Double Elim...

"Game, match, contest, or round." So, yes, in fact, game or games.

Semantics. A final game cannot be preceded by a final game, there is a contradiction in terms. Agreed that you could have a final round of two games, but that's not how we currently view things.

But meh, double finals are the preferred way forward, I've not got a problem with that.

You are the one playing semantics! You selectively took words from the last definition I posted, so I added the ones you strategically excluded.

Who is the "we" you refer to. A double elimination tourney has a final that may consist of one or two games, depending on the outcome of the first. This is standard, well and good. It is not hard to understand. No one here misunderstands it. Some people seem to dislike it, but it makes perfect sense. It is a logically consistent ***double ***elimination.

as someone who hasnt played in a final or got close to one, I like the idea of a much longer group stage played over two days guaranteeing everyone 6-8 games and then single elimination quarters, semi and final (played up to 10 with two halves).

I agree.

This isn't in any way meant to be critical about the LO, but purely from a mathematical point of view, using the LO as an example, there weren't enough rounds of Swiss (if podium is correct with 5 rounds).

You can see this from the fact that there were two teams with perfect records, who didn't play each other, and only 3 games played between the top 6 (those with 4 wins or more).

This indicates that those top 6 may be in the wrong order, and other teams might have risen into those places if those 6 had played each other more.

The number of rounds should always be at least the binary logarithm of the number of teams, so in this case it should have been 6.

While a double elim will largely take care of any anomolies, maybe 1 round (or more) on the next day and a smaller single elim might have produced more accurate results (not saying the results weren't accurate, just speaking theoretically).

Though of course you could argue after 6 rounds of swiss there is no point in having an elim anyway, as it's less accurate (but it's more fun).

You are the one playing semantics! You selectively took words from the last definition I posted, so I added the ones you strategically excluded.

Who is the "we" you refer to. A double elimination tourney has a final that may consist of one or two games, depending on the outcome of the first. This is standard, well and good. It is not hard to understand. No one here misunderstands it. Some people seem to dislike it, but it makes perfect sense. It is a logically consistent ***double ***elimination.

It's logical etc, but the point is that most people are not familiar with double elimination, as the format is not used in any popular European sports (at least not any that I can think of), and, as a spectacle, it is arguably less dramatic & climactic than a single, winner-takes-all final, which is what most people are used to.

This is the most reasonable statement I have seen from the "con" side. It is a good point. But my problem is that people are proposing to alter a very fair, consistent system, by arbitrarily modifying it because Europeans are not used to it. This distorts the beauty of the original system and, I think, it is condescending to Europeans to think that they cannot understand the system on its own and come to appreciate it for what it is.

i liked the two finals

it is condescending to Europeans to think that they cannot understand the system on its own and come to appreciate it for what it is.

It's mostly UK players who are apposed to this.

Most of the mainland players are for the 'double final'.

Swiss rounds is there to seed as accurately as possible - forcing results (ie. golden goal) just leads to less accurate seeding

I don't buy this. If a team scores a goal it's a goal, regardless of whether it's over time. Nothing is forced. If the Stanley Cup final goes to overtime/golden goal it's not looked at as forced? When Canada beat the US in the last Olympics in overtime it wasn't dismissed as a sham, but celebrated as a fucking awesome game.

I also don't buy the accuracy argument. I think draws hurt the accuracy of SR. If Supersonic and Call me Daddy both played each other, and drew, their seeding would have been skewed.

However:

true, but with limited time available, it fucks up the scheduling.

This is absolutely true. The LO allowed draws because it meant I could actually schedule the two days with some sense of accuracy.

I agree.

This isn't in any way meant to be critical about the LO, but purely from a mathematical point of view, using the LO as an example, there weren't enough rounds of Swiss (if podium is correct with 5 rounds).

You can see this from the fact that there were two teams with perfect records, who didn't play each other, and only 3 games played between the top 6 (those with 4 wins or more).

This indicates that those top 6 may be in the wrong order, and other teams might have risen into those places if those 6 had played each other more.

The number of rounds should always be at least the binary logarithm of the number of teams, so in this case it should have been 6.

While a double elim will largely take care of any anomolies, maybe 1 round (or more) on the next day and a smaller single elim might have produced more accurate results (not saying the results weren't accurate, just speaking theoretically).

Though of course you could argue after 6 rounds of swiss there is no point in having an elim anyway, as it's less accurate (but it's more fun).

The idea wasn't to get an absolutely perfect seeding for the second day, but a "the best we can." We have time for 5 rounds. SR with 5 rounds is better than random 5 rounds.

And your point at the end is also worth remembering. I'm not opposed to have a "final" in the initial stages, but would rather not. That's why in Brighton we used a system that allowed us to drop teams that had qualified for double elim early (rather than make them continue to play), but also gave us a more accurate mid-table. Again, the seeding would not be 100% the second day, but they were going into a double elim tournament and those teams at the bottom of the table were much more accurate than they would have been otherwise.

Nothing is perfect, but we try to put together a best possible system with the circumstances we are presented with.

Mark, are the results for the LO in Podium actually wrong?

It's mostly UK players who are apposed to this.

Most of the mainland players are for the 'double final'.

Well, 2 things:

UK is part of Europe, and I was thinking of non-polo playing Europeans. I hadn't ever heard of double elimination before the Paris BFF, but I doubt that it is common to any popular French sport.

Looking at the Wikipedia entry (which admittedly looks like B class article), it seems that it is used, in modified form, for some Gaelic sports, but is quite common in N America.

Mark, are the results for the LO in Podium actually wrong?

yes

The idea wasn't to get an absolutely perfect seeding for the second day, but a "the best we can." We have time for 5 rounds. SR with 5 rounds is better than random 5 rounds.

And your point at the end is also worth remembering. I'm not opposed to have a "final" in the initial stages, but would rather not. That's why in Brighton we used a system that allowed us to drop teams that had qualified for double elim early (rather than make them continue to play), but also gave us a more accurate mid-table. Again, the seeding would not be 100% the second day, but they were going into a double elim tournament and those teams at the bottom of the table were much more accurate than they would have been otherwise.

Nothing is perfect, but we try to put together a best possible system with the circumstances we are presented with.

Yeah, don't get me wrong, I'm sure what you did was the best for the circumstances, and really fun, I'm just giving a theoretical example for why I prefer single elim (as it allows a longer swiss rounds).

more SR= more accurate seeding, and more importantly, more games.
who knows, maybe next year the LO can be be fri - sun, with two days of SR. 7+ games of polo before the elim would be magical, but i understand the limitations regarding to work schedules.

and liver damage

Double elim is for hippies

Double elim is for hippies

Don't even go there. I eat hippies for lunch.

what do you have for breakfast? neo-libs?

Haha

And Guardian readers as mid-morning snack. Lacking in any substance, Guardian readers.