|
|
Post by grackle on Jun 21, 2018 5:44:41 GMT -8
I'm increasingly skeptical about the "winners/losers" brackets format used in the NCAA baseball regionals and CWS (as well as a modified version of it in the women's softball championship series). As you know, the current format almost fatally penalizes a single loss, especially early in the opening rounds. And, of course, after a long and successful season, a single early CWS loss can be caused by a single bad call by an umpire, or having to survive a dugout that's 115 degrees(!) in the humidity, a cramp-related absence of a critical player, the wind blowing the wrong way, etc., etc. And I know, I know....that's baseball. But isn't the idea of a CWS for the BEST team to prevail, not which team happened to get a good, but bogus umpire call, or who had the cooler dugout, or which team didn't get the most leg cramps.
I suggest that a superior format which would not overly penalize any team for a single loss would, rather, be a round-robin series of games within two 4-team groups, the winners of which would have a final best 2 of 3 game playoff.
More specifically, it could go like this:
Two groups of four teams initially play three games each (i.e., one game vs. each of the other three teams in its group). Team with best record in each group proceeds to the three game championship series. Single game playoff in case of tie record between two (or more) teams in either of the initial groups. Thus a single loss within each of 2 groups would not be more crippling than any other single game loss.
This format would require another venue + Ameritrade park (i.e., for the initial round, 2 venues with 2 games each over a three day period) but, I believe, it would be more likely to produce a true champion. And likely there's another good baseball venue in Omaha, or nearby, to accommodate the extra games.
|
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Jun 21, 2018 6:26:52 GMT -8
I'm increasingly skeptical about the "winners/losers" brackets format used in the NCAA baseball regionals and CWS (as well as a modified version of it in the women's softball championship series). As you know, the current format almost fatally penalizes a single loss, especially early in the opening rounds. And, of course, after a long and successful season, a single early CWS loss can be caused by a single bad call by an umpire, or having to survive a dugout that's 115 degrees(!) in the humidity, a cramp-related absence of a critical player, the wind blowing the wrong way, etc., etc. And I know, I know....that's baseball. But isn't the idea of a CWS for the BEST team to prevail, not which team happened to get a good, but bogus umpire call, or who had the cooler dugout, or which team didn't get the most leg cramps. I suggest that a superior format which would not overly penalize any team for a single loss would, rather, be a round-robin series of games within two 4-team groups, the winners of which would have a final best 2 of 3 game playoff. More specifically, it could go like this: Two groups of four teams initially play three games each (i.e., one game vs. each of the other three teams in its group). Team with best record in each group proceeds to the three game championship series. Single game playoff in case of tie record between two (or more) teams in either of the initial groups. Thus a single loss within each of 2 groups would not be more crippling than any other single game loss. This format would require another venue + Ameritrade park (i.e., for the initial round, 2 venues with 2 games each over a three day period) but, I believe, it would be more likely to produce a true champion. And likely there's another good baseball venue in Omaha, or nearby, to accommodate the extra games. I prefer the double-elimination, knock-out format. More dramatic and compelling. Group play (like the soccer World Cup) = blah. NCAA’s contract with Omaha runs through 2035. |
|
|
|
Post by RenoBeaver on Jun 21, 2018 6:33:51 GMT -8
Love this format. You win, you go straight through. You lose, you get a chance to play underdog.
I love underdogs.
|
|
|
|
Post by bennyskid on Jun 21, 2018 6:36:01 GMT -8
Another venue required? Then it's a non-starter. But you could do it in one venue over 6 days, two-games per venue.
But even if the facilities were there . . . three-way ties happen a LOT in quad play. So you either have multi-game playoffs to break those ties, or a tie-breaker system guaranteed to be hated.
