Double Elim...

31 teams will get two chances, but 1 team will only get 1 chance. This is making my head explode.

Vidal, I'm at work, can't ring you, I'm sure you're more than aware that double elimination has many variations (no route to final in L bracket, loser's challenge, winner/loser play-off only if unplayed, etc)... it's really not as simple as "let's do what it says on the tin". Your question is flawed as far as I'm concerned as every team doesn't always get two chances.

The reason I like single finals are because bike polo is an unpredictable sport and I feel that each team is allowed one mistake (bad game/mojo/ref/mechanical) until the best two teams have been found (with the L bracket team having to prove themselves against many more teams and experience more crashes, fatigue, etc).

I then see it as a declaration of "it's final time" which is an all-out (longer or untimed) game to decide which of these teams is worthy to be declared champions. You can rarely (in my opinion) build up the same amount of atmosphere of a single final across two games.

I also feel a literal double-elim tournament is much more predictable as it's a hell of an ask for a team to win two (possibly untimed) finals in a row, this could be offset by keeping the final games timed, but who wants to see a final won 1-0 at time, lame.

Again, the format we've used in the past (or it's definition historically) doesn't need to define this tournament as long as you make the teams aware of the change in advance of any games being played. We should still play/experiment with formats while we can.

If I was to follow your advice to the letter, then we should remove the label of "final" as "conventional" double elim doesn't have a final, just X number of games and we should keep the game length consistent throughout the tournament, it's incredibly unfair (in my opinion) to extend the length of the games towards the end, especially for the losing bracket team.

The winner has played fewer games, because they've worked so hard during those games not to lose.

The whole point of double elim is that you work hard, in every game, to stay in the winners bracket to not use up your life. You keep that extra life in hand.

When it comes to the end of a double elim single final tourney, the semi-final onwards won't have much impotus to win the games, as you will all be in the same position when you step on court for the final.

I think that aspect of double elim is important. To stay in the winners bracket requires a lot of concentration and effort, we should reward that!

Anyway I'm rambling now.

Your question is flawed as far as I'm concerned as every team doesn't always get two chances.

Um ... every team in the Sunday final gets two chances (always!) ... except the one team that goes undefeated until the first game of the final.

There are not "two finals." There is a single final that can be one or two games long. It is really not that hard to understand.

Sorry for being dim, what happens if the winner's bracket team wins the first final? Is there still a need for a second final?

What's so hard to understand. In any sport the final is the final. Your past performances don't matter. Who you beat earlier on doesn't matter. You need to win the final to win the tournament.

So the double elimination element is a way to narrow down a large field to the two teams that compete in the final. If you win all your games, great, then you get a place in the final. The other place is given to the team who only loses once. Now both teams are in the final and the winner wins the tournament.

If you are looking for a fairer way to decide the winner, then stick with league style round robin, with no finals system. Much fairer, but not as exciting for a tournament.

Look at it this way, when the final two teams are discovered, the losers brakcet team plays the winners bracket team. If the winners win then the losers are knocked out of the tournament (as they have lost two games) leaving the undefeated winners champions. If the losers win, they knock the winners into the losers bracket (as the winners have lost one game) to play them on their losers playing field in the losers bracket. If the losers beat the winners then the losers win as they have finished the tournament having lost one game, and the winners bracket team finish the tournament having lost two games.

It makes sense in my head anyway.

Ok now that makes sense to me, thanks Snoops.

I am so clear on this right now, I think I'm ready to cast my vote.

I would like to say, it's awesome seeing everyone getting so passionate over something that could very easily be ignored as boring and technical and pedantic and etc..

Format conversations are awesome.

If we all had jobs that we enjoyed none of these discussions would ever happen.

No! I love my job but rendering is mega boring. These discussions are shaping the future of polo.

true, polo geeks unite!

It may be relevant to note that all of North American polo uses the standard double elimination format: every team remains in until each loses two games.

Cosmic has more 2nd place finishes than Cadel Evans and Andy Schleck put together, right? People should take their opinion on this seriously.

When it comes to the end of a double elim single final tourney, the semi-final onwards won't have much impotus to win the games, as you will all be in the same position when you step on court for the final.

Not true, the loser of the winners semi-final can be beaten in the loser's semi-final and would be out. The winner's bracket team always get an easier ride in my opinion.

Here are some other (lame) ways to have a fairer final/process, food for thought:

No change to the time limit on games as the tournament goes on: The loser's bracket path requires the team to play games in quicker and quicker succession and it creates an unfair "fatigue" barrier to victory. Two finals.

If the loser's bracket team hasn't yet played the winner's bracket team then you have a single final, otherwise the winner's bracket team wins by default (double elim challenge).

Don't vote for less polo. Vote for more polo.

Hah, now that's a slogan I can get behind.

There have been well over a hundred double elim polo tourneys in N.A. and i've never heard this argument before, so i don't think this vote will have any bearing on what we (or the rest of Europe) does.

That said, i'm a polo geek so i'm arguing here anyway.

I will like to see what the rest of the poloverse has to say about this, maybe then some people will change their way of thinking

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.

This isn't a court of law, or a philosophical debate. We, the players & organisers, are allowed to mutually agree whatever we choose, whether it is illogical or not. After all, it's a sport, ie supposed to be fun. If we find that having 2 finals is not fun or entertaining, then we can decide to have as many, or as few, finals as long as it is clear to all beforehand.

We can do this without there being any negative impacts to global peace & understanding.

Hippy.

The winner is decided over the space of 1 day.
So certain ways we could decide this might not be suitable.
So we choose single or double elim.
Either lose and you're out or you get a 2nd chance.
And that should be offered to every team.

Other than that, I don't know how we'd do it but playing each team twice for a single elim would be interesting.
If the goal difference is the same after the 2nd game it runs to golden goal.

That could run up to the quarters or semis then become only one game but of double the time (or longer time).

For this discussion I vote for it being fair for every team.

There have been well over a hundred double elim polo tourneys in N.A. and i've never heard this argument before, so i don't think this vote will have any bearing on what we (or the rest of Europe) does.

You wait until London throws it's weight around...

For this discussion I vote for it being fair for every team.

Fairness is key, agreed. There are weaknesses for both approaches though in my opinion.

We'll go with the vote, I'm now a little indifferent (I thought everyone liked single finals).

Hippy.

Fascist.