The World Bowl Discussion Thread (OOC)

[Bluth Corporation]

I just made up the bracket and advanced the results as they have been posted to this point. There are no discrepancies in the winner's bracket and nothing appears until now.

But the proper matchups in the losers bracket right now should be:

Newmanistan-German Zerabithea
Rennidan-Willink
(These winners advance to play one another)


Andossa se Mitrin Vega-Buffalostan
Voltronica-North Chicnan
(These winners advance to play one another)

Dorian & Sonya-Sibirsky
Osarius-D Land and Isles
(These winners advance to play one another)

Colmark-Krytenia
Lycrabon-The Babbage Islands
(These winners advance to play one another)


Bracket Setup
You don't have to use it, of course, but this is how it should be, conventionally.


To clarify, my "protest" is all IC. If you don't wish to change anything that's fine, though we still won't take the field for the reasons in the RP thread. You can consider it a forfeit win for Lycrabon but we will not see it that way IC... it will give me a RP theme for the future, anyway (as we will, IC, consider WB13 unfinished if not). I don't want you to think I am "forcing" you to do change this.... I think I might have made that impression.

I certainly understand where you're coming from, but I'm not comfortable changing the pairings because they are, basically, the pairings that were voted on (I realize that, as you were also submitting a bid, you personally were not able to vote either way). If you look at my host bid, you will see that I included a sample bracket (both 16- and 24-team options), and the pairings as given in the sample 24-team Losers' Bracket are exactly the pairings I gave when I posted scores last night. As a general principle, I'm not particularly fond of the idea of changing the process mid-tournament to something other than what was voted on--I hope you can appreciate this. That's not to say I won't reconsider some of the things for a future bid, or that I won't correct mistakes mid-tournament that deviate from the bid that was actually approved; but it seems that it'd be dishonest for me to change it now. And because I did include the sample brackets in the bid, I consider the particular pairing system outlined in the brackets as part of the bid I made.

It's not stubbornness for stubbornness's sake on my part; it just seems dishonest to use a process for the tournament other than the one that was approved beforehand by the World Bowl Committee.

[Newmanistan]

In each round, the loser of a game will drop to the loser's bracket in standard double-elimination style.

If you want to consider your bid.... your bid includes this sentence. Standard double elimination is what is posted. In a STANDARD double elimination, teams do not play the team that send them to the loser bracket at this early stage. The STANDARD style is the pairings I posted. You erred in your setup; do the right thing and admit it and move on.

I'm actually more annoyed after your explanation then I was beforehand but whatever. Our refusal to take the field against Lycrabon stands, and in our eyes it is not a forfeit.

[F1-Insanity]

QUESTION: Can we expect Father Mulcahey to accompany Radar to the front any time soon?

Father Mulcahey has done his part in front line work already

And if Radar objects, we have a cure for that: work camp

[Bluth Corporation]

In each round, the loser of a game will drop to the loser's bracket in standard double-elimination style.

If you want to consider your bid.... your bid includes this sentence. Standard double elimination is what is posted. In a STANDARD double elimination, teams do not play the team that send them to the loser bracket at this early stage. The STANDARD style is the pairings I posted.

I'm afraid that what I intended by that and what you gathered from it are not the same thing. By "standard style" I simply meant the the basic act of being dropped to the Losers' Bracket to play against a team that was dropped in an earlier round (the introduction of a bye, by itself, adds an extra intermediate week before the 3rd-round losers play their Losers' Bracket games anyway), irrespective of who specifically they will be paired against.

But even with this misunderstanding, I would think the fact that it was very specifically outlined who would play whom in the sample brackets I posted in the bid would have made it clear what I meant. As the sample brackets are much more substantial than the sentence you quoted, I would think that they would take precedence should there, whether factually or seemingly, be any contradiction between the two.

You erred in your setup; do the right thing and admit it and move on.

I may have not been as clear in my language as I should have, certainly; but again, I would think the posted sample brackets would have cleared any questions up. I fully recognize that the setup may not be what one usually sees, and in a future bid I would probably set it up as you have suggested given the feedback; but to say that I "erred" implies that in this bid I meant to do something other than what I did. I did not.

