View Single Post
  #6   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 27-04-2003, 01:33
Jack Jones Jack Jones is offline
Retired
no team
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Waterford, MI
Posts: 964
Jack Jones has a reputation beyond reputeJack Jones has a reputation beyond reputeJack Jones has a reputation beyond reputeJack Jones has a reputation beyond reputeJack Jones has a reputation beyond reputeJack Jones has a reputation beyond reputeJack Jones has a reputation beyond reputeJack Jones has a reputation beyond reputeJack Jones has a reputation beyond reputeJack Jones has a reputation beyond reputeJack Jones has a reputation beyond repute
Double Elimination!

So can we fit 16 more matches into the schedule?
Not to argue semantics, but I tend to think of a match as it is in the seeding rounds - 2:15.
But either way you look at it, it would take over three times as long if the current two match per contest remained in place.
On the other hand - and using my notion of a match...
The elimination rounds could contain 16 alliances , have only 14 more matches ( twice the current number ), and have a Bronze Medal winner to boot.

How's that? With a modified 16 alliance double elimination tournament. Similar to the ones we see in softball, but modified so that the alliance that emerges from the winner's bracket finishes first without having to face the alliances that emerges from the loser's bracket.
It would look like this:


EDIT- to clean up own semantics

Last edited by Jack Jones : 27-04-2003 at 07:53.
Reply With Quote