Page 1 of 1
2011 Cake Eater Tournament
Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 9:45 am
by Antagonist
Anyone know what is up with the brackets for the Cake Eater this year and why they haven't been fixed? And please don't tell me it would be too expensive to fix it! I can't imagine the teams are happy about this. There will be no clear pool winners the way they have it set up.
Re: 2011 Cake Eater Tournament
Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 11:15 am
by luckyEPDad
It is an interesting schedule. The easiest fix is to dump the pools (which exist in name only). Advance the two best records to the final.
very odd
Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 3:00 pm
by U10pops
very strange format
Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 3:30 pm
by redarmydad
Had this same set up in Duluth a couple of years ago and had a team go 3-0 and end up going home on Sunday. I am sure someone will be getting a bad placent on this one.
Re: 2011 Cake Eater Tournament
Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 10:26 am
by U10pops
Antagonist wrote:Anyone know what is up with the brackets for the Cake Eater this year and why they haven't been fixed? And please don't tell me it would be too expensive to fix it! I can't imagine the teams are happy about this. There will be no clear pool winners the way they have it set up.
They just changed it to the top 4 teams advancaing...regardless of pool. Much better.
Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 1:12 pm
by Antagonist
Better, but outcome will be based on disparity in strength of schedule. Why not just do it right in the first place and schedule teams in a given pool to play the other teams in their pool as in previous years?
Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 2:20 pm
by luckyEPDad
Antagonist wrote:Better, but outcome will be based on disparity in strength of schedule. Why not just do it right in the first place and schedule teams in a given pool to play the other teams in their pool as in previous years?
You are assuming the way it has been done is the "right" way. With no information for seeding or generating pools I don't see how the "right" way is any better than this method.
Your disparity of schedule argument is specious. One could just as reasonably claim that pool play is bad because all the good teams can be lumped in one pool. At least with this method teams with the best record advance to the championship game. Something that doesn't always happen in pool play.
With the remove of the artificial pool designations I think this schedule is as valid as any other.
Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 4:08 pm
by Bluewhitefan
Antagonist wrote:Better, but outcome will be based on disparity in strength of schedule. Why not just do it right in the first place and schedule teams in a given pool to play the other teams in their pool as in previous years?
Huh? Pools can, and usually are unbalanced anyway. Often, the third place team in one pool doesn't make the championship round, but is stronger than the winner of the other pool. This isn't much different.
Entire tournament had to be changed due to certain rink proprietors pulling ice late in the game. EHA was forced to push 10B teams out.