Warrior General Games

Hey all, I'm considering maybe shaking up how the tourney works for next season. This isn't a for sure thing, but just something to consider to make things more fun if you all are up for it.

One idea would be to do a World Cup/Olympics style tourney. Teams would play in preliminary round matches, and then based on records head into elimination games. T

This could be somehwat tedious for the larger sized tournament, though. So, maybe this could be a smaller tourney for select teams and then the bigger tourney would be for any team not in the "world cup."

Another thing I'd like to do is work with the other tourneys and setup a schedule that makes sense for all involved so people aren't having to choose one over the other. We could also offer up an extra prize if anyone were to win a Triple Crown.

Any thoughts on these?

We actually had an olypic style tourney in season 9 I think it was. You were grouped in teams of 4 and had to play 3 games the top2 two advanced into another group, Was pretty cool and had a lot of interest. Only ran it that one season because we had a conflict of using the term Olympic.

Anyways sounds interesting.

good idea..i like that you have a chance if you lose an early game in the group stage to come back and win the tournament

I'd be interested in doing a tournament this style

+1

I like the idea of trying new things, and of course it's frustrating to have two very good teams (or teams from the same league, or run by the same coordinators) meet in the first round of a single-elimination tournament.

Originally posted by LordEvil
grouped in teams of 4 and had to play 3 games the top2 two advanced into another group
I like this idea, but if we kept the same structure the whole way through (start with 128, 3 games later down to 64, 3 games later down to 32, etc) it would become very taxing very quickly. Combining this concept with DrkS's idea of having some sort of qualifier round followed by a traditional single-elimination tournament would be a bit easier.

1) Different first round to avoid knockouts and make seeding a little easier
A way to avoid having good teams knocked out in the first round due to unfortunate matchups would be to design the tournament to have, say, 192 teams starting out (if there's that much interest--depending on how many apps Tournaments gets, we could scale that back down to 96 or something). The first round would be just a series of qualifiers. Everyone who wins their qualifier is in (96 or 48 teams, depending on size), and the other spots (32 or 16) would be reserved for the teams with the closest losses in the first round. Teams would be seeded into a traditional bracket after the first round, sorted by margin of victory in the qualifier.

2) Different seeding to emulate March Madness-style seeding and avoid same-league matchups
A seeding method to avoid teams from the same league playing each other would be to basically assign teams in a round-robin way. Basically, break the 128-team bracket down to 8 16-team sections (I think the vast majority of leagues sent 8 or less teams to the official tourney last season, but we could check). Starting with the Gold league, go around in a circle assigning teams that apply to each section of the bracket (first the west, then the east). Once all gold teams are assigned, start with Silver 1, then Silver 2, then Silver 3, etc. (by doing one conference and then the other, even if you get 9-16 teams from the same league, you shouldn't have any same-conference matchups within the first 4 rounds).

Once you've got all teams assigned to a 16-team section, seed the teams based on previous season's league and record; all of last season's gold teams at the top, then silver, then copper. Within each league type, sort by league winners, then conference winners, then regular season record, then total points allowed for the regular season.

Originally posted by Gongadan


2) Different seeding to emulate March Madness-style seeding and avoid same-league matchups
A seeding method to avoid teams from the same league playing each other would be to basically assign teams in a round-robin way. Basically, break the 128-team bracket down to 8 16-team sections (I think the vast majority of leagues sent 8 or less teams to the official tourney last season, but we could check). Starting with the Gold league, go around in a circle assigning teams that apply to each section of the bracket (first the west, then the east). Once all gold teams are assigned, start with Silver 1, then Silver 2, then Silver 3, etc. (by doing one conference and then the other, even if you get 9-16 teams from the same league, you shouldn't have any same-conference matchups within the first 4 rounds).

Once you've got all teams assigned to a 16-team section, seed the teams based on previous season's league and record; all of last season's gold teams at the top, then silver, then copper. Within each league type, sort by league winners, then conference winners, then regular season record, then total points allowed for the regular season.

+1

I think some simplified seeding would be good. Check out what the silver tourney did for an objective seeding method: http://goallineblitz.com/game/forum_thread.pl?thread_id=3685859 . There will always be upsets, but 3 of the 4 top seeded teams made the final 4.

