|
Post by volleyba11 on Apr 19, 2017 14:08:11 GMT -5
While this could be fairly interesting, it would probably take a fair amount of time to respond each time. Besides, in most scenarios it will depend. Are my 4th and 5th teams similar and my 3rd team is much better, or is 5 weak while 3 and 4 are similar? Do I feel confident that my 5 can beat your 5 9/10 times? Will my 1 beat your 1 99/100 times? That's the only real scenario where I have to put more strategy to make sure my 1 is playing your 1 or 2. Otherwise you get a big advantage. Mathematically you'd want to get the most value out of your wins.
I'll play your game from bother sides. I'll assume I feel good about my 5 vs your 5. So I'll play my 5. Then I'll put up my 4. To make it interesting you match it with your 2. Then you play your 4. I'd probably match it up with my 2 so that we got the same value. Then you would decide if we would have 1v1 and 3v3 or 1v3 and 3v1.
It would be dumb for a coach to put up their 1 early because the other team could throw away their 5 and hold their 1 until you throw your 2 or 3.
Regardless, I think the problem remains the same. There are two ways to alter the conditions: 1) Coaches match their teams up against 1 level difference up or down to try to gain an advantage. This is already happening so why would we completely change all the rules to not make it better? 2) Coaches match their teams strategically against vastly different levels of competition. You're telling your athletes to play in a fairly pointless match where 1 of the two teams will win 95% of the time. Sure, maybe the other team wins 5% of the time and that's exciting, but 95% of the time the match is not even close, they're not getting much better, and it's not fun to watch. Again, maybe you win 3-2 instead of losing 1-4 but your 1s pair beating a 3s pair shouldn't feel as good about that win (sandbagging). And you probably made your 5s get embarrassed by a 1s that they shouldn't have been playing in the first place.
When I'm coaching, I'd want to create the most amount of competitive matches. People don't play sports to win every game 25-2. I'd much much much rather win a match 19-17 in the third 1 time and lose 17-19 in the third 4 times, than to win 25-10 every set 5 times, even if that means we lost 1-4 instead of winning 5-0. The only situation in which it is vastly different from 1v1, 2v2, etc, is if you know that your 1 is not competitive with their 1, so then you play 5v1, 1v2, 2v3, 3v4, 4v5. Even in this situation, you get 4 competitive matches and 1 blowout instead of 5 potential blowouts. BUT, that's a bogus situation for that good 1s team. If they go the entire season with every opponent doing that, they may not play any competitive matches all year. That's not fair to them.
|
|
|
Post by FOBRA on Apr 19, 2017 14:44:50 GMT -5
I think the Ryder Cup selection is a blind submitted slate. No turns. The picking teams solution is just leaning into and encouraging sandbagging.
I don't have a problem with the rules in the first posts, but there should be a clause that if you use 2 alternate players in one pair, they have to check in at #5. Individual alternates should be able to be used for rest and injuries, with no slot limit at as well as play at the exhibition level (#6) to stay sharp. It's not ideal, but teams should have some flexibility there.
|
|
|
Post by midwestmadness on Apr 19, 2017 14:52:42 GMT -5
While this could be fairly interesting, it would probably take a fair amount of time to respond each time. Besides, in most scenarios it will depend. Are my 4th and 5th teams similar and my 3rd team is much better, or is 5 weak while 3 and 4 are similar? Do I feel confident that my 5 can beat your 5 9/10 times? Will my 1 beat your 1 99/100 times? That's the only real scenario where I have to put more strategy to make sure my 1 is playing your 1 or 2. Otherwise you get a big advantage. Mathematically you'd want to get the most value out of your wins.
I'll play your game from bother sides. I'll assume I feel good about my 5 vs your 5. So I'll play my 5. Then I'll put up my 4. To make it interesting you match it with your 2. Then you play your 4. I'd probably match it up with my 2 so that we got the same value. Then you would decide if we would have 1v1 and 3v3 or 1v3 and 3v1.
It would be dumb for a coach to put up their 1 early because the other team could throw away their 5 and hold their 1 until you throw your 2 or 3.
Regardless, I think the problem remains the same. There are two ways to alter the conditions: 1) Coaches match their teams up against 1 level difference up or down to try to gain an advantage. This is already happening so why would we completely change all the rules to not make it better? 2) Coaches match their teams strategically against vastly different levels of competition. You're telling your athletes to play in a fairly pointless match where 1 of the two teams will win 95% of the time. Sure, maybe the other team wins 5% of the time and that's exciting, but 95% of the time the match is not even close, they're not getting much better, and it's not fun to watch. Again, maybe you win 3-2 instead of losing 1-4 but your 1s pair beating a 3s pair shouldn't feel as good about that win (sandbagging). And you probably made your 5s get embarrassed by a 1s that they shouldn't have been playing in the first place.
When I'm coaching, I'd want to create the most amount of competitive matches. People don't play sports to win every game 25-2. I'd much much much rather win a match 19-17 in the third 1 time and lose 17-19 in the third 4 times, than to win 25-10 every set 5 times, even if that means we lost 1-4 instead of winning 5-0. The only situation in which it is vastly different from 1v1, 2v2, etc, is if you know that your 1 is not competitive with their 1, so then you play 5v1, 1v2, 2v3, 3v4, 4v5. Even in this situation, you get 4 competitive matches and 1 blowout instead of 5 potential blowouts. BUT, that's a bogus situation for that good 1s team. If they go the entire season with every opponent doing that, they may not play any competitive matches all year. That's not fair to them.
You can't play both sides. After you match my 5 and put up your 4, I'm going to put up my 4, not my 2 as you suggest. Then I'm going to select 3 for my 3rd match. Your turn.
|
|
|
Post by rainmaker on Apr 19, 2017 17:16:22 GMT -5
Easy solution.. So easy, it will amaze all of of us we missed it. Unfortunately, we may not have a 5 team match. But this is the scenario that exists under the current NCAA Championship structure. First one to 3 wins. Period. .. We are done.. Stagger the starts 15 minutes apart.. No coach will put a (bottom 2) team out there first. You will go with a top 3 .. Ya, they first match may go to a third.. ok, the 4th starts.. First team to 3 wins.. Period.. The NCAA is already ran this way, its beautiful, why not? So and so in the fives didn't get to play?? Who cares, get better, become a 3, matter.. Please tell me why this wont work?
|
|
|
Post by trollhunter on Apr 19, 2017 18:10:53 GMT -5
Easy solution.. So easy, it will amaze all of of us we missed it. Unfortunately, we may not have a 5 team match. But this is the scenario that exists under the current NCAA Championship structure. First one to 3 wins. Period. .. We are done.. Stagger the starts 15 minutes apart.. No coach will put a (bottom 2) team out there first. You will go with a top 3 .. Ya, they first match may go to a third.. ok, the 4th starts.. First team to 3 wins.. Period.. The NCAA is already ran this way, its beautiful, why not? So and so in the fives didn't get to play?? Who cares, get better, become a 3, matter.. Please tell me why this wont work? Does not solve the problem the new rules allow. Order of play doesn't matter - it is matchups. Teams will continue to do this, especially if Team A #1 seed is strong: Team A seed - Team B seed #1 vs #5 #2 vs #1 #3 vs #2 #4 vs #3 #5 vs #4
|
|
|
Post by volleyba11 on Apr 19, 2017 22:03:43 GMT -5
[/quote]You can't play both sides. After you match my 5 and put up your 4, I'm going to put up my 4, not my 2 as you suggest. Then I'm going to select 3 for my 3rd match. Your turn.
[/quote]
Okay, so its 5v5 and 4v4. You put up your 3 and i match it with my 3. Then you get to decide if the other two are 1v1 and 2v2 or 1v2 and 2v1. Either way, sounds like something we can try to accomplish with the original rules. I liked the comment about not being able to use 2 alternates at a top spot.
Only other options if I'm risky is I play my 2 to try to get an easy win and then you decide if it's 1v1 and 2v3 (again, not much deviation from what we want and no one has a statistical advantage) or my3your1 and my1your2 and I should win 2 of those 3 in theory. From what you've chosen theres no way for you to get any big advantage.
|
|
|
Post by midwestmadness on Apr 20, 2017 9:28:55 GMT -5
From what you've chosen theres no way for you to get any big advantage.Yes!!!! That's exactly my point. There is no way to get a big advantage. That's why it is such a good idea. If a coach decides to deviate too much from even matchups, it will be to his disavantage. It isn't perfect, but it would be much better than how it is now.
|
|
|
Post by Semp12 on Apr 20, 2017 10:14:58 GMT -5
While this could be fairly interesting, it would probably take a fair amount of time to respond each time. Besides, in most scenarios it will depend. Are my 4th and 5th teams similar and my 3rd team is much better, or is 5 weak while 3 and 4 are similar? Do I feel confident that my 5 can beat your 5 9/10 times? Will my 1 beat your 1 99/100 times? That's the only real scenario where I have to put more strategy to make sure my 1 is playing your 1 or 2. Otherwise you get a big advantage. Mathematically you'd want to get the most value out of your wins.
I'll play your game from bother sides. I'll assume I feel good about my 5 vs your 5. So I'll play my 5. Then I'll put up my 4. To make it interesting you match it with your 2. Then you play your 4. I'd probably match it up with my 2 so that we got the same value. Then you would decide if we would have 1v1 and 3v3 or 1v3 and 3v1.
It would be dumb for a coach to put up their 1 early because the other team could throw away their 5 and hold their 1 until you throw your 2 or 3.
Regardless, I think the problem remains the same. There are two ways to alter the conditions: 1) Coaches match their teams up against 1 level difference up or down to try to gain an advantage. This is already happening so why would we completely change all the rules to not make it better? 2) Coaches match their teams strategically against vastly different levels of competition. You're telling your athletes to play in a fairly pointless match where 1 of the two teams will win 95% of the time. Sure, maybe the other team wins 5% of the time and that's exciting, but 95% of the time the match is not even close, they're not getting much better, and it's not fun to watch. Again, maybe you win 3-2 instead of losing 1-4 but your 1s pair beating a 3s pair shouldn't feel as good about that win (sandbagging). And you probably made your 5s get embarrassed by a 1s that they shouldn't have been playing in the first place.
When I'm coaching, I'd want to create the most amount of competitive matches. People don't play sports to win every game 25-2. I'd much much much rather win a match 19-17 in the third 1 time and lose 17-19 in the third 4 times, than to win 25-10 every set 5 times, even if that means we lost 1-4 instead of winning 5-0. The only situation in which it is vastly different from 1v1, 2v2, etc, is if you know that your 1 is not competitive with their 1, so then you play 5v1, 1v2, 2v3, 3v4, 4v5. Even in this situation, you get 4 competitive matches and 1 blowout instead of 5 potential blowouts. BUT, that's a bogus situation for that good 1s team. If they go the entire season with every opponent doing that, they may not play any competitive matches all year. That's not fair to them.
Except when you are coaching a division 1 program where finishing with a .200 win % over a few years probably makes you unemployed.. These theoretical situations don't mean anything. A coach would have an idea of how strong theire teams are and make decisions based off that. Their 3/4 could be a toss up, their 2-5's could be all be a toss up and it comes down to what teams have the skills that match up good vs. a particular team from the other school. Either way, I am definitely a fan of the coaches making their match-up selections like that in the snake pattern. Easy solution.
|
|