View Single Post
12-27-2012, 11:13 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Aussie in Moscow
Posts: 1,509
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by jedimyrmidon View Post
My argument was that a tournament with a bye takes into account teams that have demonstrated, over the course of the preliminary round, that they are probably better teams and so are deserving of a place in the semis (i.e. if something goes wrong, it's not in the QFs where you can't play for a medal if you lose).


a tournament without a bye means that the preliminary round doesn't actually mean much since you can be the best, but still not make it to the semis because of a bad QF game against a team that did much worse during the prelim round, which doesn't make sense; conversely, a team could be pretty horrible and lose most of its games, but still pull off a win when the result actually 'counts'. Doesn't mean that this team is more 'deserving'/better at all.

Hence, the winner of a tournament with a bye is more likely a team that 'should have' won if the point of the tournament is that the best team wins.
You also said "But it also means that the results of the tournament aren't as meaningful since it is designed to increase the impact of random events."

The same thing occurs in the Olympics so I guess you believe the Olympics are not meaningful too?

I actually agree with you on the current format I like the current format except the idea of the QF winners having to play the next day.

I would have preferred keeping this current format and adjusting the relegation system. I would make the bottom teams in each pool have the three game series relegation match (Really like that idea for next year). Teams that finish fourth can play one another for placings if it matters. It is really annoying that Slovakia who will probably end up in the relegation round do not carry over the point they won against Russia into the relegation round.

Dynamo81 is offline   Reply With Quote