Crunch Cup XIII: Play-off speculation

[TravelScrabble]

A thread for crazy people like me who saw that we might be 48 teams and immediately though - 'I wonder what that will mean for the play-offs?'

From the other thread


Right so we're 48, 6 groups of 8 lets talk play-off numbers . We could do 16 obviously for first 2 from each group and 4 wldcards but that feels pretty tight. 32 would top 5 from each and 2 wildcards - too loose. Crazy idea I had was a 26 team play off so top 4 + 2 wild cards where the division winners get a bye first round and then it carries on like a regular 16 team play-off. Might be too complicated to seed though.

Thoughts? Nik what's it going to be?

 

[TravelScrabble]

Okay there Goldilocks, I think you might be crazy. Bye weeks are a PITA because the way to do them properly (without giving away free spp and gold) is to run a separate league for the teams that don't get a bye for week one, then everyone left for week two joins a new championship league.

Crazier thought! 48 teams let's everybody get to the elimination portion. Then people are actually fighting for a better seed. Good luck Nik. CCXIII should be interesting to say the least

I agree that's the way to do it. Don't think it will be that bad, just a question of 10 teams moving over after round 1. BBM could still have just one coherent play-offs so stat tracking shouldn't be affected.

 

[danton]

I actually quite like Dreamy's suggestion in the other thread: 8 groups of 6 with the top 4 teams qualifying for the play-off stage. That means that the group stages are not too long (only 5 matches) and most of the participants get a shot at the knock-out stage.

 

[Dionysian]

While I think 1 in 3 entrants going to playoffs is close to an ideal proportion in theory, I'm not going to bitch about what I anticipate will be a vast majority clamouring for 2 in 3 - mainly because I expect to directly benefit from an increased number of qualifiers

I do still think TV matching the playoffs (which is effectively what happens when D1 plays D2 down to a single team) is insane tho.

 

[Nikolai II]

I might mention that 48 halves into 24, 12, 6, 3.. not a good playoff there.

So 32 or 16 it is. Meaning either top 2 + 4 wildcards, or 8 groups. I'll look a bit more on the seedings before finalizing the decision. (If they fit better with 6-team groups. But I won't mind. Both CTALE and my first CC used 6-team groups)

-

Dionysian - the other easily accessible option seems to be "high divisions play low divisions" which will have a tendency to strike out all the low TV teams during the first two rounds.

The theory with letting D1 and D2 slaughter each others is to not reward high-TV teams overly. Everyone has (roughly) the same chance to win the Cup.

 

[Dionysian]

Dionysian - the other easily accessible option seems to be "high divisions play low divisions" which will have a tendency to strike out all the low TV teams during the first two rounds.

The theory with letting D1 and D2 slaughter each others is to not reward high-TV teams overly. Everyone has (roughly) the same chance to win the Cup.

The main problem I have with it is that it by ensuring that a team from the bottom half of the entrance tv spectrum reaches the final - an advantage is given to the teams at the top of that bottom half. With 8 groups being in group 5 would seem to be much better than being in group 4 for example. You also rule out an epic final between two teams that clashed in the group stages - whether that be from div 1 or two rookie teams.

The way I would do it to ensure any two teams can reach the final is (assuming 8x6 top 4) to put all the winners, 2nds, etc into seperate pools (named 1, 2, 3, 4 respectively) and draw names from the respective pool to fill each slot of their assigned number as below.

Match 1: 1v4
Match 2: 2v3
Match 3: 1v4
Match 4: 2v3

etc

where the winners of match 1 and 2 play the next round, etc.

Anyone can play anyone in the playoffs and division winners don't play another division winner until at least round 3 of the playoffs.

I'll obv play whatever the rules tho - and your blind applications this season make it much harder to aim for a specific group so you've already headed off the worst potential problem of the current system (applause for that btw)

 

[akirilus]

While this might result in significantly more admin work, one scenario is to adopt an "american" solution and allow 24 teams into the playoffs. This would work best if we had 8 groups of 6 teams, with the top 3 teams advancing from each group. Group winner get a bye week, while teams that finished 2nd and 3rd play a "wildcard" round of 16. Then the winners of that round get paired up with the group winners according to whatever formula Nik wishes to employ, and the playoffs proceed from there.

While this means that an extra playoff league will need to be created to accommodate, it does allow for a non-standard number of teams to be promoted with relatively little pain. It also seems like a compromise between letting in 2/3 of the people (too loose) or only letting in 1/3 (about right, imo, but probably a bit too stringent).

P.S. Personally I don't mind a playoff scenario where only 16 of 48 teams qualify. That having been said, especially if we go with 6 groups of 8 teams (rather than 8 groups of 6 teams), a bad start means that you still have to play 4 or 5 games with little to no chance of advancing - and that leads to disinterested coaches and people going through the motions. I've seen this happen sometimes towards the end of the season, where teams near the bottom of the group will abandon any pretense of trying to win and just do "flavor" plays, or lay down and doing nothing. I understand that this is as much a factor of coach personality as it is of table standings, but having something to play for even after a bad start makes things more exciting in general.

 

[dubbs]

While I have almost no chance of making the playoffs, I think that 16 is fine.

That leaves 32 teams out there, which should be enough to get the Crunched Cup going too.

 

[Capt Charisma]

22 teams (with byes). Reward the teams that place higher. Have 2 conferences (3 divisions of 8 teams per conference). Division winner get rewarded with byes.


Picture of bracket below

I agree that if you have too few teams in the playoffs teams will easily fold and not play as competitive as the season goes on. People who are eliminated early might play not to lose players (over conservative).

