You are reading a single comment by @H-Bomb 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.
@H-Bomb
Yes, because you just lose accuracy, if you do it right it's almost as good as an extra round of swiss. It's better to come up with a rough seeding. It doesn't have to be perfect, but ideally each pair of games in the first round should be an easy win for the first team (doesn't always work out, of course).
Given this theoretical example, if you have 8 teams, ordered 1-8, in a rough seeding. Challonge will make the first round 1-5, 2-6, 3-7, 4-8.
Theoretically the first team in each pair should win.
Then the four winners will play each other, then the two winners of those games. At the end of that you should have a perfectly ordered list of teams (if all games go to form).
It doesn't matter so much if 1-4 are in the wrong order, that should all work out, but the initial pairings should be teams of quite different ability.
But if say you end up playing 1-2 in the first round (which you might with a random seeding), you'll mess up the games for quite a few rounds, as team 2 will have to get out of the losers half, and lots of other teams will get "unfair" pairings compared to the teams around them (giving less accurate final standings).