I would assume you would score points for each game, so you could score anywhere from zero (if u got swept) to 9 if you won all 3.

I guess what I assumed was that the losing team would get zero, and the winning team would get from between 4 and 9 depending on the results of the games.

And yes this could result in a crazy outcome where one team sweeps with all 3 pt wins and gets 9 points and then loses next round so is 1-1 with 9 pts, and another team could win both rounds but be behind because they could not get full wins and only won 2 of each of the 3 matchups so had 4 pt "wins" in both rounds and be 2-0 with only 8 pts.

I know in the past it was just number of games won was your points, but that always seemed to me to be a weird way to do it since it makes the actual individual games worth one each and doesn't reward teams for getting complete victories rather than playing to be ahead at the end of time.

But since we (the player base) are running this so we can decide the scoring to be however we want. So if anyone has any thoughts throw them out. I presume that whoever ends up running the tourney would have final say, but I'll see if I can get James to come along and make a comment with his thoughts.

And actually, thinking about this more, using the 3-2-0 scoring system for the team tournament would allow the losing team to still score points (2 or 3), even if it lost the overall matchup. The closest possible score after a matchup between 2 teams would be 4-3, with the winning team scoring two partial victories and the losing team scoring one full win. Therefore, as we've seen with the 3-2-0 scoring system, taking a loss will not necessarily keep you from winning first place. And that's a good thing!

So it would be possible that a team that scores only 3pt wins and yet loses some of its matches might do better than a team that wins all of its matches, but only with 2pt wins.

As I said before, it doesn't really make sense for the losing team to get any points, and I like the idea of using the 3-2 scoring system for each game because (as trevor pointed out) we want to encourage engagement.

Sure, I'm fine with using W-L as the primary marker (each win by a player on your team gives your team a point in the standings), with total pts (up to 9 per team matchup) being the first tie-breaker. It's largely a "six of one, a half-dozen of the other" kind of thing.

My only concern is that we do everything we can to avoid games being decided by tiebreakers, and therefore I think we should use the 3-2-0 scoring system for the individual games.

Yep, I can work with that. It seems like a good system to me. As long as everything is clarified even 10 seconds before the tournament begins, I think it'll be fine. I think we've given the powers-that-be plenty of info to go on when making their decision.

My thoughts are along the lines of TJ's, but slightly different. (BTW - TJ - in your system, what use is PA? It seems to have no bearing, other than just a side stat)

As I was thinking about this - our current rules structure is perfect for this tournament.

Standings
Standings in a tournament, for declaring a tournament winner, shall be determined by match points. In the event of multiple players being tied for match points the following shall be used to determine the final standings:

1. Match Win Points – The player with the most match points.

2. Match Win Percentage – The player with the highest match winning percentage. (In other words, record)

3. Completed Victories – The player with highest number completed victories during the tournament (games in which 3 match points were achieved) (3 pt victories)

4. Head to Head Matchups – The player who has won any head to head matchups would be ahead of the loser in a head to head matchup.

5. Opponents Match Win Percentage – The player with the highest opponent match winning percentage.


So - in a team tournament, we'll have our team score (if you win all 3 matches, or 2/3 matches vs another team) then it's a W in the record column. This is #2 in our scoring system.

Match win points will be 3/2 based on if you won 3 games or 2 out of 3 games. This relates to #1 in our scoring system.

But then the 3rd category - complete wins comes into play too! We keep track of full wins, and EVERYBODY (winning and losing teams) keep track of this.


So - it would look like this:

Team A beats Team B 2 out of 3 games, with both 2 pt victories, while team B gets a full victory on the third
Team C beats team D all 3 games, with 2/3 being full victories.

Record:
Team C: 1-0, 3 points, (2 complete victories)
Team A: 1-0, 2 points, (0 complete victories)
Team B: 0-1, 0 points, (1 complete victory)
Team D: 0-1, 0 points, (0 complete victories)

So - in a "smaller" tournament such as this (I think there might be only 4-6 teams max) record really weighs the heaviest. I think this is appropriate for a TEAM tournament. If you beat all the other teams - you win. Regardless of anything else, and I think that IS the way it should be.

Then having the 3/2 system remain a 3/2 system means no surprises. We know this system, and the numbers work. Expanding this category directly relating it to full victories literally means everything is multiplied by three. This could make for massive swings. Besides - we don't need it here, because the very next category in our already existing system . . .

IS completed victories! So this becomes the tiebreaker, as it should be!

This was my proposal. The only difference between yours and mine is that Team B would have 1 point as opposed to 0 with yours. Team B probably worked very hard for that 1 win and thus should get a point.
3-2-0 in individual matchups.
1 point for each team member victory.

How many teams will there be? This is important - we need an exact number. And we should be able to know this, since the event will sell out. Nearly there already.

How many tickets were available?

Because I also have no idea if the tickets that have been purchased so far have been bought in groups of 3. I know that Laura, Lou, and myself all bought our tickets together but no idea if other teams have done so.