Five Tribes Five Tribes

Forums

Recherche
Forums » T2R Competitive Play - English » Tiebreaker rules in NC
Montrer: Messages du jour 
  
AuteurSujet
onyx puffin
Senior Member

Messages: 966
Enregistré(e) en :
January 2005
Tiebreaker rules in NC Thu, 10 October 2013 19:48
OK, I may be told that now is not the time to bring this up, but I really think this needs discussed. I remember there being some issues/ concerns/discussions about the Tiebreaker rules in last two NCs. Below is what is written in current rules:

Quote:

14.2. Tiebreaker in Round Robin
To decide upon rank in the round robin, number of clashes won is the first tiebreaker, then the number of matches won, then the number of games won, then the round robin result between the relevant teams.
To determine the best 2nd team when relevant (i.e. when the number of teams per group is not the same for all groups) :
The results of the last seeded team(s) will be removed from the results in the relevant groups to make all groups even. Tiebreaker as described in 14.2 will then apply.
If the last seeded team in this particular group is in the running for a bye, then the results of the second to last seed will be removed.


Now what I remember is that many people feel that if two teams end up with a tied record, in first, 2nd 3rd, or 4th positions of their grouping, that first tiebreaker should be who won in their direct clash of the round robin.

This would seem to me to be especially important if two teams are tied for 4th as that determines who advances to the KO round. It does not seem right to have a team you directly beat, advance based on a side factor and not the direct competition that occurred. Under current rules the Round Robin result between two teams is the 4th tie-breaker.

How do we address this concern? AND maybe it is not a concern to other teams. Is there a system in place to discuss and vote on this or is it already decided and no way to change for this year.
      
DrakeStorm
Senior Member

Messages: 801
Enregistré(e) en :
March 2006
Re:Tiebreaker rules in NC Thu, 10 October 2013 21:41
Already been discussed in previous years and dismissed. I have been against games as a tie-breaker at all, but the problem of using direct match-up is if 3 teams tie. It becomes a bit of a headache trying to have rules for who wins the tie breaker.

Could have had a rule that if 2 teams tie it is head to head, otherwise games for 3rd tie breaker.

And does winning head to head really matter, imagine if 2 teams are fighting for 4th place, and say OLE beat AMP, but AMP beat UEG, does that make OLE better?
      
onyx puffin
Senior Member

Messages: 966
Enregistré(e) en :
January 2005
Re:Tiebreaker rules in NC Thu, 10 October 2013 22:23
ATN Drake wrote on Thu, 10 October 2013 15:41

Already been discussed in previous years and dismissed. I have been against games as a tie-breaker at all, but the problem of using direct match-up is if 3 teams tie. It becomes a bit of a headache trying to have rules for who wins the tie breaker.

Could have had a rule that if 2 teams tie it is head to head, otherwise games for 3rd tie breaker.

And does winning head to head really matter, imagine if 2 teams are fighting for 4th place, and say OLE beat AMP, but AMP beat UEG, does that make OLE better?

Discussed and dismissed by whom? Okay, I found some discussion and maybe a vote taken. It is on page 3 of NC 2012 rules discussion thread. But I see no results. Nice notes from Drake & Elric, but no notes on the vote result. maybe someone can point me in right direction.

Please understand I am not trying to speak to a specific issue with my team. As I see it, the bigger point is, why should games matter?
Quote:

number of clashes won is the first tiebreaker, then the number of matches won, then the number of games won, then the round robin result between the relevant teams.


Especially in a year when teams were strongly encouraged to try to bring new players on board, games won is a poor indicator of a tie breaker and should be last resort. Winning a clash over a tied opponent has to be more important than how many games some team won over other competitors. ("Wow, one of your players had more 0-6 losses, so you are out!" That seems like a way to prevent more people from putting players from their country on their team. we only want superstar teams? Or do we truly want nations cup)


[Mis à jour le: Thu, 10 October 2013 22:52]

      
DrakeStorm
Senior Member

Messages: 801
Enregistré(e) en :
March 2006
Re:Tiebreaker rules in NC Thu, 10 October 2013 23:25
Quote:

Especially in a year when teams were strongly encouraged to try to bring new players on board, games won is a poor indicator of a tie breaker and should be last resort. Winning a clash over a tied opponent has to be more important than how many games some team won over other competitors. ("Wow, one of your players had more 0-6 losses, so you are out!" That seems like a way to prevent more people from putting players from their country on their team. we only want superstar teams? Or do we truly want nations cup)[/color]




That was one of my main reasons for not using 'games' at all.

