|
Disclaimer: CurlingZone does not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any Content posted on any Forums area and you acknowledge that any reliance upon such Content shall be at your sole risk. Any Content placed on any Forums area by users and anonymous posters are the views of the user posting the statement, and do not represent the views of CurlingZone or our partners, advertisers or sponsors. By posting anonymously, you are allowing your IP address to be displayed for identification purposes. CurlingZone reserves the right to remove any post at its discretion without warning or explanation.
| 01-25-16 10:22PM |
|
IN-OFF-FOR-2
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Mar 2013
Location:
Posts: 1875 |
Re: Re: Triple knockout
quote:
Originally posted by guido
I agree, but it's not conducive to tv scheduling. Plus all teams know the format before entering. The only provs that were a true triple was PEI. Less teams, lots of time for sched changing.
I agree about tv coverage but seeing as at most 1 or 2 games covered, and only those with Rogers connections, 4-5 provinces tops, if the provinces really want their best team to advance, the real triple knockout will provide that. If it's more about TV drama, take the one game winner take all and take your chances. And with PEI, the best team prevailed, even though they did lose the C qualifier semi. C winner had to beat them twice, which they did not.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 01-25-16 10:34PM |
|
Par
Swing Artist
Registered: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 407 |
Re: Re: Triple knockout
quote:
Originally posted by guido
I agree, but it's not conducive to tv scheduling.
I find it remarkable that we (curlers and curling fans) swallow this argument so readily as applied to curling, when it is perfectly clear that the same argument carries no weight at all when applied to hockey, or baseball, or basketball.
Nobody ever says, "The Stanley Cup Final should be a single game, because then it would be easier to schedule and more attractive to TV." And for good reason.
quote:
Plus all teams know the format before entering.
This is irrelevant to the question at issue. All teams always know the format before entering, regardless of the format. And that means they can't complain about the format after the fact, or at least they shouldn't.
But we were talking about which format is most likely to select the best team.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 01-25-16 11:12PM |
|
IN-OFF-FOR-2
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Mar 2013
Location:
Posts: 1875 |
Re: Re: Triple knockout
quote:
Originally posted by guido
I agree, but it's not conducive to tv scheduling. Plus all teams know the format before entering. The only provs that were a true triple was PEI. Less teams, lots of time for sched changing.
Did the quick math with scheduling time. 8 team full triple knockout is maximum 9 draws, if 3 different teams win each side. The same with round robin with possible tie breaks, which don't happen in tko, is 7 round robin, 1-2 tie breaks if necessary, 1-2 game, 3-4 game, semi then final. 11-12-13 draws. Same math based on more or less teams. TKO more efficient and ultimately the best team advances. Can be done in 2-3 less days, better for all involved.... IMO.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 01-26-16 12:09AM |
|
peteski
Drawmaster
Registered: Feb 2007
Location:
Posts: 631 |
Re: Re: Re: Triple knockout
quote:
Originally posted by IN-OFF-FOR-2
Did the quick math with scheduling time. 8 team full triple knockout is maximum 9 draws, if 3 different teams win each side. The same with round robin with possible tie breaks, which don't happen in tko, is 7 round robin, 1-2 tie breaks if necessary, 1-2 game, 3-4 game, semi then final. 11-12-13 draws. Same math based on more or less teams. TKO more efficient and ultimately the best team advances. Can be done in 2-3 less days, better for all involved.... IMO.
It's not about how many draws or how many days as far as TV is concerned. It's about being able to say which game is "the final" and knowing when that game is going to be. Certainly a full triple knockout is more likely to decide the best team. Who can argue that? I just don't think it's a tragedy if the best teams don't win all the time. We'll still have an entertaining Scotties, in my opinion, and we also had some very dramatic provincial finals. What's the problem?
__________________
Not Pete Steski
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 01-26-16 12:27AM |
|
Par
Swing Artist
Registered: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 407 |
Re: Re: Re: Re: Triple knockout
quote:
Originally posted by peteski
It's not about how many draws or how many days as far as TV is concerned. It's about being able to say which game is "the final" and knowing when that game is going to be. Certainly a full triple knockout is more likely to decide the best team. Who can argue that? I just don't think it's a tragedy if the best teams don't win all the time. We'll still have an entertaining Scotties, in my opinion, and we also had some very dramatic provincial finals. What's the problem?
Well that depends on whether you are mostly trying to select the best team or mostly trying to produce entertainment.
