Double Elim...

Ok, two finals or one for the London Open? I'm indifferent: I think one final makes sense for spectators and because it's the "final" (the losing bracket team have had to play more games, etc) but I understand the normal for a double elimination format can't be easily ignored and that we have "usually" done a double final in the past. Thoughts?

I'm happy for the NS crew to decide, etc, but would like it publicised pre-event.

I am in favour of one, personally. Makes for a more exciting final. Although, it would be hard to deny the UK Champs wasn't an exciting double final...

I think double finals are a bit rubbish, if you win all your games, but then lose in the final, you get what you deserve. Yes the other team has been able to lose once, but they will also have played more games to get there. Then again I've not been in that situation... I guess Cosmic might think otherwise ;)

I would be interested in a survey, that surveys how many winner team brackets team LOSE the first final, then go on to win.

One final.

Ignoring the weird atmosphere a double creates, loser's bracket team have already had their disadvantage by playing more games.

1 Final. I hate the 2 finals idea.

We must stop calling it double elim then.

One final but twice the length?

1 final, 2 finals is retarded (IMHO)

double-ish elim (1 final).

It's not retarded, it fulfils the formula to determine the first and second ranking team.

The idea of the double elim is that the tournament ends when only one team remains. After NT one the first final, two teams still remained, both with an equal chance at the trophey, which Cosmic won.

I guess we could make a decision whether we want to a) play a spectator preferential tournament, where atmosphere and watchability count, or b) select a tournament formula, where the purpose is to accurately rank the teams from worst to best.

And then call it the double-elim ish tournament. So long as it's clear from the outset, (most) people won't mind.

No, I've always thought of it as double elimination to get to the final. Once in the final... well, that's obvious. Playing two finals confused me a lot.

One final it is.

Thoughts for the future: I think it's lame how the game time changes/varies as the format reaches the end. Currently I think it's a good way to make a "show" of the last few games and to test the endurance of the final teams, but at the end of the day you're moving the goal posts and are potentially messing with team game plans/strengths/etc.

My preference would be for 20 minute games as the normal where the number of teams isn't a deciding factor (rather than playing each other two or three times for example), this is perhaps possible at some of the future regional tournaments? 10 minutes really isn't very long on court but is becoming our norm...

If we're being strict about the format, double elimination requires a team to lose TWO games to be knocked out, even if it's the final, but I agree that it makes for a weird atmosphere. Plus Cosmic wouldn't be UK champs if we did this*

*sckbrn

My preference would be for 20 minute games as the normal where the number of teams isn't a deciding factor (rather than playing each other two or three times for example), this is perhaps possible at some of the future regional tournaments? 10 minutes really isn't very long on court but is becoming our norm...

I agree, ideally all games would be untimed, and simply be played to 5 goals, IMO. Most other sports which are points limited (racket sports, volleyball) aren't also time limited. But of course we don't have the infrastructure (lights etc), or regional structure (to limit the number of teams) for that at the moment.

In a double elimination, each team has the opportunity to lose once and still win. Hence, the possibility of "two finals." This is consistent and as it should be. It is also the standard. There is no need to alter the standard system.

It seems like some people haven't gotten past that initial confusion when they first encountered double elim.

From a finalist perspective: It's very common that the winner of the winners bracket was the team that sent the winner of the losers bracket to the losers bracket. With a single game final, you could easily end up with a "winner" who has a 1-1 record with the other finalist. That's a dirty way to win, and if it was me, i wouuldn't feel like i deserved it. Play the second (well in this case, third, and tie-breaking) game.

From a spectator perspective: If you're a spectator and you don't want to see a repeat of the two best teams at the tourney, you're crazy! Aren't you all used to home/away series in football?

fixtures/leg, not series :)

...home/away series ....

In a double elimination, each team has the opportunity to lose once and still win. Hence, the possibility of "two finals." This is consistent and as it should be. It is also the standard. There is no need to alter the standard system.

+1

In a double elimination, each team has the opportunity to lose once and still win. Hence, the possibility of "two finals." This is consistent and as it should be. It is also the standard. There is no need to alter the standard system.

It seems like some people haven't gotten past that initial confusion when they first encountered double elim.

From a finalist perspective: It's very common that the winner of the winners bracket was the team that sent the winner of the losers bracket to the losers bracket. With a single game final, you could easily end up with a "winner" who has a 1-1 record with the other finalist. That's a dirty way to win, and if it was me, i wouuldn't feel like i deserved it. Play the second (well in this case, third, and tie-breaking) game.

From a spectator perspective: If you're a spectator and you don't want to see a repeat of the two best teams at the tourney, you're crazy! Aren't you all used to home/away series in football?

I'm still open to this being discussed. I understand the logic, but I'm sure we all know sports aren't won on logic. Unless chess is a sport.

I just like one final.

"Two finals" is flawed by definition. You're allowing the format to rule the spectacle. The games should either be consistent times (10 mins = lame) or a longer length and one final.

you could easily end up with a "winner" who has a 1-1 record with the other finalist

Negative, the winner would have lost once (under whatever "normal" conditions) and then fought their way back past every team, with more fatigue and (potentially) more bike failure to then play a 20/30minute "deciding" final only to be told that they need to play again. Double finals wreak of "status quo" and "one-on-one play" for my liking. In an ideal world the winning team would accept the challenge from the losers bracket and prove their worth in one final final final.

Maths doesn't always work, for example: In a quadruple elimination, would you feel it's fair to ask the losing bracket team to play 4 times in succession?

in an ideal world the winning team would accept the challenge from the losers bracket and prove their worth in one final final final.

In my slightly drunken state, I really like the way this has been put.

Challenge accepted.

Maths doesn't always work, for example: In a quadruple elimination, would you feel it's fair to ask the losing bracket team to play 4 times in succession?

this

You're allowing the format to rule the spectacle.

I've seen enough incredible two-game finals to know how spectacular they can be. The first i can remember was at NACCC 2008 in Chicago. East Van Crown last year was awesome, there's good video of it. Midwest 6, or 7 maybe, with Beaver Boys vs Machine Politics. I don't think any of the participants in those games would have wanted a different format, and certainly not the spectators.