Bracketing for OAC Fall @ Ohio State, 2016

Any posts that are outdated will be moved here. Please do not post any new topics in this forum.

Bracketing for OAC Fall @ Ohio State, 2016

Postby Get Lynned » Wed Aug 24, 2016 6:35 pm

Hello everyone,

I approached several people - coaches and non-coaches alike - for feedback on whether or not the game guarantee of five games was a good idea. The bracketing would have been four preliminary pools of six teams (4x6), with the winners of each bracket playing off in a round robin to determine the overall champion. The majority opinion was that five games was rather low, with others also expressing that there's no reason not to have guaranteed afternoon play for all teams.

So with that in mind, I figured I would open the floor up for general discussion as to what would be the preferred bracketing. There are 10 packets in this set. I have two options in mind, with a third one I'm throwing out there as a possibility, but that doesn't mean they have to be the only options. Please bear in mind that one objective of this tournament is to qualify as many schools into bids for OAC regional play next May. Just as a reminder: A bracket of six (or more) schools a qualifying bracket makes. A bracket of four teams, two from the same school, or anything that is less than six schools obviously does not make.

1) Four preliminary pools of six teams (4x6; round robin) -> six playoff brackets of four teams (6x4). This creates eight games guaranteed. The five preliminary games would be played before lunch, the remaining three games for playoff that are guaranteed for all are then played after lunch. The bracketing of the afternoon corresponds to morning finish, i.e. 1st places play 1st places, 2nd places play 2nd places etc. I don't see why records would need to carry over, in that case. Top two teams record wise go into a final for the title. If the #1 seed and winner of the top playoff bracket wins round 9, then the tournament is over. If they lose round 9, then round 10 decides the winner of the tournament.

2) Three pools of eight teams (3x8; round robin). That creates seven games guaranteed. Four of the seven games are played before lunch, the remaining three are played after lunch. This is basically a copy-cat of the format for St. Charles' OAC tournament. Basically, there are three winners to the tournament.

2a) Three pools of eight teams (3x8; round robin). That creates seven games guaranteed. Four of the seven games are played before lunch, the remaining three are played after lunch. The only difference here would be the top four teams (three bracket winners, one wild card) play-off in a single-elimination format similar to the divisional series and subsequent conference series format of Major League Baseball, except there is no "best of" series. Win to stay in, basically. In other words, in round eight #1(the bracket winner with the highest PPG) plays #4 (the wild card) while #2(the bracket winner with the second highest PPG) plays #3 (the bracket winner with the lowest PPG of the three winners.) The winner of 1v4 plays the winner of 2v3 for the title/Gold Medal. If both teams that lost in round eight would like to, there can be a simultaneous third place/Bronze Medal game. The wild card team will be whoever has the highest PPG of the second-place finishers in preliminary play.




Tell me what you think. - TM
Thomas Moore
Ohio Wesleyan '18

Retired from online, for good.
Get Lynned
Varsity
 
Posts: 309
Joined: Fri Feb 21, 2014 6:56 pm
Location: Self-Imposed Exile, 4ever

Re: Bracketing for OAC Fall @ Ohio State, 2016

Postby QuizBoss » Thu Aug 25, 2016 2:26 pm

Are you committed to a hard cap of 24?
Greg Bossick, formerly Persona Non Grata
Mogadore '98, Youngstown State '02 and '22
Director of the Mahoning, Ashtabula, Portage, and Toledo Area Quizbowl Leagues
QuizBoss
Varsity
 
Posts: 295
Joined: Fri Feb 21, 2014 9:20 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Bracketing for OAC Fall @ Ohio State, 2016

Postby Get Lynned » Thu Aug 25, 2016 4:11 pm

Since I see no harm in being transparent as to what I have down so far for the reading situation thus far: Brian told me over the summer Ohio State should be able to provide at least five readers. Seth Brugler is interested in reading, but he wants to make sure he doesn't have a family commitment that weekend, so he'll confirm closer to the tournament time whether or not he's able to read. I'm unsure if Brian's figure factors in Chris Ray and whether or not he'd be willing to read. So I likely have five, if not six, reading commitments from Ohio State.

I also am going to have 2-3 FC alumni in my class and the one below reading (I have three commitments, but I'm unsure if I want two of them to pair up for reading + scorekeeping in the same room.) The three I'm referring to have at minimum reading experience at OAC Regionals @ OU-L, one of them also has reading experience on other Saturday tournaments. That would make seven-to-eight.

If two local coaches (whose names I am not listing until I officially confirm their interest in reading, so as not to hang a reading commitment over their heads they may not want to do) read, that's nine-to-ten.

The cut of the money I receive from running this tournament (both Ohio State and Bob agreed to the $$$ amount they will receive per team that registers as an exchange for the services of hosting the tournament and writing the tournament, respectively) will most likely go toward courting independent readers. I have a few people in mind, but I haven't invited them yet nor have I made an offer.



My commitment and concern currently is going to whatever lengths necessary to ensure I have twelve readers that I trust to not only show up on 10/22 but also that I know are experienced in reading the OAC format and can do a fine job doing so. In case anyone is wondering regarding the OSU team: I haven't discussed this with Brian yet, but ideally I plan to meet with the OSU team in the weeks leading up to the tournament to make sure they know how OAC reading works, tell them the rules and scoring, and to give them previous OAC regional/state sets to practice reading (they're getting posted online, or they are already now online, aren't they) so they have an idea of what they're getting into come that Saturday.



I suppose that's a very long way just to say "yes, I plan on hard capping at 24 teams." I would rather play it safe and get 12 readers that I can depend on than expand the field to where I need to seek out readers I'm probably not familiar with. Similarly, right now I feel 24 is the maximum number of teams I am comfortable managing a tournament with regards to bracketing, rebracketing, organization, etc. With 10 packets and 24 teams, I believe I can come up with several contingency plans in case something awry happens (a team drops, a team decided to blow off the afternoon, a team gets lost going to lunch.)


I think every coach interested in the tournament would rather have a 24 team event that is expeditious, efficient, and enjoyable than a 24+n event where far more hiccups are possible and more difficult to manage on the spot.
Thomas Moore
Ohio Wesleyan '18

Retired from online, for good.
Get Lynned
Varsity
 
Posts: 309
Joined: Fri Feb 21, 2014 6:56 pm
Location: Self-Imposed Exile, 4ever

Re: Bracketing for OAC Fall @ Ohio State, 2016

Postby QuizBoss » Thu Aug 25, 2016 8:46 pm

Cool.

Of the 3 options, I would choose the 4x6 in the morning. If you don't, you’re not maximizing OAC qualification.

What I did a while ago at South Range was to take the top 2/middle 2/bottom 2 to rebracket into 3x8...but each 8 was subdivided into 2x4. That means 3 guaranteed afternoon games, a final between each subgroup winner, and you still have a packet for tiebreakers/replacements.
Greg Bossick, formerly Persona Non Grata
Mogadore '98, Youngstown State '02 and '22
Director of the Mahoning, Ashtabula, Portage, and Toledo Area Quizbowl Leagues
QuizBoss
Varsity
 
Posts: 295
Joined: Fri Feb 21, 2014 9:20 pm
Location: Ohio


Return to Old/Outdated Posts

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

cron