Trashuny
Banned deucer.
I’m not the most knowledgeable person when it comes to smogon tournaments, so if there’s misinformation, feel free to correct me, I got a lot of information from Boat and some others. For my examples I will be talking about the world cup format on smogon (that other smaller tours take from) but I extend this to any tournament with a playoffs tiebreaker that gives low seed tiebreak winners the ability to choose an opponent, including individuals if that seems like a good fit. This came up in the World Cup of 1v1, and when talking about it with several others it came up that the current ruling makes little sense.
Problem: Right now, in a 3 team tiebreak for 2 slots (round robin), the team that eventually goes 2-0 actually gets to pick their opponent from the top two seeds. In a 4 team tiebreak for 2 slots, the seeding of the two winners is determined by the points from pools. The three team one is more concerning, as it gives leverage to a tiebreak team that is seeded way lower than the top ones. This is undesirable because it gives lower seeds an unfair advantage. They get to choose their opponent after barely making playoffs, which is kind of ridiculous. In a four team tiebreak for two slots, who plays who is up to points or BD. This is less bad because it doesn’t give an outright controllable advantage to a low seeded team, but this would still be changed by my solution.
You could say that in a three team tiebreak for two slots, the 2-0 team should be the second to last seed and the 1-1 team should be the last seed. But this is actually worse, because if the #1 seed of the top two seeds is perceived to be worse, it could incentivize throwing for a 1-1, which is bad.
Solution: Instead of the teams that make it out of the tiebreaker being able to choose an opposing team to play in playoffs, the top seed(s) should. For example, in a three team tiebreak for two slots, if Team A goes 2-0, Team B goes 1-1, and Team C goes 0-2, the #1 seed should pick which of the top two teams they play. If it was five teams competing for three slots, the #1 seed would choose their opponent after the tiebreak, then the #2 seed would. This rewards teams that win more games instead of rewarding teams that barely didn’t make playoffs.
Problem: Right now, in a 3 team tiebreak for 2 slots (round robin), the team that eventually goes 2-0 actually gets to pick their opponent from the top two seeds. In a 4 team tiebreak for 2 slots, the seeding of the two winners is determined by the points from pools. The three team one is more concerning, as it gives leverage to a tiebreak team that is seeded way lower than the top ones. This is undesirable because it gives lower seeds an unfair advantage. They get to choose their opponent after barely making playoffs, which is kind of ridiculous. In a four team tiebreak for two slots, who plays who is up to points or BD. This is less bad because it doesn’t give an outright controllable advantage to a low seeded team, but this would still be changed by my solution.
You could say that in a three team tiebreak for two slots, the 2-0 team should be the second to last seed and the 1-1 team should be the last seed. But this is actually worse, because if the #1 seed of the top two seeds is perceived to be worse, it could incentivize throwing for a 1-1, which is bad.
Solution: Instead of the teams that make it out of the tiebreaker being able to choose an opposing team to play in playoffs, the top seed(s) should. For example, in a three team tiebreak for two slots, if Team A goes 2-0, Team B goes 1-1, and Team C goes 0-2, the #1 seed should pick which of the top two teams they play. If it was five teams competing for three slots, the #1 seed would choose their opponent after the tiebreak, then the #2 seed would. This rewards teams that win more games instead of rewarding teams that barely didn’t make playoffs.