Tourney: Bristol - NS - 10.03.12 - 11.03.12

I disagree that taking more teams into a single elimination is worthwhile. The bottom teams will come up against the top of the table and will be trounced 5-0 in minutes (not always worth getting out of bed for). I've also seen "reckless" players in such situations injure the other team/break bikes on the first games of the day because they knew they had to do something "special" to stay in the tournament.

Double elim this weekend showed the validity of the format for me... Thumbs Up beating Nice Touch gave Polosapiens a fairly uncontested run in that "quarter" of the table (Thumbs Up should have beaten them really, but seemed to lose momentum), if you take more teams into a single elim, you will get more "easy runs" in each segment on upsets. Double elim halves the impact of any upsets.

I suppose there is something to be said for "do or die" elimination games, I guess elimination is all about the drama (otherwise we should be using RR/SR for as long as possible without a "proper final", just give the trophy to the team at the top of the table, etc). My preference would be for more SR and then a smaller number of teams in a single elim (if single elim is the way to go).

I agree with this. If there were 16 more evenly matched teams at most tournaments then single elim would make sense, as it is there are normally two tiers amongst the top 16 of a tournament and double elim does a good job of accommodating them both. (does that make sense)

I also really agree that a 5-0 thrashing first thing in the morning sucks.