As far byes go it's not hard as the wild card/1st round teams just play an extra game (do this on CTA or some other format) and then get added to the playoff league

 

[Limdood]

Dio, last Crunch Cup, i proposed simply making the playoffs go purely on record/TD difference.

if there are 16 teams going to the playoff, the 1st seed would simply be the team with the best record....from any division. The 16th seed would be the team that JUST barely squeaked into the playoffs....no TV matching whatsoever.

Problem is, that with such a wide TV disparity in the competition, it means that your actual seeding has no real impact at all on how easy/hard your playoff schedule, and your record in the group stage is SOLELY for whether or not you make it into the playoffs (which actually isn't all that bad)

 

[Capt Charisma]

Then why have divisions if basing it on best record overall?

 

[Nikolai II]

As far byes go it's not hard as the wild card/1st round teams just play an extra game (do this on CTA or some other format) and then get added to the playoff league

Yea, the problem is with that format, since it'd be a "one shot game" - no possibility to reset the game if it fails.

Also a draw would become a possible result since it wouldn't have the "playoff rules" active. That'd basically leave "Cointoss" as tiebreaker.

Of course, if we make the Wildcard seeding into two weeks, we could create a bunch of 4-team playoffs, from which only one would come out.

That'd be "Top two in every division goes on" = 12

3-4 in each division gets slotted into 4-team playoffs = 12 to 3

One wild card left - probably best 3rd gets right through and best 5th gets bumped up.

Pretty close to 50% through (although rather messily)

 

[Fallowheart]

Then why have divisions if basing it on best record overall?

because that best record would be achieved through 'like-TV' games. the divisions seed by TV (except stunties), and 'coaching ability'... someone has a formula that I've not paid any attention to on that one...

anyway, best record would be interesting.

I really don't see a problem with more teams getting a shot at the playoffs (or less really), because the Crunched Cup also runs and is super fun, so... in the words of a recent opponent 'what are you playing for anyway?'

 

[Capt Charisma]

Yea, the problem is with that format, since it'd be a "one shot game" - no possibility to reset the game if it fails.

Also a draw would become a possible result since it wouldn't have the "playoff rules" active. That'd basically leave "Cointoss" as tiebreaker.

In case of game failure just play again? Why would game failure in a one shot game be any different than a playoff failure?

I am ok with cointoss as tiebreaker for those matches as it forces teams to play aggressively. Or base the tiebreaker on SPP earned in game.

 

[Nikolai II]

One shot games can't be reset. So the premises for the second try will be different (MNG, skillups, dead players, winnings)

I'm leaning more towards "wildcards get a short playoff on their own.

 

[Limdood]

Yea, the problem is with that format, since it'd be a "one shot game" - no possibility to reset the game if it fails.

Also a draw would become a possible result since it wouldn't have the "playoff rules" active. That'd basically leave "Cointoss" as tiebreaker.

Couldn't you just set it to a playoff instead of a 1-shot game?

Everyone plays the "first round" knowing full well that it is the only round, after which the winners leave the unfinished league and head over to the "real" playoff.

so, top 8 wait around in the "real playoff"
16 teams join a "fake playoff"
after round 1 of the fake playoff....everyone leaves the league. The losers move on to being surly that they're out and missed the CrC, while the winners hop out of the fake playoff and into the real playoff.

This way its not a 1-shot game, and still requires validation and such. There is no risk of a "won the league" award. Draws would be impossible results.

Now, I'm not saying that I think this is the way to go (I really don't care, as I'm sitting out this CC) - I just saw a post saying "your idea doesn't work and this is why" and thought I'd apply my problem solving brain to the issue.

The bigger issue might very well be the extra game. While "one more game" can easily destroy a team, I think the general consensus is that more games are good.

 

[Limdood]

Then why have divisions if basing it on best record overall?

there's also 2 ways to do my "overall record" idea.

lets say you had 6 divisions. You could set it so the top 16 teams made it in regardless of divisions, which is what you initially read, what Fallowheart explained, and what would be the easiest solution to this drama about wildcards and wildcard seeding.

The other idea is similar, works with wildcards, and makes divisions matter (somewhat) more. Its to take the top X people from each division, and however many wildcards (lets say 2 from each of 6 divisions and 4 wildcards, it doesn't matter) and simply toss them into the playoffs based on overall record.

In other words, method one qualifies AND plays based on overall record, while method two qualifies based on divisions and plays the playoffs based on record.

In either case, there is a possibility of large TV differences in the playoff stage right from the get-go. It kinda seems like, while possibly less "fair," that occasionally having a big TV difference is decidedly more blood-bowly. So far, however, the CC seems to go out of its way to minimize TV difference at all levels, until the last possible game. I don't terribly LIKE that approach, but its not up to me to decide, and I'll still play in the cup, so it doesn't bother me THAT much.



In short, the vast majority of playoff and seeding problems stem from the desire to minimize TV difference at all levels. If at some point we merely say "who cares about the TV difference (ie. divisions)" it will make the playoffs a whole lot simpler to seed and run. There is no need to throw away the TV difference (ie. divisions) until the playoff stage though.

 

[Nikolai II]

I did consider the "partial playoff" solution. I just don't dare use it, since Cyanide leagues are plagued with enough problems as is. (Too often have the same team ended up in two spots in the same league)

 

[Capt Charisma]

So for option #1 in theory a team that won the division could not make the playoffs? I don't agree with that.

Nor do I agree 100% with the other solution as in theory a team with a better record could miss out on the playoffs.

 

[Nikolai II]

Well, I'm still more enamored with the "first two go on for sure (byes, kind of), thirds and fourths get to fight for the wildcards.

What I am thinking, inspired by some of your ideas, is to take four wildcards from those three mini-playoffs. So one of those losing the second week get to go on anyway.