CC Advise - DON'T use Tiebreaker to crown Champions

Discussion in 'Archive' started by SteveP, Feb 6, 2004.

  1. SteveP

    SteveP Active Member

    Just a bit of advise (from experience) for TOs and HJs running upcoming CCs. At the Lakewood CC, we crowned two of the three champions using the TMS tiebreakers. For each the 10- and 15+ categories, we had two players tied for first in match points, but not tied in tiebreaker points.

    So, without advise from Nintendo, here's what I'd advise if you end up with ties after the swiss rounds like we did at Lakewood (in order of precedence):

    1. Have a Top 8
    2. Use head-to-head records if Top 8 is not possible
    3. One-match playoff (not 1-prize sudden-death) if head-to-head doesn't indicate a clear champion

    Hopefully, no one out there will make the mistake we did at Lakewood to use Tiebreakers to crown a champion.
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2004
  2. mysterioustrainer

    mysterioustrainer New Member

    Hey Steve,

    Due to time limitations, I don't think I can pull of a top 8 (although I would like to) at Fort Collins. However I was planning to follow your methods to determine the winner.
     
  3. farbsman

    farbsman New Member

    SteveP,

    Thanks for the heads up. Since a Top 8 would take to long, I plan to have play offs if there are ties. So and positions that are tied would play against each other.

    I had 3 players tied in one age group at my prerelease because of the incorrect pairings by the software. We ended up playing a few rounds with pairings by hand to figure it out. That and the software failed.
     
  4. Adv1sor

    Adv1sor New Member

    You are advocating that we throw out the tiebreakers? This sounds like a dangerous precedent SteveP.

    Would you still use the tiebreakers to determine a top eight?

    Am I reading your second item to say that, at the end of the tournament, if the program shows the winner by tiebreakers to be player A with player B coming in second, but player B had beaten player A during the tournament, you would ignore the program and crown player B the winner?

    I wasn’t there, but from what I’ve read on this forum I don’t believe that you made a mistake in crowning your winners at Lakewood. You went by the rules. That’s not always popular, but it’s not a mistake.

    Whatever TOs do, please make it clear before the tournament begins just exactly how the winner will be decided.
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2004
  5. TheAnswer3

    TheAnswer3 New Member

    Why would a T8 be to long? Cutting to a T8 in any event is WHAT nintendo needs to do. It sucks getting a bad starting hand and losing cause then you might as well drop because the VIP package is gone. Straight Swiss is SERIOUSLY terrible, all CC need to run T8
     
  6. TheCrossFormatKid

    TheCrossFormatKid New Member

    I agree, ALL premier events should run top8s. If time is an issue, start earlier in the day.
     
  7. SteveP

    SteveP Active Member

    Advisor, Nintendo has NOT yet made a statement like WOTC and Decipher have in regards on how to use tiebreakers to crown tournament winners. WOTC says NOT to use tiebreakers to determine the winners (thereby requiring a top 8 or playoff in case of a tie). Decipher says to use tiebreakers ONLY IF an elimination round isn't used OR the tie can't be resolved by comparing swiss-round head-to-head records.

    That being said, and without advice directly from PUI, I'd say it would be a shame to crown the CC champion by using the tiebreakers as the sole means (when there are ties).

    Also, I'm leary to use playoffs without comparing head-to-head records (for those who don't want to crown a champ by merely using head-to-head records). What if Player A lost to Player B in the swiss rounds, but then beat Player B in a playoff? Do you do another playoff match? I'd say yes.
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2004
  8. Sensei

    Sensei Team Compendium Emeritus Staff Member Trader Feedback Mod

    Top 8(or Top X) has always been the true way to determine a champion.You can`t argue the results.It`s been done at all the top events.It doesn`t matter who beat who in the swiss rounds,when it comes playoff time,the records are "swept clean".Just like in sports.A team playing another team could have beaten the team they are playing in the regular season,but come playoff time,if the other team wins this one,it moves on.There is no "playoff".

    If you can`t do a Top 8,then the tie breaker is the resistance points.You can`t make an exception for two people(the head to head matchup) that are tied 1st/2nd but one is slightly higher due to resistance.If you do,then you would have to have a playoff for other top people that may have finished higher than others but lost to a person below them in the standings (but tied otherwise).

    I never did like the idea of a tournament not having a Top 8.But if you can`t do one,you have to abide by the softwares tie breakers.If you try to circumvent that,then whats the purpose of using it in the first place?There is a set system and we have to abide by it.Every person has an equal chance to get the most points.It`s especially critical in a "big" tournament to give it credibility.Start ignoring part of it,then you may as well make up other rules for it too.

    My suggestion is Top 8.

