Toulouse Draw - CHANGED
- Thread starter Beard
- Start date
R
raehl
Guest
More important than whether or not the draw is fair is whether or not the draw is consistent. I'm assuming Millenium has rules as to how teams should be seeded, and those rules should be followed exactly, every time, even if it turns out that the brackets that result stink. If you need to change the rules, change them well in advance of the event, preferably between seasons.
Seeding is not supposed to be perfect, that's what prelims and semifinals are for. It's the top four teams you're interested in, which is why you take 8 or 16 teams to the semifinals - even if the draw stinks, your top 4 teams will still almost certainly make the cut. Might the 6th place team not make the 8 team semifinals because of a poor draw? Sure. But who cares?
Goals of the system should be 1) consistency, precisely so you don't have people complaining that the draw was changed or set up to favor certain teams, whether the allegations are true or not, and 2) providing the best chance at making sure your top 4 teams actually make it to finals.
- Chris
Seeding is not supposed to be perfect, that's what prelims and semifinals are for. It's the top four teams you're interested in, which is why you take 8 or 16 teams to the semifinals - even if the draw stinks, your top 4 teams will still almost certainly make the cut. Might the 6th place team not make the 8 team semifinals because of a poor draw? Sure. But who cares?
Goals of the system should be 1) consistency, precisely so you don't have people complaining that the draw was changed or set up to favor certain teams, whether the allegations are true or not, and 2) providing the best chance at making sure your top 4 teams actually make it to finals.
- Chris
R
raehl
Guest
Why do you presume that I'm limiting myself to Millenium? They were just the example - I'm telling EVERYONE how they should do their seeding, and if they were smart, they'd do what I say.
- Chris
(And just because I know a buncha people are going to miss it and get their panties all in a bunch, yes, that was sarcasm.)
- Chris
(And just because I know a buncha people are going to miss it and get their panties all in a bunch, yes, that was sarcasm.)
R
raehl
Guest
Definitely not hinting that people whining got it changed - having the change at all will have people whining that other people whining got it changed though (as evidenced in the beginning of this thread) and that's what you want to avoid.
Actually, if there's any part here that's especially cool it's that there was apparently some communciation with the EPA folks in the process.
- Chris
Actually, if there's any part here that's especially cool it's that there was apparently some communciation with the EPA folks in the process.
- Chris
R
raehl
Guest
(chuckle)
I don't think we're really disagreeing about the same thing. I agree that you should have fair rules instead of bad rules, I'm just saying care should be taken to modify rules that have to do with seeding PRIOR to seeding. I.e. - make sure these rules are the ones you want to use "forever", and if not, fix them now, not the next time the brackets come up "not fair", as it may not be so pretty next time.
- Chris
I don't think we're really disagreeing about the same thing. I agree that you should have fair rules instead of bad rules, I'm just saying care should be taken to modify rules that have to do with seeding PRIOR to seeding. I.e. - make sure these rules are the ones you want to use "forever", and if not, fix them now, not the next time the brackets come up "not fair", as it may not be so pretty next time.
- Chris
What a pratt !!!!
Give me fairness every time, what's the point in being consistently unfair ? [/sarcasm]
Chris, once again, in an attempt to flex what you believe to be your fantastic paintball intellect, you have a made a fool of yerself.
'Fairness' implies consistency, if it wasn't consistent it wouldn't be fair now would it ?
Now stop trying to look clever and get back to your preppy-ball, you ain't wanted or needed on this thread.
R
raehl
Guest
The whole point, Pete, is that if the way the seeding is done changes everytime because some people don't think the results are "fair", then any presumption of "fairness" has gone out the window to begin with.
Figure out what the procedure for seeding teams will be, and do it exactly the same way every time, and if the results don't appear "fair" in a particular instance - tough, leave them alone. It'll all get sorted out by the time finals rolls around.
I'm not saying that changing it THIS time was the wrong thing to do, but if every event the brackets are drawn up, someone says they're not fair, and they're then redone, then you're definitely not being "fair" at all.
- Chris
Figure out what the procedure for seeding teams will be, and do it exactly the same way every time, and if the results don't appear "fair" in a particular instance - tough, leave them alone. It'll all get sorted out by the time finals rolls around.
I'm not saying that changing it THIS time was the wrong thing to do, but if every event the brackets are drawn up, someone says they're not fair, and they're then redone, then you're definitely not being "fair" at all.
- Chris
[/hostilities off]
OK, thank heaven for a post from yourself that is neither conciliatory nor arrogant, there is hope for this universe yet.
I agree in principle with what you say but your opening line of the post I quoted in my last post is fraught with problems as I am sure you are aware.
Fairness, as described by you, is not as fickle as you suggest, I think in this case there was a consensus feeling that the compilation of the groups was so lop-sided that the system MUST have been unfair.
Now, it transpired that the system used was not being fed in the right data, to make matters worse, all am teams had to play one pro team and one pro team only, this meant that any anomalies were pushed toward the pros and they would then take up the slack by providing an uneven spread of pro- pro games.
The seeding in this case, was not so much that it was unfair, it was of course unfair, but for some teams, it wasn't done at all.
Teams who play outside of the Millennium have to be seeded dependant upon their WPS rankings and they weren't.
I have to commend the Millennium board on this one as they didn't try to duck the problem in the end as has been the case in the past, they did the right thing and did it quickly.
As soon as Niall heard of the problem, he set out to put things right, none of us can moan or bitch now.
I gave the Millennium Board a lot of stick in the past, most deserved, some not so, but I'd like to say 'well done' to them on this occasion.
[/hostilites suspended.....for time being]
R
raehl
Guest
Man Pete...
If I can't count on you to be hostile, what can I count on?
But yeah, I agree with pretty much all that, except I think the especially cool part was the EPA involvement in the process.
- Chris
(What, you didn't think I'd allow myself to TOTALLY agree, did you?)
If I can't count on you to be hostile, what can I count on?
But yeah, I agree with pretty much all that, except I think the especially cool part was the EPA involvement in the process.
- Chris
(What, you didn't think I'd allow myself to TOTALLY agree, did you?
)
And just as an afterthought, if anybody takes an objective look at the groups now, as to how they were, it is self evident the new groupings are so much more balanced...basically everyone gets a fair crack of the whip from the start.
This is how it should be......
This is how it should be......