So at GenCon last year we had a depressingly low turnout.

12 players.

Yet since it was specified in the GC catalogue, we still had to do a top 8.

8/12 in the finals. Half of which didn't have winning records. 1 even had a LOSING record. Not disparaging any player, but that on paper was pretty much universally called ridiculous. Including by several of those that made the top 8 and felt they shouldn't have.

There has been talk of simply doing a top 4.

This also seems like a cop-out. We have no idea how many players we'll get in 2017. Honestly I think we'll have more next year (not significantly, but more none-the-less)


What's the most fair way to do it?


I have a solution.

Instead of picking an arbitrary number of finalists for the playoffs, make it based on points scored.


It's simple, and based in the number of rounds:

3 rounds: 6pts or higher
4 rounds: 8pts or higher
5 rounds: 10pts or higher
6 rounds: 12pts or higher

Moot will be the bogus tiebreakers effecting if someone makes the playoffs or not. They will still be applicable to rank the playoff bound players, but if you hit the point total, you're in. Period.


So that part is easy, but what do you do if a number other than 4 or 8 make it in?

This is where this system gets even better.


Often a complaint has been made that the top ranked players have nothing to play for in their last game. They know they've made it and the rest doesn't matter.

Well, now top seeds may get a bye in the quarterfinals.

Now THAT is something worth playing for.



So here's how it works:

With 3 players:
1 gets a bye, 2 plays 3. Winner plays 1 in the finals.

With 4 players:
1 vs 4, 2 vs 3. Winners play in the finals.

With 5 players:
1-3 byes. 4 vs 5, winner faces 1 in the semis, 2 vs 3 in the semis.

With 6 players:
1,2 byes. 6 vs 3 (winner faces 2 in semis) and 4 vs 5 (winner faces 1 in semis)

With 7 players:
1 gets a bye. 2 vs 7, 3 vs 6, 4 vs 5.

8 players is like normal.

For extreme cases of crazy results we would cap at max numbers of players for the playoffs, in which case it would function exactly the same as it currently does.

I spelled it all out, but it's really simple.

Basically we'd always use an 8 player bracket, but only fill it with the players that hit the requisite point level. Higher seeds have higher probability of a bye, and thus always reason to play to win.


This simultaneously resolves multiple problems:

1. Gives us a concrete way to have a logical number of players make the playoffs with any number of entries. No random guesswork or arbitrary number of finalists needed to be figured out beforehand.

2. Gives inherent incentive to win each round, and to win more tournament points. Players will fight to the end for the chance at automatically advancing to the semifinals.

3. Removes the possibility of a player not making the playoffs with the same tournament score/record as a player who did make it. Random tiebreakers won't keep someone from the playoffs.



This also makes it very easy to put in the GenCon catalogue.

"Players who earn the requisite amount of tournament points will advance to a three round playoff"


It's simple, clean, and based on the system we already have, while taking out the parts that most players dislike.

A simple cap to maximum allowed playoff slots can be added to avoid having too many for highly unlikely scenarios.

In all reality it will fall at this number or less, but it's good to have a cap just in case.

4-6 = 2 max

7-9 = 3 max

10-12 = 4 max

13-15 = 5 max

16-18 = 6 max

19-21 = 7 max

22 and up = 8 max



My honest guess is that we'll have about 18 next year. It would be silly to only have 4 exactly if #2-5 all have the same score.

Since we don't know, this system scales and the max cap is there just to prevent outlier results.

Up to 6 players: Round robin.
7 players: 3 rounds. Then #2 plays #3. Winner plays #1.
8-16: Playoffs is half of the players, rounded down. Byes to top seeds, if necessary.
16+: Top 8.

Summary:
"Playoffs = Top 8 (or half of players, whichever is less)"

That being said, I like the format for a regional setting where things are less formal in the scheduling and requirements.