[archiver]

Posted by Chris, Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.

Posted on 3/15/99 3:42 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: The Society for More Qualifying Rounds posted by Jerry Eckert on 3/15/99 12:48 PM MST:



: : I think the solution here is to have more teams in the eliminations (I posted a message on this a couple of months ago).
: : Due to space and time constraints, we're not going to get more qualification matches. Therefore, I think we should get more teams in the elimination.

: The only way to increase the number of teams in the elimination rounds without increasing the allocated time is to add additional playing fields.
: If the additional space is available, why not use it to increase the number of qualifying matches?

: - Jerry

Why not increase the number of qualifying matches? First, the most playing fields they would likely have is four. If you believe in Joe's math (which I do) even with 4 playing fields each team would only get about 5 to 6 qualification rounds. However, with four fields you could increase the number of teams in the elimination to 64 (as opposed to 16) and add virtually no time on to the competition.

Another point that Joe brought up is that with the dilution of matches, the "top eight" may not really be the top 8. Therefore, the best team may not win because this team may not get into the eliminations. There are two solutions to this problem:

1) Increase the number of qualificaiton matches. This would be my preference since I believe that the best team is more likely to come out of a 'round-robin' than a tournament. However, in order to give everyone at least 10 qualification matches, we would need around 8 fields, which is not going to happen.

2) Increase the number of teams in the elimination matches. Granted, increasing the number of qualification matches would be preferred, but it is MUCH more likely that the good teams will make the eliminations with this system. In other words if you can't guarantee a top 8 with 4 matches, you should get the top 8 teams within the top 32 from the 4 matches, which would make the competition somewhat more fair.

As I stated in a past post, this is how I would like to see it (providing there are 4 fields, which may or may not happen):

1. Each field has it's own tournament braket and 'champion', like the four regions in the NCAA tournament.

2. Each field has a top 8 that gets to pick its alliance partner.

3. Each field then plays it out to determine the field champion.

4. Each field champion makes up the "Final Four" of the overall tournament.

5. The final four then battle it out on the main stage for the Championship.


I think this format would be very exciting. Not to mention it would give teams something else to shoot for. In college basketball, teams hang banners from the ceiling just for making the final four. It could be another honor, just behind winning the championship. Teams then have not only the championship to shoot for, but being in the "Final Four" is also a very big honor.


Anyway, that's my thoughts and I'm stickin' to 'em.