Amateur Bracket

[Rubyiris]

i want to enter a cali ameteur bracket and **** it. =D

 

[Violence]

I like amateur bracket ideas too, but I think that Swiss combines the best of both worlds.

In the beginning, you will have bad players playing good players, and getting stomped.

But as the rounds progress, the matches become more and more even, no matter who you are.

And at the end, there's a double elim bracket for everyone to watch, with the best players, so there's not really any bracket ****ing.

 

[Raziek]

That's actually not a bad idea, Gheb. I think I might give that a whirl.

 

[rPSIvysaur]

30-35 people is perfectly fine for pools actually. Assume you have 32 people at your tournament. You can make 8 pools of 4 people then have the two best of each pool progress into the A-Class / Pro-Bracket, where they play for the pot in a 16 player Bracket. The other 16 playes will go into the B-Class / Amateur-Bracket, where they play in another 16 player bracket. You can use the pools to decide who goes into A or B Bracket and to seed each player for their Bracket they go into.

Just make sure there isn't any cash incentive so pros don't sandbag to win amateur bracket.

 

[Bones0]

I have been thinking, what do you guys think of a free teams side-tourney. All the players are matched up by placing (best player with worst, second best with second worst, etc.) I think that would be a really cool way of getting the better smashers to introduce newbies in a positive manner because the better players would have an opportunity to help them improve. Some good players already try to give advice during friendlies, but friendlies are usually between like-skilled opponents and when advice is given, it is usually a lot more awkward than it would be if the two players were on a team and they had a common goal.

 

[MattDotZeb]

You stole this from San Antonio meanie D:<

We call it Redemption Bracket lol (so that everyone gets a chance to "redeem" themselves.) Everyone who doesn't place top8 gets seeded into it (four 9 seeds get the byes, and so on for everyone else).

We've done about 8ish Redemption Tournies in 2010 and it's been VERY successful and received nothing but applause. I highly recommend this to any TO's.

I REALLY like this idea.

Only thing I'd be concerned with would be time constraints, and that some players after losing just say "screw it" and leave.

Along with payouts and such.. Not to mention the fact you're running a second bracket after the main bracket and essentially telling the top 8 to go **** themselves.
IMO a bracket like this should come before the main bracket, and the only way I see that doable is by having a very solid top10 (or depending on your region more/less) power ranking.

If you don't already have a PR (such as New England, so I'm thinking out loud with all of this), you should be running a Ranking Battle - A single pool with all the entrants.
Payouts would be standard for the region (I do top5 at my events now), and ties broken by Set Win-Loss, followed by Match Win-Loss, and finally by running Tie-Breaker pools for all the players who tied for a certain W-L ratio.
Say having all the players with a Set 10-5 / Match 20-10 ratio in one pool, and so on.
They ONLY tie if they have the same Set W-L and the same Match W-L.

If you have PlayerA with a Set 10-5 / Match 20-11 ratio they should NOT be grouped into a pool with Player's B, C, and D who have a Set 10-5 / Match 20-10 ratio. PlayerA has ranked lower than Player's B, C, and D in the results.

Now say PlayerE has a Set 9-6 / Match 18-14 ratio and PlayerF has a Set 9-6 / Match 19-16 ratio. Although PlayerF has more wins, he/she also has more losses. PlayerE SHOULD be placed above PlayerF.

If PlayerE has Set 9-6 / Match 18-14 and PlayerF has Set 9-6 / Match 19-14, the win in this case goes to PlayerF.

This method completely removes the "I beat him. Why is he ranked above me?" complaint. You lost either more Sets or more Matches than the person above you.


When you begin the Tie-Breaker pools, you tell the players "You're competing for 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th." or whichever places they are competing for. Ties are determined by the same method above.

In the event that two players are the only ones with the same Set W-L and Match W-L ratio the win goes to whoever beat the other.

When the Tie-Breaker pool is reached say this happens:
Player's 1, 2, 3, and 4 each had the same Set W-L and the same Match W-L in the Ranking Battle pool. They are now all in a Tie-Breaker pool.

