This is not a plea for Axis Gaming to conduct divisional play, because I believe a bracketed competition might be sufficient. However, there's been a push lately by some players to have divisional play. And in thinking about this last night, a lot of things come to mind that I thought I should share with you.
Baseball did not move to its current divisional format until 1994. It was a near unanimous vote; every owner except George W. Bush (who ran the Texas Rangers) said that a deeper divisional format would allow more teams to stay interested throughout the season.
If you think the move to a deeper divisional format was a bad idea, look at just the top half of the National League standings in 1993, the year before the deeper divisional format was installed.
N.L. West1. Atlanta (104-58) -- GB: 0
2. San Francisco (103-59) -- GB: 1
3. Houston (85-77) -- GB: 19
4. Los Angeles (81-81) -- GB: 23
N.L. East1. Philadelphia (97-65) -- GB: 0
2. Montreal (94-68) -- GB: 3
3. St. Louis (87-75) -- GB: 10
4. Chicago (84-78) -- GB: 13
The other six teams not mentioned were even more horribly out of it, worst than the third- and fourth-place finishers.
If you look at the standings, only four teams were in it going to the final week of the season, matter of fact, they were the only four teams with a virtual shot at a division title in the final MONTH.
That's how brutal divisional play was from 1961-93. Remember, there was no Wild Card. There was no runner-up playoff spot like there is (virtually) in the N.B.A or N.H.L. The only way to make the playoffs was by winning the division.
I bring this up because, with the very likelihood that there will be 300 players at this weekend's tournament in Emeryville, the players that want divisional play need to think about it.
Normal divisional play takes place like this: Everyone plays everyone.
Let's say there are 300 players. If you have 30 divisions, that's 10 players per division. This is where things get a little bit testy.
In most competitions I've seen or been a part of, usually four players will advance out of a 10-player division. If less than four players advance, the community gets in an uproar. Four is pretty good; it allows those in the "second tier" of ability to have a shot at the grand prize.
But four-player advancement cannot happen with 30 divisions. With 4 players getting out of each division, that leaves 120 players still in the tournament, and the last division will probably finish at 6 p.m. (seven hours later)!
How about three? Then that's 90 players, which is still rough. Two players is perhaps the most that can advance in our situation because there will be 60 players remaining.
Think about that for a second.
You go into a big tournament and enter divisional play. You post a 7-2 record, which on any other day would be seen as a great tuneup for the playoffs. Instead, you're gnawing on your nails wondering if that will be good enough. To see two players go 8-1 or have a 9-0 and 8-1 split will be heartbreaking. At the very worst, your 7-2 record is trumped by two stronger 7-2 records.
But think about it on the other end of the spectrum. Let's say you start divisional play with two straight losses. Now what? You have seven matches remaining. You have to run the table to even get a shot at making the playoffs. Do you feel like playing? Is it even worth it to play?
There's plenty of risks and rewards to running divisional play with so many people involved. My hope is that the players look at both sides before making a push to get divisional play involved.
With divisional play, it's obvious that players get more matches (which is why people love it to begin with). However, because there are more matches, more time is used up. With 300 people, is it a necessary risk?
Before you make a plea for divisional play, consider how it could happen.
|
Labels: super smash bros brawl