Final Poll for NEW Debater's League Format

[D-Man]

I'm not getting as much feedback in the DL thread as I'd like so I figured I'd create a thread dedicated towards voting for the new Debater's League format. I'm not saying that the winner of this poll is definitely going to be the format used but I'd really like everyone's feedback on the subject, as I might be swayed.

The only thing I ask is that you don't just vote based on who suggested each method or because you're too lazy to read the information about each format. Neither format is 100% what you might think it will be. If you're going to vote, be sure to know exactly what you're voting for.

Here is what is guaranteed in both new formats -
*The only competitors who get seeded are former winners and runner-ups (if they choose to participate again this year)
*All others get random seeding (picked out of a hat)
*All posters will get two or three chances to debate prior to possibly being eliminated, depending on the format chosen (see Pros and Cons below)
*The time it will take for the league to complete will be severely reduced from its previous format
*Less maintenance for both those who run it (most likely Dagger and myself)
*Overall, less judging will be required by judges
*Limited debate replies in the initial rounds, which lessens requirements for both judges and participants

For those who aren't up to speed, there are two options (both very similar with slight differences

1. World Cup Format
This was Gelgarin's suggestion. I'm not familiar with the World Cup so I'll post Gelgarin's explanation of the format for all of you to understand...

I'd go with a hybrid structure similar to the World Cup. A small handful of mini leagues (four players each) run for three weeks. This gives everyone three chances to debate, and also has the advantage of filtering out most of the no shows before it really matters (I hypothesise that most people who are going to drop out will do so in the early stages). Two people go through from each league, at which point you have a straight up knockout tournament. 32 competitors could be finished in a couple of months. It would be very hard on the judges early on, but I do have some ideas for how to remedy that problem; but it's probably best to get settled on a format first.

Pros: All participants get (at least) 3 chances to debate.
Cons: More chances to debate means more opportunities for participants to drop out, thus giving undeserving competitors a "bye" in their brackets. The league will take about 3 weeks longer than a straight-up, double-elimination tournament.

2. Double Elimination Tournament
Exactly as it's stated. Aside from past DL winners and Runner-ups, everyone will receive random seeding. Participants with losses will enter a second elimination bracket. The winner of that tournament bracket will face the winner of the undefeated bracket. If the undefeated competitor loses in the final round, there will be one more, repeated round to determine the final winner.

Pros: The league will finish quicker. Participants still get more than one chance to participate before possibly being eliminated. It's a straight-up tournament without initial groupings and round robins, thus making it a simpler format.
Cons: Participants get (a guaranteed) two chances to participate instead of three.

If I'm missing any Pros and Cons about either format, please provide some feedback as this is obviously still a work in progress that I'd like to get sorted out ASAP. We want to get this started for all of you but not at the expense of interfering with the annual Wrestlezone Tournament any more than it needs to be.

 

[Davi323]

Pros: The league will finish quicker.

This was all the reason I needed to vote for the double elimination format. After reading some of the complaints about last years, and how it dragged on and on, with people backing out and all of that, This seems to be the quickest, most efficient way to do it. I am not concerned at all about debaters only getting 2 guaranteed debates rather than 3...It seems like an arbitrary number to settle on anyway.

 

[Tastycles]

I don't really get how the double elimination works. This is what I understand it to be:

Say there's 32 participants, the first round has 16 winners and 16 losers.
The 16 losers then face each other in a tournament and the 16 winners do, followed by a final. This means that winning 4 matches then losing one means your out, but losing one and then winning 4 means you win. Not fair.

 

[CH David]

I don't really get how the double elimination works. This is what I understand it to be:

Say there's 32 participants, the first round has 16 winners and 16 losers.
The 16 losers then face each other in a tournament and the 16 winners do, followed by a final. This means that winning 4 matches then losing one means your out, but losing one and then winning 4 means you win. Not fair.

Nah, you have to lose twice to be eliminated throughout the entire league. At least that's what it's supposed to be anyway.

 

[Awesome_Miz]

I don't really get how the double elimination works. This is what I understand it to be:

Say there's 32 participants, the first round has 16 winners and 16 losers.
The 16 losers then face each other in a tournament and the 16 winners do, followed by a final. This means that winning 4 matches then losing one means your out, but losing one and then winning 4 means you win. Not fair.

Agreed.

 

[CH David]

Double elimination means that if you lose twice you are out. You can't lose once and be out. Doesn't work that way.

 

[Davi323]

Double elimination means that if you lose twice you are out. You can't lose once and be out. Doesn't work that way.

Yeah. The finals don't have to be single elimination, a lot of DE Tournaments require the winner of the loser's bracket to have to defeat the winner of the winner's bracket twice, since they haven't lost at all yet. Think of it as a handicapped best of 3 final, where the winner's bracket winner starts out up 1-0.

 

[Tastycles]

In that case it becomes incredibly complicated.

You'd have "the winners bracket" which is a straight up 32 man tournament, where you have this:

WR1: Round of 32
WR2: Round of 16
WR3: Quarter Final
WR4: Semi Final
WR5: Final

Loser bracket:

LR1: Round of 16 (16 WR1 losers)
LR2: Round of 16 (8 WR2 losers v 8 LR1 winners)
LR3: Round of 12 (8 LR2 winners + 4 WR3 losers)
LR4: Quarter Final (6 LR3 Winners + 2 WR4 losers)

You're then left with 5 people (4 LR4 winners + WR5 loser), that you have to get down to one to play in the Grand final, with no clear way of doing it.

Even by this point, there have been 31 matches in the winners bracket and 26 in the losers bracket, for a total of 57 matches. You'd still have to have a few more, plus the grand final.

Meanwhile a 32 person World Cup format has 63 matches (6x8=48 in the groups + 15 in the knockout round) and never leaves you with trying to fit 5 people into a one on one tournament.

 

[D-Man]

I don't really get how the double elimination works. This is what I understand it to be:

Say there's 32 participants, the first round has 16 winners and 16 losers.
The 16 losers then face each other in a tournament and the 16 winners do, followed by a final. This means that winning 4 matches then losing one means your out, but losing one and then winning 4 means you win. Not fair.

Nah, you have to lose twice to be eliminated throughout the entire league. At least that's what it's supposed to be anyway.

CH David is correct. That's why I included this statement in my initial post:

If the undefeated competitor loses in the final round, there will be one more, repeated round to determine the final winner.

Regardless of who makes it to the finals, a winner is only crowned when the loser is defeated TWICE throughout the league. That means, if they are undefeated going into the final round and they lose, there is an immediate rematch.

I hope it makes sense now.

 

[Dagger Dias]

I don't really get how the double elimination works.

The same as single elimination style, but with a second bracket involving everyone who has lost. Say poster 1 loses to poster 2 in the first round and poster 3 loses to poster 4. This means poster 2 and poster 4 move on to the next round of the winners bracket while poster 1 and poster 3 end up in the losers bracket. The round you lost in the winners bracket determines your placement in the losers bracket, or in some cases I have seen a newly randomly generated placement be done for the loser's bracket.

Once the champion of the winners bracket is decided, he or she gets to sit back and watch the show as the losers bracket provides every challenger with a second chance. If they lose in that bracket, they are done. The winner of the losers bracket then faces the champion in the final round. The challenger must win twice, since the champion has not lost yet when you get to the final. The champion only has to win once.

That's generally how the double elimination rules have been like in tournaments I have been involved with and helped run. It's simple, ends faster, and everyone gets two or more chances to compete.

 

[CH David]

Yeah. The finals don't have to be single elimination, a lot of DE Tournaments require the winner of the loser's bracket to have to defeat the winner of the winner's bracket twice, since they haven't lost at all yet. Think of it as a handicapped best of 3 final, where the winner's bracket winner starts out up 1-0.

It will end up being 16-16, 8-16, 4-8, 2-4, 1-2, 1-1. W-L for those that need it.

 

[D-Man]

In that case it becomes incredibly complicated.

You'd have "the winners bracket" which is a straight up 32 man tournament, where you have this:

WR1: Round of 32
WR2: Round of 16
WR3: Quarter Final
WR4: Semi Final
WR5: Final

Loser bracket:

LR1: Round of 16 (16 WR1 losers)
LR2: Round of 16 (8 WR2 losers v 8 LR1 winners)
LR3: Round of 12 (8 LR2 winners + 4 WR3 losers)
LR4: Quarter Final (6 LR3 Winners + 2 WR4 losers)

You're then left with 5 people (4 LR4 winners + WR5 loser), that you have to get down to one to play in the Grand final, with no clear way of doing it.

Even by this point, there have been 31 matches in the winners bracket and 26 in the losers bracket, for a total of 57 matches. You'd still have to have a few more, plus the grand final.

Meanwhile a 32 person World Cup format has 63 matches (6x8=48 in the groups + 15 in the knockout round) and never leaves you with trying to fit 5 people into a one on one tournament.

A double-elimination tournament is broken into two sets of brackets, generally called the winner’s bracket and the loser’s bracket. Each team begins in the winner’s bracket, but with one loss, goes into a loser’s bracket, where they will have to play their way back.

In a four-team bracket, which is what Division I college baseball uses, the two first-round losing teams will play in an elimination game, with the loser eliminated. The two first-round teams that won will play each other. The loser of that game will then face the winner of the elimination game.

The loser of that game will then have two losses and is eliminated, and the winner reaches the championship against the team that’s already won its first two games.

In college baseball, the championship finals are set up as a possible two games, because it would be unfair to have the winner’s bracket champion eliminated with its first loss. So while the winner’s bracket champion needs to beat the loser’s bracket champion once to win the tournament, the loser’s bracket champion must win twice.

Hopefully, this clears everything up.

 

[D-Man]

The same as single elimination style, but with a second bracket involving everyone who has lost. Say poster 1 loses to poster 2 in the first round and poster 3 loses to poster 4. This means poster 2 and poster 4 move on to the next round of the winners bracket while poster 1 and poster 3 end up in the losers bracket. The round you lost in the winners bracket determines your placement in the losers bracket, or in some cases I have seen a newly randomly generated placement be done for the loser's bracket.

Once the champion of the winners bracket is decided, he or she gets to sit back and watch the show as the losers bracket provides every challenger with a second chance. If they lose in that bracket, they are done. The winner of the losers bracket then faces the champion in the final round. The challenger must win twice, since the champion has not lost yet when you get to the final. The champion only has to win once.

That's generally how the double elimination rules have been like in tournaments I have been involved with and helped run. It's simple, ends faster, and everyone gets two or more chances to compete.

I think what's unclear is this:

Let's say there are 16 competitors in the whole tourney. That makes 8 first-round matches with 8 winners and 8 losers. Obviously the losers go into the loser's brackets, but what happens to losers in the later rounds of the winner's bracket?

This was explained in my definition in an earlier post.

 

[Tastycles]

A double-elimination tournament is broken into two sets of brackets, generally called the winner’s bracket and the loser’s bracket. Each team begins in the winner’s bracket, but with one loss, goes into a loser’s bracket, where they will have to play their way back.

In a four-team bracket, which is what Division I college baseball uses, the two first-round losing teams will play in an elimination game, with the loser eliminated. The two first-round teams that won will play each other. The loser of that game will then face the winner of the elimination game.

The loser of that game will then have two losses and is eliminated, and the winner reaches the championship against the team that’s already won its first two games.

In college baseball, the championship finals are set up as a possible two games, because it would be unfair to have the winner’s bracket champion eliminated with its first loss. So while the winner’s bracket champion needs to beat the loser’s bracket champion once to win the tournament, the loser’s bracket champion must win twice.

Hopefully, this clears everything up.

Right, I get it, but in that case there will be 63 matches, which is exactly the same amount as the World Cup, so the tournament won't be any quicker at all.

 

[D-Man]

Right, I get it, but in that case there will be 63 matches, which is exactly the same amount as the World Cup, so the tournament won't be any quicker at all.

Actually, it can be. We can do simultaneous matchups within the two brackets in the double-elimination tournament. The World Cup seems to be 100% linear.

Of course, if I'm wrong about this then please let me know.

 

[¡Roján!]

Actually, it can be. We can do simultaneous matchups within the two brackets in the double-elimination tournament. The World Cup seems to be 100% linear.

Of course, if I'm wrong about this then please let me know.

We can run simultaneous match-ups in the group stages, ala Champions League. It may be a strain on the judges but, perhaps, it'll be better if you get a few more judges on board and have one per group.

 

[Gelgarin]

Double elimination is sucky and complicated. The hybrid idea was pitched by Gelgarin.

Do I really need to say any more?

 

[Davi323]

We can run simultaneous match-ups in the group stages, ala Champions League. It may be a strain on the judges but, perhaps, it'll be better if you get a few more judges on board and have one per group.

That's a good idea...have more than one group of judges, at least for the first couple of rounds.

 

[Thriller Ant]

I'm going to toss an idea out there, just for shits and gigs. Rather than 3, one on one, debates in the World Cup group rounds, why not 2 group debates? Each debater gets one opening argument, and one chance to respond to the others in each of the two debates. From there, the judges can choose the best 1 or 2 (depending on how many we pull from each group) debaters to move on to the tournament. That should streamline the World Cup one a bunch, especially since the two debates could run concurrently.

 

[D-Man]

Double elimination is sucky and complicated. The hybrid idea was pitched by Gelgarin.

Do I really need to say any more?

Yeah... um... wow...

 

[D-Man]

I'm going to toss an idea out there, just for shits and gigs. Rather than 3, one on one, debates in the World Cup group rounds, why not 2 group debates? Each debater gets one opening argument, and one chance to respond to the others in each of the two debates. From there, the judges can choose the best 1 or 2 (depending on how many we pull from each group) debaters to move on to the tournament. That should streamline the World Cup one a bunch, especially since the two debates could run concurrently.

It's a decent idea but we've tried this before in the DL and it just became a total mess.

 

[D-Man]

Double elimination is sucky and complicated. The hybrid idea was pitched by Gelgarin.

Do I really need to say any more?

By the way, have you decided if you're entering this year?

 

[Thriller Ant]

It's a decent idea but we've tried this before in the DL and it just became a total mess.

I see. I think I like the World Cup idea better (I still love you D <3), but I agree that the opening round could drag a bit.

 

[Gelgarin]

By the way, have you decided if you're entering this year?

Depends what the competition looks like, who's judging, when it happens and how fucked I can be at that exact moment.

 

[DirtyJosé]

Vote Double Elimination because it's faster, makes more sense, has less wasting time than the World Cup format, and because GOD DAMNIT, WORLD CUP ISN'T AMERICAN.