Suggestions

Forum >> Suggestions >> Non-Random Cup matchups   Bookmark This Forum Thread

Post ID Date & Time Game Date Function
Squiddcatt
Joined: 02/25/2016
Posts: 375

Inactive

Broken Bat Baseball
I support with what slug is saying. It just makes sense.
jreynoldson913
Joined: 08/18/2015
Posts: 293

Inactive

Broken Bat Baseball
I can see both side but here's the thing slug, the NFL doesn't have 756 teams. So a lot more teams have very easy groups. I'm in favor of random cause it keeps it more simple
Mig2015
Joined: 06/17/2015
Posts: 162

Inactive

Broken Bat Baseball
Thanks Slug! And I absolutely agree with you. Random works, but seeding makes way more sense to me, and it is extremely simple to understand.

However, to your point about me playing a D II team-- they actually went 12-8 in the group stage, so even though I got a pretty good team I actually got matched up a team close to one I would have played with seeding. But, if I were running things, I would have seeding because it just makes sense.
mcrmoe
Joined: 09/24/2014
Posts: 290

Inactive

Broken Bat Baseball
Non random cup match-ups warrant a structured cup group formation. This causes a few problems.

First, how is that decided? Based on rankings are the end of the season is the only means that comes to mind...

Second, say there is a method to create groups based on some sort of ranking, people will always find a way to complain about it and they'd have a point. However the complaining is not the big issue, the intricacies of the pseudo algorithm are messy, imagine the actually coding on a low-ish level language like C++. In programming there is a simple acronym KISS, Keep It Simple, Stupid.

So on the coding basis alone, you'd have to consider if such an overhaul is actually generating some benefit. Is the current system broken that a change is needed?

There is also a level of inclusion that I love in the current format. If things were structured, how many lower level teams (5 and 6, approximately 76% of the teams) would make is past the second round (R128)?

As a BB veteran, currently on 13th season, my thoughts have been on both sides of the issue. I've been annoyed when I got paired up against the top teams in the early rounds. However, I wouldn't change it. I've also gone 20-0 so I have been there and I can understand the anger/frustration.

There is another side of the coin though. How many cup groups of death have there been? This cup group was brutal and Laredo, currently tied for 1st in II.2, was left out. So with structured round match-ups teams in easy groups will get constantly rewarded.

Please don't bring up the NFL playoff, there at least the schedules are somewhat similar. Its like in college football, an undefeated team from the MAC being considered "equal" with an SEC or PAC-12 team based on record alone.

Summing up, the scheduling randomness makes the lower level teams have a better chance at advancing and it adds to the fun of the cup. Every cup season, every team starts out feeling good about their chances. Incorporating a more methodic scheduling process requires the same be done for group creation, which opens up a can of worms.

-Moe

Slug5373
Joined: 12/23/2014
Posts: 376

Inactive

Broken Bat Baseball

I think part of the difference is how one looks at the Cup. You are looking at it like it's a playoff system to determine the best team in Broken Bat. I don't think it's anything like that at all. It's simply a fun side show.


I'll start with this one. You are 100% correct about the point of view, and FYI I agree with you that it is a fun side show. I just don't see why the fun side show can't follow the same format as every other tournament ever created.

Slug, your responses are getting ridiculous.


My previous argument was a hyperbole. It was meant to be ridiculous to make a point.

Non random cup match-ups warrant a structured cup group formation.


Not necessarily. I've been watching the world baseball classic, and they did not have a "structured" pool formation. The United States had a MUCH more difficult path to the semifinals than Japan did for example. Same goes for the world cup. I believe the pools are developed randomly. I'm not against random cup group formation, because that is simple and logical.

I'm in favor of random cause it keeps it more simple


This really isn't that complicated. Worst remaining team plays best remaining team and so on, just like the college basketball tournament, the college football playoff, mlb playoffs, nfl playoffs, mls playoffs, nhl playoffs and literally every other league on earth. To show how simple it is, I keyed this basic Java method in about 10 minutes which will exemplify a hypothetical tournament (instead of wins and losses/run differential to rank teams, I use "rating," which is randomly assigned to each team upon creation.

I haven't tested this code whatsoever, but I believe it should work correctly once your sorting algorithm of choice is implemented, you have the Team object instantiated, and the likely pointer error near the bottom is corrected with a simple for loop.

Code:
import java.util.ArrayList; import java.text.DecimalFormat; public class Seeding { public static void main(String[] args) { DecimalFormat df = new DecimalFormat("0.00"); ArrayList <Team> teamsRemaining = new ArrayList <Team>(); for(int i = 0; i < 256; i++) teamsRemaining.add(new Team("Team " + (i+1), Math.random() * 100)); teamsRemaining = sort(teamsRemaining); //Merge sort teams by rating while(teamsRemaining.size() > 1) // Run tournament until winner emerges { ArrayList <Team> winners = new ArrayList <Team>(); // Winners of each matchup advance for(int i = 0; i < teamsRemaining.size() / 2; i++) { //example output of the following line: Team 1 (99.29) vs. Team 2 (0.78) System.out.println(teamsRemaining.get(i).getName() + " (" + df.format(teamsRemaining.get(i).getRating()) + ") vs. " + teamsRemaining.get(teamsRemaining.size() - 1 - i).getName() + " (" + df.format(teamsRemaining.get(teamsRemaining.size() - 1 - i).getRating()) + ")"); if(Math.random() < 0.5) winners.add(teamsRemaining.get(i)); else winners.add(teamsRemaining.get(teamsRemaining.size() - 1 - i)); System.out.println("Winner: " + winners.get(winners.size() - 1).getName()); } winners = sort(winners); // Merge sort winning teams by rating teamsRemaining = winners; //Eliminate losers, winners advance -- Probably reference pointer error. //error not resolved for simplicity and for easier understanding } System.out.println("Tournament Champion is " + teamsRemaining.get(0).getName()); //Only one remains }

Updated Tuesday, March 21 2017 @ 11:48:11 pm PDT
mcrmoe
Joined: 09/24/2014
Posts: 290

Inactive

Broken Bat Baseball
Ok, so much to address...

