Thread: Am I the only one who LOVED the seeding system this year?
View Single Post
  #9   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 19-04-2010, 15:30
IKE's Avatar
IKE IKE is offline
Not so Custom User Title
AKA: Isaac Rife
no team (N/A)
Team Role: Mechanical
  
Join Date: Jan 2008
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,148
IKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Am I the only one who LOVED the seeding system this year?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1075guy View Post
Why shouldn't the LOSING alliance get a proportional benefit to the closeness of the match?
Hence Winners = W+2L
and losers = 2L

For the example I gave, this switches it from a 61 vs. 20 seeding score to a 56: 36. It still pays dividends to win, but isn't quite as bad to loose a close high scoring one.

Also if you win 20:2 then winners get 24, losers get 4. instead of 24 & 20 respectively.

As I tell the kids, DO THE MATH!
Last edited by IKE : 19-04-2010 at 15:30. Reason: added a catch-phrase
Reply With Quote