Ladle 17 - Seeded teams or no seeded teams?

[Monkey]

it's, at least in theory, more likely that the 'new' teams get to play more than one game.

I disagree with that. I think that if we have seedings, each top team will be playing a new team and will knock them out. If things are more random, then some top teams could get drawn against other top teams and some new teams could get drawn against other new teams. This would mean that some new teams would have a chance of winning and also that some new teams would have a more competitive match than if they got pwned by a top team.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that I am against seedings, I actually like them. I am just voting against, like I said above, because the Ladle is currently a bit too small and seedings are more hassle than they are worth, at this stage. Choosing who gets the seeds would be tricky. Once the Ladle gets more established, we will have more to go on when it comes to seeding teams.

[Lacrymosa]

No.

[freako]

it's, at least in theory, more likely that the 'new' teams get to play more than one game.

I disagree with that. I think that if we have seedings, each top team will be playing a new team and will knock them out. If things are more random, then some top teams could get drawn against other top teams and some new teams could get drawn against other new teams. This would mean that some new teams would have a chance of winning and also that some new teams would have a more competitive match than if they got pwned by a top team.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that I am against seedings, I actually like them. I am just voting against, like I said above, because the Ladle is currently a bit too small and seedings are more hassle than they are worth, at this stage. Choosing who gets the seeds would be tricky. Once the Ladle gets more established, we will have more to go on when it comes to seeding teams.

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

[MaZuffeR]

it's, at least in theory, more likely that the 'new' teams get to play more than one game.

I disagree with that. I think that if we have seedings, each top team will be playing a new team and will knock them out. If things are more random, then some top teams could get drawn against other top teams and some new teams could get drawn against other new teams. This would mean that some new teams would have a chance of winning and also that some new teams would have a more competitive match than if they got pwned by a top team.

In a general case you might be right, but in this specific case, when we have 10 teams, seeded teams would get byes in the first round and it will be new team vs. new team in the first round for sure.


Just to clarify: "it's a clear disadvantage to play more than three games" was the main reason I voted for seeded teams.

[hoop]

no

[sinewav]

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that I am against seedings, I actually like them.

I "get" seeding. And I totally agree with your position on this one. I know it looks weird to be pro seeding and vote random, but I think we're all saying no seeds in "this" ladle, but maybe the next.

[hoop]

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

Why the hell we didn't do this in an official poll thread I do not know.

hard to guess?

[madmax]

Voting yes.

Mainly because I don't like the idea of a new team playing against one that has a lot more ladle/fortress experience in the first round.

[hoop]

Voting yes.

Mainly because I don't like the idea of a new team playing against one that has a lot more ladle/fortress experience in the first round.

actually seeding increases the probability of having a new team against an experienced team in the first round

[Hoax]

Voting yes.

Mainly because I don't like the idea of a new team playing against one that has a lot more ladle/fortress experience in the first round.

actually seeding increases the probability of having a new team against an experienced team in the first round

I thought the seeded teams would be getting byes, the whole reason we having the voting

[hoop]

Voting yes.

Mainly because I don't like the idea of a new team playing against one that has a lot more ladle/fortress experience in the first round.

actually seeding increases the probability of having a new team against an experienced team in the first round

I thought the seeded teams would be getting byes, the whole reason we having the voting

ah right, I missed the byes thingy

[Concord]

voted no

while I dislike the potential scenario where we play KoD, X, or TR in the first round and lose, randomizing is only fair.

[Monkey]

MaZuffeR: You have a point in that it depends on how many teams we have as to whether seeding will make an easier or harder first round, on average, for new teams.

The current 10 is not even definite yet, we need to see what happens over the next few days first.

[owned]

tr and kod wouldn't have been seeded anyways. (well if they got lucky they would've.)

[kyle]

here is a little summary of reasons why i believe seeding does not work well in the ladle.

First off we know Ct is probably the best of the 8 teams in the previous ladle as they won it. but any other team we cannot really know for sure. maybe a team that CT beat before the finals was actually better than x (probably not but still could be)

Next, New Teams does not necessarily mean N00bs. most people for seeding are claiming we should make the crap teams play an extra round. pretending that teams in previous ladles are better than them. truth is re really have no clue how good or bad they are.

As I said in previous posts we really don't have an idea on who is truly going to be good of bad in this ladle. 4-5 teams that we have created. If you really want to determine this we need to make it into the AFL, that is the only way we can determine who should be seeded. Or we could use my suggestion before. randomly pair up all the teams for a match top 8 scores move on. 1 Match (not best of 3 just 1, 10 round match) each no point limit just round limit. (new part) In case of an odd number of teams either randomly pick the team that automatically advances or i think more reasonably let the winner of the last ladle advance. This plan would cut back in the time of the first match so all teams don't have to show up quite as early.

I just don't think it is fair to punish new teams from entering. That is like saying a kid must do more work because he is too young. That is why i say the seeding is Not Fair. I think i have clarified my reasoning now.