Some of believe that provincial and national championships should be about selecting the best team, and the entertainment is a bonus. These people tend to talk about curling as a "test of skill".
On the other hand some people think provincial and national championships should be about producing entertainment, and if the best team wins, that's a bonus. These people tend to talk about curling as a "product".
Of course, everyone is entitled to his or her opinion.
In opinion, the NHL/MLB/NBA can't say which game is "the final," but nobody ever says, "That won't work for TV."
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 01-26-16 09:16AM |
|
FollowingAlong
Swing Artist
Registered: Mar 2006
Location:
Posts: 459 |
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Triple knockout
quote:
Originally posted by Par
Well that depends on whether you are mostly trying to select the best team or mostly trying to produce entertainment.
Some of believe that provincial and national championships should be about selecting the best team, and the entertainment is a bonus. These people tend to talk about curling as a "test of skill".
On the other hand some people think provincial and national championships should be about producing entertainment, and if the best team wins, that's a bonus. These people tend to talk about curling as a "product".
Of course, everyone is entitled to his or her opinion.
In opinion, the NHL/MLB/NBA can't say which game is "the final," but nobody ever says, "That won't work for TV."
You're comparing apples to oranges when you suggest that the NHL/MLB/NBA can't say which game will be the final and in spite of that, it still works for TV. The reason it works for TV in those sports is because **ALL** of the games are being broadcast already. If there is a best of seven series scheduled but the plan is to only broadcast game six because there is an anticipation that that will be the "final" game, that would be comparable to what TV scheduling would be for curling with a triple knockout.
So if you wanted to marry TV broadcasts with curling and make it comparable to what the NHL/MLB/NBA have, TV would have to minimally broadcast the C final and then if that didn't produce a clear triple knockout winner, they'd have to broadcast a game that featured the B event winner versus the C event winner and then presuming that the winner of that game was not also the A event winner, they'd have to broadcast one more game. So, you'd start with a Saturday night game (C final) and then possibly two games on Sunday, but there may not be any.... TSN or SportsNet, are you interested?
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 01-26-16 10:52AM |
|
guido
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Feb 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 1418 |
I like the suggestion of bringing smoking and drinking back to the ice. (yes there is footage of both at the brier).
Also, if you want the best 12 teams at the national championship, you best take away provincial representation.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 01-26-16 11:14AM |
|
Three
Swing Artist
Registered: Feb 2015
Location: Canada
Posts: 278 |
quote:
Originally posted by guido
Also, if you want the best 12 teams at the national championship, you best take away provincial representation.
Can open worms everywhere!
Should probably start a different thread if we re-visit this but yes we decide our Olympic representatives totally differently than how we select the teams to send to the World Championships.
Many arguments can be heard on both sides, blah blah blah....last time we talked about this is was in a thread called Bye Bye Relegation. There was even talk of sending the Canada Cup winner to the worlds. For my two cents I like relegation over having two pools like the juniors have it but that's what the Scotties and Brier will look like in 2018...yuck. And yes IMHO I think its crazy sending three teams from our non-provinces. Flame war on!
http://www.curlingzone.com/showthre...6411#post146411
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 01-26-16 11:50AM |
|
kwojtalik
Hitting Paint
Registered: Apr 2015
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 180 |
Curling on TV
curling replaying on TSN2 this afternoon and tomorrow
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 01-26-16 11:54AM |
|
HotRocks
Drawmaster
Registered: Mar 2015
Location:
Posts: 960 |
 Close the Can.. waste of time..
---------------------
Canada is doing just fine on the International stage
Women Worlds - 1.Canada.. 15 Gold - ..5 Silver - 9.. Bronze
......................- Sweden.. 8 Gold -..8 Silver.. 7 Bronze
Men Worlds - 1.Canada -..34.. Gold...9.. Silver..7 ..Bronze
Olympics -5 games
Women - Canada ..2 Gold..1 Silver...2 Bronze
Men - - Canada.. 3 Gold.. 2 Silver
.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 01-26-16 01:42PM |
|
varnsey
Harvey Hacksmasher
Registered: Feb 2006
Location:
Posts: 20 |
Re: Re: 2016 STOH
quote:
Originally posted by Manitoba Legend
With Homan out of the way the event lacks a domineering monster. But that could be a good thing, too!
Don't rule out Chelsea Carey from AB. She toppled a Top 3 Canadian munster in Sweeting. Hanna is steely and efficient - she's 36, no spring chicken and she's gotta be full of confidence after Sunday Bloody Sunday.