Regarding the WBC "pool", correct me if I'm wrong. The 16 teams in the first round are placed in random pools of 4 and proceed to play out a round robin where 2 teams from each group will advance to 2 more pools before the championship round (single elimination). However to make it to the first round the teams must qualify by some metric, be it legacy or qualification tournaments.

In the BB cup format, the qualification process consists randomly generated groups playing a round robin 4 game series. The group winners (126) automatically qualify and 130 at-large spots advance to a 3 game series. The elimination round match ups are random, which seems to be the argument against.

My critique is that if the elimination rounds are to be seeded by some metric, be it cup group record or rating (more on this later), the cup groups must be structured as well.

The argument against this critique that BB cup groups need not be structured since the WBC pools are not structured is not valid. The process for each "tournament" were explained earlier and they are completely differently, hence it is not a valid justification.

This brings us to two key points in the event that elimination rounds are seeded.

Let's assume that cup groups are still generated in a randomized manner. Members of "easy" groups are rewarded much more handsomely. Not only do they have a clearer path to qualifying by winning the group, they can run up the score to insure much more favorable match ups in the elimination rounds. In this case it the randomness of the group generation will play a greater role in a team's cup success.

The previous case highlighted the metric of using group records are the seeding criteria. What if rating is used? In this case, the lower level teams are almost guaranteed to get picked off earlier. Given that they will most likely be matched up against the top teams in terms of league placement, even if said teams "scraped" by the group round with 12 wins. Again this approach systematically eliminates any hope a lower level team would have to make a deep cup round.

On the matter of structured group cups, which would be essential to avoid too much emphasis being placed on the role of elimination round seeding. This will insure that the top teams from legends, league II and league III will be alone in each group. How do you think that will play out in terms of who qualifies? Again such an approach will systematically crush the hopes of lower league level teams to advance.

As I've stated previously, the one aspect of the cup that I love is the inclusion element. As soon as the cup groups are generated we quickly scout other teams and try to formulate our expectations. In the case of having a tough group we can take solace in knowing that our luck might change if we manage to advance. A structured seeding format, either in the elimination rounds or group generation, will obviously alter this sentiment. Honestly I don't think that it will be for the better, given that success will be reserved for the higher league teams.

Continuing to focus on the inclusion factor. Deep cup runs bring notoriety to some of the lower level league teams. I can think of 3 cases, selfishly I've included myself.

Before making it to legends, teams such as Huntington, Santa Monica and Fort Worth were brought to the forefront. Consistently making deep cup runs. Huntington won it while in league V and from there went on to make an astronomical rise to the top. The latter rounds gives us a picture of the hot up and comers. Why should we be deprived of this by stacking the deck against the lower leagues?
MukilteoMike
Joined: 08/09/2014
Posts: 3294

Inactive

Broken Bat Baseball

I just don't see why the fun side show can't follow the same format as every other tournament ever created.


I guess you're using hyperbole again because very few tournaments follow the path you're suggesting. The NFL doesn't even do it that way, which is the example you keep bringing up despite it being just about as far away from Broken Bat as possible. They reward division winners playoff spots even if there are teams with better records. You might also want to look at March Madness (US college basketball). Teams aren't moved according to rank after each round. It also happens to be wildly popular (in the United States).

Besides, where else can you find a tournament that includes all 756 participants? Good luck with that one. The Cup is handled as fairly as possible--every team is treated equally. There is no fabricated ranking. Everyone advances on one thing alone--winning. Then you play a random opponent who advanced based on the same principle. Awesome. Simplicity.
jreynoldson913
Joined: 08/18/2015
Posts: 293

Inactive

Broken Bat Baseball
Yo slug u forgot to add in when i said that the nfl doesn't have 756 in their league. Where was that cause I didn't see it. :)
Slug5373
Joined: 12/23/2014
Posts: 376

Inactive

Broken Bat Baseball
Ok, there is obviously not going to be enough support for the logical solution, so I'll drop it.

Just one last thing though. So, after going 15-5 in the group stage my reward was to play the 3rd best team in the game who went 16-4 in the group stage.

Now, after catching lightning in a bottle and actually beating them, guess what my reward is???

Yep, gotta go play one of the 18 remaining II or better teams. There was an 86% chance I would have gotten to play a team from my division or worse. In round one I had a 95% chance to play a team lower than legends.

Well, I guess once you get to 12 wins, the rest of the group stage doesn't mean a darn thing.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Tiger504
Joined: 06/17/2014
Posts: 1314

Kalamazoo Bloody Tigers
III.4

Broken Bat Baseball
Actually 13 wins if you want to be sure. With 12 wins you still need some sort of decent RD.

Personally, if I can get to 12/13 wins in four series, which I have had happen, I like to use the last series for as much training time as possible. I'm not sure every cup game needs to mean something. Pretty sure some guys don't even try to win, either trying to get youngsters experience or to avoid injuries. To each their own but you can bet if I don't advance, it isn't because I didn't try.

Too bad I got tripped up in group this season and didn't even get out of group. Ah, next season. :)


Previous Page | Show All |