I’m interested in seeing the community’s suggestions on possible improvements for the round robin tournament we currently have for Einstein.

Some current issues that have been pointed out are:

- the last match(es) can have no effect on the actual seedings of the teams - additionally when a team goes 0-2 or 0-3 they don’t have a lot left to play for
- the tiebreaker points can feel almost arbitrary, when there are many similarly strong alliances (such as Detroit this year), climb points can be an unfulfilling way to rank teams

Some positives:

- if the tiebreakers were to seed every alliance accurately, you do have the “best” two alliances in the finals (ie. the “second best” doesnt get eliminated in quarters by the best - the finals should be the most competitive matches)
- every Einstein alliance gets to experience at least 5 matches - the old model had some alliances being eliminated in two
- the strategy/scouting for Einstein teams is more interesting and varied - you are forced to develop multiple strategies for differing matchups

One suggestion I’ve already seen is to have the tiebreaker be head to head matchups. For example, for Detroit this year, all the teams who had 3 wins would be sorted by the number of wins they had against the other 3 win teams - leaving Daly and Tesla as the two 2-1 teams. They would then be sorted by head to head again - as Tesla beat Daly, Tesla would seed first and Daly would seed second. A potential problem is when you have three teams, such as Houston 2017, that all went 1-1 - you would then have to find another tiebreaker.

Another suggestion I have is a mix of the old division vs. division and round robin. You start by having each division play another (ie. Archimedes v Carson, Curie v Daly , Darwin v Tesla) in a best of 3 series. Let’s say the three winners are Archimedes, Curie and Darwin. They then play a best of three series against the other two alliances (ie. Archimedes v Curie, Archimedes v Darwin, Curie v Darwin). If an alliance loses both matchups, they are eliminated and you have your finalists, with the 2-0 team becoming the red alliance. If all the alliances go 1-1, you do the same bracket (ie. Archimedes v Curie, Archimedes v Darwin, Curie v Darwin) except in a best of 1, until one alliance loses both of their matches. While this would be very exciting - every match means something and every time you have a three-way tie the suspense builds, it would have the potential to be quite long.

Does anyone else have any suggestions to improve the format?