There are typically only a handful of top quality teams in a given year (20-28 gold teams, 6-10 silver teams, 2-4 copper teams). You know who the gold teams are, and you can normally identify 4-8 of the silver teams. The copper teams are a crapshoot, but they're new so there's no way to avoid it. Given that not all of them will enter the tourney, it shouldn't be that tough to spread them out.

What I'd like to see is a set-up of 8 mini-tourneys of 16 teams each (so still 128 teams). The top 2 teams from each (so the sweet 16 teams) qualify for the championship tourney. There the #1 team from pool 1 plays the #2 team from pool 8, etc. Then this tourney would be double-elimination. It's tough to beat a good team once...but having to beat them twice for the trophy would be more rewarding (not to mention the intrigue of a possible 3rd rubber match!).

This would only create a possible 2 extra games (1 b/c the 2nd place mini-tourney teams qualify for the championship, and 1 more b/c of the loser's bracket), and it's only 16 teams that would now be playing more games. Face it, the top 16 teams are typically not worried about the 50 flex, plus are more likely to scrimmage more often.

This also helps what I see as the bigger problem in the tourney: boosted vs non-boosted teams in the middle rounds. Granted, it's part of the game, but it sucks to have to decide between your league championship and the official PW championship. This would allow teams at least a few more days (closer to the end of the season or to a point where boosting won't hurt their league chances) b/c they could go to the loser's bracket and play again (and get even longer if they meet another non-boosted opponent there).

YES!!

I've been wanting one of these tournaments.

I love soccer and most of the tournaments are like this, group play.

3 pts a win, 1 pt a draw, 0 pts a loss. Top 2 move on.

I dig.

Originally posted by PING72

This also helps what I see as the bigger problem in the tourney: boosted vs non-boosted teams in the middle rounds. Granted, it's part of the game, but it sucks to have to decide between your league championship and the official PW championship. This would allow teams at least a few more days (closer to the end of the season or to a point where boosting won't hurt their league chances) b/c they could go to the loser's bracket and play again (and get even longer if they meet another non-boosted opponent there).

+1

So, the thing about seeding is that you actually reduce the ability for the silver or copper teams from going very deep at all. Sure, new teams form and it is Pee Wee so it is POSSIBLE a copper team could win it all. But I think we'd all agree that for the most part the dominate teams are in Gold and trickle down, right?

It's a great idea to help the Gold teams go further, by avoiding early round Gold Vs Gold matchups, but why would a lowly Copper team care about that? I really want to have the best possible experience where any Pee Wee team can feel like they have a snow ball's chance if they try.

So, what if we did two tournaments as follows:

TOURNEY #1
World Cup/Olympic Syle

Eligible Teams (# based on demand):
Any team that was in Gold in Season 14
Any team that promotes to Gold in Season 14
Silver teams to fill out the closest number of 32 or 64
-- Ex #1: If all Gold sign up, we'd need 32 silver sign-ups
-- Ex #2: If 16 Golds sign up, we'd need 48 silver sign-ups to make it a 64 team tourney

TOURNEY #2
Open Tournament for any team NOT in the World PeeWee Cup



Just throwing these ideas out there. We've had tons of interest all four seasons we've done the Pee Wee Tourney, so I don't want to claim interest for change is high. But, might it be kinda cool if some of the more casual Pee Wee teams had a chance to win a tourney, too?

Glad to know you all like the World Cup idea

Just cause the World Cup is boss

I love the idea, and I loved it when LE did it.

Originally posted by DrkSandman
So, the thing about seeding is that you actually reduce the ability for the silver or copper teams from going very deep at all. Sure, new teams form and it is Pee Wee so it is POSSIBLE a copper team could win it all. But I think we'd all agree that for the most part the dominate teams are in Gold and trickle down, right?

It's a great idea to help the Gold teams go further, by avoiding early round Gold Vs Gold matchups, but why would a lowly Copper team care about that? I really want to have the best possible experience where any Pee Wee team can feel like they have a snow ball's chance if they try.

