Formats
Something I will never understand is the backdoor game to nationals (of course, why I am writing this is UM lost to OSU after beating them on Sat. Not to take anything away from OSU or IU, congrats, and good luck in Columbus).
Anyway, why is it that the victory on Sunday means more? UM beats OSU in the semis on Sat. Then loses to them on Sun in the game-to-go. It is fine b.c that is the format and everyone knows that. You have to win your last game to get to nationals. Fine. But why does one one loss team get to go over another one loss team? Shouldn't OSU have to beat UM twice? Head-to-head they are 1-1. On paper, that probably means they are the same/equal. Maybe they should be forced to do a combo team for nationals. Or why not a 4 pm round on Sunday? Or one more game on Monday?
One team made it to the finals, just lost to the champion, and has to turn around 30 minutes later in an attempt to go to nationals. The other team has won 2 games, they have momentum, and a little more confidence going into the last game. Not to mention a revenge factor. How long was the time between the finals and the game to go? There should be an extended round to allow for the loser to regroup. I feel the loser of the finals is at a complete disadvantage here. Or maybe move the time of the finals up a little bit, that way that loser still has some time to regain their focus. Shouldn't their be some sort of an advantage for the loser of the finals? Since they actually did get to the finals? It makes no sense to me and all the explanations that have been given, I feel, are not very accurate. Please, someone try to explain this to me (looking for tarr, looking for tarr)
With all that said, UM still should have won that game to get nationals. But having been in a similar situation before, it is difficult. I wish there was some way to look at the records of these games. What is the winning percentage of the loser of the finals/game before the last game to go?
I feel much better now.
Workouts:
Sun 4/22 - 2 sets of 5/5/5 (jog 5 minutes, run hard 5 minutes, walk 5 minutes). I did this on the track, for the hard reps I got 1400+ and then ~1450 (completed turn 3). Not too bad and felt pretty good the whole time
Mon - off - weird day at work and had to get home
Tues - biked 35 minutes at the gym. Watched a horrible Raptors/Nets game while riding the bike.
Wed - Spring league game 3. We win and we are 2-1. Either we are becoming the best spring league team or we peaked. This was clearly our best week wining 13-9 or 8. The main reason we did so well was we did not drop the disc. I feel I can handle throwing to's, since throwing is the hardest thing for the newbies to pick up. Catching on the other hand, well, it is easier to have fun if you feel your teammates can catch the disc. And that is what we did, we caught the disc very well.
We started off very well, we went up 3-1. They were big on zone early, but we were able to find the cracks. It helped to have our full compliment of good throwers there. The funny thing about zone is you can work it up all the way and inevitably someone throws something crazy. We have one guy who gets close to the endzone and throws a hammer to the shortest person on the field covered by the deep who is more experienced and taller and can jump higher. But that is funny.
Up like 7-5 at half, but tied up at 7s, 9-8, and then we run away with the game to the end.
Another thing that I find humorous about spring league, on a turnover the offense-turned-defense does not get the the defense-turns-offense like to throw it deep. So the new defenders never pick up anyone going deep. Ok, so maybe that is a hard concept to understand. But some of the same people who go deep when we get the turn, do not cover deep when the other team gets the turn. I am not sure why they don't understand it.
We also had a guy crush one of the girl's on our team going for a disc. I mean crushed her. Totally reckless.
On a personal note, I scored my first 2 goals on the season. I threw about 4 or so goals. Plenty of turns. 2 ugly hammers, not really factoring in the wind when I threw them. I turfed a backhand to T. Threw another one to her that should have been a turn but someone else saved it. A stupid backhand trying to go around too many people. Anyway, it was a W.
Thu - Ran home from work, 23 minutes
Fri - Biked 30 minutes, lost a 3 game series in ping pong.
Sat - off. Basically, I forgot to workout
Sun - 2 x split 1200 (800 hard/200 ex/200 hard) and 1x400, too tired to do a 3rd one of the 1200s. Splits (2:33[75/78]-75-37); (2:34[75/79]-75-37). Ran the last 400 in 74 [36/38]. I am trying to get the hard distance between 2400-3200 meters. Although this one was at the shorter part of the range, it was the fastest.
Anyway, why is it that the victory on Sunday means more? UM beats OSU in the semis on Sat. Then loses to them on Sun in the game-to-go. It is fine b.c that is the format and everyone knows that. You have to win your last game to get to nationals. Fine. But why does one one loss team get to go over another one loss team? Shouldn't OSU have to beat UM twice? Head-to-head they are 1-1. On paper, that probably means they are the same/equal. Maybe they should be forced to do a combo team for nationals. Or why not a 4 pm round on Sunday? Or one more game on Monday?
One team made it to the finals, just lost to the champion, and has to turn around 30 minutes later in an attempt to go to nationals. The other team has won 2 games, they have momentum, and a little more confidence going into the last game. Not to mention a revenge factor. How long was the time between the finals and the game to go? There should be an extended round to allow for the loser to regroup. I feel the loser of the finals is at a complete disadvantage here. Or maybe move the time of the finals up a little bit, that way that loser still has some time to regain their focus. Shouldn't their be some sort of an advantage for the loser of the finals? Since they actually did get to the finals? It makes no sense to me and all the explanations that have been given, I feel, are not very accurate. Please, someone try to explain this to me (looking for tarr, looking for tarr)
With all that said, UM still should have won that game to get nationals. But having been in a similar situation before, it is difficult. I wish there was some way to look at the records of these games. What is the winning percentage of the loser of the finals/game before the last game to go?
I feel much better now.
Workouts:
Sun 4/22 - 2 sets of 5/5/5 (jog 5 minutes, run hard 5 minutes, walk 5 minutes). I did this on the track, for the hard reps I got 1400+ and then ~1450 (completed turn 3). Not too bad and felt pretty good the whole time
Mon - off - weird day at work and had to get home
Tues - biked 35 minutes at the gym. Watched a horrible Raptors/Nets game while riding the bike.
Wed - Spring league game 3. We win and we are 2-1. Either we are becoming the best spring league team or we peaked. This was clearly our best week wining 13-9 or 8. The main reason we did so well was we did not drop the disc. I feel I can handle throwing to's, since throwing is the hardest thing for the newbies to pick up. Catching on the other hand, well, it is easier to have fun if you feel your teammates can catch the disc. And that is what we did, we caught the disc very well.
We started off very well, we went up 3-1. They were big on zone early, but we were able to find the cracks. It helped to have our full compliment of good throwers there. The funny thing about zone is you can work it up all the way and inevitably someone throws something crazy. We have one guy who gets close to the endzone and throws a hammer to the shortest person on the field covered by the deep who is more experienced and taller and can jump higher. But that is funny.
Up like 7-5 at half, but tied up at 7s, 9-8, and then we run away with the game to the end.
Another thing that I find humorous about spring league, on a turnover the offense-turned-defense does not get the the defense-turns-offense like to throw it deep. So the new defenders never pick up anyone going deep. Ok, so maybe that is a hard concept to understand. But some of the same people who go deep when we get the turn, do not cover deep when the other team gets the turn. I am not sure why they don't understand it.
We also had a guy crush one of the girl's on our team going for a disc. I mean crushed her. Totally reckless.
On a personal note, I scored my first 2 goals on the season. I threw about 4 or so goals. Plenty of turns. 2 ugly hammers, not really factoring in the wind when I threw them. I turfed a backhand to T. Threw another one to her that should have been a turn but someone else saved it. A stupid backhand trying to go around too many people. Anyway, it was a W.
Thu - Ran home from work, 23 minutes
Fri - Biked 30 minutes, lost a 3 game series in ping pong.
Sat - off. Basically, I forgot to workout
Sun - 2 x split 1200 (800 hard/200 ex/200 hard) and 1x400, too tired to do a 3rd one of the 1200s. Splits (2:33[75/78]-75-37); (2:34[75/79]-75-37). Ran the last 400 in 74 [36/38]. I am trying to get the hard distance between 2400-3200 meters. Although this one was at the shorter part of the range, it was the fastest.
posted by sometallskinnykid at 8:13 PM
14 Comments:
Traditional double elimination formats would do exactly like you said. UM would get one more game. Your point definitely has merit, but my be a logistic challenge for the tournaments.
"It is fine b.c that is the format and everyone knows that. You have to win your last game to get to nationals. Fine."
Apparently not if you're UNC?
Big-ups to Ricky and Ryan & co. for the work that they did with MagnUM this year. That team had to have come a very long way from when I saw them at QCTU to the way they played at GL Reggies. Congrats on a very good season, its too bad it wasnt quite storybook.
Alex,
No, not UNC. You might not realize it, but you're making the same point. In that format, you don't have to win once you reach the finals, but again, everyone knows that.
Long response later.
Hell, you don't even have to win the last game to qualify. Last Fall, Moe qualified having lost the last 2 games at Regionals.
There might be an argument that a team to win the last game has the all-important ultimate team skill of superior tournament endurance. The best team is not necessarily the team with the best 7 ultimate players (especially if all they have is 7 players).
First, let me address the more common question of why the reamtch is played in the first place:
http://atarr.blogspot.com/2007/05/last-rematch-post-ever.html
Now that that is out of the way, you seem to be making two seperate criticisms that are not addressed there:
1) That if the rematch is played, and the teams end up 1-1, that a third game should be played between those teams.
2) That there should be an extra break before the final game to go.
Addressing the first point first:
- I think putting the last game on another day is a non-starter. A lone game on a separate day is a very different animal than a game at the end of a tournament and it not as good a determinant of which team will be better at the next level as the game that just happened. It's also a logistical nightmare. I'd save this scenario for when the last game is rained out.
- In most formats, playing another game between these teams straight away is not feasible because it could mean 5 games on the day for at least one of the teams.
- In the formats where the above is not the case (16 teams, 2 advance being one) I still think the game to go should remain the game to go. Everyone knows what that game means, and teams should be able to prepare for and call subs for that game knowing that a win or loss has a specific, static meaning. I address this point from a variety of angles in the post I linked.
As for your second point: I dispute that the loser of the finals is consistently at a disagvantage due to a quick start, although I agree that it is sometimes the case. But my broader complaint is, why is the final game to go the only game where we would pay special attention to this? There are games all over the formats where a team coming off of a bracket loss plays a team coming off of a bracket win. Should all of these games get special consideration?
I'm all for making rounds well spaced, and having a very long time between the cap horn and the next round. But I don't see this issue as unique to the last round at all.
What about same day re-matches? I played two years on Machine (which sucked by the way), and in the first year ('03), we lost in a 3/4 game same-day re-match with Madison, and in the second year ('04) we won in a 3/4 game same-day re-match with Madison.
In the first year, we beat Madison in a close one to advance to the 2/3 game against Sub-Zero who had just lost to BAT in the final. Sub then proceeded to beat us, and we dropped down to the 3/4 game against who else: Madison, who had been waiting patiently after crushing their opponent. They won this game and took the third bid to Natties.
The next year, we lost to Madison in the same exact scenario (I believe), crushed Jawbone while they battled with Sub-Zero in the 2/3 game, and then cruised past a clearly exhausted Madison team to get the third bid to Natties.
Both re-matches were same-day which I think is more disturbing. I am not one of the game's great minds by a long shot, but I remember thinking that '03 wasn't fair to us and that '04 wasn't fair to Madison. By the way, we went 0-7 at Nationals that year and I got mono.
Ok Tarr, thanks for the link.
The only thing I will really buy is the logistical nightmare argument. Oh, and there should never be a dead team, ie we can make nationals as long as that team loses etc.
But you discard the 1-1 argument way too easily. They are 1-1!!!! No other sport eliminates you when you are even steven with a team. In your blog post, you talk about a dead team. But you basically create a dead team just by this 2nd game if the team that won the first game loses the second. I know you discard the fact, but 1-1 is 1-1. They are tied. In the case of UM v. OSU, UM wins in the semis, the 3rd game of the day/tourney. Then lose on Sunday their 5th game/OSU's 6th game. I would argue that OSU is not necessarily the team most fit to make nationals by your endurance argument. I mean, UM won on the 3rd game on Saturday and even after having a more difficult quarter final matchup (presumably).
I will agree that the first game is not meaningless, I mean, you do get a chance to win and make it to nationals through the frontdoor. BUT the 2nd game, in the event of a rematch, is exponentially more important. Order of magnitudes more important.
Why is so much importance placed on the finals?? Ummm, for a regional championship, for a higher seed at nationals, etc. That is why it is so important. Each round is more important than the previous round because you are getting closer to qualifying for nationals. Going undefeated at a tourney (or winning the finals for the weird lost in pool play, etc) is a great feat and needs to be rewarded more tha surviving.
Putting the possible 3rd game on a different day is a logistical nightmare, that is true. BUT I will not buy the it is a completely different animal approach. In the case of 16 team double elim bracket with 2 teams advancing, why is the finals the first game on Sunday (for the 2 that remain)? Isn't that a completely different animal? And if regionals is really about an endurance event and the team that outlasts the others really is the best fit for nationals (argument in your blogpost), then why not move the finals to the 4th round on Saturday? Shouldn't this be an endurance game as well? This means that the Sunday finals game is a completely different animal b/c it is the first game.
Lastly, thanks for all you do with the formats and taking time to explain. Although I do not necessarily agree with everything, (I mean they are 1-1 against each other!!), it is the way it is and we have to play by those rules. And it is clearly stated to everyone, so that is fine. But I think that it can be more fine.
Thanks again Tarr.
Tim
Jeters had written,
Traditional double elimination formats would do exactly like you said. UM would get one more game.
Sorry, wrong. In traditional double elimination, Michigan would have been eliminated thanks to having two losses. OSU would only have one loss, though, so they would play Indiana, and if Indiana lost that game, then you would see the immediate rematch.
This is basically irrelevant since I haven't heard anyone seriously suggest using full double elimination in UPA events. It would only make sense for one team advance tournaments, and you can just use a single elimination for those.
This does highlight the point that, in a sense, the reason UM is eliminated and OSU advances is because UM has two total losses and OSU only has one.
Chucktown wrote,
What about same day re-matches? [story about some rematches] Both re-matches were same-day which I think is more disturbing.
I agree that emotionally, same-day rematches seems stranger/worse. But from a formats perspective, there's really no difference. All of the arguments I laid out in the post on my blog apply equally or (in the case of the gamesmanship argument) more to the same-day rematch as compared to the previous-day rematch. Plus, which day a game is played on can depend on a variety of factors, like choice of pool play versus brackets, and I don't think these choices should have such far-reaching effects.
In sum, I don't think this can be a deciding factor in whether a rematch is played or not.
"No other sport eliminates you when you are even steven with a team."
Small correction here. In Soccer, Champions League to be exact, you can be 1-1 and be eliminated. They weight home and away goals differently. ie, point differential.
Speaking of which, we also use point differential as well (though I'm sure another argument may ensue) to determine who moves on.
Sure it sucks if you lose to a team you beat earlier...I'm also guessing that it is double elimination, which means UM ended up X-2, which is a worse record than OSU's X-1 (so OSU had a better overall record)
All of which is to say, I don't think the win and your in, is bad.
doggone it Tarr, beat me by a couple minutes
I wish there was some way to look at the records of these games. What is the winning percentage of the loser of the finals/game before the last game to go?
There is a way...
http://tallee.blogspot.com/2007/05/college-open-regionals-backdoor-games.html
From 2004-now in college open the loser of finals has won and advanced 14 times and lost 7 times. You can draw whatever conclusions you like form that.
But you discard the 1-1 argument way too easily. They are 1-1!!!! No other sport eliminates you when you are even steven with a team.
As cash and I have pointed out, this is only true if you focus exclusively on those two teams and ignore all other games.
OK, so maybe that's not very convincing to you - you could say that OSU doesn't deserve credit for not losing to Indiana, since they never played Indiana. But what about Illinois? After OSU's backdoor win against Michigan, both Illinois and Michigan had two losses - one each to Indiana and OSU.
Why does Michigan get another shot at OSU, but not Illinois? Sure, Michigan has a win against OSU and Illinois doesn't. But Illinois only had one shot at OSU, not two. To some degree you seem to want to penalize them for facing the wrong semifinal opponent.
In your blog post, you talk about a dead team. But you basically create a dead team just by this 2nd game if the team that won the first game loses the second.
Very different issues. When I talk about a "dead team walking", I'm talking about a team that is technically eliminated from the series, but still has games on the schedule against teams that are not eliminated. A lame duck team, if you will. (This is an issue with the big pools in the 12, 13, and 14 team formats.)
Putting the possible 3rd game on a different day is a logistical nightmare, that is true. BUT I will not buy the it is a completely different animal approach. In the case of 16 team double elim bracket with 2 teams advancing, why is the finals the first game on Sunday (for the 2 that remain)? Isn't that a completely different animal? And if regionals is really about an endurance event and the team that outlasts the others really is the best fit for nationals (argument in your blogpost), then why not move the finals to the 4th round on Saturday? Shouldn't this be an endurance game as well? This means that the Sunday finals game is a completely different animal b/c it is the first game.
When I say a completely different animal, I mean because it is the only game all day, period, no matter what happens. This is pretty different in my mind from "win and you're done; lose and you still have work to do". As far as I can remember we only have three examples of this in official formats:
- The finals of club and college nationals. Obviously a special case, although I personally would prefer if semis and finals were on the same day.
- The finals of 9 teams, 5 advance. A crappy format with no good solutions.
I am not anxious to add to this list.
Thanks for being appreciative. You do a good job articulating the counter-points here.
Post a Comment
<< Home