Even worse, once a team loses twice, it's mathematically done. You frequently will have a situation in which a 2-loss team is playing against a team that is still in contention. This will be seen as being unfair to the other teams in contention - it will affect pitching decisions, at the very least. This comes up in every World Cup, and it will be infinitely worse in baseball.
|
|
|
|
Post by joecool on Jun 21, 2018 6:57:27 GMT -8
The format does not need to be changed at all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2018 7:15:29 GMT -8
Another venue required? Then it's a non-starter. But you could do it in one venue over 6 days, two-games per venue. But even if the facilities were there . . . three-way ties happen a LOT in quad play. So you either have multi-game playoffs to break those ties, or a tie-breaker system guaranteed to be hated. Even worse, once a team loses twice, it's mathematically done. You frequently will have a situation in which a 2-loss team is playing against a team that is still in contention. This will be seen as being unfair to the other teams in contention - it will affect pitching decisions, at the very least. This comes up in every World Cup, and it will be infinitely worse in baseball. TD Ameritrade didn't pay all that money for naming rights just to have one of that venue's biggest events moonlight somewhere else. |
|
|
|
Post by nabeav on Jun 21, 2018 7:27:10 GMT -8
I prefer the double-elimination, knock-out format. More dramatic and compelling. Group play (like the soccer World Cup) = blah. NCAA’s contract with Omaha runs through 2035. Group play only works if you've got a lot of teams (as in, more than 8). World Cup doesn't do this all the way through, because nobody wants to see a tournament decided before the final game. That's the biggest knock against the round robin/group play format. By the time you get to that third game of the round robin, typically at least one team is already eliminated and is just there to dress the set. Nobody wants to see their team play a game where the outcome is meaningless. At least with this double elimination format, every game means something. |
|
|
|
Post by irimi on Jun 21, 2018 7:30:19 GMT -8
I'm increasingly skeptical about the "winners/losers" brackets format used in the NCAA baseball regionals and CWS (as well as a modified version of it in the women's softball championship series). As you know, the current format almost fatally penalizes a single loss, especially early in the opening rounds. And, of course, after a long and successful season, a single early CWS loss can be caused by a single bad call by an umpire, or having to survive a dugout that's 115 degrees(!) in the humidity, a cramp-related absence of a critical player, the wind blowing the wrong way, etc., etc. And I know, I know....that's baseball. But isn't the idea of a CWS for the BEST team to prevail, not which team happened to get a good, but bogus umpire call, or who had the cooler dugout, or which team didn't get the most leg cramps. I suggest that a superior format which would not overly penalize any team for a single loss would, rather, be a round-robin series of games within two 4-team groups, the winners of which would have a final best 2 of 3 game playoff. More specifically, it could go like this: Two groups of four teams initially play three games each (i.e., one game vs. each of the other three teams in its group). Team with best record in each group proceeds to the three game championship series. Single game playoff in case of tie record between two (or more) teams in either of the initial groups. Thus a single loss within each of 2 groups would not be more crippling than any other single game loss. This format would require another venue + Ameritrade park (i.e., for the initial round, 2 venues with 2 games each over a three day period) but, I believe, it would be more likely to produce a true champion. And likely there's another good baseball venue in Omaha, or nearby, to accommodate the extra games. The BEST team (in every sport) is the team that overcomes all the questionable calls, the weather, the format, and whatever else. I seem to recall a controversial call last night on a double that scored two runs for NC. If we had lost, that would have been a key to the loss. But we won, so we don’t have to complain to loudly. This is what the best team does. Whatever the format, whatever the situation, prevail at all costs. |
|
|
|
Post by rainmanrich on Jun 21, 2018 9:01:44 GMT -8
I personally love the elimination games. It brings out the best and worst in teams and players.
|
|
|
|
Post by mbabeav on Jun 21, 2018 12:10:00 GMT -8
Don't screw with tradition, and yes, i still don't like the designated hitter
|
|
|
|
Post by sagebrush on Jun 21, 2018 14:54:07 GMT -8
I have the perfect solution to your perceived problem: Don't lose the opener. Plus, what are you going to do when you have a group of 3 teams that are all 2-1. Then after their round robin, they are all 1-1.
|
|
