Thread: [Official 2007 Game Design] Radical Tournament Ideas
View Single Post
  #14   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 16-05-2006, 16:17
Lil' Lavery Lil' Lavery is offline
TSIMFD
AKA: Sean Lavery
FRC #1712 (DAWGMA)
Team Role: Mentor
  
Join Date: Nov 2003
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 6,606
Lil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Lil' Lavery
Re: [Official 2007 Game Design] Radical Tournament Ideas
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjack
I really don't see the benefit of going 1-8,8-1 in alliance selections. Is there data showing that this drafting method helps lower seeded teams? How many regional winners were 1-4 seeds in 2005 vs 2006?

What would be an interesting twist is not allowing an alliance captain to pick another alliance captain. This is probably a better way of 'leveling' the field for the finals. I would imagine that many alliances that win regionals consist of 2 top 8 teams.
I'll explain why that wouldn't work. Even though it isnt GP, it would happen. Teams would purposely throw matches to get out of the top 8 so that a high seeded team could pick them.
__________________
Being correct doesn't mean you don't have to explain yourself.