Hey, I can understand that. As the HC of a Silver team and the owner of a Copper team, I've been disappointed to have a gold matchup early in a tournament or two. The Silver team I coached managed to get as far as the Elite 8 of the official tournament last season before being stomped by HHM, and I was happy to get that far. But the reason we got so far wasn't really because we were great, but because we had a comparatively easy road.

The whole point of a tournament (as I see it) is to have the best teams advance and the worst teams make an early exit. Seeding helps with that.

Silver and Copper teams might be able to compete in the official tournament; if they can't, there are always other tournaments, like Halo's, the Silver Tourney, the Copper Tourney, and various others with various requirements that give Copper/Silver teams a chance to win.

Besides, there's always next season for the best of Copper and Silver to work their way up and get the advantage of better seeding.

Originally posted by Gongadan
Hey, I can understand that. As the HC of a Silver team and the owner of a Copper team, I've been disappointed to have a gold matchup early in a tournament or two. The Silver team I coached managed to get as far as the Elite 8 of the official tournament last season before being stomped by HHM, and I was happy to get that far. But the reason we got so far wasn't really because we were great, but because we had a comparatively easy road.

The whole point of a tournament (as I see it) is to have the best teams advance and the worst teams make an early exit. Seeding helps with that.

Silver and Copper teams might be able to compete in the official tournament; if they can't, there are always other tournaments, like Halo's, the Silver Tourney, the Copper Tourney, and various others with various requirements that give Copper/Silver teams a chance to win.

Besides, there's always next season for the best of Copper and Silver to work their way up and get the advantage of better seeding.

I agree. If you want to see a copper team win a tourney championship, go to the Copper tournament. lol. Tournaments are meant for the best of the best to show up, and compete with the other bests of the bests. There are certain tourneys for certain levels. If you join a tournament, you basically are saying you're one of the best or just plain stupid or that you have some flex to burn. lol

Originally posted by DrkSandman
So, the thing about seeding is that you actually reduce the ability for the silver or copper teams from going very deep at all. Sure, new teams form and it is Pee Wee so it is POSSIBLE a copper team could win it all. But I think we'd all agree that for the most part the dominate teams are in Gold and trickle down, right?

It's a great idea to help the Gold teams go further, by avoiding early round Gold Vs Gold matchups, but why would a lowly Copper team care about that? I really want to have the best possible experience where any Pee Wee team can feel like they have a snow ball's chance if they try.

So, what if we did two tournaments as follows:

TOURNEY #1
World Cup/Olympic Syle

Eligible Teams (# based on demand):
Any team that was in Gold in Season 14
Any team that promotes to Gold in Season 14
Silver teams to fill out the closest number of 32 or 64
-- Ex #1: If all Gold sign up, we'd need 32 silver sign-ups
-- Ex #2: If 16 Golds sign up, we'd need 48 silver sign-ups to make it a 64 team tourney

TOURNEY #2
Open Tournament for any team NOT in the World PeeWee Cup



Just throwing these ideas out there. We've had tons of interest all four seasons we've done the Pee Wee Tourney, so I don't want to claim interest for change is high. But, might it be kinda cool if some of the more casual Pee Wee teams had a chance to win a tourney, too?

Glad to know you all like the World Cup idea

You say seeding helps Gold teams but hurts Copper/Silver teams from going deep, and you want those guys to have a "snow ball's chance if they try." So your solution is to not even let them try by creating two separate Tourneys? I don't think anyone would take the "Open Tourney" seriously. I'd be against this two tourney idea the way it is suggested.

Originally posted by DrkSandman

Another thing I'd like to do is work with the other tourneys and setup a schedule that makes sense for all involved so people aren't having to choose one over the other. We could also offer up an extra prize if anyone were to win a Triple Crown.

Any thoughts on these?

I don't see why someone would have to choose one over the other, my team was in 5 tourneys and never had a scheduling problem. I also don't like the forced scheduling that the Official tourney does, as it never takes into account number of games played between 2 teams. Ideally, tourney games should be scheduled early on an odd day, or late on an even day. Teams that play on same days have more options of course. I also like the freedom of scheduling games manually, since the only teams that matter would be the 2 playing, instead of forcing all teams to place on a specific day. So I would be opposed to other tourneys setting up a automatic schedule like the official tourney does.