Tourney : 5 round then final ?

[neverdodge]

Just a personnal tough :

In the tourney i ve played the system was either :

- playing 6 round with 1st and 2nd ranked coach at then end of round 5 playing the final during round 6
- or playing 5 round, with 1st and 2nd coach at tend of round 4 playing final during round 5

I think i would like tourney being played in 5 round and then there will be no round 6 except the final played by the top 2 coach.

First that would allow other coaches to watch the final (still it could cause trouble having 80 coach trying to spec a game),
Second that would avoid lot of coach playing a last round they don t really care about
And finally that could allow foreign coach (or coach that don t want to watch the final) to leave earlier, or to continue talking about the tourney with other coach ...

I would like to hear what people think about that.

[Yavatol]

Hey Neverdodge! Didn't see you around for a while!

A lot of Dutch tournaments determine the winner after the final round without a final. So the winner can play his last match on table two. So that is another option.
Your suggestion has some merrit in that it corrects the effect to have the runner up (the looser of the final) be actually ranked 4th or something. But there are some disadvantages too. Not all players liked to be watched by 80 or so other coaches. It would help if you could broadcast the match on a big screen. But the facilities you need for that are not cheap or widely available.
But more importantly I don't think all other coaches want to sit down and watch the final. You make people wait 2 hours before the awrd ceremony, chances are people are going to leave.

[lowsman2]

I dislike finals. Swiss systems work best the more rounds you can do. By finals, you lose one round of Swiss. As swiss has been used to determine who gets to the final why should the last round then be totally different to every other round? PKQ this year was a good example, where going in to the last round there were eight of us that could realistically win, all with pretty even records. A final would have meant one game of interest in the last round, instead of four.

I also would not wish to sit around and watch the final. I've turned up to play games, not watch someone else play.

Cheers

Richard

[Yavatol]

Second that would avoid lot of coach playing a last round they don t really care about

You would only move the problem. Now you have a round that doesn't really matter unless you could make it to the finals

And finally that could allow foreign coach (or coach that don t want to watch the final) to leave earlier, or to continue talking about the tourney with other coach ...

Unless they are in the final of course. Or if the win any other price. It is a bit of a bummer if you make it to the final but have to leave because you have to catch a plane, train or car.

[DoubleSkulls]

A lot of Dutch tournaments determine the winner after the final round without a final.

That's my preferred system too.

Having a final has a couple of advantages. If you've been at an event where the final goes into overtime it can be very very exciting to watch (e.g. Blood Bowl '04 & BarnaBowl '04). If you delay the start for 1/2 hour or something then most of the other coaches can get to watch the end - and aren't too badly delayed.

[Longshot]

l like to have a final in the tourney. feeling more under pressure

[kadu-c]

I prefer a "championship system" until the end, so a final round without a final. I prefer when every games count although watching a final is fun (well I suppose so as I always finish my games too late... ).

[Darkson]

Perfer the "no final" approach.