[aguahombre]

Anyone else think it is awesome that no top-ten seed is in the semi's?

[Gerben42]

On the one hand no top 10 seed, but on the other hand many world and european champions are still in so deserved semifinalists. I think Zimmermann is favorite,

[aguahombre]

I was not implying that the teams remaining were less than deserving. Andre (tennis) used to say, when asked before his next match about a low-seed's chances against him: "He got this far, so he belongs here" (or something to that effect).

But i hope it just shows that maybe the top 20 teams are closer - in quality -- than one would imagine, and not that the seeding sucks

[JanM]

I think it is indicative of the fact that the field in the Vanderbilt (and Spingold) is incredibly strong - notice that there were a lot of close matches from the very first day on.
Of course I disagree about the favorite , but I might be a tad prejudiced.

[mrdct]

I wonder if there might any merit in using day 1 to seed the field with something like 6 rounds of swiss which will determine the 64 teams to qualify for the KO and determine the draw for the KO stage. This would replace the 4-way matches currently used to reduce the field to 64.

This would get over the problem of how to rate non-American players with little or no track record in ACBL events.

[TimG]

mrdct, on Mar 21 2010, 04:43 AM, said:

I wonder if there might any merit in using day 1 to seed the field with something like 6 rounds of swiss which will determine the 64 teams to qualify for the KO and determine the draw for the KO stage. This would replace the 4-way matches currently used to reduce the field to 64.

This would get over the problem of how to rate non-American players with little or no track record in ACBL events.

This topic comes up from time to time, but there is strong sentiment amongst those in charge that the Spingold and Vanderbilt should be KOs from start to finish. I also think that there is something which requires the Spingold and Vanderbilt to follow the same formats, so experimenting with just one is not an option.

[PrecisionL]

mrdct, on Mar 21 2010, 04:43 AM, said:

I wonder if there might any merit in using day 1 to seed the field with something like 6 rounds of swiss which will determine the 64 teams to qualify for the KO and determine the draw for the KO stage.  This would replace the 4-way matches currently used to reduce the field to 64.

This would get over the problem of how to rate non-American players with little or no track record in ACBL events.

I assume you mean an 8-board Swiss Round Robin (preferably with duplicated boards). Me thinks this is not the way to separate the field into the top 64 teams. I like the 3 or 4 way Round Robin KOs to reduce the field. However, in the 2002 Vanderbilt (Houston) our 72 seeded team played a 2-way (against the 32 seed) when I was expecting a 3-way. That scheme employed to reduce the field was a GREAT disappointment to our team.

[ggwhiz]

Over the years, I've entered the Vandy and Spingold with our lowest seed being 106th and highest seed, not much better.

Survived the first day often enough to REALLY love the format and got gently trounced by some REALLY classy high seeds. Those early all day matches must be very boring to them but do a lot to promote the game through the ranks.

[aguahombre]

My question was more along the lines of whether the method of original seeding needs tweaking to better incorporate the abilities of non-ACBL entrants.

I think it would be just plain ill-advised to re-seed teams after the event begins, or re-pair teams according to original seeding. A team that knocks off a biggie quite early deserves its period of glory and the draw which goes along with that victory.

Also dislike the idea of changing a K.O. event into a "sort of" K.O. event. (Yeh, I know, the WBF championships have a round-robin start, but they don't have "K.O. Teams" in the name of the event.)

[TimG]

aguahombre, on Mar 21 2010, 01:10 PM, said:

Also dislike the idea of changing a K.O. event into a "sort of" K.O. event. (Yeh, I know, the WBF championships have a round-robin start, but they don't have "K.O. Teams" in the name of the event.)

The Vanderbilt and Spingold weren't always KO events. At least I don't think they were. So, the "KO" in the name isn't really traditional.

[aguahombre]

TimG, on Mar 21 2010, 01:25 PM, said:

aguahombre, on Mar 21 2010, 01:10 PM, said:

Also dislike the idea of changing a K.O. event into a "sort of" K.O. event.  (Yeh, I know, the WBF championships have a round-robin start, but they don't have "K.O. Teams" in the name of the event.)

The Vanderbilt and Spingold weren't always KO events. At least I don't think they were. So, the "KO" in the name isn't really traditional.

If Winipedia is to believed, they were always knockouts. And Spingold had a different name, but with the word in it.

[TimG]

From Wikipedia:

Quote

In 1934, 1936 and 1937, the Masters Teams-of-Four and the Asbury Park Trophy were separate events, providing two sets of winners. In 1938 the event became the Spingold Master Knockout Teams and a part of the Summer NABC. At one time, the Spingold was a double elimination event, usually lasting nine or 10 sessions. It was scored by International Match Points and was restricted to players with 100 or more masterpoints. In 1965, the double elimination method was replaced by three qualifying sessions (subsequently reduced to two), followed by single elimination knockout matches. The preliminary qualifying session were dropped in 1970.

So, it was once double elimination. In 1965, the double elimination was replaced by three (and then two) qualifying sessions to be followed by single elimination KOs.

I guess I should have said "they weren't always straight KOs" or something along those lines; there used to be formats other than the straight KOs we have today.

Edit: I agree I was wrong about the KO in the name not being traditional.

[Cascade]

mrdct, on Mar 21 2010, 10:43 PM, said:

I wonder if there might any merit in using day 1 to seed the field with something like 6 rounds of swiss which will determine the 64 teams to qualify for the KO and determine the draw for the KO stage. This would replace the 4-way matches currently used to reduce the field to 64.

This would get over the problem of how to rate non-American players with little or no track record in ACBL events.

I think there is very little merit in a 6-round swiss in a big field to decide anything except who gets the lucky draws.

[mich-b]

aguahombre, on Mar 21 2010, 01:10 PM, said:

Also dislike the idea of changing a K.O. event into a "sort of" K.O. event.  (Yeh, I know, the WBF championships have a round-robin start, but they don't have "K.O. Teams" in the name of the event.)

The Rosenblum Cup , that is going to be held in Philadelphia later this year, is referred to in the WBF site as "World Open Knockout Teams" , but does have 3 days of round robin in groups to select 64 teams for KO play, AND seed them.

[G_R__E_G]

I didn't find it all that awesome because I was cheering for the #3 seed.

[barmar]

It's often pointed out that Swiss Teams is reasonably good at finding the best (and worst?) teams, but poor at ranking all the rest. So using this as a method of seeding the KO seems misguided. It's almost certainly less accurate than the seeding points that the ACBL uses.