McCarville and Jones will no doubt be the top-rated crews but Carey and Lawton won't be far behind. If Lawton fails to emerge than Hanna will probably come in as #4 rated.
As far as TSN is concerned this is where I'd like both networks airing games. I
Everyone keeps saying top 4 will likely be jones carey mcarville and a fight between hanna and lawton for 4th....forgetting a MAJOR contender! Kerri Einarson team is one to watch for sure! All members have performed well at a mixed or junior national stage.....I wouldn't be surprised to see those ladies in the 1 2 game
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 01-26-16 02:59PM |
|
curlerbroad
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2668 |
Triple knockout makes financial sense
I've always liked the triple knockout myself...yes the round robin has tradition. But with some Provincial Associations struggling financially, the triple knockout would be easier to run and once a team is out, they can leave if they want. Shorter event = less costs.
Yes there is some uncertainty but that is what makes it exciting.
__________________
Well Behaved Women Don't Make History.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 01-26-16 03:18PM |
|
FollowingAlong
Swing Artist
Registered: Mar 2006
Location:
Posts: 459 |
Re: Triple knockout makes financial sense
quote:
Originally posted by curlerbroad
I've always liked the triple knockout myself...yes the round robin has tradition. But with some Provincial Associations struggling financially, the triple knockout would be easier to run and once a team is out, they can leave if they want. Shorter event = less costs.
Yes there is some uncertainty but that is what makes it exciting.
Alberta has returned to a modified triple knockout (for perhaps the past seven or eight years now) that uses a Page Playoff where the A and B winners play the 1-2 Page game and the last two teams remaining in C play the 3-4 Page game. They still find a way to keep the teams that lose three straight in the event for three days.
Regardless, it is possible for the winner of the A-B Page 1-2 game to lose the final without having three loses in the competition. So as I said, it's a modified triple knockout event with only marginal cost savings (one hotel night for teams that do not make a C final).
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 01-27-16 01:26PM |
|
Squiggsy
Swing Artist
Registered: Apr 2008
Location:
Posts: 261 |
Re: Re: Triple knockout makes financial sense
quote:
Originally posted by FollowingAlong
Regardless, it is possible for the winner of the A-B Page 1-2 game to lose the final without having three loses in the competition. So as I said, it's a modified triple knockout event with only marginal cost savings (one hotel night for teams that do not make a C final).
Almost every provincial playdown can have the runner up lose their only game in the final. Win the A, win the 1/2 Page and lose the final. One loss. Val Sweeting did that this year. Several have done it before. You could even do that in the Brier or Scotties after the round robin. Or the Olympics. Or the Super Bowl.
In BC, you can go 5-1 and be the runner up.
NL has the rule where Gushue can't lose the title by losing his first game in the final. I think it's a bad rule.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 01-27-16 01:42PM |
|
FollowingAlong
Swing Artist
Registered: Mar 2006
Location:
Posts: 459 |
Re: Re: Re: Triple knockout makes financial sense
quote:
Originally posted by Squiggsy
Almost every provincial playdown can have the runner up lose their only game in the final. Win the A, win the 1/2 Page and lose the final. One loss. Val Sweeting did that this year. Several have done it before. You could even do that in the Brier or Scotties after the round robin. Or the Olympics. Or the Super Bowl.
In BC, you can go 5-1 and be the runner up.
NL has the rule where Gushue can't lose the title by losing his first game in the final. I think it's a bad rule.
Not sure what your counter-point is to my original point. I was providing a quick overview of the modified triple knockout that Alberta uses that guarantees a final at a certain time and shows how loser of said game can be eliminated with fewer than 3 losses.
Since the BC Scotties is an 8 team round robin with a page playoff, I see no way that a team could be 5-1 and be runner up - they could be 8-1 and be runner up, but not 5-1.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 01-27-16 01:43PM |
|
HotRocks
Drawmaster
Registered: Mar 2015
Location:
Posts: 960 |
NL playdown format
quote:
Originally posted by Squiggsy
NL has the rule where Gushue can't lose the title by losing his first game in the final. I think it's a bad rule.