Maybe it was discussed in regards to Fusion, can't remember.
      
AAA_dea1
Senior Member
Vainqueur Nation Cup AdR 2007

Messages: 1902
Enregistré(e) en :
September 2005
Re:Tiebreaker rules in NC Fri, 11 October 2013 00:18
I'm sure it was discussed and dismissed by vote - but too lazy to search for that now.

Direct match as tiebreaker after clashes (or clashes and matches) won has it's merit (originally I voted for it).

Games won also has it's merit and I don't think it discourages weaker players at all.
What's the merit?

All games are important
- you cannot lean back when you have already won
- you still have something worth fighting for when you have already lost
If we stay with 6 games, all of them to be played (which I think is a good thing for various reasons) it absolutely makes sense to give the games won some meaning. Otherwise the last games of an already decided match may be a niusance for some, thereby ruining the spirit for others, who still want to play them seriously.

A weaker player can still contribute something and this something is appreciated.
He can be proud of the games he won (even though he maybe lost all his matches).
His team will be there and cheer for him till the end (nothing is more frustrating than seeing your supporters leave because your efforts got meaningless), and will congratulate on the games he did win.
I believe, the majority of players in this event wants to play their share of games, and they want them to count.
When I started, my major concern was not winning, but getting the chance to play the full distance (at this time you were sent home at 0:3 - you took an evening off, looking forward to playing against a top ... just to play 3 games in half an hour and bye bye).

If the lineup gives you an "unbeatable opponent" you don't sit there like a dead duck, but still fight for each point.
If the lineup gives you an "easy to beat opponent" you can't afford arrogant moves (like trying something unusual to see if it works and have a good laugh if it does) that may cost a game.

Sure, we can discuss that and seek opinions - but please: No change of rules in the middle of a tournament!

[Mis à jour le: Fri, 11 October 2013 00:18]

      
Vballman20 MAD
Senior Member

Messages: 164
Enregistré(e) en :
January 2007
Re:Tiebreaker rules in NC Fri, 11 October 2013 01:53
I understand both sides of the argument, however, it has been a big issue in the last NC's. I too think that it was discussed, but I believe it was dismissed based upon very few votes and not an NC vote as a whole.

I understand the desire not to discuss this or change this in the middle of a tourney, but it should have been discussed before we ever started NC, and there were concerns from last year. I also think that in a tourney like NC that matches/clashes should matter more than games, and in the event of a 3 way tie or more, than games should really matter. However, in most sports, the head to head is the tie breaker for a 2 team tie at the top. However, most sports don't have matches and games played either.

Being a volleyball player, all volleyball tournaments are done with matches first, then games. If there is a tie with total matches won, head to head is first decider before total games won. Where volleyball is usually best of 5 games in each match. If games won is the decider, what is the point of matches and head to head? Matches won should be first, if there is a tie, it should be head to head first, then it should be games won in my opinion.

Sadly, I have always felt this way, but in the past I wasn't given an opinion because it was only board members that could discuss this. Maybe time to bring it to the entire NC...even if it isn't a change that is started until next year.
      
Qorlas
Senior Member

Pages Perso
Messages: 1375
Enregistré(e) en :
January 2008
Re:Tiebreaker rules in NC Fri, 11 October 2013 02:13
The reason to keep this way last year was mainly that if you give more importance to head to head above games, then the single games of the the single clashes lose importance.
That 6th game when you win or lose 4-1 would become not significant, while in this way you have to play all games well because you don't know if that single game will be important.

This has been done mainly to help the weakest and new players in finding an aim in their series even if they lose... moreover, if we don't give importance on games in the tie-break then we could just go back to bo5 series instead of playing all 6 games, but I think we don't wish that.

Last season the tie-break priority and format of clashes were discussed as linked together before the start of NC.

Both systems work fine the same. If you check around in sports... they follow one or the other 50/50.
      
DrakeStorm
Senior Member

Messages: 801
Enregistré(e) en :
March 2006
Re:Tiebreaker rules in NC Fri, 11 October 2013 02:45
Obviously it is too late to change now. We are 4 weeks into NC.

dea's (and Qorlas) arguments about weak players might all be valid, but is missing a vital part-

The weak players have less of a chance being put into the lineup in the first place (and with games as a tie breaker I think its even less of a chance, especially for teams on the cusp of getting into the KO phase)! So all the benefits dea lists become pointless.