    `Sensei
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2004
  9. SteveP

    SteveP Active Member

    Sensei, I understand how top 8 "wipes the slate clean." I agree that's the best way to address the issue of breaking ties at the top. Hopefully, State Championships will ALL be required to use Top 8 format (or even top 2-4 for each age group in age-modified). Until then, I agree that we're stuck with resistance tiebreakers. But, IMO, it's a shame to crown ANY champ at ANY level who merely won the tiebreaker, and in fact like what happened at Lakewood CO, actually lost in the swiss rounds to the person he tied with. To crown someone based on how well their opponents played and NOT how well they themselves played creates a "mathmatical" champ, not a "true" champ.

    Finally, I'm not convinced that we're bound here to use the tiebreakers to crown champs. Nintendo hasn't ruled yet on this issue, and therefore, we're stuck with common sense and experience from the WOTC days. Both of those factors dictate that we avoid as much as possible the use of tiebreakers to "pick" our champs. Let's "crown" our champs, not "pick" them. JMO.
     
  10. )v(ajin_ipg21

    )v(ajin_ipg21 New Member

    As much as I can agree with your argument stevep did you just make a reference to a company that no longer owns (never did) the brand?

    That experience did bode well for MANY of us, but that experience can't dictate our method of running events under PUI guidelines (or even with the 'lack of') the de facto method is to use the tie breakers (for better or worse)

    PS I have always been a proponent of Top4/8 & of rolling down the top prize (yeah like that went anywhere with PUI =( )
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2004
  11. TrEkIeV

    TrEkIeV New Member

    how do you do a top 8 for 3 different age groups?
     
  12. NoPoke

    NoPoke New Member

    you run three of them : one for each age group.
     
  13. Sensei

    Sensei Team Compendium Emeritus Staff Member Trader Feedback Mod

    If you are running one tournament,age modified,then the top 8 are the top 8 people,no matter what the age.You can always figure out who the top 4(for the prizes at the CC) of the age groups were by looking at the standings.Sometimes,you`ll have to wait for the Top 8 or somewhere in between to finish to determine one or more age group placings.

    If you are running three separate age groups,then it`s top 8 for each age group(or top whatever depending on your turnout).

    `Sensei
     
  14. GymLeaderPhil

    GymLeaderPhil New Member

    Seems that PUI is making a reference and demand that WotC Professors would be the only ones able to judge and receive product. So, as it seems, references are made to the older days whenever the company benefits from such.

    As TO, I'd be running top eight. PUI needs to include that standard, at least! God knows most of their other efforts dont see the light of day or scheduled release date.
    -Phil
     
  15. meganium45

    meganium45 Active Member

    I am trying to get this approved by PUI at this moment.

    My proposal is that a top tourney be run for all divisions in the event where a champion is to be crowned.

    If there are only one or 2 competitiors, no top 8, swiss winner wins, in case of a tie playoff.

    In case of 3-5 in a division, cut to top 2

    in case of 6-12 in a division, cut to top 4

    in case of 13 or more in a division, cut to top 8. all top tourneys run single elimination, one game.

    Seems guidance like this would solve a lot of problems. I hate the idea of a top 8 with 8 people in a division, makes the swiss rounds worthless. I like a lot of people getting in, but top 8s should mean something. For a small tourney, not everyone should make the elimination rounds, and maybe some divisions would not have it!

    That's just the way it goes.

    Hope to hear from PUI on this, and I will pass it on.

    Meganium45 - See you ALL at Chicago, then in Colinsville, then in St. Louis, then in St. Louis again, then in Memphis, then in Sedalia....I have 6 straight weeks coming up, SHOULD BE GREAT!!!
     
  16. Adv1sor

    Adv1sor New Member

    When can we start making up other rules? :)

    If you don't want to use tie breakers and don't want to have someone win in top eight that lost to the same person in swiss, then you will have to do single eliminations for the whole tournament.

    I agree with 'Sensei. Play as many rounds as possible and cut to a top eight, or just go by what the software tells you.
     
  17. SteveP

    SteveP Active Member

    I like your idea meganium45 about requiring a top # for all major tournaments (except the pre-releases). But, I think PUI should STILL leave it up to the TOs about whether to have best-of-3 or not, even with Top #. Plus, don't you think WOTC set the precedence by having best-of-3 at Worlds? If PUI does best-of-3 at the upcoming Worlds in Orlando, I'd think that precedence should be an option that's passed down to the lesser Championships, based on TO preference. JMO.

    Nevertheless, regarding a requirement for Top #, I'd say that it should be waiveable if there are extenuating circumstances (i.e., time constraints). Otherwise, we may end up with TOs running an inadequate number of swiss rounds because they're compelled to run Top #. I personally think we should FIRST require the minimum number of rounds (based on attendance), THEN if possible, run Top #.

    My original advice still stands though. Don't use the tiebreakers to crown champs. AND, if you don't have a Top #, use head-to-head records and/or 1-match playoffs for those tied at the top with others in their age group. Nevertheless, if some TOs decide to use the tiebreakers-only to crown a CC champ, you certainly can't "slam" them for that. Likewise, if some TOs decide to use head-to-head and/or 1-match playoffs, you can't "slam" them for that either, unless of course, PUI rules on this issue.
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2004

Share This Page