Top ??? for State Championships

[SteveP]

M45.

I'd highly recommend against discarding incomplete games unless you've cleared this with POP. Yah, WOTC did it at Worlds, but the POP Floor Rules specifically state to count prizes for incomplete games. Personally, I'd expect more players would complain if you did it your way (or the DCI Worlds way), even if it was announced up front (unless of course you cleared it with POP). Certainly in the Top X you need a definate winner. It's too bad if it comes down to an incomplete match to determine a winner, but I'm not sure there's anything we can do (other than following the FRs without guidance from POP). A 1-1 tie when time is called (regardless that the 2nd match was incomplete) should require a sudden death 3rd game in the playoffs, IMO. Hopefully, with 1-hour matches, this issue won't come up.

Also, I find it interesting that with only 8 players you're cutting to Top 4. 25% of 8 is only Top 2. 50% seems a bit high. Also, with only 2 players in a group, Top 2 seems unnecessary, unless of course you're going to go straight to the playoffs with the 2 players. But of course, if POP requires a Top X, even for 2 players, I suppose you gotta do it.

I'll PM you with some 2-of-3 suggestions.

 

[simplysam]

I don't know if we can find any guideline in PTO handbook or any start deck rulebook. If "2 out 3 match play" is approved by PUI in the snaction tournament.

POP should issue a defitive guideline for PTO and TO, so they can follow it to run all the tournamants. Because it cause too many confusions and it is not fair for all players who went to the different tournaments under different ruler by different PTO's decisions.


some play age-modified, others play 3 age groups

some of them - play 5 rounds of swiss without cut if there are clear winner in each age groups
some of them - some age group play 4 rounds, others 5 rounds without cut if there are clear winners in each age group
some of them - play 4 or 5 rounds of swiss, cut to top 8 of each age groups, then single elimination
some of them - play 4 or 5 rounds of swiss, cut to top 25% of each age groups, then single elimination
some of them - play 4 or 5 rounds of swiss, cut to top 25% of each age groups, then play 2 out 3 match play elimination


Top 25% to 30% cut is a good ruling.

 

[SteveP]

My PTO just gave me an email from POP stating that "we'd prefer Age Modified to be used 90-99% of the time." This was in response to some TOs preferring age-separated Swiss pods over age-modified. The reasons for POP's preference are:

1. TMS is geared towards Age Modified and "it does so nearly perfectly." LOL, because that's not been my experience with TMS, unless you think that it's "nearly perfect" to assign a 4-1 player to a 1-3-1 player just because they're both 10-under.

2. Age groups with extremely small numbers (i.e., 2-4 players in 10-under) should be able to play more rounds and not have to wait for other age groups to finish to get their prizes. The first point is valid (more rounds), but the second point (wait for prizes) is just stupid.

Also in the email, POP states:

You should cut to the top 25% or so for each age group. Try to cut to an even power of 2 if at all possible. For instance, in an event with the following breakdown, the recommended cuts should be made:
12 10- players - cut to top 4 (33%)
20 11-14 players - cut to top 4 (20%)
40 15+ players - cut to top 8 (20%)
72 players total - 7 rounds of Age Modified Swiss

Anyway, I just don't understand why POP thinks it's better to do Age Modified Swiss, then cut to Age Separated Playoffs. Sure, the point made about only having 2-4 players in a particular age group (and not being able to play very many rounds) is important. HOWEVER, with only 2-4 players, you're probably NOT going to have a playoff. And even if you do, why should their playoff hopes be determined by matches OUTSIDE their age group? Why not just have a round-robin for that group to determine the winner?

I guess this all depends on where your priorities are. Obviously, from POP's perspective, it's more important to have more players playing more matches. But IMO, from the players' perspective, isn't it more important to make the playoffs? If you're a 10-under player (or parent), do you REALLY want that determination to be made by matches that are primarily against older players? I'd think NOT.

To me, this idea of Age Modified Swiss and Age Separated Playoff seems unprecedented. Does DCI do this? Or YuGiOh (with their new Mantis software)?

My PTO prefers Age Separated for the WHOLE tournament. It is my hope that he'll IGNORE this stupid advise and NOT run Age Modified Swiss rounds at the upcoming Colorado State Championship.

BTW, any arguments by 15+ players FOR Age Modified Swiss should be suspect. Sure, they want to play those younger players because it gives them a better chance to win and make the playoffs. I'd like to hear from the younger players and their parents on this issue.

 

[FireFighter095ReBorn]

When i competed in the milford SC it all depended on participation. i know it took 20 players to get a top 8 finals in the 15+ and the 11-14/10- played a top 4 because they had less then 15 players in thier groups. Thats how it went in that state championship. I dont know if any other states are diffrent.

 

[DaytonGymLeader]

From what I've been told by my PTO, the "magic number" for splitting off an age group is 24 players. We did this at the Ohio State Championships for 15+ (as they had more than that) and it was accepted very warmly.

Steve, the new version of the software (1.11) seems to not use age as heavilly as it used to. It seems to pair correctly now (except for single elim playoffs) using record, age, tiebreakers (which are still not calculated correctly).

 

[yoshi1001]

"Steve, the new version of the software (1.11)"

Is that PTO-only or generally availible?

 

[DaytonGymLeader]

PTO only...for now

 

[SteveP]

Also, I'm curious if the TMS software supports Age-modified Swiss with Age-separated Playoffs. I highly doubt it. If that's the case (no support in TMS for mixed Age Pairings), then how does POP expect to enforce this policy?

So DGL, if I have 24+ players in the 11-14 group, should I split them off? What if that means I have to combined the 10-under with the 15-over? Can you see my delima here with this policy?

You just can't mix Age-modified Swiss with Age-separated Playoff. It's NOT NATURAL!!!

 

[SteveP]

Steve, the new version of the software (1.11) seems to not use age as heavilly as it used to. It seems to pair correctly now (except for single elim playoffs) using record, age, tiebreakers (which are still not calculated correctly).

Tiebreakers should NOT be used when pairing. They're NOT used in DCI tournaments and they're NOT used in Decipher tournaments. So, are you sure TMS uses them for pairings?

It is my understanding that tiebreakers are used for two purposes only:

1. Final Standings where there are no playoffs.
2. Cutoff line to the playoffs.

 

[SteveP]

How about this? POP says to take the top 25% or so into the playoffs. Let's say we have X players and take X/4 players into the playoffs (rounding up). If we have 20 players, we take 20/4 = 5 players into the playoffs. We then build an 8-player bracket and place the 5 players as follows:

round 1

1 -vs- 8 (bye for 1)
4 -vs- 5
3 -vs- 6 (bye for 3)
2 -vs- 7 (bye for 2)

round 2

1 -vs- winner (4,5)
2 -vs- 3

round 3

winner (1, winner (4,5)) -vs- winner (2,3)

Just a thought after seeing how my local PTO runs his YuGiOh tournaments when the number of players is not an even power of 2. He runs a single elimination tournament.