With Chezy doing a best of 1 I actually disagree with it being a more even playing field. Imagine you are alliance 4/5 this is always expected to be closest match up in the first round, and unfortunately you lose the first match by 1 point. You now have to win 4 matches in a row to hope to make finals basically requiring you to play perfectly every match.
If the same match happens in a traditional best of 3 you have a chance to edit your strategy since you are facing the same opponent and potentially edit an auto or fix someone’s failed climb and win 2 in a row. You are now “reset” and can afford to lose another match and not completely lose the tournament since you are in a new best of 3.
I would rather have the option to go 4-2 on my way to finals then 4-1.
To be clear I am glad they are experimenting with the tournament structure and I wish more events would try other things to see if something is better. However this structure makes me worried with best of 1’s since it results in 15-16 matches while the traditional structure results in 14-21 matches. My worry is that for the interest of ending events “on time” this structure could be adopted for official events. I worry best of 1’s will result in teams getting into the “lower” bracket due to an unfortunate disconnect or someone pulling a “cheese” strategy that would not work in a best of 3 but does work in a 1 off.
I do wish it was 2 out of 3 double elimination however having 28-42 elims matches is a little much. If there was a way to do double elims in the “upper” bracket and finals while single elimination in the lower would result in 22-30 matches which is a little more reasonable but still a lot.