Ranking/Seed System for future ladles

[syllabear]

why can't we have a third and fourth playoff to determine who gets 3rd and 4th seed? I know it might be a bit time consuming, but with seeding, then ladles should be a little bit shorter, no?

[sinewav]

why can't we have a third and fourth playoff to determine who gets 3rd and 4th seed? I know it might be a bit time consuming, but with seeding, then ladles should be a little bit shorter, no?

What's wrong with how the seeds are determined this way? There has been almost no support for 3rd place match. We tried it one time and no one showed up. I doubt you could get enough people to do it. And I don't think seeding will make the Ladle faster at all, there are too many factors that eat up time.

[Hoax]

I like that ins & owned posted proper reasons why we should actually use seeding instead of just blindly spending time deciding how to do something without knowing why
Does anyone actually think the ladle will have more than 16 teams anytime soon..you have to go all the way back to the bowl for that
Also the randomisation of the brackets gives a far greater chance to 'noob' teams than seeding will, so I think the arguement that less experienced teams will face an opposition on the same level is somewhat crushed

The seeding method aside, it getting implemented or not will basically come down to people wanting either
a) newb/noob teams getting an easier ride
b) better teams getting an easier ride and specs watching better matches towards the end

Maybe lacks onto something and as a compromise just seed the previous finalists
anyway a lot of discussion for not much reason IMO

[INW]

Bringing up an old topic.

I had one thought on this.

It will probably never happen because it will prevent most randomization of the brackets but when the 4 teams are seeded, is it fair to say the number 1 seed should not face a team that lost in the semi finals the tourney before; same with at least the 2nd seed.

Is it unfair to be in the situation that the number 1 seed plays a semi final loser of the last ladle but the number 4 seed plays an Open Team or a team that lacks skill and lost in the first round the ladle before?

Basically shouldn't the brackets be set up so that the 1 and/or 2 seeds of the ladle should get matches past those of semi final losers of the last ladle?

What do yall think?

[owned]

The first four seeds never play another semifinal contestant in the first or second rounds. The top four are put in separate quarters of the bracket.

[Desolate]

He means a semi-final contestant from the ladle before that one. This would be too hard to code in I think, or time-consuming at the least. I don't think this really matters, if that team did not make it this time, why should they not be allowed to play the number 1 seed. Plus, if they truly are number 1, they should be able to beat a team that did not even make the semis.

[INW]

I meant the teams who lost the game to make the semi finals.

And I can see the point of "If there are #1-#4, they should win no matter the lower opponent."

Just a thought (:

[-*inS*-]

Bringing up an old topic.

I had one thought on this.

It will probably never happen because it will prevent most randomization of the brackets but when the 4 teams are seeded, is it fair to say the number 1 seed should not face a team that lost in the semi finals the tourney before; same with at least the 2nd seed.

Is it unfair to be in the situation that the number 1 seed plays a semi final loser of the last ladle but the number 4 seed plays an Open Team or a team that lacks skill and lost in the first round the ladle before?

Basically shouldn't the brackets be set up so that the 1 and/or 2 seeds of the ladle should get matches past those of semi final losers of the last ladle?

What do yall think?

What you are asking for is physically impossible, unless you make a new bracket with just the 4 semifinal teams once they are all determined.

Also if the 1 and 4 seeds made the semifinals they would be playing each other .

[syllabear]

So essentially you want the top 4 teams to play one of the bottom 4 teams every ladle? And since theres no way the top 4 are going to lose, those bottom teams will ALWAYS cycle between the seeded teams each consecutive ladle.

For example, lets say the seeded teams are R, CT, Oracle and Unk, and the bottom 4 are Tu, OT, DS and wild west.

The bottom 4 will always play the top 4 every ladle unless they win, and the chances of any of these teams beating a seeded team is very low... So yeah, lets just make it harder for new teams?

[INW]

I understand what you are saying syllabear but i wasn't just looking at the bottom 4 playing the top 4. If the tourney is 16 teams, then the top 4 seeds will play in random, the bottom 8.
But then where would the other 4 seeds go? Maybe in the empty slots? I can see the issues here.


Like I said before; just a thought.

[Desolate]

What you are suggesting would basically be another form of an 8 seed system. We voted on the seeding, and we decided 4 seeds, not 8. We should stick with this decision until we reach another major voting quarter, and then you can bring it up again.