BobKilner wrote:1. Do we have the infrastructure, good readers, etc. to have that many rounds of OAC in one day?
The main point is to make sure that _no team_ is eliminated with one loss. In a 2-group, 8-team-per-group configuration, the possibility still exists for a circle of death of three teams at 6-1 in each group.
QuizBoss wrote:I was not aware that the regions were racing each other to see who completes their tournament first.
QuizBoss wrote:I am open to a proposal where we do every regional draw during the spring meeting and take it out of the tournament director's hands, thus ensuring uniformity, if the committee wills it so.
gbdriver80 wrote:QuizBoss wrote:I was not aware that the regions were racing each other to see who completes their tournament first.
That is definitely not the point. The point is that some of these regionals take obscenely long to play 7 or 8 rounds.QuizBoss wrote:I am open to a proposal where we do every regional draw during the spring meeting and take it out of the tournament director's hands, thus ensuring uniformity, if the committee wills it so.
This can't happen. The transparency of the bracket being drawn in front of everyone the day of is important.
QuizBoss wrote:What does it matter to you if it does take that long? It doesn't affect you, it doesn't affect your region. Would I have preferred to leave an hour or two earlier? Sure. Did I insert myself as a reader because of this? No. I want the readers at Findlay to improve. They can only do that if they get games to read.
Regarding the bracket, the draw can be filmed and the file posted to the site, yes?
Djones wrote:The point is that you expect teams will keep coming when it takes 8 hours to play a double elimination tournament with bad readers. Doesnt exactly jive with the idea of expansion. It isnt a race. It is an effort by those on the committee to get things to run efficiently so that we can be proud of the event wr put on.
QuizBoss wrote:What are your proposed solutions to the reader problem? I want the current readers to read more during the regular season in preparation for Regionals. If that solution is too slow to affect the change that you want to see, what is your alternative?
QuizBoss wrote:Also, the West Central region chose to skip lunch. Northwest did not. That accounts for some, but not all, of the time difference in terms of when the last round ended.
QuizBoss wrote:Regarding familiarity with OAC, the South Central almost without exception uses OAC for league play. We've only done NAQT for weeknight or weekend tournaments. The East Central area uses OAC in Trumbull, for its county tournament, both of the Stark County leagues play it (though with 5 players per team and subs after life science), and Harding mirrors your OAC event. All of the readers I've mentioned are from Mahoning County, but I can train them and I can run a mirror of Kilner's event to facilitate the process.
QuizBoss wrote:What would your preferred format look like, Alex?
AlexConnor wrote:QuizBoss wrote:What would your preferred format look like, Alex?
My first instinct is to say split into 2 divisions of 8, play 7 rounds of round robin, then do a page playoff. Of course, that still takes 10-11 rounds.
I like the initial structure of your format but I think the middle parts can be cut out. Our current system eliminates teams with 2 losses. It seems likely that in practice the 5-0 teams dispatch the 3-2 teams. Cut rounds 4 and 5 and instead have the remaining 8 do double elimination or 3 rounds of round robin with playoffs after that.
Here's a thought I had off the top of my head:
4 pods of 4. Each has two champs and two runners-up. 3 rounds of round robin. Top 2 from each move on.
The pods are paired up ahead of time. A team then plays the 2 teams from the paired pod. Using total record to that point, the top four move on to a page playoff. That would require the same amount of rounds we currently play. We would need 8 readers for 3 rounds, then just 4 for the next 2.
dxdtdemon wrote:If you kept the six regions and used the optimal 24-team double elimination bracket, and just had byes if you had between 17 and 23 teams, you would only need one more round. If the number of packets is still the same from when I was involved with writing the tournament, there were a bunch of packets that were kept in reserve just to be used for replacement questions, and one of them could probably be used in a game without too much harm. Yes, this bracket would involve many teams sitting out round 1, but if the byes were determined ahead of time, you could have certain teams show up later. Why is there no seeding at regionals?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests