You are reading a single comment by @ and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
London Fixed Gear and Single-Speed is a community of predominantly fixed gear and single-speed cyclists in and around London, UK.
This site is supported almost exclusively by donations. Please consider donating a small amount regularly.
@
Or, you can look at it as the poorer teams get a chance to play a tough team - which is one of the reasons you often hear new teams want to play competitive polo.
Also, by seeding that way (tough vs weak first round) you essentially help along the maths. That is, it encourages a better mid-table, and will result in more accurate games being played sooner. It does not hurt any team so long as you play enough rounds. I'll try to explain:
After round one (top half played bottom half), in round 2 the top 1/4 plays the other top 1/4 (i.e., all the hardest teams play each other) and the bottom 1/4 plays the other bottom 1/4 teams (all the poorer teams play each other).
The result of that second round gives a pretty clear top 1/4 (who beat hard teams), and a clear bottom 1/4 (who lost to weak teams), and a big mess in the middle of teams which have beat an easy team, and lost to a hard team. The point is, you've got this mid-table after two rounds. This doesn't mean the tourney will be over sooner, it just means the mid-table will be more accurate at the end, as they will, hopefully, have played more equal games.
About fairness: If at any point your team has been seeded incorrectly in the first round, you still have the chance to move up (or down) quite quickly. Maybe you were thought to be shit, and got the toughest team in the first round. Second round you're playing a team you should easily beat. Third round you're playing a mid-table team. A win there will put you in the same position as team who just lost their first game. That is, in three rounds, even though you were rated the shittiest team, you've made your way into the top tier.