[Whittoria]

I'd like to note that on the All-Star voting if you're going to vote for a player from Whittoria make sure it's someone who actually sees the field (and that they're actually on the roster); you can check my roster post for who's a starter or who's subbed in a lot in addition to my (few) RP's. Thanks!

[Sarzonia]

Newmanistan,

If you were hosting the World Bowl, would you allow someone to refuse to take the field against a particular team, forfeit or otherwise? My sense is that if you would not allow someone else to do so, you shouldn't try to force another host to do it.

This is not in any official capacity; this is just my opinion.

[Newmanistan]

A sample bracket is supposed to make it very clear who would play who.... sure, Bluth, whatever.

When I am in a tournament like this I expect 1 seeds to play 16 seeds, 2's to play 15's, etc. etc unless another structure such as "1st Group A vs 2nd Group B" was arranged. In a double elimination tournament, I expect the seeds to progress in the same manner, and for the double elimination's loser bracket to fall into play as it should. Common sense dictates that, I shouldn't have to look at a sample bracket and think, will the 5 seed play the 12 in the 1st round, or will they play the 14? Furthermore, a sample bracket is precisely that and it can be inferred that it was posted just to show people perhaps, what a double elimination tournament might look like, not to analyze the seeding.

This is an error of seeding. The equivalent of the 5 playing the 14 and not the 12. What has happened here does not happen in the traditional double elimination bracket, and it was fair to assume that when the bracket was set up officially (and not a sample), that the seeding would have been correct. I reiterate that in a double elimination tournament, teams do not immediately re-face teams that sent them to the loser's bracket this early and it was fair for me to assume you set this up properly. In the past when issues such as this have been brought up in tournaments, they were fixed accordingly.

Sarzonia, if you look back at my past you'll see in World Baseball Classic 11 I was hit with a situation kinda like this. When it was brought up to me, I fixed the problem. I had to delay the tournament a day, but I had to do it right. That's what this situation is calling for: delay the tournament a day.... and fix it up. In this case, the arguments for refusal to play are justified in character, considering that this is a team that accidentally killed a man in the Rennidan game and the team thus does not want to play a game it feels it should not be playing. If I were the host, I would be making more of an effort to resolve the problem, too, when in fact here Bluth's responses have aggravated me more after the posts, then before them. This isn't a whine session over a result, this is a structural problem of the tournament. Sibirsky acknowledged it as well, and TBI said in his RP that we have a point; making 3 of the 8 people in this bracket acknowledging that something isn't right; and I'm sure people like D Land aren't even reading at this point, making it about 50% acknowlegment of the teams affected that this is not right.

Fix it, delay the tournament a day, and move on. To justify this by saying "I posted a sample in my bid you should have known" is a cop out to avoid taking the time to fix it up properly and not an effort to "discuss" the issue; that's where the difference lies between what would I do if I were the host. But it is what it is at this point. Newmanistan will not take the field against Lycrabon.

Edit: To respond to the post below this without re-posting, this is not a host bid issue in my opinion. Are we going to have to ask the most basic questions? I didn't ask you in your CoH bid if 1st place teams that qualify will play other 1st place teams in other groups or 2nd place teams, or another kind of seeding arrangements. No, because its assumed that it will be set up properly so you are not asked that kind of question. Secondly, I can't be both asked questions and then can it at the same time.

It is what it is. I stand by my posts; and the Rockets are on their way home now. I'm not gonna post further on the topic.

[Delaclava]

Can it, Newmanistan. Clearly you and Bluth have different interpretations of certain phrases and certain actions. Whatever. Bluth is the chosen host and has the final say in how the tournament is run. The time to address these issues, like the other issues of debate that have come up in this World Bowl, is not now, it's back during the hosting process.

[Sarzonia]

The difference between World Baseball Classic 11 and now is that you recognised what was pointed out as a potential error in seeding and you chose to correct it. That was your prerogative.

In this case, Bluth is telling you that the seeding is as he intended it, and he has chosen not to "correct" it. That is his prerogative.

All I'm asking you to do is to consider whether or not what you're asking Bluth to do regarding your participation in this World Bowl is something that you yourself would be willing to accommodate if you were hosting a tournament and a similar or identical situation happened. If so, then fine.

I'll take the opportunity to call you out on what appears to be taking your ball and going home the way you called Virabia out for withdrawing from the World Cup of Hockey. It's not making you look very good as a participant, and it may have an effect should you choose to bid to host a future tournament.

