Double Elim...

Why not have 3 finals. Or 4. Or fuck it, a seven game series. Or nine. The more the better!

People, seriously, it is a double elimination format. That means you must lose twice to be eliminated. You can come up with all sorts of alternative scenarios that you think work better, but you are wrong. There is one consistent way to run a double elim, and one only: Every single team remains in the tournament until each has lost two games and only one team has not lost two games. End of story. No room for discussion.

"A double-elimination tournament is a type of elimination tournament competition [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elimination_tournament"][/url]in which a participant ceases to be eligible to win the tournament's championship upon having lost **two **games or matches."

Everyone who is arguing otherwise is attempting to defend an illegitimate position simply because it made sense to them at some former point in time. You all need to get over it. The logic of double elimination is sound; every argument against it on this thread is unsound.

Except there is room for discussion and it's not the end of story.

2 finals is fair.
That's the team's right if they got to the final without losing.
If the 1 final is stated from the beginning so be it.
It's double-elim so everyone has a second chance. (except for the winners of the winners bracket?!) They should decide if they want 1 final or 2 imo.

You can all say 2 finals cause a weird atmosphere but I don't think they do at all.
Why should they? That's what you sometimes have to do to win.
It's when people begin moaning at the end that the atmosphere dampens.

Had NT won due to a 1 final situ in Edinburgh I would've been well pissed off and felt quite cheated. I would've hushed up had a 1 final been stated from the beginning but feel by continuing to win through a tourney, that's your deserved advantage.

And if it had been the other way round I'd be happy to play 2 to deserve a win.

"Two finals" is flawed by definition. ...

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?

With all due respect to you and Andy, these arguments to not hold. There are not "two finals." This is something you have made up.

No need for an ideal world, the logic of double elim is sound.

A fictitious quadruple elim is not relevant.

Why not have 3 finals. Or 4. Or fuck it, a seven game series. Or nine. The more the better!

Nonsense. There are not two finals. There is a tourney in which each team remains in until it loses two games. Simple. Straightforward. Non-problematic.

Tow finals here, please

It's single elim or double elim.
Signing up for double means you get a second chance.
That option should be entitled to every team.
Especially the team that has battled through to the final without any loss.

Except there is room for discussion and it's not the end of story.

Mark, double elimination is a standard format that is consistent, logical and has been used for decades as is. Anything you to do amend it will alter that logic and make the format inconsistent. On what grounds can argue in favor of taking a perfectly consistent standard and altering it so it becomes an inconsistent system?

It's single elim or double elim.
Signing up for double means you get a second chance.
That option should be entitled to every team.
Especially the team that has battled through to the final without any loss.

Well put. On what grounds can you argue that every team gets a second chance -- except the team that has made it to the final bracket without any losses? That team only gets one chance? Utter nonsense.

Do the two finals have to have the same format?

Could the first final be a standard 10 minute game with 'most goals wins' and the second be a no time limit first to five?

That would differentiate the two and make the first final feel more like an elimination game and the second like the 'proper' final.

Exactly.
If they then say they're happy with one final that's their call.

Let's use this format:

**Double Elimination for Every Team Except the One Team that Goes Undefeated to the Final Which Plays Single Elimination. **

Mark, double elimination is a standard format that is consistent, logical and has been used for decades as is. Anything you to do amend it will alter that logic and make the format inconsistent. On what grounds can argue in favor of taking a perfectly consistent standard and altering it so it becomes an inconsistent system?

I'm arguing for not dismissing a discussion out of hand because you are convinced by the logic of a tournament format which does not need to be adhered to by some sort of reason-based natural law. I.e., not everything needs to be logical, Spock.

As I've said a few times, I am quite aware of the logical underpinnings of a double final. However, I also "like" (which is an emotion found in humans, and is not based on logic or reason) single finals.

Also, I have said I am willing to be convinced that double finals should take place. However, for me, it's the age old reason vs emotion debate. You're going to have to persuade me, without convincing me. Appeal to my emotions as clearly the rational argument is failing. I would start by writing a poem expressing the virtues of a double final.

