Does States need a bigger cap when it comes to Top Cut?

[TheDarkTwins]

This was a major topic of discussion at States yesterday. We had 128 (plus 5 late entries) for 133 players. We had 7 rounds of swiss. The issue was the majority of 5-2's ended up missing cut. With Championship Points being given out for Worlds Invites, it feels unfair that the players who miss the cut going 5-2 or even 6-2 to be getting a few CP and then not being able to play for the title. I'm sure the easy solution would be to allow a T32 cap, however I'd much rather see a top cut mandate of all X-2 make it, assuming that X is more than 4. I just think that everyone should get an equal shot if they went 5-2 to win, it's not their fault who the computer paired them with, why should they get punished. This is just a thought, and to be honest, telling someone to NOT lose, isn't a good solution.

Thoughts?

Drew

 

[bullados]

Unless I'm hearing wrong, didn't Ohio go T32 yesterday?

Yes, I heard wrong. Ohio went T16 with over 200 players in Masters...

 

[pokesam128]

i think yes because at oregon states one of the top attendance states in the world masters have something like 8 rounds top 16 and like 183 people so i think it should be a cap at top 32 and yesterday i got 18 out of top 16 by .3 of 1%

 

[JandPDS]

i think yes because at oregon states one of the top attendance states in the world masters have something like 8 rounds top 16 and like 183 people so i think it should be a cap at top 32 and yesterday i got 18 out of top 16 by .3 of 1%

Yes I agree, a top 16 with 172 players is a bit silly. But it is better then the T8 we had as a cap for states a few years back.

 

[SMP88]

Ohio had 220 masters and had a T16 cut, that's only 7% of the field making top cut. 15 6-2's missed cut on resistance.

edit: Just for reference, in Masters, there was 1 less player than the Indiana Regionals, which was the 2nd highest regional.

 

[secretsof2113]

Unless I'm hearing wrong, didn't Ohio go T32 yesterday?

Yes, I heard wrong. Ohio went T16 with over 200 players in Masters...

Yes, you're hearing wrong. Pokemon limited every States to a T16 cut. We had over 200 masters alone yesterday. I know a lot of people were mad that a t32 wasn't possible.

 

[vaporeon]

They should have forced a top 32 for states. We had almost 200 masters yesterday and its unacceptable to only allow 16 to make it. Also, top 32 allows people who can only go to 1 states a better chance to make it in.

 

[z-man]

I'd say no... tentatively. If we are going to cut Top cut rounds, we should at least have a reasonable number of swiss rounds. In events that are down-sized to having T16 when they should have T32, those events should at least have 8 rounds. There is almost no difference between adding a round of swiss and adding a round of cut (except time). The standard round number is 7, but 8 would suffice for having a good representation of players in top cut. If that can't happen, we should definitely be cutting to Top 32.

 

[bullados]

My thought...

It should be up to each PTO as to how many Top Cut rounds they run, up to the maximum allowed by the Floor Rules. If an Organizer cannot run the maximum, they should post on their tournament listing and wherever they're promoting the tournament what the maximum Top Cut they will allow is.

I quite agree that T16 for 200 players is kinda absurd. But there are factors outside of attendance that can force the issue. Such as venue closing times. Such as the Organizer having other unavoidable commitments the day after a tournament. I can understand why certain Organizers would have to limit the amount of rounds and Top Cut they can do. I nearly had to do so myself a couple of times, but friendly venues made it a non-issue. The point is that it should be up to the Organizer's discretion as to how many Top Cut rounds can be run.

 

[Rambo1000]

when you have players like Jimmy Ballard going 6-2 and missing cut there's a problem. clearly top cut should be extended to top32 for states.

 

[Prof Clay]

They should have forced a top 32 for states. We had almost 200 masters yesterday and its unacceptable to only allow 16 to make it. Also, top 32 allows people who can only go to 1 states a better chance to make it in.

Lets see....1) doing what the players demand, when they knew ahead of time the max cut..

or 2) keeping our jobs to run more events....


I will take #2

I will agree top 32 would have been appropriate in a larger field but we still have limits placed on us as organizers. We are given specific instructions on how the event will be run.

Comments prior to the start of states should have been directed to the main office to discuss a change.

PTO's follow the directives given to us...do not get mad at us for doing our jobs

Thanks

 

[TheRolesWePlay]

They should have forced a top 32 for states. We had almost 200 masters yesterday and its unacceptable to only allow 16 to make it. Also, top 32 allows people who can only go to 1 states a better chance to make it in.

Forcing a top cut? :lol::lol::lol:

A quick side-note first

At AZ States we had 195 players overall, of those 134 were Masters. Were you talking about Ohio or something you'd have a better case.

While I do think that we should have a higher top cut since States are now being held over three weeks and more players are able to travel to more tournaments and thus higher attendance. However the top cut limit is there for a reason, namely to keep the tournaments from running too long (judges/PTOs feel free to correct me), since it isn't as large an event as Nats.

Further to say they should force it because you aren't satisfied is both selfish and inconsiderate.

Don't get me wrong I'm kinda upset myself. I barely missed top cut myself, but that's how the events go to try to keep a pleasant environment, and to keep from overworking the judging staff.

 

[Victory Bell]

The cut structure badly needs change. The most notable example was X-2s missing cut at Worlds last year.

Making cut should not depend on how one's opponents do, something uncontrollable.

In the event of a closing time, cap the event before hand. If not, I think those 32 people should be playing on the table for the top spots, not off it and on what is essentially luck.

 

[TheDarkTwins]

Lets see....1) doing what the players demand, when they knew ahead of time the max cut..

or 2) keeping our jobs to run more events....


I will take #2

I will agree top 32 would have been appropriate in a larger field but we still have limits placed on us as organizers. We are given specific instructions on how the event will be run.

