I think amber_sports expresses my view best: --- In quizbowl_at_yahoogroups.com, amber_sports <no_reply_at_y...> wrote: [...] > the wishes of all the players > in the entire tournament should be considered; wouldn't players from lower- > finishing teams like to see a 2-of-3 or winner-take-all final between the top 2 > teams, instead of being deprived of this opportunity because said match > occurred during round 2? > > To summarize, structuring a tournament so that it builds to a climax is not > about catering to a television audience that does not exist, it's about creating > a tournament that's more enjoyable for all involved. The lower finishers get to > see the game played at its highest level, while the top teams must endure the > exhausting (but more importantly, ultimately rewarding) experience of > qualifying for the final and then triumphing in the final once they get there. Whenever I've had any say, I've always supported having the championship being decided by some sort of final matchup between two teams, unless packet constraints made it impractical to do so. Clearly some people disagree. To those who have run tournaments with no finals: Haven't you seen looks of disappointment, especially among newer players, when they're told that the tournament's over, team X won, and now everybody gets to go home? I'm curious how prevalent this view is that the tournament format should not necessarily guarantee a deciding final between two teams. I don't know whether it's a majority or minority view among the more experienced players. It seems to be more common among those who prefer ACF. By the way, congratulations to B.U. for winning the RCT! Too bad the NCT is not in a more exotic location this year.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:46 AM EST EST