I'm also partial to paintings.

Perhaps then a team could tactically lose in order to take a different route to the final? Would that be possible?

The chances of being put into the loses bracket that you face in the final is high. And therefore you might only want to play them once overall so they can't adapt to your team play? Would be a big risk. Just thinkin...

Yeah move thread. I've said enough on the matter anyhow.

Could've done with this info/debate yesterday, the player packs were printed last night stating 1 final.

I see where you're coming from Kev/Vidal/Rik/Todd and of course I understand the tradition and definition of "double elimination". Maybe it's because I've never witnessed a good "double final" (I actually find the atmosphere quite surreal/odd during "double finals") that gives me a skewed perspective.

As last year and as the majority stated yesterday (including the NS organisers) we will be going with 1 final for both the winners and "ones to watch" tournament, we could have four finals otherwise... if more people chime in with support for a double final then I'll re-print the player info documents and we'll go with that.

I have little care for "tradition" as we'll be telling teams well in advance, I just want the best climax for the event. In my head this is a single final, but I'm willing to keep hearing why it's otherwise...

A tactical route to the final via the loser's bracket isn't possible, you still have to beat every team and you're going to be more tired/bruised on the longer journey there, etc.

I agree with Mark, let's hear emotional (like Kev's experiences) not rational thought for two finals (I'm aware of the rational reasoning)...

Mark: You are a fucking PhD candidate in philosophy at Oxford, the home of analytical philosophy. Logic matters. Are you really suggesting that we should decide tourney formats based on emotions? Because I** feel **like teams with no players over 30 should play single elimination, while teams with players over 30 play double. Do you really want to go down that road?

The burden is not on the people who want to adopt double elimination as is. We do not need to convince you. The burden is on those who wish to arbitrarily alter the system.

So: Please provide a good argument as to why every team should get two chances except the one team that does the best?

Great news for the winners of the losers bracket.
Not so great for the winners of the winners.

I'm happy to play regardless.

Mark: You are a fucking PhD candidate in philosophy at Oxford, the home of analytical philosophy. Logic matters. Are you really suggesting that we should decide tourney formats based on emotions? Because I** feel **like teams with no players over 30 should play single elimination, while teams with players over 30 play double. Do you really want to go down that road?

The burden is not on the people who want to adopt double elimination as is. We do not need to convince you. The burden is on those who wish to arbitrarily alter the system.

So: Please provide a good argument as to why every team should get two chances except the one team that does the best?

1) Analytical philosophy can fuck the fuck off. And that's the title of my dissertation.
2) We as a community work on consensus as much as possible. No one will take it upon themselves to dictate the format (be it one or two finals). But if one wants to win people over to one side or the other, you're/they're going to need to convince them. Without consensus, it will probably just come down to what the majority of the polo scene decides. Don't forget: the general will doesn't err. Only what you believe the general will was can err.
3) Because at the end of the day, I like seeing single finals. Also, I'm enjoying arguing with you. You've been offline, hanging out with your militia in the Black Hills, for too long.

I vote double.

Everyone pays/travels to/signs up for a double elim tourney so everyone deserves the second chance, regardless of how good they are.

Not everyone knows these discusions are going on, we shouldn't make rash decisions after an hour of online discussion. Maybe we can post announcements in forum24 when decisions that affect the sport are being made in a certain thread? I think that would help.

So: Please provide a good argument as to why every team should get two chances except the one team that does the best?

Jon: Please provide an answer to this question? And please don't tell me it is because you think this way is more exciting, because I think the other way is more exciting, and therefore that argument is a wash.

You do not need to reprint the player packs. You just need to make an announcement. Simple.

Rousseau and the general will can fuck off.

Oh no you didn't!

(Actually, I agree with you. Analytical philosophy can fuck off, and Rousseau is okay too. Now, will you answer my question about why the team with the best record does not get a second chance?)

I've attached a poll to this thread.

This has no bearing on rules for anything. It is a non-scientific polling of opinion.