Top cut issues

Discussion in 'State/Province/Territory Championships' started by JandPDS, Mar 3, 2008.

  1. JandPDS

    JandPDS New Member

    Below quote from mumsascrappa on the Rhode Island State Championshp


    Totals:
    Masters: 18 playing 5 rounds cutting to T4
    Seniors: 19 playing 5 rounds cutting to T4
    Juniors: 20 playing 5 rounds cutting to T4
    Total: 57

    Note: Bad weather plagued New England Friday night into Saturday. Pretty good numbers considering that, and the fact the the New England player base had to decide whether to play in RI or NH.[/QUOTE][/COLOR]

    What gives with the top cut, it is so unbalanced that maybe it is time to just go ahead and get rid of it altogether. I do not mean to belittle the organized play in Rhode Island in any way, they were very pleased with the turnout that they received for the state championship, and they had every reason to feel that way..

    However, how is it right that a tournament with 18 players gets a top 4 cut while Oregon States with 97 players (that is 5 times the participation) is only allowed 2 times the top cut with a Top 8?
    Can someone please explain the thought process that leads one to believe that a top 4 out of 18 participants (or 22% of the players) is in any way comparable to tournament with a top 8 out of 97 players (or 8% of the field)

    The players in Oregon were in an event 5 times larger then Rhode Island but the players there only had 1/3 the chance to top cut as thoes in the Rhode Island event.

    Perhaps it is time to get rid of the top cuts altogether, and just play swiss until there is one undefeated person left and they will be declared the champion. That way every person in every event, regardless of the size of the participation will have an equal chance to win the tourney. If it is good enough for prerelease's why not use it for other premier events as well.
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2008
  2. bonslypwns

    bonslypwns New Member

    Top 8 is the limit no matter what.
     
  3. SlimeyGrimey

    SlimeyGrimey New Member

    If the top cut was the "appropriate" size for Oregon, the players who attended the Oregon state championship would be at even more of a tremendous ratings advantage over players who can only attend smaller events.

    It needs to be that way to make the ranking invites (more) fair.
     
  4. TODDakaESTEBAN

    TODDakaESTEBAN New Member

    we had a top 8 cut in masters in nh i don't know how many rounds you guys have and what you would need to attain to top cut in whatever state your from but you can only lose 1 round here and top cut depending on attandence some 2-3's or 2-4s make it to top cut, i don't see how much easier a tourney in nh could be than your state, what do yo have to do go undefeated to top 8?

    because if that were the case i suppose it wouldn't be completely rediculous for you to post this, but to tell you the truth it is completely rediculous, i'm sorry you didn't top cut or your just so concerned about the "unfair" difference in tourney size but it's the kind of thing you say "get over it" about

    sorry that mathematically it's easier to top cut at my tournies but if you couldn't top cut in oregon i don't think you have any reason to think you could have done so in new england or that we have an unfair advantage

    you can only have t8 so why are you complaining that you got the maximum to cut, because a smaller state got a decent sized top cut
     
  5. JandPDS

    JandPDS New Member

    Why are you sorry that I did not top cut? That is not the issue, as I never said that I made the top cut or did not. For all the relevance that my personal performance has to this topic you might as well assume that I went 1-6, and my assureance that my opinion on this issue would not change if I had gone 7-0 in Swiss. You must not have read my post as you did not address the point of this topic at all, and that is should Top cuts be eliminated altogether from Premier events?

    IF the reason that a Top 16 is unfair is because some areas get more rounds then others because they have more players, then eliminating the top cut would be even more fair to areas with small attendance if that is the goal. But the current situation where in state A gets 22% of the participants in the top cut and state B gets only 8% in makes little sense to me.
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2008
  6. TODDakaESTEBAN

    TODDakaESTEBAN New Member

    it's not that top 16 isn't fair, because you have more rounds, it's that having less rounds doesn't make having an equal top cut unfair, there is a max of t8 for states, if there were a sliding scale that gave some states 0 and others 8 or 16 then it would be unfair to the states that have no top cut, because you would have to go undefeated to win, if you think that's fair or how the majority of people win tournies (undefeated) then your wrong

    every tourney deserves a top cut, at new hanpshire states con lee was 8th going into top cut and he ended up winning the tourney, forcing the winner of a tournament to be decided by who's undefeated means that the players that win tournies without top cuts would have to do much better than people at bigger tournies, having a higher ratio of players in top cut in smaller area may be unfair but...

    unless your saying that at your states you had to go undefeated to top cut, than i don't think either situation is more or less fair, if yo uhave to go undefeated at your states because of attendance, than it is unfair that in ne you can lose a match and still win the tourney but i don't think that's the case
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2008
  7. JandPDS

    JandPDS New Member

    I have no idea what you are saying. New Hampshire had a top 4 this year not a top 8, so I have no clue how someone who finished 8th in a State that had at top 4 could win it.

    Ok I will try this one more time. If top cuts limits are in place so that a tournament that has 97 people only gets a top 8 while a tournament that has 18 gets at top 4, and this limit exists only for the purpose to be be fair to the small event and make the amount of rounds between the two events more similar in number of rounds played. Therefore, this is done because if is unfair that the people with 97 players get more rounds to play then the tournament with 18 players. IF that is your argument, then would it or would it not be more fair to both states is the Top cut were eliminated altogether and just end the event after swiss is over and award 1st place to whoever was left undefeated? What is your opinion on that?
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2008
  8. old man

    old man New Member

    You seem upset that a tourney with 18,19 & 20 players had a top 4 cut. If any of those groups had made it to 23 players then it would've made it a top 8 cut. I'm sure that would upset you more knowing that a 23 player age group has the same cut as a 97 player.
     
  9. SteveP

    SteveP Active Member

    I feel your pain.

    This is the age-old argument of equal representation. Should it be based on population or should it be based on equal voices? Our founding fathers solved it brilliantly with a bicameral congress.

    Good luck solving this one. :smile:
     
  10. Fireborn

    Fireborn New Member

    Actually, I think it's 24. It starts at 33% of the age group.

    6-11 players: top 2
    12-23 players: top 4
    24-47 players: top 8

    anything higher at States will be cut down to a Top 8. I believe this was the rule last year as well, but many TOs didn't know the rule. I, for one, am happy with the change, because it makes the ratings fairer and more balanced, which I believe was POP's intention when they inforced the rule. If you want a top 32, you should play Nationals or Worlds.

    I think the top cut is fair if the majority of the X-1ers makes it in. One loss should be alright. However, at Worlds for example, 5-3 players used to get into the top cut. Sure, 5-3 is a great thing at Worlds, but at the same time, with 5-3 I don't think you have a 'right' to play the top cut or anything.
     
  11. mumsascrappa

    mumsascrappa Active Member

    [QUOTE=JandPDS;1048511]Below quote from mumsascrappa


    Considering the bad weather.....I'd say 68 players is an awesome turnout for a NH State Tournament!
    Totals:
    Masters: 18 playing 5 rounds cutting to T4
    Seniors: 19 playing 5 rounds cutting to T4
    Juniors: 20 playing 5 rounds cutting to T4
    Total: 57

    Note: Bad weather plagued New England Friday night into Saturday. Pretty good numbers considering that, and the fact the the New England player base had to decide whether to play in RI or NH.[/QUOTE]


    What gives with the top cut, it is so unbalanced that maybe it is time to just go ahead and get rid of it altogether. I do not mean to belittle the organized play in New Hampshire in any way, they were very pleased with the turnout that they received for the state championship considering the circumstances, and they had every reason to feel that way..

    However, how is it right that a tournament with 18 players gets a top 4 cut while Oregon States with 97 players (that is 5 times the participation) is only allowed 2 times the top cut with a Top 8?
    Can someone please explain the thought process that leads one to believe that a top 4 out of 18 participants (or 22% of the players) is in any way comparable to tournament with a top 8 out of 97 players (or 8% of the field)

    The players in Oregon were in an event 5 times larger then New Hampshire but the players there only had 1/3 the chance to top cut as thoes in the New Hampshire event.

    Perhaps it is time to get rid of the top cuts altogether, and just play swiss until there is one undefeated person left and they will be declared the champion. That way every person in every event, regardless of the size of the participation will have an equal chance to win the tourney. If it is good enough for prerelease's why not use it for other premier events as well.[/QUOTE]



    First of all.....you mis-quoted my post from my reports! You pulled the RI numbers not NH!!

    The numbers work as they are stated by POP and in the computer software.

    So, I'm looking at your number above, you are showing 97 players (I'm assuming that is MA) with T8 (which by the way is maximum for States - rules! -- It is NOT determined by attendance unless it is less than qualify for T8) How many rounds of swiss did those 97 players have? add on top of that T8, which is 3 rounds....what is the total number of rounds you get to play for points? The MA in RI got 5 swiss rounds and 2 Top cut rounds.....That's 7....with the number of 97, I'm sure you probably got that many just in swiss?? So sometimes things are beneficial for 1 group and not another, and that is the balancing act that POP continues to work on to make it the best it can for everyone.
     
  12. lolzorz

    lolzorz New Member

    There are flaws with what you posted. Needing to go undefeated? You might lose on the way. It is possible for no one to go X-0. And if that were possible, tournaments would be 100x harder. If you have no top cut, the events will be far worse off then what they are now. And theyre dang good where they are now. Without cuts, if you lose once, your pretty much out. That is an AWFUL idea. Thanks.
     
  13. mumsascrappa

    mumsascrappa Active Member


    Todd -- very good post!!!

    Just for an example of what Todd is saying. Out of 68 players in all age groups in the NH State tournament only 1 player was undefeated at 6-0 and won SR group. There wasn't an undefeated player in MA or JR. the player that was 8th and went into top cut and won is a fabulous player and had the abilities and skills to win his way through top cut and come in first. Why should he NOT win the tournament? In the same way that the undefeated 4-0 after swiss and winning 2 rounds in top 4 also win in SR?

    .....and the fact that attendance is NOT in the control of the player is not a fair way to determine HOW the winner is determined
     
  14. JandPDS

    JandPDS New Member

    mumsascrappa thanks for the correction, I have made the neccesary adjutments to my post, I did not realize that you had two states reported in one post.
     
  15. mumsascrappa

    mumsascrappa Active Member

    really??? it is pretty clear!!!
     

Share This Page