[Newmanistan]

Alright, fine. Keep us in the game as I'm sure at this point we'll lose anyway. I'm still not happy with how this has gone down.... it's the replies from BC that have set me off a little more today then my original aggravation of this anyway, I would have went with it originally if I felt there was more of a desire to fix this error rather then what looks to me to be his looking for his one cop out.

[Bluth Corporation]

A sample bracket is supposed to make it very clear who would play who.... sure, Bluth, whatever

When, within the sample bracket, you specifically have "Loser of Round 1 Game 1" and "Loser of Round 2 Game 1" and such actually notated in specific positions on the bracket, as I did, then yes, I would think it is.

I'm more than happy to make needed changes (and, if necessary, delay things) if those changes are necessary to make the tournament follow the process outlined in the host bid. That's simply not the case here. I'm running the tournament in the manner specified in the bid; unless I'm convinced that I'm not, making this change just wouldn't be right, because then I would be deviating from what was approved initially.

I get that it's not what you expected. I get that you don't like it. I'm just not convinced that what you're requesting is a more reasonable interpretation of my bid than what I'm doing so far. So long as that remains the case, I'm not sure what else I can do except keep on as-is.

I'm sorry to be so blunt, but I need to ask you straight out, because I'm not sure what you want: assuming that, in the next couple of hours, I'm not convinced that I made an error, should I scorinate you normally or should I assume your team did not show up? If an intentional loss (I get that, if you choose to go with this option, that ICly you won't be recognizing it as a loss because you won't recognize the game as having occurred) is really what you want (since ICly, physically compelling your people to show up and make a serious effort to win is obviously not something my people can do), I will accommodate it. In the real world, after all, teams do indeed pull out of events.

[Voltronica]

All this chatter makes me believe Bluth will have every bug worked out a-okay by his next bid

[Newmanistan]

I'm sorry to be so blunt, but I need to ask you straight out, because I'm not sure what you want: assuming that, in the next couple of hours, I'm not convinced that I made an error, should I scorinate you normally or should I assume your team did not show up?

Just scorinate it normally. We will agree to disagree.

[Voltronica]

darn my team always finds a way to get eliminated ASAP...but at least we won all our rival games and the division championship

[German Zerabithea]

darn my team always finds a way to get eliminated ASAP...but at least we won all our rival games and the division championship

Agreed, though I am just happy to see that I actually made it to the playoffs this time.

[The Fanboyists]

I gotta say, it's sort of unreal still being in after two games. I've never made it past round one in any gridiron event (except the QGI, where the structure required that I did).

Round four, Qaz.

[Bluth Corporation]

One interesting consequence, that I did not think about until now, of the double elimination system is the assignment post-tournament of rating points for playoff games. Should the winners' bracket champion end up winning the World Bowl final (whether in one or two games), the losers' bracket winner (and perhaps other teams that advance far through the winners' bracket), depending on when that team was dropped, may well have won more games during the playoffs than the champion.

The losers' bracket winner having to win more games to reach the final than the winners' bracket winner is unavoidable in double-elimination tournaments. In fact, it makes it harder for the losers' bracket winner to win the tournament final than it is for the winners' bracket, which is probably desirable anyway. For the tournament itself, then, it's not a problem. But it may mean that our rating system, which assigns points based on total playoff wins (weighted for round, certainly, but still it's cumulative, with no deductions for playoff losses), could end up giving the losers' bracket winner (and perhaps other losers' bracket teams who drop down early, advance far, and are eliminated only late) a greater ratings point boost than the champion. If the losers' bracket champion ends up winning the title, then it's perhaps not an issue; but if the winners' bracket winner wins the title, it seems like that would be problematic.

If we count the winning the World Bowl finals as winning a single game (whether it's played in one or two games) for purposes of assigning ratings points, which seems fair enough by itself, then a team that's dropped to the losers' bracket in the first or second round, ends up winning the losers' bracket, and then loses the title, will have won from seven to nine games, while the winners' bracket champion will have won four or five (not counting the final), depending on whether or not they earned a first-round bye. Realistically, the odds of one of these teams winning are pretty small, but it could happen.

However a team that is dropped in the third round of the playoffs and goes on to win the losers' bracket before losing in the World Bowl final will have won six or seven games, compared to the four or five from the winners' bracket winner--and in this tournament, at least, all four of those teams (Cassadaigua, F1-Insanity, Whittoria, Sarzonia) are legitimate title contenders, with three of them in fact being recent (within the last year or so) champions. One of these teams advancing through to the World Bowl final is a serious possibility, meaning there is a very good chance we could be faced with this situation. And aside from these four, there are a couple of other teams that were dropped earlier that have a realistic shot of advancing through to the final, or at least making a pretty deep run such that they rack up more wins than the World Bowl champion might have if he or she comes out of the winners' bracket--I'm thinking Sibirsky/ASMV, definitely, Lycrabon and Buffalostan and TBI, perhaps.

So this is a situation we may very well be faced with, and we need to come up with a fair solution that does not, in effect, penalize teams in terms of rating points gained, for not losing games. The most obvious solution that comes to mind is simply to not assign points to games played in the losers' bracket, but that also seems unfair to teams that do fight their way through--especially if the losers' bracket winner winds up winning the title, and again there are at least four teams already in the losers' bracket that have a legitimate shot at the title, as do all four of the teams (Delaclava, Allamunnic States, Qazox, and myself--and two of us are former champions, plus Delaclava being a past runner-up) remaining in the winners' bracket, three of whom are guaranteed to see the losers' bracket at some point.

So, thoughts on a fair and equitable solution to this problem? TBI, if it's not too much trouble, might it be possible to give us a refresher on how points have traditionally been assigned for playoff games? Obviously, how you deal with this is entirely up to you; I just thought it was a problem that might make for interesting discussion.

[Voltronica]

Losers bracket teams should only be able to make it to third place maximum.

[Bluth Corporation]

Then it wouldn't be double elimination. The whole point of double elimination is that you have to lose twice before you're eliminated from contention for the title.

[Qazox]

First: Figure out the MAX number of games any team could possibly play. (20 it seems like would be the MAX # of games)
2nd: Whomever wins the World Bowl just use their win% to find out what their wins would be based on the MAX games.
3rd: Do the same for the 3rd and 4th placed teamsbut subtract the Championship game(s) from the MAX
4th: For the other loser's bracket teams, use the MAX # of games for each stage eliminated at. (1st round= 13, 2nd=14, 3rd=15, etc).

So basically, just use the Win% for each team to determine the MAX # of wins for each stage a team was eliminated at.

[Sarzonia]

Bluth, I think that should have all been worked out before you put in your hosting bid.

[Bluth Corporation]

If the problem had occurred to me then, it would have been.

[TBI Foreign Service]

There's no problem here. Unlike the WCC-cycle events and the World Baseball Classic, the revised World Bowl formula doesn't care about how many games everyone else played; it uses straight winning percentage, multiplied by 10 for non-playoff teams and 15 for teams that advanced. (And yes, I treat ties as 1/2 win and 1/2 loss, just as the NFL did back in the day.)

After giving the situation some more thought, I put forward the following modest proposal. It keeps ratings within the bounds of a familiar scale, remedies the perception of injustice with the not infrequent situation ASMV described (I outpointed Tocrowkia in the WB where I lost to them in the final), and preserves the ease of computation that is the hallmark of Arroza's design.

Proposal for revised World Bowl rankings

• The champion of the World Bowl receives 15 ranking points.
• Other teams that attain the knockout stage of the World Bowl receive (Winning Percentage) x 15 ranking points.
• Teams that played in the World Bowl preliminary stage but failed to reach the knockouts receive (Winning Percentage) x 10 ranking points.
• Participants in the Baptism of Iron receive 1/10 of the ranking points that would be earned for a corresponding World Bowl performance. These Baptism of Iron ranking points are used for an initial rank in the associated World Bowl. They are also included with the ranking points earned in that World Bowl in future calculations as outlined below.
• A team's full World Bowl ranking is then equal to the sum of:
  a. Ranking points earned in the last World Bowl.
  b. One-half of ranking points earned in the next-to-last World Bowl.
  c. One-quarter of ranking points earned in the second-from-last World Bowl.

[Whittoria]

Dammit.

[F1-Insanity]

Whittoria, I apologize for the trolling behaviour of F1-Insanity sports press