Unbalanced Pools Format

by **Kolanko_25** » June 28th, 2012, 2:54 pm

Is there a protocol format regarding which seeds play which in events that have unbalanced pool play schedules?

LSKO had 17 teams total, so this allowed them to still have 3 pools.
Pool A - #1 and #2 were both in the same pool, but did not have to play each other.
Pool B - #3 and #4 were both in the same pool, but did not have to play each other.

GKO had 12 teams total and had to go with 2 pools of 6.
Pool A - #1 was grouped with #4, and did play each other. #1 did not play #11 and #4 did not play #10.
Pool B - #2 was grouped with #3, and did play each other. #2 did not play #12 and #3 did not play #9.

Is this decision left up to the event manager?

by **Zak** » June 28th, 2012, 3:03 pm

Kolanko_25 wrote:Is there a protocol format regarding which seeds play which in events that have unbalanced pool play schedules?

LSKO had 17 teams total, so this allowed them to still have 3 pools.
Pool A - #1 and #2 were both in the same pool, but did not have to play each other.
Pool B - #3 and #4 were both in the same pool, but did not have to play each other.

GKO had 12 teams total and had to go with 2 pools of 6.
Pool A - #1 was grouped with #4, and did play each other. #1 did not play #11 and #4 did not play #10.
Pool B - #2 was grouped with #3, and did play each other. #2 did not play #12 and #3 did not play #9.

Is this decision left up to the event manager?

It's up to the event manager

Opinions expressed in this post are Zak's and Zak's alone. Except when the voices in his head take over then they aren't even his.

by **admin** » June 28th, 2012, 8:54 pm

Zak is correct. At this time we allow Event Managers to decide on how they would like to setup Pools for their Tournament.

We do have a pending topic to discuss at the upcoming Summit this Fall - the idea of a Panel to determine Circuit Event Seed Selection Committee. In short, one panel to always be responsible to determine the starting seeds and pool play structure. This still needs to be discussed with the RC.

Admin

by **sduncan** » June 29th, 2012, 8:46 am

I like the idea of a Circuit Event Seed Selection Committee, because even though people can still claim their morons and don't know what they're doing, they won't be able to claim bias in favor of the host team/event manager seeding and formatting the pools. Also, people would be less apt to piss off the committee know they will be responsible for seeding throughout the year...

by **Kolanko_25** » June 29th, 2012, 9:57 am

Good stuff. Thanks for the info

by **PANCAKES** » June 29th, 2012, 10:31 am

For SDKO, I'm guessing we will do a pool of 5 and two of 4. This means we have one pool where they all play each other and two where they have 3 set pool play games. This means there has to be a crossover.

We can do it based off preseeding, or just randomly assign your 4th game, but I like to let a teams play do the talking.

Meaning, how well you do in your pool of 4 should determine the level of opponent you play from the other pool.

by **Lost_Sage** » June 29th, 2012, 10:44 am

SDKO goers, if you have any input on Cullen's idea, please get it to him ASAP ...

PANCAKES wrote:For SDKO, I'm guessing we will do a pool of 5 and two of 4. This means we have one pool where they all play each other and two where they have 3 set pool play games. This means there has to be a crossover.

We can do it based off preseeding, or just randomly assign your 4th game, but I like to let a teams play do the talking.

Meaning, how well you do in your pool of 4 should determine the level of opponent you play from the other pool.

by **McNugget** » June 29th, 2012, 11:07 am

I'm up for either seeding or complete random as long as the #1 seed doesn't automatically get paired up with the bottom seed ahead of time to get an easy road to elimination.

If cross play is predetermined then what if the 1/2 seeds play each other and the 3/4 play each other in the cross pools. With 8 of the 13 teams making it out of pool play it would really create good competition from start to finish and teams would have to watch their runs allowed and differential. This works well as long as the one pool with five teams is properly selected so they have good close competition as well.

by **McNugget** » June 29th, 2012, 11:18 am

PANCAKES wrote:Meaning, how well you do in your pool of 4 should determine the level of opponent you play from the other pool.

So what you're saying is that the two smaller pools would play a fourth crossover game similar to NYC last year? I'm curious to hear what others think of this since Sofa King and 4 Whiskey players were there and played with that format.

by **Lurker** » June 29th, 2012, 12:09 pm

McNugget wrote:
PANCAKES wrote:Meaning, how well you do in your pool of 4 should determine the level of opponent you play from the other pool.

So what you're saying is that the two smaller pools would play a fourth crossover game similar to NYC last year? I'm curious to hear what others think of this since Sofa King and 4 Whiskey players were there and played with that format.

that's sounds like the only fair way to do it to me

by **Trey it Up** » June 29th, 2012, 12:10 pm

PANCAKES wrote:For SDKO, I'm guessing we will do a pool of 5 and two of 4. This means we have one pool where they all play each other and two where they have 3 set pool play games. This means there has to be a crossover.

We can do it based off preseeding, or just randomly assign your 4th game, but I like to let a teams play do the talking.

Meaning, how well you do in your pool of 4 should determine the level of opponent you play from the other pool.

Tell me if this is accurate: You propose reseeding/ranking the teams in the Pools of 4 and putting the #1 finisher from Pool 1 with the #4 finisher from Pool 2, etc.? If so, I love that idea! It makes pool play mean something and incentivises teams to take Pool Play seriously.

by **Kolanko_25** » June 29th, 2012, 12:16 pm

Trey it Up wrote:
PANCAKES wrote:For SDKO, I'm guessing we will do a pool of 5 and two of 4. This means we have one pool where they all play each other and two where they have 3 set pool play games. This means there has to be a crossover.

We can do it based off preseeding, or just randomly assign your 4th game, but I like to let a teams play do the talking.

Meaning, how well you do in your pool of 4 should determine the level of opponent you play from the other pool.

Tell me if this is accurate: You propose reseeding/ranking the teams in the Pools of 4 and putting the #1 finisher from Pool 1 with the #4 finisher from Pool 2, etc.? If so, I love that idea! It makes pool play mean something and incentivises teams to take Pool Play seriously.

I am a big fan of 3 pools over 2, and this sounds like a fair solution.

by **McNugget** » June 29th, 2012, 12:36 pm

I'm a fan of reseeding too. Just make sure you finesse the interchangeable teams such as SKG/LBC in the 1/2 spots, DA/WR in the 3/4 spots, etc so that matchups are different than what happened 3 months ago in Long Beach. Regional protection is not anywhere near as important as this because these two tournaments are nearly identical and many pool play matches were repeated in elims in LB.

by **PANCAKES** » June 29th, 2012, 1:35 pm

Well, NYC was based on the fact we had so many teams that weren't circuit teams so I wanted to avoid boring pool play. The issue was that I had to give a 4th pool play game and each team had to have a shot at moving on. This lead to some lopsided crossover games, but it also allows us to have 2 nasty pools where teams got to play top level teams each games.

For SD, most of the teams can ball and it should make for some fun pools. My first goal will be fair seeding based on previous results (not reputation), and if there are some that are tossups, I'll try to give teams new squads to play against in pool play.

This is basically BoTW part II so I will be using a lot of that information to help give teams a great experience on game day.

Kickball365

Welcome Anonymous !