Playoff Formatting Help

biggiebird89 · Post by **biggiebird89** » Sun Sep 11, 2011 5:39 pm

Hello All. A question or two on playoff formatting for my upcoming tournament:

Say, hypothetically, there are 18 teams in this tournament. I have 2 ideas in mine how to format this to benefit all teams.
Back-Information - Using Fall Novice Question Set - 2 team per school cap - 30-minute matches:

Option 1:
-> 2 9-team brackets (Divisions A and B, let's say)
-> Prelim. round-robin matches (shortened to 25 minutes to keep time up, with 5 minute breaks between games - guarantees 8 matches for everyone)
-> 30-minute lunch break
-> Rank teams 1-9 by records (tiebreak - see below) - Top 4 teams go into Playoff pools (A and B), Bottom 5 teams go to Consolation Pools (A and B)
-> Teams have cross-bracket playoffs, ties broken (again, see below,) and a 1-game championship between the playoff pool winners.

Packets Used: 13 out of 13

Option 2:
-> 3 6-team brackets (A, B, and C)
-> Prelim. round-robin matches (still 30 minutes in length, 5 minute breaks - guarantees 5 matches minimum.)
-> Lunch Break
-> Rank teams 1-6 by records (tiebreak - see below) - Top 2 teams go into Playoff pool, Middle 2 teams - Consolation "A", Bottom 2 teams - Consolation "B"
-> Playoff/Consolation Round Robins (4-5 matches) with ACF Finals (Advantaged Championships) - Total Packets Used: 11/12 out of 13

My questions:
1.) Should ties within preliminary brackets be broken by PPG or head-to-head matchups, since they are played against common opponents?
2.) For Option 1, should preliminary records carry over into the playoffs, or should just the 4-game playoff be counted?
3.) For Option 2, since common teams are playing in the playoffs, should teams play this common team or not? (this would result in either 4/5 matches if not, 9/10 if yes)?
3a.) For the same option (2), should preliminary records carry over into playoffs? (this would result in 4/5 if not, 9/10 if yes).

Thanks for your assistance!

Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN) · Sun Sep 11, 2011 6:56 pm

You should use the format that has 3 prelim pools of 6, then take the top 2, middle 2, and bottom 2 to separate playoff tiers, then have them play another round robin. For this audience, it might be ideal to do the cross bracket you described. I do not think offering maximal games is the primary concern for a field of new players, who can easily get worn out and bored. A 9 or 10 game tournament is standard operating procedure at basically all levels, so offering a 9 game event here is fine. If you would rather offer teams that one extra game, then that's your choice.

jonpin · Post by **jonpin** » Sun Sep 11, 2011 9:56 pm

Remember that a 9-team round-robin requires 9 rounds due to the bye, so Option 1 doesn't work (the consolation group would require 14 rounds). Option 2 is probably a better choice. I would count the carryover game and just play the other four teams in your tier, so that the tournament guarantees 9 games.

biggiebird89 · Post by **biggiebird89** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 1:10 am

jonpin wrote:Remember that a 9-team round-robin requires 9 rounds due to the bye, so Option 1 doesn't work (the consolation group would require 14 rounds). Option 2 is probably a better choice. I would count the carryover game and just play the other four teams in your tier, so that the tournament guarantees 9 games.

I see where I made my mistake in thinking that. My apologies.

Now to get the juices going - how would you format a 16-team and a 20-team tournament along the same lines?

dtaylor4 · Post by **dtaylor4** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 1:18 am

biggiebird89 wrote:
jonpin wrote:Remember that a 9-team round-robin requires 9 rounds due to the bye, so Option 1 doesn't work (the consolation group would require 14 rounds). Option 2 is probably a better choice. I would count the carryover game and just play the other four teams in your tier, so that the tournament guarantees 9 games.
I see where I made my mistake in thinking that. My apologies.

Now to get the juices going - how would you format a 16-team and a 20-team tournament along the same lines?

For 16 - 2 groups of 8 for prelims. For playoffs, you can do 4/4 cross-over, carrying over 3 games, or four playoff brackets of 4 (2/2/2/2) with a 3-game RR. Either gets you 10 games.

For 20, I'd suggest getting a 21st team.

biggiebird89 · Post by **biggiebird89** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 1:45 am

My thoughts were to do the 2X8 RR, then the top 4/bottom 4 (playoff/consolation, resp.) and carry over morning records, doing a cross-bracket, so that's 7+3=10 games, then a one-game championship between the top teams in each playoff pool.

In what sense would a 21 team tournament work aside from 3 groups of 7, etc?

Also - in the sense that these matches are being TIMED (due to time constraints during the day,) would it be smarter to use H2H for a tie-breaker since PPG would be inaccurate if all teams don't hear the same number of questions in a given match?

jonah · Post by **jonah** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 1:59 am

biggiebird89 wrote:Also - in the sense that these matches are being TIMED (due to time constraints during the day,) would it be smarter to use H2H for a tie-breaker since PPG would be inaccurate if all teams don't hear the same number of questions in a given match?

No. Use points per 20 tossups heard (or points per tossup heard, or points per some fixed number of tossups heard; I just say points per 20 because that's easier for people to interpret intuitively).

Cody · Post by **Cody** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 1:59 am

biggiebird89 wrote:Also - in the sense that these matches are being TIMED (due to time constraints during the day,) would it be smarter to use H2H for a tie-breaker since PPG would be inaccurate if all teams don't hear the same number of questions in a given match?

You could use Points Per 20 Tossups Heard (PP20TH), which is basically a normalized PPG.

biggiebird89 · Post by **biggiebird89** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 2:02 am

Would it be more wise to go with points per EACH tossup heard, or points per 20 heard, since - again, not all teams might hear 20 tossups the entire tournament. Personally, I think points per tossup sounds more fair in this regard, but that's just me.

Cody · Post by **Cody** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 2:06 am

biggiebird89 wrote:Would it be more wise to go with points per EACH tossup heard, or points per 20 heard, since - again, not all teams might hear 20 tossups the entire tournament. Personally, I think points per tossup sounds more fair in this regard, but that's just me.

They'd be the same thing since for PP20TH you'd just be multiplying the first number by 20.

biggiebird89 · Post by **biggiebird89** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 2:11 am

I hate to be a post-pooper, but I'm not 100% following behind what you're saying. Would you give an example to demonstrate this just so I can see it's 100% the same thing?

jonah · Post by **jonah** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 2:17 am

biggiebird89 wrote:I hate to be a post-pooper, but I'm not 100% following behind what you're saying. Would you give an example to demonstrate this just so I can see it's 100% the same thing?

Suppose a team gets 400 points in a game in which they hear 19 tossups and 450 in a game in which they hear 21.
Points per tossup: (400 + 450) / (19 + 21) = 850/40 = 21.25.
20 * (points per tossup): 20*21.25 = 425.
Points per 20 tossups: (400 + 450) / ((19+21)/20) = 425.

biggiebird89 · Post by **biggiebird89** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 2:34 am

That works for me!

dtaylor4 · Post by **dtaylor4** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 3:03 am

For the PPG tiebreaker, if you use SQBS, it automatically calculates PPTH for both teams and individuals.

Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN) · Mon Sep 12, 2011 3:51 am

biggiebird89 wrote:My thoughts were to do the 2X8 RR, then the top 4/bottom 4 (playoff/consolation, resp.) and carry over morning records, doing a cross-bracket, so that's 7+3=10 games, then a one-game championship between the top teams in each playoff pool.

If I'm reading you right, wouldn't you be using 11 packets? A cross bracket between the top 4 and bottom 4 teams in each pool would take 4 games, not 3, because everybody has to play the other bracket's 4 teams.

Also - in the sense that these matches are being TIMED (due to time constraints during the day,) would it be smarter to use H2H for a tie-breaker since PPG would be inaccurate if all teams don't hear the same number of questions in a given match?

Do not time this set. I have the power to take away your ability to use the Fall Novice Tournament set and I will do so if you time the matches.

biggiebird89 · Post by **biggiebird89** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:00 am

College Park Spyders wrote:If I'm reading you right, wouldn't you be using 11 packets? A cross bracket between the top 4 and bottom 4 teams in each pool would take 4 games, not 3, because everybody has to play the other bracket's 4 teams.

I may have mis-worded what my numbers were. It should be 11 games, with in this case, an advantaged championship. There are two divisions of 8 in this case (let's say Division A and Division B.) When the first round is all done (7 games,) you have the top four in each division play the top four in the other division (so #1 in A would play #1, #2, #3, #4 in B, etc.,) which would be 7 (morning) + 4 (afternoon) = 11.

College Park Spyders wrote: Do not time this set. I have the power to take away your ability to use the Fall Novice Tournament set and I will do so if you time the matches.

Just out of curiosity, what is the disadvantage of using timed matches in this case? My only reasoning to was to make sure there was enough time in the day to get all matches in, considering many teams are traveling up to 2 hours plus to get to our tournament. 30 minutes seems like enough time, especially when I've seen other posts say it should take roughly 20 minutes to read a full 20/20 packet. (NOTE - it's not set in stone that we had decided to do timed rounds, it was the theory at the time. We're not trying to get on anyone's bad side here, and it's only our 2nd tournament.)

Tower Monarch · Post by **Tower Monarch** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:10 am

biggiebird89 wrote: Just out of curiosity, what is the disadvantage of using timed matches in this case? My only reasoning to was to make sure there was enough time in the day to get all matches in, considering many teams are traveling up to 2 hours plus to get to our tournament. 30 minutes seems like enough time, especially when I've seen other posts say it should take roughly 20 minutes to read a full 20/20 packet. (NOTE - it's not set in stone that we had decided to do timed rounds, it was the theory at the time. We're not trying to get on anyone's bad side here, and it's only our 2nd tournament.)

The major problem with timing is that the distribution is based on achieving 20 tossups, so a room that hears fewer will have a skew and therefore some sort of unfair dis-/advantage. The only good way to keep a tournament on time is have only readers experienced enough to guarantee all rounds will be read in under 30 minutes. (Realistically, this limit should only be approached when two teams with general, but not deep, knowledge answer the tossups only at the end but hear all bonuses) If you want to use a reader that hasn't maintained that pace before, have them read to you or to an empty room and time themselves until they get it right (meaning they read every word of 20/20 in about 25 minutes). If you use me as a reader, for example, I'll plan to read at my practice to remember what that pace feels like.

EDIT: Also, it's not a bad idea to still make sure there are clocks/watches/timers (that don't make distracting noises) in each room, so that if a reader approaches or passes the 30 minute mark, they'll know they need to improve during the next round.

biggiebird89 · Post by **biggiebird89** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 12:00 pm

I like the idea of the timers in each room. My idea was (originally, before being "turned away" to the idea, I guess, is the easiest way of putting it) to have a timer in each room (no noise, etc.,) and when 30 minutes was up, the reader would finish the question/bonus they were on, etc. I guess my thought was just the fact that I am not 100% guaranteed how fast games are going to go because I'm not 100% sure of how many experienced readers I'll have. Last year, we had very little in the way of problems with the reader, except for one who was habitually slow/lethargic with his readers (so I replaced him for the playoff rounds, etc.) Otherwise we were fine (for a 5 school, 11 team inaugural event.)

This year, we're looking to expand to a 20-team field (possibly 21, no more than that if possible.) Therefore, I felt as if the time limit was a better idea to make sure everything was going smoothly. But I understand the logic now behind untimed rounds.

cvdwightw · Post by **cvdwightw** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 1:13 pm

Yeah, when you don't have 100% competent trained moderators, you end up having to trade off between "teams will hear all 20 tossups" and "rounds will not take 40 minutes."

I think in Vermont the idea of rounds running on time is slightly more important than teams being able to hear a reasonable amount of questions, so I see where you're coming from. In all seriousness, though, a game at last year's Sue Pasco tournament between Fair Haven Union A and Champlain Valley B recorded 8 tossups heard, and that's not fun for anyone.

For 20 teams, your only real options are 4 brackets of 5 feeding into 5 brackets of 4 (7 games, 8 rounds), which seems a little short, or 2 brackets of 10 feeding into 5 crossover brackets of 4 (11 games, 11 rounds), which is probably a little long for what you want.

For 21 teams, you could run 3 brackets of 7 feeding into 7 brackets of 3 (8 games, 10 rounds), which is probably good enough for the teams you're looking to attend. The other advantage to this over 20 is that you only need 9 moderators in the prelims and 7 in the playoffs, as opposed to 10 the whole time.

Auroni · Post by **Auroni** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 1:14 pm

Even if you have slow moderators that take 35 to 40 minutes to finish up a round, you will do a bigger disservice to the teams by not letting them hear 20 tossups than by having some delays. Also, it's not particularly hard to train your moderators to read in the 20-30 minute range.

biggiebird89 · Post by **biggiebird89** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 1:32 pm

Agreed on all terms. I don't want teams coming to this tournament feeling screwed out of questions or, in reality, a good time period because they didn't get 20 questions each round?

Last year, because we weren't sure how the normal procedures go, we implemented a 35-minute "range" for matches - it was NOT a time limit, but rather a "We'd like each match to finish up in 35 minutes" thing, and since we had a 6 and 5-team bracket, it was plenty of time as far as I saw. Since there were so few teams, things didn't have any issue. Now that we are inquiring about more teams, we wanted to make sure there was enough time, but to also keep things on schedule

What is the typical "protocol" regarding matches where teams finish early and are waiting for other matches? Do you just ask them to quietly remain outside their next match room or otherwise?

Tower Monarch · Post by **Tower Monarch** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 3:01 pm

biggiebird89 wrote:What is the typical "protocol" regarding matches where teams finish early and are waiting for other matches? Do you just ask them to quietly remain outside their next match room or otherwise?

That's about it. But make sure your readers leave the door open when they don't have two teams and closed when they do. You can then tell waiting teams never to open a closed game room door and to enter open doors and get seated as soon as they can. This helps speed up round changes and avoid distractions in-game.
On the flip side, you may have the "problem" that one reader will be finishing in about 20 minutes while the average of the others is about 25. You can always tell this reader to start later in a given round to balance this and reduce wait times and therefore distracting noise from the halls.

biggiebird89 · Post by **biggiebird89** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 11:38 am

Sounds fair enough then. I will make a note of it in my information for the day of the tournament and just go as is. I guess there are some things in life (or tournament play) that one really doesn't have much control over. =P

biggiebird89 · Post by **biggiebird89** » Thu Sep 15, 2011 5:29 pm

Now that I have looked back on this as I've sent information out to perspective teams, another thought has come to mind:

Since all teams in my tournament will be hearing 20 tossup questions in their matches, both morning and afternoon (with the number of bonuses depending, obviously,) would it be more wise to:

1.) Rank teams within a division based on overall record, and use PP20TH as a tiebreaker
OR
2.) Rank teams within a division based on PP20TH, since there is less likelihood of any tiebreakers?

Post by **Important Bird Area** » Thu Sep 15, 2011 5:32 pm

Record first, then PPTUH.

biggiebird89 · Post by **biggiebird89** » Tue Sep 20, 2011 2:06 pm

Jeff - thank you for your reply.

One LAST question (hopefully, and this one I am asking due to technicalities and not wanting to **** anyone off):

For a Fall Novice mirror, is it standard to use "negs" for this type of tournament. I haven't been 100% aware of what the procedures are when it comes to this. Last year we didn't, and this year I had been thinking of using them, BUT the issue is that both Vermont and New Hampshire's leagues do NOT use -5 in their leagues. In speaking with one NH coach, she said, "We specifically tell/instruct our players to buzz in when they think they know the answer." As far as Vermont, I'm not sure.

My thought was, since this is a tournament between NAQT events in Vermont/NH, what would be the right way to go about things? I want the day to be successful and fun, but also challenging. Thanks again, all.

Post by **Important Bird Area** » Tue Sep 20, 2011 2:11 pm

It's a good idea to use the minus-five (which is not only typical nationwide, but also used in some NAQT events even in Vermont: this one, for example)

Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN) · Tue Sep 20, 2011 2:27 pm

Either way is absolutely fine.

biggiebird89 · Post by **biggiebird89** » Tue Sep 20, 2011 6:03 pm

Charlie - Fine with the Fall Novice folks, or fine to use period? (Or both?)

I've emailed the directors of both leagues to get their take - I don't want to give teams from a specific state a disadvantage/advantage just because there are rules followed in one area that aren't in others, etc. I personally would like to use the -5s to give it an official feel to it as opposed to the "hey, it's a fun tournament, let's go and play" feeling that I felt last year had.

biggiebird89 · Post by **biggiebird89** » Thu Sep 22, 2011 5:58 pm

Ok - we have decided to implement the "-5" rule for tossups for our tournament.

Now for another question that I'm curious the reaction. Here is my "at the moment" idea for tournament procedures:
-> 5 seconds to answer a tossup once the question has been read (interruptions can happen, of course.)
-> 3 seconds to begin answer once recognized by school and name (no "stalling" or "blitzing")
-> (-5) points for an incorrect answer/buzz with no answer.
-> For Bonuses, 8 seconds to confer, captain must begin answer within 8 second range.

Now for the reaction part. I am thinking of doing this for my tournament...please provide your opinions to this:
-> After Question 10 (regardless of results,) we will implement MANDATORY substitutions for teams. The reasoning behind this is that it gets teams putting new players into the match and helps gets the players experience in match situations. We are limiting teams to 5/6 players per team (hasn't been set in stone yet.)
-> In the case of teams who only have 4 players on a team, but have more than one team in their school (say teams who have C or D teams,) would it be acceptable to allow coaches to place these non-playing students on these rosters?

Post by **Important Bird Area** » Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:23 pm

biggiebird89 wrote:Ok - we have decided to implement the "-5" rule for tossups for our tournament.

Now for another question that I'm curious the reaction. Here is my "at the moment" idea for tournament procedures:
-> 5 seconds to answer a tossup once the question has been read (interruptions can happen, of course.)
-> 3 seconds to begin answer once recognized by school and name (no "stalling" or "blitzing")
-> (-5) points for an incorrect answer/buzz with no answer.
-> For Bonuses, 8 seconds to confer, captain must begin answer within 8 second range.

I would recommend the standard five seconds to confer on bonuses- this is what teams will get at other tournaments, and in addition it will help your tournament run just a little bit faster.

There is no point in making the halftime-substitutions mandatory. Leaving them optional still allows coaches to get their fifth and/or sixth players into games if they like. (But it doesn't have the downside of the mandatory version: namely, mandatory subs might force a coach to play less than the school's best team in a close game.)

Charles Martel · Post by **Charles Martel** » Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:24 pm

\begin{outrage}
I personally think it's unsportsmanlike to not play to win. It's common in Illinois for coaches to bring 10 players to 5 on 5 tournaments, and give every player a half of play. Does that really encourage players to improve? So that they can get more tossups in the half they play? If the rest of the team doesn't improve, the team will get destroyed in the half the good player isn't in.

Steeve Ho You Fat · Post by **Steeve Ho You Fat** » Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:26 pm

ACF rules give five seconds to answer following a buzz and to confer on bonus (prompt the captain after four). NAQT uses three to answer tossups, so that can go either way, but I don't see any reason to give three more seconds on every bonus part. I doubt anyone's going to be able to think of an answer they haven't been able to come up with in five seconds already.

I know that I, for one, would be pretty unhappy if I were at a tournament where the TD was forcing a team to make substitutions. One thing that some tournaments do that you could try would be require schools that plan on bringing seven or more people to register multiple teams, and I think that's a much better idea than forcing them to make substitutions. I don't really understand what you're saying in your last point, but you should of course recommend that schools bring multiple teams if they have multiple teams worth of players.

biggiebird89 · Post by **biggiebird89** » Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:40 pm

All valid points (and rage comments, I suppose.) I'm still young in terms of the vast range of QB, especially since I'm basing my logic of QB from when I played in HS, but that was NOWHERE affiliated with any nationally-recognized format of quiz-bowl. We had 8 seconds for 4-part bonuses, but this was also a part of a 4-quarter format, as it were. If many of you read the format we used (or better, the questions we used,) I think 75% would have an aneurysm and pass out.

In terms of teams registering, we're capping schools at 2 teams maximum, letting 1 in before "Deadline 1 (4 weeks before the tournament)". All 2nd teams will be held on a "wait list" by order of registration, and will be let in after "Deadline 2 (3 weeks before)". Last year's tournament, we had 5 schools with 11 teams, 2 schools bringing 3 teams each. Our goal is to get more schools participating over teams per school. Depending on our team situation (we are looking at a soft cap of 16-20,) we could let C teams (3rd teams) in after the 2nd deadline according to registration.

From the reactions I'm getting, I think we'll make the substitutions optional after Question 10, but keep it at 5 seconds to answer on a tossup (3 to begin answer), and 5 to confer on a bonus...agreeing on the part that speeding up play would be advantageous in this regard. This way, both tossups and bonuses have the same length to answer, the only difference being conferencing.

Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN) · Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:45 pm

Now for the reaction part. I am thinking of doing this for my tournament...please provide your opinions to this:
-> After Question 10 (regardless of results,) we will implement MANDATORY substitutions for teams. The reasoning behind this is that it gets teams putting new players into the match and helps gets the players experience in match situations. We are limiting teams to 5/6 players per team (hasn't been set in stone yet.)
-> In the case of teams who only have 4 players on a team, but have more than one team in their school (say teams who have C or D teams,) would it be acceptable to allow coaches to place these non-playing students on these rosters?

Look, I'm really really happy that you've been so willing to have your event use a good set and want to bring good, highly accessible quizbowl events to the northeast while not even being a quizbowler. With that said, I cannot fathom why you repeatedly are interested in coming up with your own completely untested brand new rules to impose on unsuspecting novice quizbowl teams in your region that have no basis in standard quizbowl procedure, when there is a very standard, much simpler procedure that has been developed by people who actually do quizbowl that is already proven to be excellent. Using your mirror of the fall novice tournament to continually try reinventing the wheel is a huge problem and I frankly don't think you are in a position of experience to innovate properly. Please stop trying to make up the rules as you go and follow the procedures everybody else uses.

biggiebird89 · Post by **biggiebird89** » Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:59 pm

College Park Spyders wrote:
With that said, I cannot fathom why you repeatedly are interested in coming up with your own completely untested brand new rules to impose on unsuspecting novice quizbowl teams in your region that have no basis in standard quizbowl procedure, when there is a very standard, much simpler procedure that has been developed by people who actually do quizbowl that is already proven to be excellent. Using your mirror of the fall novice tournament to continually try reinventing the wheel is a huge problem and I frankly don't think you are in a position of experience to innovate properly. Please stop trying to make up the rules as you go and follow the procedures everybody else uses.

If you had read the first thing I posted above, you would see I'm NOT trying to reinvent anything, Charlie. I am attempting to follow along with the formats that I'm seeing everyone else use BUT also getting confused because I don't know what's better or more appropriate to use, so part of me goes back to what I did going on 4-5 years ago. Considering that this novice tournament isn't affiliated with any specific format (ACF, NAQT, etc) from what I have been told, I'm under the assumption that ANY rules/formats could apply, such as length of times for questioning, etc. I've already said I'm going back to optional substitutions halfway through, 5 seconds to buzz in on tossups, 3 seconds to answer once buzzing, and 5 seconds to confer on bonuses. If there is/are any other "procedures" that I'm not seeing here, then by all means, please let me know. I've said from DAY ONE that I'm not trying to screw with the SOP of quiz bowl, but to learn like I'm very sure we all are.

dtaylor4 · Post by **dtaylor4** » Thu Sep 22, 2011 7:26 pm

Subs:

What a number of tournaments do is limit subs to only at half-time, or before OT. Teams can sub if they wish to, but only have two moments in which they can do so.

As for timing, I suggest using 5 universally: 5 before a stall on tossups, 5 after finishing before a tossup is dead, 5 on bonuses (prompt on 4).

EDIT: Clarity

biggiebird89 · Post by **biggiebird89** » Thu Sep 22, 2011 7:35 pm

Donald - I'm assuming the "5 before a stall on tossups" is what I was suggesting 3 for, and basically just allows 5 seconds to answer after buzzing in and being recognized? If that's the case, that works for me and makes much more sense.

dtaylor4 · Post by **dtaylor4** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 9:15 am

biggiebird89 wrote:Donald - I'm assuming the "5 before a stall on tossups" is what I was suggesting 3 for, and basically just allows 5 seconds to answer after buzzing in and being recognized? If that's the case, that works for me and makes much more sense.

Exactly.

biggiebird89 · Post by **biggiebird89** » Sat Sep 24, 2011 11:35 am

Now to go back to a previous question for another situation: How would everyone format a 24-team tournament? My thoughts were doing either:

1.) 3 eight-team brackets, then re-bracketing into 6 four-team brackets (have the 1s play the 2s and vice versa, 3s play the 4s, etc. EXCEPT for the team played in the preliminaries) (7+3) then a 1/2 game championship if necessary.

2.) 4 six-team brackets, re-bracketed into: (a.) 4 six-team brackets (4 #1 seeds and top 2 #2 seeds), or (b.) 6 four-team brackets (done as above).

It's more-so just me preparing JUST in case something were to happen and we get more teams than anticipated (somehow.) Any thoughts on a better format? I kind of wish there were a website or some form of area where a big list of bracketing options exists with playoff options, just to make things a lot easier.

ScoBo · Post by **ScoBo** » Sat Sep 24, 2011 11:58 am

biggiebird89 wrote:I kind of wish there were a website or some form of area where a big list of bracketing options exists with playoff options, just to make things a lot easier.

I have long thought this would be a great idea and I seem to remember the idea coming up several years ago but to my knowledge it never came to fruition. I'd certainly be interested in adding something like this to the resource database at some point.

Irreligion in Bangladesh · Sat Sep 24, 2011 12:34 pm

3 pools x 8 teams would be 7+4 rounds, because there should be five games played in the playoffs, you can only carry over 1 game. That'd leave with two packets for the finals, and is a pretty good solution.

4 pools x 6 teams, rebracket into 4 pools by 6 teams, is probably a better option - you'd have an additional game in the playoffs, and the benefit of "games against similar strength teams" is amplified in a novice tournament. In addition, you'd have one less round than the 3x8 format - having a backup packet in case of moderator error is great, and playing more than 10 rounds at a novice tournament might not be ideal.

biggiebird89 · Post by **biggiebird89** » Sat Sep 24, 2011 12:41 pm

It would absolutely be worth it instead of having dummies like me who aren't experienced in this regard asking people 14 times over, "Hey, which of A and B sounds better and why" and wasting post space. It's not that I can't think of things on my own, because I can, but having experienced 2nd opinions makes me feel more secure about the route I plan on going.

The 3x8 format would be 7 in the morning, then if there were cross-brackets in the afternoon, it'd be 1s vs. 2s EXCEPT for the team already played in the morning.

I've heard people say playing the same team once in playoffs and preliminaries should be avoided, so that's where the 7 + 3 game in (if you did play that team twice, then it'd be 7+4.) If I'm wrong, please correct me in that, because that's what I've been going by all this time dating back to last year - playing teams multiple times during playoffs/prelims should be avoided, BUT in championships is acceptable.

Irreligion in Bangladesh · Sat Sep 24, 2011 1:45 pm

3 pools of 8 teams with a rebracket into 4 pools of 6 puts teams 1 and 2 from each of pools A, B, and C into the top tier. A full round robin on 6 teams takes 5 rounds; carrying over the A1 vs. A2 matchup saves 1 round, but you've still got 4 rounds to play.

The question of carrying over vs. not carrying over isn't a slam dunk either way - if you've got time/packets to play the extra, there's no harm in doing so. If not, there's no harm in carrying over the already-played game. (I suppose there'd be an issue if you announced one way then, in the middle of the tournament, switched horses for some reason, but that's a completely different story.)

Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN) · Sat Sep 24, 2011 2:45 pm

Another 24 team format that would work for this audience is doing 4 pools of 6 for the prelims, taking the top 2 from each pool to the playoffs, split the playoff pool in half and run two balanced 4 team pools for the playoffs, then have the top 2 teams from each playoff pool do a cross bracket. For the 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th place teams in the prelim pools, you can just have consolation pools where they play 4 team round robins against the other 3 teams that got the same placement in their prelim pool. That uses 8 rounds for everybody, 2 extra rounds for the top 4 teams, and leaves enough to run an advantaged final without forcing everybody to play 11 games, which will probably be grueling for a novice field.

Irreligion in Bangladesh · Sat Sep 24, 2011 3:57 pm

College Park Spyders wrote:Another 24 team format that would work for this audience is doing 4 pools of 6 for the prelims, taking the top 2 from each pool to the playoffs, split the playoff pool in half and run two balanced 4 team pools for the playoffs, then have the top 2 teams from each playoff pool do a cross bracket. For the 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th place teams in the prelim pools, you can just have consolation pools where they play 4 team round robins against the other 3 teams that got the same placement in their prelim pool. That uses 8 rounds for everybody, 2 extra rounds for the top 4 teams, and leaves enough to run an advantaged final without forcing everybody to play 11 games, which will probably be grueling for a novice field.

One possible issue with this idea is if there are B teams stuck waiting for their championship-tier A teams to finish. If there aren't very many B-teams, this isn't much of an issue; if you can offer them scrimmage matches, it isn't an issue at all, and makes this format a great idea as well.

Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN) · Sat Sep 24, 2011 4:05 pm

In all the old school tournaments where teams would play only morning games and then teams would go to the playoffs, B teams would always hang out with the A team for the, like, 4 rounds that they might not be playing while they wait for their A team to finish, and that wasn't a problem. Even now, in good tournaments B teams are forced to sit around when their A team plays a final or maybe 1 or 2 extra playoff games and it's not a problem. I don't think this is too much of a concern, especially for newer teams.

biggiebird89 · Post by **biggiebird89** » Sat Sep 24, 2011 7:32 pm

College Park Spyders wrote:Another 24 team format that would work for this audience is doing 4 pools of 6 for the prelims, taking the top 2 from each pool to the playoffs, split the playoff pool in half and run two balanced 4 team pools for the playoffs, then have the top 2 teams from each playoff pool do a cross bracket. For the 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th place teams in the prelim pools, you can just have consolation pools where they play 4 team round robins against the other 3 teams that got the same placement in their prelim pool. That uses 8 rounds for everybody, 2 extra rounds for the top 4 teams, and leaves enough to run an advantaged final without forcing everybody to play 11 games, which will probably be grueling for a novice field.

I actually REALLY like this idea, because the entire theme of the "Quest for the Nest" tournament is the "Quest" idea. To win this tournament, you must conquer this "adventure" through different teams and situations to get the prize(s) at the end of the day. Instead of doing the generic "preliminary - playoff - titles" matches, doing an additional one would workout very nicely in this regard. Only issue is that I've advertised everything as the "P-P-T" format above - if I get more teams than the 18-20 soft cap I've labeled, can I just make this announcement in the morning/afternoon and call it good? It would all work out match/packet-wise in the end.

My idea behind A/B teams is that each school is limited to TWO teams. One team can be registered by the 1st deadline, then after that, 2nd teams will be entered based on the order of registration of the 1st team. The goal is to expose more schools than individual teams to these kinds of questions. Then, depending on how teams (A and B) add/drop out, we can add more teams based on the wait-list. "A" teams will have priority up to the 1st deadline, then it's based on the list. (If this could be tweaked, please let me know. I'm open to suggestions, and would rather have more A & B teams than schools dominating with C teams in terms of quantity.)

EDIT: For those teams who would be sitting around waiting near the end of tournaments, I'm "highly encouraging" them to play scrimmage matches just for fun if they choose to, but they aren't mandatory. Forgot to mention that.

biggiebird89 · Post by **biggiebird89** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 1:01 pm

Now this is where I REALLY get to show my inexperience - back to the argument of using "-5s"/"Negs" or whatever you want to call them:

Are these ONLY used when a question is interrupted and is incorrect, or whenever a question is answered incorrectly (even after the question is completed)?

Irreligion in Bangladesh · Mon Sep 26, 2011 1:15 pm

biggiebird89 wrote:Now this is where I REALLY get to show my inexperience - back to the argument of using "-5s"/"Negs" or whatever you want to call them:

Are these ONLY used when a question is interrupted and is incorrect, or whenever a question is answered incorrectly (even after the question is completed)?

Interrupted only. Also, if team A negs, then team B interrupts as well and gets it wrong, they don't get the -5, just the shame of not waiting until the giveaway.