| Author |
Topic: Cup Matchmaking |
43 replies
|
|
|
|
#31 posted Sep 13th 2018, 12:04:14
|
Quote
|
Quote ( Michael Keeney @ September 13th 2018,11:38:58 ) It's just another factor thats out of kilter with how the games gone.
It hasn't changed since the cup was introduced, and the same random factors that could impact on the first two race results, so decide seeding, has always been there. So it is nothing to do with "how the game's gone". Your thoughts on other issues really have no bearing on this debate.
The cup has always been a small, not overly important, additional extra.
Totally agree with what Mark has just said above.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#33 posted Sep 13th 2018, 12:48:13
|
Quote
|
Chill, Keeney. You have a tendency to bring in your crusade against most (all?) game aspects into any discussion. Not many a thread goes by without you mentioning the game has descended to an abysmal level, larded with phrases about peak performance and/or the horrid unfairness of randoms.
As Kevin rightly points out, it has little to nothing to do with the matter of cup seeding, which this thread is about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#34 posted Sep 13th 2018, 12:48:54
|
Quote
|
Get a grip, Keeney. I've not "tried to silence you" or "antagonise you" - I have a different opinion and have shared it. The other things you speak of are nothing to do with cup matchmaking and are for other threads.
In what way does it not "add up"? The seeding has always been based on two races that could always have been influenced by multiple random things. How does energy and peak performance of tyres make that any different? The seedings still benefit those good or lucky enough in the first two races.
What benefit is there to changing how the seedings work? How and why should such a change be made? Change for the sake of change's sake? How would a seeding system, that is a mix of performance and luck, be better implemented to take on board any of the factors you speak of?
A lot of what you say may have merit on their individual subjects but I'm at a total loss to see why they have any real relevance to cup seedings or how you're actually suggesting cup seedings could be made better. Not only haven't you explained that, but you've mentioned you have no preference for a change.
|
|
|
|
Sound :)
I've proposed a change in the suggestion thread. Granted my message earlier in the thread wasn't very informative.
Apologies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#36 posted Oct 17th 2018, 11:50:20
|
Quote
|
It should be
1 - 40
2 - 39
3 - 38
.
.
.
This is most logical because that way you have motivation to push all the time.
Next round again same logic.
Sorry but this random way is not good at all...no logic at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#37 posted Oct 17th 2018, 11:53:11
|
Quote
|
should we just award the cup to 1st seed then?
Sounds the most logical solution to me, just skip all the the match-ups.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#38 posted Oct 17th 2018, 11:56:05
|
Quote
|
It's the way it is in grand slams. Top 16 now all avoid the seeds till round 4 but the 17th ranked player could still play the top ranked player. It's still all fair with the top 8 avoiding eachother and the rest are random
And this is coming from a guy in 11th but getting the 7th seed that retired from the lead the first race with a puncture
|
|
|
|
|
|
#39 posted Oct 18th 2018, 02:10:46
|
Quote
|
Quote ( Kristijan Mihovic @ October 17th 2018,11:50:20 ) It should be
1 - 40
2 - 39
3 - 38
.
.
.
This is most logical because that way you have motivation to push all the time.
Next round again same logic.
Sorry but this random way is not good at all...no logic at all.
I like many millions around the globe love the FA cup because of its logic said nobody ever!
if you want logical rating we have a league you can look at!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#40 posted Oct 18th 2018, 03:19:42
|
Quote
|
|
|
|
|
|
#41 posted Oct 19th 2018, 14:17:28
|
Quote
|
Quote ( Kyle Morris @ October 17th 2018,11:56:05 ) It's the way it is in grand slams. Top 16 now all avoid the seeds till round 4 but the 17th ranked player could still play the top ranked player. It's still all fair with the top 8 avoiding eachother and the rest are random
The tennis model, I think, is the best model to go with
Seeds 1 and 2 placed in opposite halves of the draw.
Seeds 3 and 4 placed randomly into the other two quarters of the draw.
Seeds 5-8 place randomly each into one quarter of the draw setting up a quarterfinal matchup with seeds 1-4 in the quarterfinals if everything goes to form.
Seeds 9-16 placed randomly each into one "four-team pod" setting up a 2nd round matchup with a 1-8 seeds.
Seeds 17-32 placed randomly into the remaining 16 slots in the draw.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#42 posted Oct 19th 2018, 14:29:28
|
Quote
|
|
I think in a 32 player tennis tournament, only top 8 work as you say. 9-32 is totally random.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#43 posted Oct 19th 2018, 16:09:46
|
Quote
|
Yes, Jukka; in tennis tournaments the seeds can all progress to R3 without facing a seed.
So in the 128-player grand slams, there are 32 seeds; the 64-player tournaments have 16, and the smaller 32 player ones have 8 seeds (there are other sizes of tournament, but we need not complicate things here!).
Personally, I think the way the cup is now is fair enough. There is no real need to change it IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#44 posted Oct 19th 2018, 16:14:33
|
Quote
|
|
Yes, Mark; also, in table tennis.
|
|
Deutsch
Español
Română
Italiano
Português
Português
Français
Polski
Русский
Български
Македонски
Српски
Nederlands
Vlaams
Suomi
Lietuvių
Čeština
Magyar
Eesti keel
Slovenčina
Türkçe
Shqip
Ελληνικά
Hrvatski
Bahasa Melayu
Dansk
Pirate
