So here is the basic question...which is the most fun and the most fair way to end a major dci event (may not be the same)?

1) Standard Swiss (play until someone is undefeated)
2) Swiss with Playoffs (play through the swiss rounds and then have the top 4 or 8 do single round elimination)
3) Swiss with an extra 2 rounds (swiss with 2 extra rounds after the amount needed to get 1 undefeated player)

Standard Swiss
The large complaint with ending a tournament after standard Swiss rounds is that anyone who gets a loss is almost ensured to not get first baring events where an undefeated plays down and creates the possibilty for no undefeated players. This causes an early unlucky loss to completely cut off players from the big prize.

Swiss with Playoffs
This creates a nice epic feel at the end of the rounds with single elimination. It also keeps players who recieve a single loss with the chance to still take it all. Now the downside comes when a player defeats another player in swiss and then plays the same player in the final and loses. Not only are they playing the same match again but their record against each other is 1-1, the player winning in the finals being the victor. The finals also creates the possiblity for various repeat matches. Which can be nice if the first one was won or lost on map roll or a key init/crit. But also creates the possiblity of the opposite. The first game could have been played out and been a win of skill and the second time during the finals could be won or lost over an unbalance of rolls.

Swiss with an extra 2 rounds
Swiss with extra rounds provides those who have an early loss to a hate squad the chance to still an earn a shot to play the player who goes undefeated after the initial swiss rounds. It is still dependant on a player who hasn't lost to the leading player to be able to beat that player in the last couple rounds. The extra rounds tend to have a less than epic feel because even if no one goes undefeated at the end it's actually the first couple rounds that end up making the difference. The winner is likely to be the person who had early pairings that stuck around and still played decently. Someone whose first round only played a couple games and then left could end up preventing someone from having a shot at first.

---

The question is which are the most fair and the most fun? I used to think playoffs would likely be the best but after looking at the top 4 of recent events my opinion has changed. I don't like the idea of making the undefeated player replay 2 of the matches they already played. But I don't like one unlucky loss to prevent players early in the event from having any chance at the big prize. Obviously no system is perfect but I am curious how everyone else feels...

What about swiss with playoffs do you like. The epic feel is hard duplicate. The final super bowl-esque game that it creates is blasted cool. Works better with events on par with Gencon. is it something you would want at all of the rgeional events too?

I like the standard swiss.
Luck is part of the game. In all three of those systems, a game will be lost because of dice rolls. The last two systems just seem a bit redundant.

Swiss with playoffs is good for those who loss a match and need the recover.
Normal swiss is good for those who go straight undefeated and don't want to replay matches to keep their undefeated.

I guess i'd prefer normal swiss because I would hate to replay a match and then lose it for whatever reason.

Two factors make this discussion moot when talking about local venues and tournaments: Time and software.

I assume when you say major tournaments that you are talking about GenCon and Regionals. In essence I agree with Bill when he says that more games are better...it will distill luck out of the results in my opinion. The only way that you can have single elimination have any validity at these major events is to seed the field prior to the start of the tournament. The NCAA basketball tournament at the end of the season is probably the best example. In the history of the tournament, a 16 seed has never beaten a 1 seed. There are upsets and top seeds have gone home early, but not because they played a hot 4 team in game 1. That being said, the only way we can seed players now is by their ratings. We all know how those can be inflated through isolated play at venues. Also, a 1700 rating in a state where there are a lot of quality players will be vastly different than a 1700 in a state where there are 2 or 3 venues. In my opinion, while seeding with ratings helps you'll still have the same issues.
I think that what is needed is double elimination with a rating seeding. That way, even if a bad seed exists a player can recover from a bad matchup or luck. The good players will rise to the top even if they have to take the long way through the loser's bracket. The downside to this is that there will be players who will only get 2 games. Time will also be a factor, but I'm assuming that at a major event there are allowances for time overrages. I did not attend any regional events as there weren't any within reasonable travel time to me. (I hope Jim reads this.) I guess that the big assumption I'm making is that the venues hosting regionals will be able to accommodate a 'fuzzy' time block.