suck to have, for example: HerO vs JYP, Mvp vs Puma. HerO and Puma drop to LR, where Hero drops out. This way, such matches will occur later in the tournament.
I assume since IGN has its own internal rankings system (see:power rank), then that's what they used to seed players?
While the RO128 matches can be lopsided, the Ro64 will be much more competitive! And since these aren't really broadcast, we're not missing much...
I think the Power Rank is a terrible example. It usually only encompasses the Top 10 current players.
I think they MAY (I haven't looked, but it would make sense) have used North American TLPD ELOs, which is a pretty fair method of seeding, if you don't want to randomize the bracket for some reason.
Haha I agree power rank itself is a bad example, but if you click around, there's a component that has computer-based rankings that they get from somewhere. That might be the source of their seeding. Anyhow, their seeding is fairly good, nothing toooo off that I can see? I don't think they used international TLPD since it doesn't fit very well with the current rankings etc. But that's probably a decently fair method.
I'm not saying anything is wrong with the seeding, I just think something is wrong with seeding players and then not disclosing HOW they were seeded.
On April 05 2012 01:12 Myles wrote:
On April 05 2012 01:10 VirgilSC2 wrote:
On April 05 2012 01:06 Myles wrote: March Madness is determined the same exact way. There is no system that decides a 1 seed meets x criteria while a 2 seed only meets y criteria. They look at how everyone played that year, and make a subjective decision on which teams like think are better than others.
March Madness determines it's rankings based on current NCAA results where the top teams from a pool of all Division 1 teams are selected to play.
This is an open qualifier.
Two completely different scenarios.
Very much so, but the way the select the rankings are very much the same - they look at past performance and make a subjective decision.
It's not a subjective decision. It's based off cold, hard numbers from Win/Loss ratios within the league.
No it's not. They don't look at the W/L of all the teams, put them in order, and then say 'Ok, there's the rankings'. They might look at a 30-9 team and give them a higher seed then a 34-4 team because of a variety of reasons like RPI, strength of schedule, injuries, ect, all which are subjective.
Here's how RPI is used to determine "strength of schedule" and performance against that schedule.
The basic formula is 25% team winning percentage (WP), 50% opponents' average winning percentage (OWP), and 25% opponents' opponents' average winning percentage (OOWP). For the 2004-05 season, the formula was changed to give more weight to road wins vs home wins. A team's win total for RPI purposes is 1.4 * road wins + neutral site wins + 0.6 * home wins. A team's losses is calculated as 0.6 * road losses + neutral site losses + 1.4 * home losses.
For example, a team that is 4-0 at home and 2-7 on the road has a RPI record of 5.2 wins (1.4 * 2 + 0.6 * 4) and 4.2 losses (0.6 * 7). That means that even though it is 6-7, for RPI purposes, it is above .500 (5.2-4.2).
This "weighted" record is only used for the 25% of the formula that is each team's winning percentage. The regular team records are used to calculate OWP and OOWP.
As always, only games against Division I opponents count in the RPI.
Doesn't seem very subjective to me.
The individual stats aren't subjective, it's how they are used that is subjective. They look at all the individual stats, among other things, and subjectively determine which teams are best based on them. For example, this 39-0 team has the best stats in everything all year, but they just lost their two top players - they likely aren't going to be a top seed despite everything about their season saying they should be.
I honestly can't believe this is even debatable. If it was an objective ranking then there wouldn't be a huge discussion every Monday after Selection Sunday about what teams the committee got wrong.
I think we got the discussion a bit wrong. It shouldn't really be a matter of subjective vs objective. imo, the important thing is that the rules for how the seeds are done are decided and made official well in time, so that the players in question have the opportunity to improve their seed. So no matter how arbitrary or stupid the rules are, everyone will have the same chance to adaprt if they are informed in time.
In this case, if the IPL ranking is made from previous small online tournament (I dont think this is the case, but as example), IPL should go public that these tourneys will be used to set seeds in the open bracket in time so that players have a chance to sign up and play in the online tourneys.
So imo, important question is how the seeds are done here in IPL, and when was it announced. Not sure if this is public information (it should) or where to find it. Not that I have looked around much, maybe it is in some announcement somewhere... And we are a bit off-topic I feel.
That's reasonable, but also I think it's reasonable that they base the seeds on everything overall. I think it would be much less reasonable and 'fair' to only look at a handful of tournaments when there is so much info about most of these players out there. And yea, we are a bit off-topic.
On April 05 2012 01:54 Alex.IGN wrote: Quick note because I am about to walk out the door to head to the airport...
Rankings were done based off our computer rankings, factored with the overall power rankings (fan poll + industry poll + computer rankings), then subjective opinion of the SC-knowledgeable IPL staff.
We're weren't trying to be evasive about this or anything.
Sounds like the BCS. No wonder everyone hates them
On April 05 2012 01:32 Mauldo wrote: Damn. Nony keeps getting tough draws. Second round Leenock, third round Dimaga (assuming these guys win, of course)?
I hate to break it to you, but id put my money on HasHe anyday.
Not going to lie, that's what I'd do as well if I was a betting man. Sadly:/
Since this is Vegas, bets are legal. I wonder if the Sports Book downstairs will be handling the bets.
And idea IPL? I'd love to get some money ridning on this tournament..
On April 04 2012 21:55 Bumblebee wrote: I don't really have a refined opinion on team kills in such brackets. It's sort of just tough luck, but I wonder if there can't be done something to prevent it at least for a while or not "that many". If you look over the bracket, we - Team Liquid - kill eachother very early all over the bracket. It's just not worthwhile business for us to send so many players to such events if they're going to eliminate eachother that early. I'm not saying we can prevent teamkills all the way until the bracket finals - or we almost can, but I don't expect it. I'm just simply thinking if there isn't a fair way to draft so that we won't have 2-3 teamkills in the third round?
What are your opinions out there? Do you think it'd be fair to put what team people are on into such an equation?
It would be nice in a way, if you put it last, after you spread out all your seeds and whatever ranking the tourney is using. Then you could imagine that the random placing that is left got the extra constraint of trying to not make team kills.
Problem however, is that it would then be beneficial to be on a team with many other good players. For example, if Hero goes to a pretty small tourney (as favourite to win) but that doesn't have much previous seeds or ranking, most players would be very happy to be placed far away from hero, and would thus get an (imo unfair) advantage by being on liquid. And also the opposite, if another team with a lot of bad players went to the tourney, they would run a higher risk of being matched with a strong opponent. The bad players would be better of being teamless.
Imo, we don't need to make the strong teams even stronger, so I do not think this should be implemented. It sucks for liquid, I feel you, but I don't think it would work in the long run to take team into account when making brackets.
EPT
