Double Elim...

"Ones to watch" tourney.

+1 Rupert, +1 fucking one

Nowhere am I so desperately needed as among a shit[I][/I]load of illogical humans

best post chukker ever wrote.

Personally, I look forward to the day we get rid of double elim for good.

If that means doing it one round at a time, so be it.

Nowhere am I so desperately needed as among a shitload of illogical humans

best post chukker ever wrote.

Haha. If it is not obvious, most of my latest posts here have been quotes from Spock, sometimes slightly altered. In this case I just changed "shipload" to "shitload."

i voted one, but i say it should be left up to the organizer of the particular tournament.

although double final can equal more epic polo, i think that having reached the final in the winners bracket is advantage enough..

if you want more polo then have more rounds on day 1 and have more teams go through to double elim .. this will require some anal organising to get quick turnovers and refs ready asap after every game, so easier said than done

what do you mean 'advantage enough'? As if you've had an easy ride.

Staying in the winners bracket is hard!

just a thought..

It is preferable for the last game of a tournament to be the most exciting.

I would guess that the most exciting type of game would be an untimed game to 5, as it encourages teams to score goals rather than take an early lead and D-up till time.

In a double elimination tournament (with double final) it is logical for the 'first' final to be a timed game, in keeping with the previous games in the double elimination.

If the winner's bracket winners wins the first final, then the tournament ends on a timed game, rather than an exciting game as outlined above.

The poll question is fucked: In a double elimination final, should the winner have two chances?

In a double elimination final, *every *team gets two chances, by definition.

The question should have been: Should we adopt an irregular format where every team gets a second chance, except the team that goes undefeated to the final, which by doing so thereby forfeits their second chance?

In a double elimination final, every team gets two chances, by definition.

Chukker you're wrong (unless you're playing on semantics), go and read up on the format, there are loads of different endings for it, all used for different strengths/weaknesses in differing competitive environments.

In a double elimination tournament (with double final) it is logical for the 'first' final to be a timed game, in keeping with the previous games in the double elimination.

Agreed, a timed first game and then "super final" would be fair/cool, but not if the first game found your victor (fair, but not exciting perhaps).

Well anyway, I think the discussion has been useful, and the vote is interesting.

But what is the outcome? WIll the LO stay single final? Does the vote need more time, it could swing?

The LO will use whatever format's decided here, we have the time and I'm happy to follow popular opinion.

I think either option would be fine/cool, although I think it would be extraordinary for the loser's bracket team to win a double final (as we plan on lengthening the games as the day goes on and they won't have much time for breathers towards the end), c'est la vie.

Chukker you're wrong (unless you're playing on semantics), go and read up on the format, there are loads of different endings for it, all used for different strengths/weaknesses in differing competitive environments.

"Loads" is stretching it a bit. Wikipedia lists three examples. Do you have any more? These are modifications that make it no longer a double elim, and they are stupid.

The LO will use whatever format's decided here, we have the time and I'm happy to follow popular opinion.

I think either option would be fine/cool, although I think it would be extraordinary for the loser's bracket team to win a double final (as we plan on lengthening the games as the day goes on and they won't have much time for breathers towards the end), c'est la vie.

Which will make the knock-out stages even better to watch as people try and stay in the winners bracket!

I think this discussion has actually left me feeling that double elim should not happen at all. Just group stages (swiss/circle/wtvr), then top 8 go through to seeded single elim knock-out.

I kind of agree, we've been stuck in "inclusive" mode for a while.

It's good to give more teams a route to the final, but an accurate first stage followed by an small single elim stage would probably give the same (if not more accurate) standings.

These are modifications that make it no longer a double elim, and they are stupid.

Heh.

I think this discussion has actually left me feeling that double elim should not happen at all. Just group stages (swiss/circle/wtvr), then top 8 go through to seeded single elim knock-out.

I get what you're saying. To be honest, if you want the most accurate way of resolving who has won (rather then create a spectacle) you would run as many SR as possible (although you'd probably only need 6). This would give you a clear winner but it would be anti-climatic. Adding on a tournament on top of a Swiss session (which seeds the tournament) is largely for more polo (for the players and spectators), not because it's necessarily logical.

snoops, please remove 'circle' from your small list of possible group stages!

(no offence to anyone involved in this format)

snoops, please remove 'circle' from your small list of possible group stages!

(no offence to anyone involved in this format)

+1

I was hoping that 'wtvr' would shine through as my preferred format!

1 final, to 10, with two halves.

i think the winner of winners bracket should then have to play the top 3 teams from the losers bracket, 3 times each, just to make sure they deserve to win.

Snoops, that sounds a bit like the london league format.

Which one, the one we won, or the one you won?

In a double elimination final, *every *team gets two chances, by definition.

Chukker, you assume it matters that every team gets two chances. I agree, if you care about that, a double final is logical.

I couldn't care less about that, my vote is based on a very simple principle:

Once you get to the (first) final, you have by definition the two best teams in the tournament.

They play each other.

The team that wins that game is the best team.

At this point, regardless of what has happened before, surely it's unfair to discount the result of that game, and play again.

Is that not logical?

Obviously these two logical statements conflict, at which point it's down to opinion.

But either way, I would always rather see a longer group stage and single elim, or a large single elim, than double elim. If you can't win your game you deserve to go out.

1 final, to 10, with two halves.

+1. genius. everyone is happy.