[tindleroot]

Originally Posted by Caleb Sykes

There are many good reasons for the 1v8, 2v7, etc... bracket in a WL game:

• Seeding higher, in theory, will always gives you an easier schedule. With any other system, it would become more advantageous to try to "game" your seed to end up in the slot that has the easiest (or easier) schedule. With the 1v8,2v7, etc... structure, 1 seed will generally have the easiest bracket, so teams only have to try to win. If a ranking system ever encourages teams to throw matches, whether or not any teams actually do this, I would say that it has a flaw.
• The matches get continuously more intense due to higher quality of teams advancing. Would you prefer that the 1 alliance "humiliates" the 8 alliance in the quarterfinals or in the finals? There is usually a buildup of excitement right up to the finals. The two best alliances at the event, going head to head for victory, has to happen in the finals.
• With wildcard slots and the district point system, the best teams need to have a chance to advance high in the competition. It would not be fair to either the 2 seed or the 1 seed if they went head to head right away, since both teams will, on average, not go as far in the competition, and thus have a worse chance of getting district qualifying points or wildcard slots.
• It is standard in most other sports. I can't even name a WL sport that doesn't use this structure. Thus, it is easy to explain to spectators, friends, and family. I have had some family members come to FRC competitions for the past 3 years, and I bet some of them still don't understand our crazy serpentine draft, but they all understand this tournament structure.

In a WL tournament structure, there is no reasonable alternative to the 1v8, 2v7, etc ... system. Also, nobody is forcing the 8 seed to get humiliated by the 1 seed. 8 seeds beat 1 seeds about 1 in 12 times in 2014*, I would hardly call that forced humiliation.

*http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/papers/3046

I think you're making a few incorrect assumptions here.
1. With the 1-8, 2-7. etc. System, the two best teams will not necessarily compete in the finals since the 1 seed alliance and 2 seed alliance are not always the best teams. If, for example, #1 seed is the best and #5 seed is the second best, they will face off in the semi-finals and only one will compete in the finals. A great example is the 2014 Curie Division, where the #1 seed Cheesy Poofs went undefeated throughout the division finals, except for one match - Semifinals 1-1 against 118, 359, and 4334. 118 captained the #5 seed alliance, yet I believe they were the second best alliance in the finals. In my opinion, it would have been more exciting had the 254 alliance played the 118 alliance in the finals, which would have happened had the advancement system been like this year.

2. Yes, usually the #1 seed destroys the #8 seed (at least at regionals and districts), but the #8 seed is often better than some of the other alliances. Why should a good #8 seed be knocked out by #1 in the quarterfinals if they are better than 1/2 of the other alliances? With the new system this year, this problem is remedied. At the Indianapolis district event last weekend, the #8 alliance held the highest quarterfinals average (until the last match when #1 got above them), and could have even advanced to the finals if not for a yellow card. Using last year's structure, they would have lost the quarterfinals and been finished simply for having to face the #1 seed first.