FORMAT FOR MEN'S/WOMEN'S/SENIORS/MASTERS/MIXED/WHEELCHAIR/U18/U16
2 teams:
- A best 3 out of 5 series
-No playoff
3-4 teams:
- Double Round Robin
- Any undefeated team will be declared the winner outright without playoffs
- If all teams have a loss, top 2 into a one game final
5-6 teams:
Single Round Robin
Top 2 teams into playoff
Undefeated team to be beaten twice
(exception: an undefeated team need only be beaten once for the U18 & U16 competitions)
.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 01-27-16 01:55PM |
|
NLcurlingguy
Harvey Hacksmasher
Registered: Dec 2015
Location:
Posts: 51 |
I have to ask....why is the rule that an undefeated team has to be beaten twice a bad thing? If a team goes through the round robin undefeated, this rule would be the reward. To me, if you go undefeated through the entire tournament and then have 1 bad game...I don't know...just seems like an incredible anticlimax to me. Personally, I do not see it as such a bad thing. Just sayin......
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 01-27-16 02:26PM |
|
Squiggsy
Swing Artist
Registered: Apr 2008
Location:
Posts: 261 |
Re: Re: Re: Re: Triple knockout makes financial sense
quote:
Originally posted by FollowingAlong
Not sure what your counter-point is to my original point. I was providing a quick overview of the modified triple knockout that Alberta uses that guarantees a final at a certain time and shows how loser of said game can be eliminated with fewer than 3 losses.
Since the BC Scotties is an 8 team round robin with a page playoff, I see no way that a team could be 5-1 and be runner up - they could be 8-1 and be runner up, but not 5-1.
BC men use a 16 team triple knock out. You can win 4 games to win the A, win the page A/B game and lose the final. You are 5-1 and aren't going to the Brier.
Your point was the winner of the A/B game can lose the final and not have 3 losses. I was just showing that you don't even have to have 2 losses in order to be eliminated, except in NL. In BC and AB, where they both use triple knockout, there is no guarantee that you get three losses to use up before being eliminated. There is one scenario where you get 1 loss and lose (5-1 as described above). There are multiple ways that you can only lose two games:
-B winner wins A/B game and loses final
-A winner loses A/B game and loses semi
-A winner loses A/B game, wins semi, loses final
Every other scenario gives you three loses:
-You were eliminated in the C
-You qualified out of the C and lost any playoff game
-You qualified out of the B and lost both the A/B game and either the semi or the final
In the triple knockout, if the A winner doesn't win, they didn't lose three games. Only one other team has the possibility of losing less than three games. In a 16 team triple knock out, with a page playoff, you are guaranteed to have 13 teams lose three games (12 eliminated in C event, and one eliminated in C/C page game). If the C qualifier wins the event, then you have three teams with less than three losses. If the A or B qualifier wins, then 14 teams have three losses. The only scenario where all 15 teams that don't win the event all have three losses, is if the winner goes undefeated at 6-0. The B qualifier would lose the A/B page, and then lose again in the semi or the final. The winner of the C/C game would lose either the semi or the final.
I wouldn't call my posts a counter point, more just clarification and explanation.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 01-27-16 02:32PM |
|
Squiggsy
Swing Artist
Registered: Apr 2008
Location:
Posts: 261 |
quote:
Originally posted by NLcurlingguy
I have to ask....why is the rule that an undefeated team has to be beaten twice a bad thing? If a team goes through the round robin undefeated, this rule would be the reward. To me, if you go undefeated through the entire tournament and then have 1 bad game...I don't know...just seems like an incredible anticlimax to me. Personally, I do not see it as such a bad thing. Just sayin......
I believe the final needs to be a set time, for all of the competitors, fans, and media. This adds more drama, tension, and intrigue to the game. The reason we play and watch sports is because many things can happen. If you get to the final, no matter how you get there, I believe it should be a one game playoff, unless it's a best of 3, 5, 7, etc. that is played irrespective of the records accumulated before the final. When the Patriots lost the Super Bowl a few years ago, and lost their undefeated season, would it not be a huge disappointment that they'd play the game the next week?
The reward for going undefeated should be a bye to the final, or the 1 seed in the Page 1/2 game. Both have pros and cons. The final game should be the final game, not a you need to win twice, but the other guys wins once.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 01-27-16 10:20PM |
|
Gallan
Harvey Hacksmasher
Registered: Mar 2015
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 23 |
If the objective is to send the "best" team to nationals, then Ontario ***almost*** has the right format. It just needs a little adjustment. Have the round robin, and then STOP THERE. That's right, no playoff at all unless there are identical records. The team with the best RR record advances. That all but prevents a team that goes perfect, or near-perfect, through the RR and then loses the final from missing nationals. At the Ontario Scotties this year, there was one clear dominate team. The OCA and Curling Canada are worse off with Team Homan not at nationals. Their job is to ice the best teams for the next level of play and the formats used for that are imperfect. If you say the TV matters, well then the goal of sending the best team to the next level is sacrificed for the purpose of "entertainment". This is sport first. These threads are full of people pointing out that Canada's women's team has not won at the Worlds for how long???