Player1 had previously beaten Player3 in the Ranking Battle, and they are now tied for the highest placing in the Tie-Breaker pool. However, this time around, Player3 has beaten Player1. Both players must play one more Bo3 set to determine who places higher.

Now say Player1 had previously beaten Player3 in the Ranking Battle but still ties with Player 3. They each go to the same Tie-Breaker pool, however Player1 now has a Set 3-1 / Match 6 - 3 while Player3 has a Set 3-1 / Match 7-3.
Player3 SHOULD place higher.

They ONLY go to the 3rd set under the conditions that
• They tie with the same Set W-L AND Match W-L in BOTH the Ranking Battle pool AND the Tie-Breaker pool.
• They have a 1-1 set count vs each other.
If both conditions are not met, the result is determined by Set W-L followed by Match W-L.


This way you have a pretty solid top# of players and are able to more accurately run an amateur bracket and give players an idea of where they stand and what to strive for.

Doing this seasonally is a good way to keep tabs on everybody's progress and have an up-to-date Power Ranking.




...Also after re-reading all of that I think I'm going to do that for my next Mass Madness. I'll report back with the results of it when that happens (most likely in January to allow for hype and giving plenty of notice to get as many players from New England there as possible).

 

[Dabuz]

really important bump, seriously, more TOs need to follow this thread, the community is dieing daily without any positive outlook on it recovering, it isn't an exaggeration to say locals in 2010 on average are half the size of 2008 locals, same with regionals, and probably have lost a third of attendees compared to 2009 locals and regionals and if we don't do something, by the end of 2011, tournament may dip as low as 1/4 of their original attendance, because in this community, no one goes out of their way not to discourage players, but instead, most TOs heavily favor the top players of the community, when the middle/low-level players are more important in actuality.

i would just change the amateur bracket to 3 stock 8 minute matches like normal, also, give some sort of incentive in the amateur bracket besides pocket change, make the prize for first a new GC controller or something

another thing, the community as a whole has to embrace new players, talk to them, make them feel welcome, help them get better, go easy on them so they don't feel humiliated, ect.

also, i only noticed one tournament do this, and i feel it would be extremely good to implement, but, in order to not drive away potential new smashers but still keep a fairly seeded tournament, you should give the top 2 or 4 players at a tournament "super seeds" so to speak, by this i mean whichever players seem like they will really dominate anyone they fight for the first couple rounds, should automatically be put a few matches into the bracket, as to allow new players to fight people closer to their skill and hopefully play more matches and feel like they want to go to more tournaments


also, note to time constraint issue tournaments, these kind of new player friendly tourneys should be run over regular low tier/ brawl - side events, because they are more important, heck, i'd say to run these over doubles if a doubles tournament doesn't get many entrants

 

[Plairnkk]

ive got amateur brackets at pound 5, hopefully i can help the community grow a ton there.

basically the reason locals (imo) at least are shrinking so much is because of the age of the players. more and more players continue to have to work/do their lives and are unable to go to tournaments even though they still do -want- to.

this is why nationals still get great turnouts, because people have specific events to set aside and plan for. I

I know my region has no decent local tournaments because they have a tournament every weekend. tournaments were better when there was one every two months because people knew which tournament to really go to.

Minimize the number of tournaments, maximize the quality of tournaments, and try to base your appeal towards more than just the top players. Do side events, pay out more than top 3, scrap the venue fee and instead take out a % of the pot. The way tournaments go these days is unacceptable, and I am not surprised the community is shrinking as far as locals go.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Everything dabuz said is 100% correct. Money is too much the center of the focus at a tournament and way too many TOs cater for the better players only. Japan has one of the healthiest tournament scenes in regards to attendance and skill - because they don't play for money, because they don't have money-driven tourneys each weekend and because they give the less gifted players a fair chance to play.

If I went to a tourney just to get ***** by two players who only care about the money and then I wouldn't even get a chance to play friendlies with good players because they refuse to ... I wouldn't want to go to tournaments either.

@Plank

Although as a fellow TO I appreciate that move I don't think that having an amateur Bracket at Pound5 alone will make a difference. This is mainly because Pound is not a local tournament series but of national size. If people feel that something has to change then the movement - the driving force - has to start from "below", from the random tourney attendant in some MD/VA local, who suddenly doesn't feel like he spends the fees he's payed on filling the pot for other players because he still gets a fair chance for competition. That's where a lot of potential lies. I honestly feel that the Pound 5 "Amateur" Bracket will have no amateur players at all. Instead it will likely be filled with high and high-mid level players who lost to the top level players [who will make the pro-bracket in the end].

I applaud you for implementing the idea but the purpose of an amateur bracket lies elsewhere in my opinion

 

[Plairnkk]

Everything dabuz said is 100% correct. Money is too much the center of the focus at a tournament and way too many TOs cater for the better players only. Japan has one of the healthiest tournament scenes in regards to attendance and skill - because they don't play for money, because they don't have money-driven tourneys each weekend and because they give the less gifted players a fair chance to play.

If I went to a tourney just to get ***** by two players who only care about the money and then I wouldn't even get a chance to play friendlies with good players because they refuse to ... I wouldn't want to go to tournaments either.

@Plank

Although as a fellow TO I appreciate that move I don't think that having an amateur Bracket at Pound5 alone will make a difference. This is mainly because Pound is not a local tournament series but of national size. If people feel that something has to change then the movement - the driving force - has to start from "below", from the random tourney attendant in some MD/VA local, who suddenly doesn't feel like he spends the fees he's payed on filling the pot for other players because he still gets a fair chance for competition. That's where a lot of potential lies. I honestly feel that the Pound 5 "Amateur" Bracket will have no amateur players at all. Instead it will likely be filled with high and high-mid level players who lost to the top level players [who will make the pro-bracket in the end].

I applaud you for implementing the idea but the purpose of an amateur bracket lies elsewhere in my opinion

I see what you mean, I can definitely agree with that. The average skill level at a national tournament is way way high. It is a totally different type of amateur bracket than you are talking about, but it is still great for the entrants of the tournament

As an overall community building tool I see what you mean....


And hell yeah, I hate people who just play for the money...it's insulting to me. However it is a good reward for the invested time you've put into the game.... I just think people are too quick to get on their high horse and not even take a note of newer players or play them at all. Not only should good players be playing these players, they should encourage and teach. However people are just pieces of ****, and that is the end of that. I feel like the pros of 06 were way more considerate and cool than the pros of 2010, and maybe that reason is because they really are just playing for money.

 

[ranmaru]

Minimize the number of tournaments, maximize the quality of tournaments, and try to base your appeal towards more than just the top players. Do side events, pay out more than top 3, scrap the venue fee and instead take out a % of the pot. The way tournaments go these days is unacceptable, and I am not surprised the community is shrinking as far as locals go.

Most of that shouldn't be hard but scrapping the venue fee is quite hard. Especially when getting a big room. Although I do know of a mini-lan center here that would charge verrrry cheaply but it wouldn't be good pot-wise. (no venue fee and tournament fee would be $2)

So my friend Vorosh has some smash trainees who would rather enter that small one and then I'd introduce them to my future tourny... (which I'm waiting the date of) and hopefully some might try it.

 

[Zozefup]

Just run SWISS pairings. Problem solved.

Seriously. Smash should be SWISS.

 

[Plairnkk]

Most of that shouldn't be hard but scrapping the venue fee is quite hard. Especially when getting a big room. Although I do know of a mini-lan center here that would charge verrrry cheaply but it wouldn't be good pot-wise. (no venue fee and tournament fee would be $2)

So my friend Vorosh has some smash trainees who would rather enter that small one and then I'd introduce them to my future tourny... (which I'm waiting the date of) and hopefully some might try it.

oh i know man. i only meant for like small locals in peoples houses/really cheap places..

 

[ranmaru]

oh i know man. i only meant for like small locals in peoples houses/really cheap places..

Oh I deff think there shouldn't be venue fee in someone's house. Also, how cheap is cheap for a place? Like reasonable yet cheap?

(Although it's also hard to find cheap places, I'm sure you understand, never will I want to use YMCA, too expensive haha)