|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
| View Poll Results: Have 16 alliances in elimination rounds? | |||
| Keep the elimination rounds to 8 alliances. |
|
20 | 57.14% |
| Have 16 alliances in the elimination rounds by adding 16 matches. |
|
15 | 42.86% |
| Voters: 35. You may not vote on this poll | |||
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Long post - this year's game was tough - here's why: | archiver | 2001 | 7 | 24-06-2002 03:31 |
| Hits, Misses, & Suggestions -- long message | archiver | 2000 | 17 | 23-06-2002 23:36 |
| The Case For 'Regionalizing' teams at the Nationals. | archiver | 2000 | 33 | 23-06-2002 23:35 |
| How do we view more teams? | archiver | 2000 | 0 | 23-06-2002 23:11 |
| Multiple Regionals | archiver | 1999 | 55 | 23-06-2002 22:26 |