View Single Post
  #53   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 10-05-2009, 15:55
XaulZan11's Avatar
XaulZan11 XaulZan11 is offline
Registered User
AKA: John Christiansen
no team
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Milwaukee, Wi
Posts: 1,326
XaulZan11 has a reputation beyond reputeXaulZan11 has a reputation beyond reputeXaulZan11 has a reputation beyond reputeXaulZan11 has a reputation beyond reputeXaulZan11 has a reputation beyond reputeXaulZan11 has a reputation beyond reputeXaulZan11 has a reputation beyond reputeXaulZan11 has a reputation beyond reputeXaulZan11 has a reputation beyond reputeXaulZan11 has a reputation beyond reputeXaulZan11 has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to XaulZan11
Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpmittins View Post
Pure curiosity here. How does a 1-8, 1-8 draft actually make alliance selection fairer? Each time, the 8th seed gets the last of what's left, especially in the second round. Am I missing something?
Well, those teams who won all or nearly all of their qualification matches should be rewarded with a fairly substancial advantage. For some events, depending on the distribution of teams (where teams 16 and 17 may be better than teams 2 and 24), it may be better to be seeded 8th. I don't think it is fair that a team who lost more gets an advantage.

The problem with the 1-8 1-8 is that the top 8 seeded teams are not always in the best teams. I don't think having a 1-8, 8-1 selection is the correct answer to solving the problem. It's more of a band-aid to the problem. The only way to fix the fact that 'bad' teams seed high is more qualification matches. Increase the sample size and you will get better results.
Reply With Quote