County knock-out teams format
Our county has run both a teams league and a knockout cup for as long as I can remember. The winners of each competition qualify for entry into prestigious national competitions (Pachabo, inter alia). We have seven teams in the top division (of two) so it can safely be said that the winner has earned their right to qualify.
The problem is the knockout cup. This year only six teams entered, so a strict knockout format would necessitate a number of byes, and mean that the winner may well have played only two matches in total.
Can anyone suggest an improved format? One is that the first-round loser by the narrowest margin get to join the three winners in the second round. Another is for a three-way play-off among the losers for the chance to progress to the second round (but it's difficult to get two teams to arrange a date for a match, let alone three). Any other ideas?
Comments
Narrowest loser qualifies seems to make sense to me.
You must have the same problem often unless you manage the entries somehow to get 8 or 16...
If it's a knockout you have accept byes as part of the format.
Alan
Let narrowest loser pick a date/venue for a losers play-off - if all three play, play a triangle in 4 stanzas (half-time score break), if two play then head-to-head, otherwise narrowest loser walks over. Semi-final draw avoids re-matching surviving loser against their first round opponent.
Run an all-play-all qualifying round, qualifying (two or) four for the knockout.stage.
[Alan]: "You must have the same problem often unless you manage the entries somehow to get 8 or 16...
If it's a knockout you have accept byes as part of the format."
I don't object to including byes per se in the format, but I think the ratio of matches played to byes should be higher than this.
[Mitch]: "Run an all-play-all qualifying round, qualifying (two or) four for the knockout.stage."
We did also consider abandoning the knockout format altogether and see if an all-play-all teams championship on one day gets more support, but I wouldn't be hopeful. This hybrid idea is certainly worthy of consideration.
[BarkerBridgeTD]: "Let narrowest loser pick a date/venue for a losers play-off - if all three play, play a triangle in 4 stanzas (half-time score break), if two play then head-to-head, otherwise narrowest loser walks over. Semi-final draw avoids re-matching surviving loser against their first round opponent."
Another good suggestion, and it makes allowances for the expected apathy of the losing teams in not bothering to avail themselves of the second chance. (I may be doing them a disservice here, as some genuinely have difficulties finding dates with their other commitments.)
I'll run them all past the committee. Many thanks.
All play all in privately arranged matches. Score in VPs and have the top two play off in a Final. Everyone plays at least five matches. Sounds good to me.
Adam, the problem with this is that it feels just like another version of the league. I'm not saying it's a bad idea for a format, but it won't be embraced enthusiastically by the county players.
All play all would likely not happen over six teams. We had just four teams in our local club and we failed miserably to arrange matches. Eventually, one team dropped out in frustration, one match was played and then the other team dropped out. The end result was that one match decided the winner of a four-team all play all.
If you're going to call it a knockout then it really should be a knockout. You have the first round of three matches, giving three qualifiers for the semi. The best loser joins them, defined from some vaguely reasonable tie-break system. The winner and runner-up will each play three matches.
I'd further suggest that you seed the teams (by some vaguely reasonable system) and then have the first round be 1v4, 2v5 and 3v6.