Comments prior to the start of states should have been directed to the main office to discuss a change.

PTO's follow the directives given to us...do not get mad at us for doing our jobs

Thanks

I understand that, which is why I highlighted the solution I gave is instead just having a only those who go X-2 with X being 5 or more.

To be honest, PTO's should be able to prepare for that. The Judges as well. They run them every year, you should be able to predict exactly how much time you need and should be able to work out how much time you think you need and give yourself enough time to run the event, even in the worst case scenario.

I'd say no... tentatively. If we are going to cut Top cut rounds, we should at least have a reasonable number of swiss rounds. In events that are down-sized to having T16 when they should have T32, those events should at least have 8 rounds. There is almost no difference between adding a round of swiss and adding a round of cut (except time). The standard round number is 7, but 8 would suffice for having a good representation of players in top cut. If that can't happen, we should definitely be cutting to Top 32.

I don't think that you have to do that. It shouldn't matter if you have 128 players or 200. You should still be able to hold a T32. I also think that the software should also be able to add a round if players join after the tournament starts. I mean there was no reason that after the 5 players joined us in PA, that it couldn't have made it 8 rounds. That would have made the number of players who went 6-2 a lot better and might have not allowed that many, if any to miss.

I can't argue against running an extra round. The only thing I have an issue with is that the difference between running an extra round and a T32 is about 30 minutes. If you decided to still deck check only T16 than that is all it adds. I'm not sure what I'd prefer. I'm think it is better to have a T32, but that's just me.

Drew

 

[Prof Clay]

To be honest, PTO's should be able to prepare for that. The Judges as well. They run them every year, you should be able to predict exactly how much time you need and should be able to work out how much time you think you need and give yourself enough time to run the event, even in the worst case scenario.

Problem with this year is we had no real data to base changes on.

Tennessee for the past 4 years has had under 100 players...this year, 141. No way I could anticipate a jump like that. I know attendance has been up all over the board, but you can't start guessing for the sake of guessing

Fortunately the venue I use can seat well over 500 on a busy day.

 

[Spidy]

play pokemon iusually does things based on hard data.
sure a raise in attendance could have been predicted (maybe not the spike that some places had), but they like to know things before hand
i think they should have allowed top 32 where it was needed, at the discretion of the TOs.

and if we make enough fuss, they might raise the cap next year, but we have to wait and see

 

[vaporeon]

@ Prof Clay

If it were not for the players, the game would not exist. The players want a higher top cut for events. At our BR's, we had enough players in Masters to do a top 8 each time. At our Cities, we had enough for a top 16 most the time and at our states here in AZ, we had enough for top 32. The players want a better chance at getting in. It's bad for a game to not allow all X-2 players to get in.

Sure players know about the caps and such for each event but does not change the fact that players want higher caps. All it does is add time to the event and that should be fine.



@ TheRolesWePlay

Whats funny about forcing a top 32 cut? It's not funny to those people that bubble out because they lost in the first round. States should have a cap of 32. Top cut should have a bass number. That is fine. 16 players is fine for a event that has at least 50 or so people in their age group. What they should do is allow 33 percent of the players with the best records to play in the top cut or something along those lines. That's a little over 2 percent of players (maybe less depending on attendance) that can play in the top cut. 98 percent of the players don't have a chance and that is a problem.

 

[MiniWade]

If you expand the top cut, that will usually lead to more time. Meaning Pokemon have to be dishing out more money for using venues for these events. As if this year there budget hasn't been used up enough this year on two regionals.

 

[TheRolesWePlay]

@ Prof Clay

If it were not for the players, the game would not exist. The players want a higher top cut for events. At our BR's, we had enough players in Masters to do a top 8 each time. At our Cities, we had enough for a top 16 most the time and at our states here in AZ, we had enough for top 32. The players want a better chance at getting in. It's bad for a game to not allow all X-2 players to get in.

Sure players know about the caps and such for each event but does not change the fact that players want higher caps. All it does is add time to the event and that should be fine.

Yeah so I double checked the numbers. We didn't have enough for T16, we had enough for T8, but not T16, [DEL]and I'm pretty sure BR wasn't T8 either.[/DEL] EDIT: Double checked, we did have enough for T8 for Masters at many BRs this autumn.

@ TheRolesWePlay

Whats funny about forcing a top 32 cut? It's not funny to those people that bubble out because they lost in the first round. States should have a cap of 32. Top cut should have a bass number. That is fine. 16 players is fine for a event that has at least 50 or so people in their age group. What they should do is allow 33 percent of the players with the best records to play in the top cut or something along those lines. That's a little over 2 percent of players (maybe less depending on attendance) that can play in the top cut. 98 percent of the players don't have a chance and that is a problem.

What's funny about forcing a top 32 cut? Well for starters as Prof Clay has kindly pointed out PTOs are given limits and are expected to follow them. To not follow them would be to breach several of the Professor Core Values. Then there's the word "force" that you threw in there, and if you can't understand that, then too bad, I'm not going to explain that.

Also don't talk to me about bubbling, because I barely missed top cut, and my first lose was in round 5. Additionally saying the top 33% should b in top cut adds a lot more work and uneven distribution of rounds for top cut, which is why we see "if you have 64 players you can have top cut of 16," In all reality they aim to have about the top fourth depending on those marks, so really 25% (maximum) of players normally make top cut, not 2%. Lastly this is the first year of States with three weekends, and all changes (if any) will likely occur next year since there wasn't any data prior as several posts above have pointed out.

So please, stop complaining about the event staff for doing what has been dictated to them, and telling them to break the rules in interest of your self.

 

[MGS-58]

If we could get top 32 for the highly populated state championships next year that'd be great. Hopefully it can happen