Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Aeir
Could just do top 6 from each, play the other leagues top 6 once each. Best overall combined record wins.

Rather wrangle 12 than 16 teams heh...

But with 6 then it splits up to need a bye. I was initially thinking 6 but 8 works better

Originally posted by HayRow
But with 6 then it splits up to need a bye. I was initially thinking 6 but 8 works better
Only if you're using a bracket system. If you just have each team from Adams play each team from Madison once each, the number can be anything you want.

Then just add up the W/L and the better league wins.

Originally posted by TxSteve
Good point - possibly even 4 in case it is tough to get commitments - and in case people don't want to spend flex.
I put a post up in Adams to gauge interest.

The argument is about depth of both leagues, the more teams the better. Top 4 teams is nice but doesn't prove much.

Originally posted by Aeir

Only if you're using a bracket system. If you just have each team from Adams play each team from Madison once each, the number can be anything you want.

Then just add up the W/L and the better league wins.

yeah i was totally thinking bracket for some reason.

we should be doing it 1v1, 2v2, 3v3, 4v4, etc. up to 8 prefer, could do 6. Then a second round between the winners if the number comes out to an even split the first round.

Originally posted by TxSteve
Good point - possibly even 4 in case it is tough to get commitments - and in case people don't want to spend flex.
I put a post up in Adams to gauge interest.

Problem with any tournment is you can have 1 great team from 1 league and a ton of shitty ones versus 10 good in other league, but only takes 1 team to win the tournament.

If you want to find out what league is better, you have to do a point system where its a round robin tournament, every team plays every team.

GL finding the interest to do it, but you will never find what league is better otherwise, you will only find what team was better.

Originally posted by Stobie
Problem with any tournment is you can have 1 great team from 1 league and a ton of shitty ones versus 10 good in other league, but only takes 1 team to win the tournament.

If you want to find out what league is better, you have to do a point system where its a round robin tournament, every team plays every team.

GL finding the interest to do it, but you will never find what league is better otherwise, you will only find what team was better.

not doing it tournament style. matching up 1v1, 2v2, 3v3, 4v4 etc. and then going off most wins

You still are not getting the results you 'want'.

You want to know the best league not the best #1 vs #1, best #2 vs #2. If you truly want to know the best league by depth and competitiveness you will have to do a round robin system. Take top 4/5/6 what ever and have them play each and every team in that same group from other league. Then take all the W/L/T from it via points and league with most points wins. But.... that is 'if' want to know the best league, not best rank of teams.

Originally posted by Stobie
You still are not getting the results you 'want'.

You want to know the best league not the best #1 vs #1, best #2 vs #2. If you truly want to know the best league by depth and competitiveness you will have to do a round robin system. Take top 4/5/6 what ever and have them play each and every team in that same group from other league. Then take all the W/L/T from it via points and league with most points wins. But.... that is 'if' want to know the best league, not best rank of teams.

ok dude.

This way is fine for a general which league is better. If one leagues teams win 5 out of the 8 games in a 1v1, 2v2 etc fasion, than that league is better

Originally posted by HayRow
ok dude.

This way is fine for a general which league is better. If one leagues teams win 5 out of the 8 games in a 1v1, 2v2 etc fasion, than that league is better

Sure you can use that, but your still not getting a full spectrum result, which as I mentioned you probably won't get that much sign off so the next best thing is what you drew up. All I am saying it still isn't clear indication of the better league, its just an indication of the better league based off intraleague rankings.

Originally posted by Aeir

Only if you're using a bracket system. If you just have each team from Adams play each team from Madison once each, the number can be anything you want.

Then just add up the W/L and the better league wins.

Originally posted by Stobie
You still are not getting the results you 'want'.

You want to know the best league not the best #1 vs #1, best #2 vs #2. If you truly want to know the best league by depth and competitiveness you will have to do a round robin system. Take top 4/5/6 what ever and have them play each and every team in that same group from other league. Then take all the W/L/T from it via points and league with most points wins. But.... that is 'if' want to know the best league, not best rank of teams.

Round Robin is what I was trying to say earlier lol

Originally posted by Stobie
You still are not getting the results you 'want'.

You want to know the best league not the best #1 vs #1, best #2 vs #2. If you truly want to know the best league by depth and competitiveness you will have to do a round robin system. Take top 4/5/6 what ever and have them play each and every team in that same group from other league. Then take all the W/L/T from it via points and league with most points wins. But.... that is 'if' want to know the best league, not best rank of teams.

Bolded part is the problem - because usually you can look and say "oh yeah that league has the best X teams but our next Y teams are way better" so whatever cutoff you choose is where the real battle is. Even picking all 12 isn't necessarily natural or fair; what about leagues that have 1-2 cpu teams? You could argue the 4 playoff teams is "more natural". Etc etc. And of course the whole thing stumbles over getting participation.

1v1 2v2 etc isn't perfect, but no system really is, and that system is at least simple to organize. "Best" is really never well defined anyway, which is why people can argue about it non-stop.