Can someone explain to me why intentional draws are bad? Isn't it a reward for doing so well? Playing out the game would just screw one player

Many people don't like it because it takes the person who would have lost the game out of tie-breakers with others with that same record. The theoretical loser of the ID game gets to eliminate their MoV as a factor in scoring.

Yes, the people at the top table have done well so far, but I don't think you should get a bye in round six just because you did well in the first five. Everyone else is playing for their position to make the cut - the top table should, too. If they are truly better than the rest of the people at the tournament, they shouldn't have anything to be afraid of.

The people at the top table already have an advantage in that their record going into the last round is X-0 while people at the lower tables are (X-1)-1 or worse. If I'm at table 2, I have to win my game to even *tie* with someone from the top table. Allowing that person to take an ID and ignore the potential tie is basically just saying "the people at the top table both get a bye in the last round."

Can someone explain to me why intentional draws are bad? Isn't it a reward for doing so well? Playing out the game would just screw one player

A good tournament structure should never put players in a position where it's better not to play. The point of a tournament is to determine, through play, who's the most skilled player. If the tournament structure incentivizes drawing, that's a strong clue that it's not doing its job.

Furthermore, and more practically, it screws someone out of the cut.

I still think that SoS is better than MOV, since i find MOV much more random. Usually the players goin X-0 have a higher SoS than the ones goin X-1 and the way i see SoS is that it determines not "Who is Better" but "Who is better at this tournament" since SoS only tracks this schedule not your entire career. So of course i think the player doing better at this tournament deserves to be in the top and not worry about tiebreakers by IDing.

You cannot stop this in any competitive event, you cannot stop an NBA team to reserve their stars if they already locked their playoff spot, in the same way you cannot prevent R.Madrid or Barcelona to play with the substitutes to reserve players for the other competitions. Should all of them be sanctioned?

May be moving to a two round elimination is the way to go, somebody already told that this is the system described with the only difference being letting the loosers keep playing, but i doubt it. I prefer people being able to ID, is not a problem for the 4 rounds store tournament but when you have played 8 rounds in the nationals going 8-0 it does not look but to me players IDing.

The problem is SoS heavily penalizes early losses vs late ones.

Can someone explain to me why intentional draws are bad? Isn't it a reward for doing so well? Playing out the game would just screw one player

Furthermore, and more practically, it screws someone out of the cut.

Do people who lose their first game get screwed out of making the cut? Why should the last game of the day be any different than the first?

SoS when you players have a can have a historical strength makes more sense. Trying to use it looking at a single tournament is rather pointless as you have no control over who you get to play. Who's fault is it if the best player happens to get stuck with the worst players for a round or two? If there are six rounds and your first round opponent goes 0-2 then drops and the next opponent goes 1-3 then drops you've now defeated two players who have done nothing to help you improve in the standings.

When it came to SoS I have always been in favor of looking at who beats you as opposed to simply who you played. If you go undefeated that's great. If you have one loss and that is to the guy who goes undefeated I see that much more favorably than losing to a guy who never wins another game.

I don't think there is any tournament structure, except maybe a full round robin which just isn't going to happen, that will make everyone happy. Every structure has its metagame winners and losers. Sometimes having some kind of good seeding numbers can help make things go more smoothly but things can get shaken up.

If we look at the recently completed NCAA BB tournament you could say it was four mini tournaments with plenty of information to use for seeding purposes. With all of this wonderful information only 1 picked the winner from the start. Two managed to have the 2nd seed win which is allowable. The you've got that 10th seed which never should have made it by some measures.

Can someone explain to me why intentional draws are bad? Isn't it a reward for doing so well? Playing out the game would just screw one player

A good tournament structure should never put players in a position where it's better not to play. The point of a tournament is to determine, through play, who's the most skilled player. If the tournament structure incentivizes drawing, that's a strong clue that it's not doing its job.

Furthermore, and more practically, it screws someone out of the cut.

I completely agree, however, it gets tricky without a seeding or ranking system. Do you think March Madness would work so well if teams weren't seeded into brackets? I think that's why everyone looks for the upsets and enjoys it so much.

FFG could institute a player rating system tracked at official events, something like Glicko, ELO, or Trueskill, and this might help so you could do a true single/double elimination tournament from the start.

Do you think March Madness would work so well if teams weren't seeded into brackets? I think that's why everyone looks for the upsets and enjoys it so much.

There is absolutely no question that the NCAA Championships would not be single-elimination brackets if travel and time were not a factor.

Yes, single-elimination is dramatic. But it's also -- for exactly the same reason -- just about the worst format for determining the best team in a field.

Do you think March Madness would work so well if teams weren't seeded into brackets? I think that's why everyone looks for the upsets and enjoys it so much.

There is absolutely no question that the NCAA Championships would not be single-elimination brackets if travel and time were not a factor.

Yes, single-elimination is dramatic. But it's also -- for exactly the same reason -- just about the worst format for determining the best team in a field.

Don't let the NFL know that...

Can they not use a system similar to MTG and use tounament points for ranking with count back as the 1st tie breaker then MoV for the 2nd, or the other way around but it woul be a lot clearer than the random situation that seems to be happening now, maybe even get rid of modified win altogether and just have win/lose/draw, with a draw being 0 MoV or ID.

Don't let the NFL know that...

The NFL is well aware of it, believe me. "Any given Sunday" is actually an encapsulation of the idea that the actual best team might have a single off game.

Can someone explain to me why intentional draws are bad? Isn't it a reward for doing so well? Playing out the game would just screw one player

Furthermore, and more practically, it screws someone out of the cut.

Losing in the last round of swiss at the top table and missing the cut isn't getting "screwed out of the cut" - it is losing. If you haven't made the cut yet, then you can't get screwed out of making it.

Do people who lose their first game get screwed out of making the cut? Why should the last game of the day be any different than the first?

No one is getting "screwed" you are either playing well enough to make the cut or you aren't.

The only time a player is getting screwed is when cuts are down to tiebreakers, as niether SoS or MoV are really in a players control. So I agree with what Jeff Wilder said in a different thread that no larger event (>Regional) should ever be eliminating players based on tiebreakers.