Bracket list clarification
This discussion has an associated proposal. View Proposal Details here.Comments about this discussion:
Started
There are 2 practices to set up the bracket for battles after prelims (let's say 8 riders qualified for finals):
Version 1:
- 1 vs 8
- 2 vs 7
- 3 vs 6
- 4 vs 5
Version 2:
- 1 vs 5
- 2 vs 6
- 3 vs 7
- 4 vs 8
As far as I know it is not set in the rulebook which practice should be followed, however at the competitions I have been to people always go with the 1st version, so I believe we could set it in the rulebook too.
Comment
I didn't even know of the second one. And I don't like it. It penalizes riders extremely between the 4th and 5th position having to battle the (supposedly) worst or (supposedly) best rider.
I think the first one is fairer and I would support setting it fixed.
Comment
I totally agree with you that the 1st version should be set as the standard!
Comment
Yes, agreed. Let's make the first version the standard!
Comment
I think we are ready to make this a proposal?
Comment
Before we make it a proposal:
I've checked the rulebook and it states that a vote of the judges determine how many riders advance to battle. Since this is related I thought we could combine it.
I would strongly suggest that we change that so that the chief judge and director decide this together. The whole schedule is dependent on how many riders advance. This should not be a decision the judges make.
Do you agree? Then I will prepare a proposal for both these changes (since they would mostly end up in the same rulebook paragraph)
Comment
Yes, agreed.
Comment
If we all agree on this, let's get this moving forward as well.
Mark, you started this discussion and only you can make it a proposal.
Comment
I agree that the decision about the number of finalists should be at the discretion of the Event Director and the Chief Judge.
There is one more important thing about setting brackets though, which is not set in the rulebook currently, and what in my opinion is crucial to ensure a fair layout of battles, and that is how we position the first pair of battles compared to each other.
Please see the example below:
Battle listing A:
- 1st vs 8th
- 4th vs 6th
- 2nd vs 7th
- 3rd vs 5th
OR
Battle listing B:
- 1st vs 8th
- 3rd vs 6th
- 2nd vs 7th
- 4th vs 5th
The difference is the position of the two battles in the middle, and it is quite important in my opinion, as (now, let's say for the ease of communication that the rider who ranked higher in prelims always wins their battles) after the first round it does matter if the 1st rider battles the 3rd or the 4th, and the 2nd rider battles the 3rd or the 4th. In my opinion this is something that should be set in the rulebook.
The effect of this is even more important if we have a 16 rider bracket:
Bracket listing A:
- 1st vs 16th
- 8th vs 9th
- 4th vs 13th
- 5th vs 12th
- 2nd vs 15th
- 7th vs 10th
- 3rd vs 14th
- 6th vs 11th
OR
Bracket listing B:
- 1st vs 16th
- 8th vs 9th
- 3rd vs 14th
- 5th vs 12th
- 2nd vs 15th
- 7th vs 10th
- 4th vs 13th
- 6th vs 11th
Whether we go with option A or B, I think it should be the same for 8 and 16 rider brackets.
What do you think?
Comment
The standard way of doing seeded brackets is your option A.
This would give 3rd the advantage over 4th of only having to battle the 2nd and not 1st. Otherwise it would almost be a disadvantage of qualifying 3rd instead of 4th.
In my suggested proposal paragraph for the Double Elimination Bracket I included it like this. These two things change the same paragraph of the rulebook.
Copied from the Double Elimination Bracket Topic:
Proposal could look something like this?
Old:
9B.6.4.1 Battle Assignments
Battles will proceed according to the following brackets. The use of the double elimination bracket is optional.
Here are example double elimination brackets for reference: https://unicycling.org/
files/double-elimination-brackets.pdf
New
9B.6.4.1 Battle Assignments
Battles will proceed using the following seeded single elimination brackets with either 4, 8 or 16 riders.
Flatland Brackets
(the image can't be inserted here but should be shown directly in the rulebook)
Comment
Agreed, and thanks Ian for preparing the text, I am trying to create a proposal from it.