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 01-27-16 11:01PM |
|
Squiggsy
Swing Artist
Registered: Apr 2008
Location:
Posts: 261 |
quote:
Originally posted by Gallan
If the objective is to send the "best" team to nationals, then Ontario ***almost*** has the right format. It just needs a little adjustment. Have the round robin, and then STOP THERE. That's right, no playoff at all unless there are identical records. The team with the best RR record advances. That all but prevents a team that goes perfect, or near-perfect, through the RR and then loses the final from missing nationals. At the Ontario Scotties this year, there was one clear dominate team. The OCA and Curling Canada are worse off with Team Homan not at nationals. Their job is to ice the best teams for the next level of play and the formats used for that are imperfect. If you say the TV matters, well then the goal of sending the best team to the next level is sacrificed for the purpose of "entertainment". This is sport first. These threads are full of people pointing out that Canada's women's team has not won at the Worlds for how long???
The Brier used to be a round robin. The games at the end were dreadful if they didn't matter. There wasn't much drama in Alberta playing the Territories in draw 16 for the win.
You say their job is to ice the best teams for the next level of play. Why even have playdowns then? Just vote, and Homan gets to go, right! Part of their job is to grow the game of curling, or at least stop the decline, or maybe stop the rate of decline. Although the slams have given rise to some excellent curling on TV, they have essentially killed the club and grass roots curling. Entries into playdowns are at historical lows. When I was in juniors we had to win our zone against 12ish teams. Then we had to win an interzone against another team, with the winner going to provincials. Now if you have four bodies you can go to provincials without a playdown.
Teams don't want to spend the time or money to get thumped. Seeing a lower profile team or two get to the Scotties and Brier gives hope and encourages other that they too can enter and win. Although a goal is to get a team to win the worlds, there are many other goals that should not be sacrificed so one team can win. That's how you kill your sport now, and especially in the long run.
You point out Canada hasn't won a women's worlds. Homan and Jones both have had their shots. Maybe someone else can take the title.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 01-28-16 10:21AM |
|
HotRocks
Drawmaster
Registered: Mar 2015
Location:
Posts: 960 |
^^^^
.
Maybe if you didnt have a Gold or Failure attitude
you might actually not be so "thirsty" with 3 Canada Women Silvers in the past 7 years..
Canada only missed the podium once..that was in 2009 when J Jones finished 4th
.
Last edited by HotRocks on 01-28-16 at 10:24AM
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 01-28-16 04:09PM |
|
misty1
Supreme Champion!
Registered: Sep 2011
Location:
Posts: 6002 |
Re: ^^^^
quote:
Originally posted by HotRocks
.
Maybe if you didnt have a Gold or Failure attitude
you might actually not be so "thirsty" with 3 Canada Women Silvers in the past 7 years..
Canada only missed the podium once..that was in 2009 when J Jones finished 4th
.
i hate that ideology myself. we are taught to believe that gold is the only medal that counts .anyone who still clings to the idea that gold is the only acceptable medal for canada has yet to accept that the world, especially on the womens side has caught up to us. in a field of 12 finishing 2nd or 3rd is still really good and canada, as you point out has only missed the podium a hand full of times in history. somewhat ironically the most recent times canada missed the podium were when we had arguably 2 of our best ever teams present. colleen jones in 2002 and jenniffer jones in 2005 and 2009
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 01-28-16 04:10PM |
|
misty1
Supreme Champion!
Registered: Sep 2011
Location:
Posts: 6002 |
im not hoping brad loses in newfoundland but i wouldnt object to seeing a new face there .
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
 |
| All times are GMT. The time now is . |
  |
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is OFF
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
CurlingZone > Chat Forums > Tours, Events and Major Championships > Playdowns > Provincial Playdowns
In the run up to Christmas Day, 1893, the Aberdeen Peoples's Journal offered a prize of one guinea for the best letter about curling! That's the invitation... (read more)
A quick break for the Memorial Day holiday and we're back with our guest and new USA Curling Womenâs National Team & Juniors Director Jessica Schultz.... (read more)
I am in week 3 of isolation/quarantine/home schooling and getting a little squirrel-y. Personal hygiene has become optional. The kids have watched the entire... (read more)
On today's World Curling Report...we recap Day 1 of the 2019 Canada Cup. (read more)