Thread replies: 8
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: Screen Shot 2016-12-05 at 1.21.23 AM.png (60KB, 226x267px) Image search:
[Google]
60KB, 226x267px
What is the best way to rank the participants in a tournament?
In the example in the picture, obviously #1 is P and #2 is E. Then it makes sense that #3 would be L and A is #4, because L lost to the better opponent. If we keep going that like, the rankings would be:
1. P
2. E
3. L
4. A
5. O
6. G
7. J
8. D
9. Q
10. F
11. M
12. B
13. N
14. H
15. K
16. C
However, if the participants were seeded based on their performance in the regular season or whatever, this method of ranking gives an advantage to the worse teams. The #1 seed has the best chance of winning the tournament, so the 16 seed has the best chance of being ranked 9th. Does it make sense to reverse the orders of the "levels"? Or what? Does anyone understand what I'm talking about?
>>
If there were no upsets in the tournament, then the ranking with this method would be:
1 seed
2 seed
4 seed
3 seed
8 seed
7 seed
5 seed
6 seed
16 seed
15 seed
13 seed
14 seed
9 seed
10 seed
12 seed
11 seed
>>
>>8516501
to make it fair you need to have a losers bracket to determine second place
and then a losers losers bracket to determine 3rd place
and so on
>>
>>8516578
Well I don't
>>
>>8516501
By a ranking criteria agreed upon by all the participants.
>>
>>8516874
>By a ranking criteria agreed upon by all the participants.
And I thought /tv/ was autistic.
>>
>>8516892
Am I wrong?
>>
>>8516874
This.
It's inherently unfair unless you let every single person battle every other single person. That comes with it's own problems, so you'd have to include throw outs or best of 3's for each.
It's a compromise between efficiency and accuracy.
Thread posts: 8
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1