For the top teams it doesn't matter, they have all good players.

For the bottom teams it doesn't matter either, they usually aren't in contention for a KO spot, so it doesn't matter if they lose a match 2-4 or 0-6.

Its the middle range teams, and with 'games won' as a tie breaker there is less chance of those teams either playing their weaker players, or even allowing them on the team in the first place.

I think you need to look at the big picture, not just on an individual match.

And I don't particually like head to head either, if we went that route, I would say you compare how each tied team did against the #1 team in group.

How many times has it come down to 3rd tie breaker anyway, after clashes and matches? 1 or 2 in 8 years? or 9 or 10? If its only a few, then just leave it.
      
Sysyphus - Pommard
Senior Member
Vainqueur AdR All Around Tournament 2011

Pages Perso
Messages: 2335
Enregistré(e) en :
December 2007
Re:Tiebreaker rules in NC Fri, 11 October 2013 02:46
The vote is there :
http://www.daysofwonder.com/en/msg/?goto=255249#msg_255249

It was indeed pretty close, and could have gone either way. Because of the way questions was asked, because of multiple choices etc... maybe result could have been different.

I still think matches won and games won should be favored over head-to-head since Round Robin should reward consistency over a good particular week.

Because of players' unavaibilities and the need for captains to make rotations, lineups can be pretty uneven on a particular week.
The strength of a team is showed all through Round Robin.

Moreover you would pay a lot for one tactical move for a match that did not seem to matter much at first sight, but would end up to be crucial because of the results of the Round Robin.

"Sorry guys, you won more matches and games than your opponent, and you were more consistent through Round Robin, but since you lost to that team in Round 1, 7 weeks ago, you're out."

It's a choice of consistency :
  • BO7, KO system --> Single victory rewarded, Head-to-head is definitely better
  • 6 games, all games count, consistency rewarded --> matches won needed first at least. And to me, games won should be second, just to give sense to the 6-game match. (and therefore gives sense to Drake's Games Telo -just trying to convince Drake by flattering him-)



    [Mis à jour le: Fri, 11 October 2013 03:24]

  •       
    Qorlas
    Senior Member

    Pages Perso
    Messages: 1375
    Enregistré(e) en :
    January 2008
    Re:Tiebreaker rules in NC Fri, 11 October 2013 03:03
    I think in the last 3 years we never went beyond matches in tie-break at the end of RR.
          
    DrakeStorm
    Senior Member

    Messages: 801
    Enregistré(e) en :
    March 2006
    Re:Tiebreaker rules in NC Fri, 11 October 2013 03:16
    Qorlas wrote on Thu, 10 October 2013 18:03

    I think in the last 3 years we never went beyond matches in tie-break at the end of RR.


    LOL, I just looked, it happened 3 times in last 3 years. In 2011 it even went to games lost!
          
    Qorlas
    Senior Member

    Pages Perso
    Messages: 1375
    Enregistré(e) en :
    January 2008
    Re:Tiebreaker rules in NC Fri, 11 October 2013 14:23
    wow I was wrong Smile
          
    onyx puffin
    Senior Member

    Messages: 966
    Enregistré(e) en :
    January 2005
    Re:Tiebreaker rules in NC Fri, 11 October 2013 14:33
    Sysyphus - Pommard wrote on Thu, 10 October 2013 20:46

    The vote is there :
    http://www.daysofwonder.com/en/msg/?goto=255249#msg_255249

    It was indeed pretty close, and could have gone either way. Because of the way questions was asked, because of multiple choices etc... maybe result could have been different.




    OK, I withdraw my request to visit this issue. I really thought it had only been discussed and never voted on. I will need to go back and find what page Sysy found this thread on.


    Now I see my mistake. There were two different votes on that thread. I only looked at the last vote recorded in December 8th voting. I missed the first set of voting in September.

    Thanks Sysy for setting me straight. Embarassed Obviously I was in the camp that lost that vote, and did not remember the vote result. Confused

    [Mis à jour le: Fri, 11 October 2013 14:42]

          
    Qorlas
    Senior Member

    Pages Perso
    Messages: 1375
    Enregistré(e) en :
    January 2008
    Re:Tiebreaker rules in NC Fri, 11 October 2013 14:53
    I voted for direct match as a first tiebreaker too but I forgot it in the meantime Very Happy
          
        
    Sujet précédent:NC Italia
    Sujet suivant:NC TD Ruling
    Aller au forum: