Ladle 17 - Seeded teams or no seeded teams?

Monkey · Post by **Monkey** » Fri Nov 28, 2008 2:16 am

PLEASE ALSO POST HERE TO SAY HOW YOU VOTED SO THAT WE DON'T GET ANYONE REGISTERING MULTIPLE TIMES AND ABUSING THE POLL.

I vote "no" because the tournament is still small. I think that once we hit 12 - 16 teams, I may be voting yes, although I am not sure yet.

kyle · Post by **kyle** » Fri Nov 28, 2008 3:04 am

no... i think i've explained enough times on the other topic

owned · Post by **owned** » Fri Nov 28, 2008 4:56 am

yes we should

sinewav · Post by **sinewav** » Fri Nov 28, 2008 5:00 am

No seeds. Random ftw. Plus, we still don't know 100% if we have 10 or 9 teams.

owned · Post by **owned** » Fri Nov 28, 2008 5:44 am

and how does that change anything?

Post by **epsy** » Fri Nov 28, 2008 7:13 am

1200 · Post by **1200** » Fri Nov 28, 2008 8:02 am

No seeding for Ladle 17. Since the only seeds we can properly assign are 1 & 2 only....

DDMJ · Post by **DDMJ** » Fri Nov 28, 2008 8:27 am

epsy wrote:No.

sinewav · Post by **sinewav** » Fri Nov 28, 2008 8:27 am

owned wrote:and how does that change anything?

Well, it doesn't really. But if there are 9 teams, only 2 would play in the first round, and that makes me think of Goody's idea of considering the previous ladle in deciding who should jump right to the second round.

Really, I see the value of seeding even though I'm on the "random" side of the argument. It's a tough decision, thus the super-long discussion about it. I think if it were 9 teams I might change my mind.

1200 · Post by **1200** » Fri Nov 28, 2008 8:41 am

This has been said by someone before as well and i think 4 rounds in a day is kinda too long.
Perhaps seedings should be used for the next Ladle so that the top 4 teams of this Ladle automatically qualify for the quaterfinals of the next Ladle. And have the other teams fight for the remaining four slots on a different day or something....
So it'd be a good idea to have a 3rd place match between losers of the semis for this Ladle.

Lackadaisical · Post by **Lackadaisical** » Fri Nov 28, 2008 1:16 pm

voted

Monkey · Post by **Monkey** » Fri Nov 28, 2008 1:16 pm

Some people, including sinewav and 1200, just don't seem to be understanding the point of seeding at all, so I will explain it clearly.

1) The PRIMARY purpose of seeding is to ensure that the top teams do not meet early on.
2) The SECONDARY purpose of seeding is to ensure that top teams get priority when giving out byes.
3) The idea that ONLY seeded teams get a bye and others don't is WRONG. Byes are given out to however many teams the tournament requires, regardless of how many seedings there are.

MaZuffeR · Post by **MaZuffeR** » Fri Nov 28, 2008 2:30 pm

I voted for seeded teams because I feel it's a clear disadvantage to play more than three games. Also, by seeding some teams it's, at least in theory, more likely that the 'new' teams get to play more than one game.

Hoax · Post by **Hoax** » Fri Nov 28, 2008 3:31 pm

Are the servers staying as they are?
No point randomly choosing teams to have everyone complain about where the server is located
Right now I only see one solution & that's to randomise teams aswell as servers, else how would server disputes be solved..
Has to be a future proof solution aswell
Or does no one mind about where they play? then just nvm

freako · Post by **freako** » Fri Nov 28, 2008 3:48 pm

I haven't looked at all the posts made in the last week, so correct me if I say something bad, or something that's said already...

Here is my suggestion for the future......

http://www.mymidwestsports.com/brackets ... p?teams=10

-It may be complicated,
-It will take more time
-It needs more servers....

But before everyone starts flaming on it, It's a system where every team gets even chances, and can play more matches + it can be updated easily to a 11/12/13/14/15/16/17 teams tourney

Armagetron Forums

Ladle 17 - Seeded teams or no seeded teams?

Do you think that we should have some seeded teams in Ladle 17?

Ladle 17 - Seeded teams or no seeded teams?