Registered: Feb 2011
Location:
Posts: 272

Here's what I wrote one of the last few dozen times we had this same discussion. The key point is in the last paragraph.

quote:

---

These are some considerations in designing a curling event:

1. You want the best team to win.
2. You want to have a predictable schedule for the players.
3. You want to have a predictable schedule for the live spectators (if applicable).
4. You want to have a predictable schedule for television viewers (if applicable).
5. You want as many games as possible to be meaningful and interesting.

Here are some formats and their pros and cons:

A. Pure double/triple knockout. Possibly the best at assuring item 1. Satisfies 5. perfectly. Terrible for 2, 3,and 4. Many single game draws needed at end of event.

B. Modified double/triple knockout leading to "qualifiers" and single elimination playoffs. OK for 1., in that the best teams make the playoffs, but then a crapshoot. Good for 5. Not so great (but better than A) for 2, 3, 4. Efficient for cashspiels.

C. Pure round robin with tie break for champion. Very good for 1. rivaling
A. Very good for 2, 3, and 4. But utterly abysmal for 5. The entire final round or even two could be meaningless for all. There is no "championship" game, necessarily. Time consuming.

D. Round robin with playoffs Brier original (2 v. 3 then winner v. 1). OK for 1 the best teams are in the playoffs but then a bit of a crapshoot. Fine for 2,3,4. Better with 5 than pure round robin. At least a few of the final rounds can be meaningful Time consuming.

E. Round robin with playoffs World version 1 (1 v. 4, 2 v. 3, then a final) Same as D. but very risky for 1 seed. An extra team in the playoffs improves item 5.

F. Round robin with playoffs almost double knockout version, a.k.a. "Page" system. Pretty good for 1. Good for 2, 3, 4. Better than C and D for 5 (more playoff teams.) Main criticism is that perhaps round robin winner not rewarded "enough".

All the systems really do have their pros and cons. Some people will be miserable no matter what - because they are miserable people and not because of the particulars of any tournament organization.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2014
Location:
Posts: 106

ngm :

I like your analysis of pros and cons of each format.

I ABSOLUTELY LOVE your last sentence : Some people will be miserable no matter what - because they are miserable people and not of the particulars of any tournament or organization.

It is my experience that the ones that are always complaining about the set up of the event being unfair have two things in common. 1) they did not win. 2) they have never organized an event themselves.

As for the ones complaining about the tie-breakers schedule, the WCT event I use to run had tie-breakers on Saturday night at 11pm. I will always remember the words of Sherri Middaugh. She was involved in one of these late games. I felt so bad and approached her as an organizer to say that I was sorry about this. Her answer was priceless. ''Don't worry about it. That's the price we have to pay for not winning the games we should have won.''

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2004
Location:
Posts: 219

quote:

---

Originally posted by guido

If this was the case, Epping would have only had ONE chance. Lose and DONE.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2004
Location:
Posts: 219

quote:

---

Originally posted by ngm
Here's what I wrote one of the last few dozen times we had this same discussion. The key point is in the last paragraph.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2017
Location:
Posts: 2

The problem isnt that epping lost. The problem is if he would have won, he would have just won an extra game he shouldn't have had to play. If he goes directly to the final and loses, fine. At least he got that advantage.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2017
Location:
Posts: 2

This is the best solution of the ones listed, but you need not get rid of the 3 vs 4 game. Just keep the situation the same as it is now. Just eliminate the 1 vs 2 game, and give #1 a spot in the finals. Yes it is one and done, and they don't get a second chance either. But in the 1 vs 2 game, ONLY the loser gets a second chance anyway. The winner doesnt. And if #1 is 11-0 and second is 8-3 like in the scoties with rachel Homan a few years ago, if you want to reward the winner of the round robin, it makes no sense to tell a 11-0 team we will give you a second chance if you lose, but if you win you get no better than a one and done final, which you should have being given anyway.

Last edited by jasoon on 02-07-17 at 06:32PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 1418

quote:

---

Originally posted by CURLING NUTS


I'll bet, if you ask Epping he would have preferred a well deserved rest, not a made for tv... preliminary game. He might have played better with a rest, they were maybe showing fatigue. There has to be a reward for the round robin winner, or just run seeded pools.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2013
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 97

This thread seems to be more geared to Epping losing out than a suitable system of play downs.....Curling like all sports is a "what have you done lately" scenario."...He played well but not well enough under a system they all understood going in. He lost. Get over it and move on.




Two things can happen.....one is bad

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2004
Location:
Posts: 219

quote:

---

Originally posted by Prawnpuller
This thread seems to be more geared to Epping losing out than a suitable system of play downs.....Curling like all sports is a "what have you done lately" scenario."...He played well but not well enough under a system they all understood going in. He lost. Get over it and move on.



Two things can happen.....one is bad

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2014
Location:
Posts: 570

I feel the page system is the fairest way, short of playing a 2 of 3 or 3 of 5. ( neither will happen) . Epping and the Falcons had their respective championships sewed up by all normal game standards and they both choked in the last few minutes of the game. Neither had anything to do with the playoff process.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2016
Location:
Posts: 1

Doesn't the team with the best record in the round robin get hammer in the 1-2 game? And doesn't the team with hammer win around 60% of the time? Seems to me that the top round robin team is richly rewarded for its play.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2011
Location:
Posts: 272

quote:

---

Originally posted by Longroll
Doesn't the team with the best record in the round robin get hammer in the 1-2 game? And doesn't the team with hammer win around 60% of the time? Seems to me that the top round robin team is richly rewarded for its play.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2015
Location:
Posts: 73

quote:

---

Originally posted by curlerbroad
How about do what Sask and AB do - have a triple knockout with ABC...lose three times and you're out whether you are Epping Howard or Tuck.

Sometimes you get the result you might not expect (i.e. SK) but saves tie-breakers, shortens the time etc...

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2011
Location: Quesnel
Posts: 420

Or if he loses the final would have only one loss.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2013
Location:
Posts: 1875

By far the best way to get the best team at the end of the day.

Do this for provincials and if the TV dollar rules the Brier and Scotties, do the page there.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged