Ok Schrodinger. So if QPR knows that after Burnley Chelsea is next it won't be as exciting. Also apparently getting further and further in the competiton is not exciting No advantage here. There is no difference between what we have now and a bracket style The advantage is here
You mean a conspiracy theory? Like UEFAlona? I'll quote Ringo Starr in that Yellow Submarine cartoon movie: "It's all in the mind, y'know." There's no conspiracy. People just love to complain when things don't go their way. Nothing more. Ignore the lunatics. "England's possible route to glory..." "Predicting Quarterfinal, Semifinal and Final Encounters" This does not equate to "WE KNOW the path that leads to a Spain Germany final" I'll ask again: What must Spain do in order to avoid Germany until the final?
Are you seriously basing your entire point on this freaking nitpick? So if I said with brackets Barcelona knows a possible route to a Real final you would have agreed with me?
Your original post... Do you still believe Barca could choose their route under your proposed scenario?
You can only do only 1 thing. Get 1st or second. By getting first your possible adversaries can be a, b, Real By getting second you can get x y z. The second scenario gets you Real in the final* *if Real gets 1st in our scenario So yes
haha... We're going in circles. Like I said way back on previous pages, the reality is they probably won't get Chelsea, Liverpool or Man Utd. They probably won't get Arsenal or Spurs either. They'll probably get MK Dons or someone like that. Since there is a 95% chance they will get a boring draw, its better not knowing, and keeping hope alive that we might see an exciting match with a big windfall. So 95% of the time, the 2nd round would lose some importance. In the end, no. It's the not knowing that adds drama though. How many times do I have to repeat this? I don't see how. But I'm not a big believer of conspiracy theories in the first place. After every CL draw people speculate that its fixed. Doesn't matter who draws who, its all rigged. Riiiiight.
I added text but you already quoted me so I am going to put it here It's way harder to fix the draw. You can give a teams an easier path when before the draw you know how the 16/8/4 teams are playing in that time. You can't accuse UEFA of fixing if BVB was a possible opponent in september. But now we know BVB's situation right now. You can't accuse UEFA of knowing the BVB will be decimated by the times of the game It's a big advantage for a sport if people have a better opinion of the organisation that has a certain competion. You speak of exciting. So is it more exciting to know your favorite competiton is not corrupt? Remember the truth is irrelevant. By simply believing something is corrupt you can have less enjoyment
"So yes"? That asterisk is a major factor in your equation. IF Real get second in our scenario, the plan goes up in smoke even though Barca chose their route to avoid Real until the final. Spain can do all they want in trying to avoid Germany, but since Spain's group ends on June 23 and Germany's ends on June 26, Spain can only sit and wait and hope. "So yes"... Brackets are not as cut and dry as you want to believe they are, my friend.
But you do have a sense how things can pan out. Unlike a draw for every round Well I am not talking about you. I am talking about people that refuse to watch this competition because they believe it it is corrupt. And make this competition more legit in their eyes.
Well, I don't believe the draw was corrupt anyway so it doesn't help me. I'd rather have the draws one round at-a-time because it increases the importance of the games.
So you went from it's a stupid ideea to well I like my stake medium rare. There is difference between I prefer blondes vs redheads are ugly
To those people I say 'good riddance'. Its hard to watch the game when someone with a tinfoil hat is sitting in front of me anyway.
Obviously they don't see them as being relevant, since UEFA is going in the other direction (they used to set the full brackets to the final at this stage, but starting last season they have a separate semifinal draw).
Brackets as a seperate entity aren't a stupid idea. But when you want to conduct the knockout round brackets without having played a single match in the group stage then, yes, it's very much a stupid idea.
But the best idea for the world cup and many other popular sports around the world. And not all sports are so short as the WC They went to the terrible ideea because it's the only ideea possible Maybe just maybe this ideea has some merrit hence is used?
Name another tournament that uses brackets. I'm not convinced they use it because it's "the best idea".
@unclesox I can tell you other sports. And I did in past posts? Tennis and basketball If you meant in football CdR?
Tennis: In tennis tournaments you occasionally see matches suspended by weather. As a result you'll end up having a day where a Round 2 game is being played the same day as a Round 1 match. For this reason, brackets are more convenient to use than a draw after each round: Time constraints. Same as World Cup. Basketball: If you're talking NBA, the playoff brackets are used following the completion of the 'regular season'. You get teams seeded for the playoffs, and after each round they re-seed so that the team with the best record plays the team with the worst record. (NFL also reseeds. Not sure about NHL.) If you mean NCAA, we often hear calls that they should reseed after each round. the tournament is played in just over three weeks so I don't know if the NCAA feels it's possible given that teams have to travel every other round. I personally only watch the first round (or second round they now call it, the round where 64 teams are playing). I lose all interest after that, partly because of no reseeding.
It would be pretty impossible to reseed or have an open draw due to traveling distances. The tournament spreads out all over the country, with round 2 starting about 11 hours after round 1 ends. Even within a particular 16-team region, there are still 2 different locations.
I'm one who always called for reseeding. But now that I think about it, the way the tournament is organized with one venue hosting #1 vs #16 and ##8 vs #9, it's impossible to reseed without increasing the number of travel/off days in between each round. Btw, you quoted waitforit with my quote.
The NCAA wrestling tournament was this past weekend - they use a fixed bracket of 32 (really 33 with a "pigtail" play-in round) with 1 to 16 seeded and the other 16 randomly drawn against the other wrestlers. There is also a consolation bracket so each wrestler who loses ends up in the lower bracket competing for 3rd place. You can end up with lots of crazy situations where two high seeds are competing against each other early in the consolation bracket. Not reseeding also allows for random lower seeds to advance since if they beat the higher seed they take on the path of the guy they just beat. This would also apply to tennis - if someone knocks off Nadal should they then have to play who ever the #2 seed would be? Would seem unfair. It is absolutely essential to the charm of the NCAA wrestling tournament to have a fixed bracket. Reseeding after every round would be impractical but also extremely unpopular with the fans. NCAA basketball also has the same charm. I would expect most other NCAA team sport events have fixed brackets (the soccer championship for one). The reason I bring this up is that I think it really depends on the situation whether reseeding or not makes sense. I don't really think the CL would benefit from having a fixed bracket from the beginning of the competition but I would have no problem if they had one fixed draw after the group stage ended (so you don't get teams trying to finish second on the last match day). With the WC, I don't think there is any other way to do it that would be fair to the traveling fans.
The question I would pose is: What is the purpose of the tournament? If it's a minor competition that is preparation for a bigger competition, I would agree with no reseeding. But if it's the main tournament, the one to determine the best player for the year (i.e. the winner will be recognized as the national champion for the whole of the year) then I believe reseeding (if it's possible to do) is essential. Extending your example of #16 defeating #1, here are the remaining matchups being played in that bracket: #2 v #15 #3 v #14 #4 v #13 #5 v #12 #6 v #11 #7 v #10 #8 v #9 In the fixed bracket system, #16 would play the winner of #8 v #9. Meanwhile, if #4 wins their opener they would meet the winner of #5 v #12. Let's say #5 defeats #12. We now have second round matchups of... #8/9 v #16 #4 v #5 In just about every case, the seedings for fixed bracket tournaments we are based on results from previous competitions. Let's move forward to the end of the season and the one, single tournament that will decide the national champion. If I've worked my butt off the entire year and was good enough to receive the #4 seed at the start of the tournament, I'm then required to play someone who had worked his way to gaining the #5 seed at the start of the tournament, and I look across the bracket and see that two participants who are ranked lower than me get to play each other based simply on one result for each, I'd feel very cheated. I suppose what I'm getting at is that while the "charm" of a fixed bracket may be great for the fans, I don't feel it's the correct format for those competing, especially when the national title is at stake.