Re: Possible Alternative to Ladder Play?

etchuck · Mon, 10 Apr 2000 13:55:04 -0700

Joon had said: "For example, let's say you make
the finals best 2/3 with no advantage. What if one
team is much, much better than everybody else and
beats the 2nd-place team three times (once in
power-matching, twice in ladder play)? If they win the first game
of the finals, should they really have to win again?
It's certainly possible that team #2 could get hot and
win the next two, but even if they did they would
still be at least two games worse, and 2-4 head-to-head
against team #1. Do they deserve to win?"

I
suppose you can have various caveats, but let's start off
with the premise first.

I presume that most of
us want to award teams for CONSISTENT winning over
another team. To that extent, ladder play is a nice way
to reward consistent winning of a team over another
to produce a higher rank over another. The problem
is that the last time you play a team in ladder play
determines your final rank. And whether a team is "clearly"
superior over another can all be swept out with an "upset"
win in the last rounds of ladder play. WHEN a team
plays should not matter UNLESS there is a reward up for
grabs for the winner of the later game: Michigan State
played Wisconsin in basketball four times, but the later
two times were for the Big 10 tournament and the NCAA
tournament, in which there is a single-elimination format to
allow the winner to play for bigger kudos. I suppose
one can argue that a ladder play match is similar in
style, but I don't know...

Samer may correct me
on this, but Philly Experiment had recourses in case
there was a clearly dominant team:

a) If the
first-place team is ahead by more than 2 games of the second
place team, the first place team is automatically
awarded the championship.

b) If the first-place
team is ahead by 1 game overall, a best-of-three
playoff is established with the team that is ahead
gaining a one-game advantage.

c) If there is a tie
for first place, a best of three playoff is
established with no team gaining an advantage, regardless of
the previous head-to-head record.

Even having
that be placed as part of the rules would be
acceptable by most people. The desire by NAQT and most
people's accounts is that the championship team be the
best team, and since they've done this for 3 years
now, I'm sure NAQT's t-format certainly did that. But
regardless, how it is possible for a team to go 2-3 against
another team and still win a tournament/national
championship would result in a lot more outrage than we have
now.