North American Battle of the Blades [NABB]

[EbdanianAdmiral]

4 weeks will lead to a ton of teams with the same record going into playoffs. We have tiebreakers in place, but some teams might view it as unfair if the difference between them being the 8 and 9 seed is winning a match 6-1 instead of 6-0. A 5th week would ensure that all the teams which will be 2-2 after week 4 play each other and break their ties. Thoughts?

Upsides

• All the 2-2 teams will be either 3-2 or 2-3. This will make the playoffs less about tiebreakers and more about who won matches.
• Challonge will have another week to balance strength of schedule. All things considered it has done a decent job balancing matchups, but there are 2 exceptions. AWH has played a much harder schedule than RM.
• Players get more opportunities to add to their stats.

Downsides.

• The group stage will be one week longer.
• The upcoming multiplayer patch will most likely come right before the playoffs start. It was most likely going to drop within the tournament either way, so this might actually be an upside because now teams will have a quick break between group stage and playoffs to get used to the new patch.
• Either Unknown or RM will be the last undefeated team after week 4. They will have to play one of the one loss teams week 5. I am fairly certain there will be no rematches but I don't have a computer brain so I cant predict every possible outcome.

 

[FearSpear]

Downside: Changing the agreed rules of a tournament mid-tournament

 

[method man]

I'm certainly biased but I do like this idea.

 

[GEO_MihaWk.]

+1

 

[EbdanianAdmiral]

Downside: Changing the agreed rules of a tournament mid-tournament

Yeah. Fair. With that said if a team cant handle one extra week of group stage I dont know how it expected to be able to handle an extra 3 weeks of playoffs.

 

[FearSpear]

Yeah. Fair. With that said if a team cant handle one extra week of group stage I dont know how it expected to be able to handle an extra 3 weeks of playoffs.

It is not a matter of extra effort on behalf of the participating teams, it is a matter of honor. Les had a tournament that was unsuccessful in part because his rules were malleable despite his rule shifts primarily being in good intention to ensure the forward momentum of his tournament. When you change a contract, it opens up an avenue for people to criticize and shift blame, as most competitive individuals enjoy the opportunity to shift blame in order to save face (See: Deontay Wilder's 40 pound walkout costume excuse). Thus, while your suggestion may be pragmatically sound, it is not moral as you are breaking a contract with the participating teams. As a matter of honor, I cannot agree with your suggestion.

 

[GEO_MihaWk.]

When you change a contract, it opens up an avenue for people to criticize and shift blame, as most competitive individuals enjoy the opportunity to shift blame in order to save face

If you're talking about people in this tournament you might be on crack Sir

 

[EbdanianAdmiral]

It is not a matter of extra effort on behalf of the participating teams, it is a matter of honor. Les had a tournament that was unsuccessful in part because his rules were malleable despite his rule shifts primarily being in good intention to ensure the forward momentum of his tournament. When you change a contract, it opens up an avenue for people to criticize and shift blame, as most competitive individuals enjoy the opportunity to shift blame in order to save face (See: Deontay Wilder's 40 pound walkout costume excuse). Thus, while your suggestion may be pragmatically sound, it is not moral as you are breaking a contract with the participating teams. As a matter of honor, I cannot agree with your suggestion.

Pretty sure his tournament was unsuccessful because single elim is a dog**** format for a multi team tournament and that it didnt contain a finals match.

 

[Alyss]

It is not a matter of extra effort on behalf of the participating teams, it is a matter of honor. Les had a tournament that was unsuccessful in part because his rules were malleable despite his rule shifts primarily being in good intention to ensure the forward momentum of his tournament. When you change a contract, it opens up an avenue for people to criticize and shift blame, as most competitive individuals enjoy the opportunity to shift blame in order to save face (See: Deontay Wilder's 40 pound walkout costume excuse). Thus, while your suggestion may be pragmatically sound, it is not moral as you are breaking a contract with the participating teams. As a matter of honor, I cannot agree with your suggestion.

The difference is that Les shifted the rules in his favors, without consent of the players. Here it’s a suggestion that all players can discuss, not a forced rule change. Plus there is a competent admin team (not just one crybaby) so they will discuss it and won’t be biased since 4 teams are represented in the administration (3 of them that are probably not concerned about the suggested changes)

 

[EbdanianAdmiral]

This is a change that would benefit the teams in a worse position much more than the teams in a good one. The only admin who maybe has something to gain from this is John, and that’s only if he loses to AWH. Every other team benefits because they will control their own destiny again.

 

[EbdanianAdmiral]

After watching AWH vs KoA I very strongly feel that this is a good idea. They both deserve to be in the playoffs but one of them may miss out if they both end the season 2-2

 

[GEO_MihaWk.]

After watching AWH vs KoA I very strongly feel that this is a good idea. They both deserve to be in the playoffs but one of them may miss out if they both end the season 2-2

Agreed again

 

[SidePleb]

I'd like to make playoffs, and this system probably wouldn't increase my team's chances. However, I'd like this to happen by the pure fact that I'd enjoy having more competitive games. As well as people who deserve to get into the playoffs will make it.

 

[EbdanianAdmiral]

I'd like to make playoffs, and this system probably wouldn't increase my team's chances. However, I'd like this to happen by the pure fact that I'd enjoy having more competitive games. As well as people who deserve to get into the playoffs will make it.

If RMC wins week 4 they will be in playoffs regardless of what happens during a theoretical week 5. If you lose week 4 the 5th week may give you an avenue back into the playoffs that you wouldnt otherwise have. All I can say for certain is that the teams who are currently 2-1 really DO NOT want to lose week 4. Doing so puts them at the mercy of round differential and strength of schedule. Since all the 2-1 teams will be playing against each other its guaranteed that half of them will lose.

 

[Mabons]

I'd like to make playoffs, and this system probably wouldn't increase my team's chances. However, I'd like this to happen by the pure fact that I'd enjoy having more competitive games. As well as people who deserve to get into the playoffs will make it.

Just passing through this group but is there a loser bracket planned? That would extend some competitive matches further for ya’ll.

 

[HancockT35]

IMO atleast i think any team that guarantee's a playoff spot in week 4 shouldn't be forced to play if there is a week 5 imo cause idk seems kinda pointless and vice versa any team that cannot make playoffs just doesn't play either and then the teams battling for a spot just go at it that way you don't get any weird 2-2 team facing some team thats 3-1 and alrdy in the playoffs.

 

[EbdanianAdmiral]

IMO atleast i think any team that guarantee's a playoff spot in week 4 shouldn't be forced to play if there is a week 5 imo cause idk seems kinda pointless and vice versa any team that cannot make playoffs just doesn't play either and then the teams battling for a spot just go at it that way you don't get any weird 2-2 team facing some team thats 3-1 and alrdy in the playoffs.

There should be enough 3-1 teams playing each other so that there arent a ton playing 2-2 teams. Some 3-1 teams might drop down to 3-2 but if 3-1 teams are losing to other 3-1 teams that will just help with the seeding. Its less tiebreakers all around.

 

[SidePleb]

IMO atleast i think any team that guarantee's a playoff spot in week 4 shouldn't be forced to play if there is a week 5 imo cause idk seems kinda pointless and vice versa any team that cannot make playoffs just doesn't play either and then the teams battling for a spot just go at it that way you don't get any weird 2-2 team facing some team thats 3-1 and alrdy in the playoffs.

In that case there should just be a losers bracket lol