THE GOLD FORMAT
A three-game guarantee is not synonymous with triple elimination.
But, some teams may in fact experience triple elimination.
Some coaches interpreted the term "3 game elimination bracket" in SPY’s report to mean triple elimination, rather than three game guarantee. I've assured them that is not the case, nor is that phrase used in my brief article. But, there was a Gold level tournament in CA this past weekend and, in the absence of any guidelines from ASA officials, which I trust they will develop, or other explanation, such "interpretations" were perhaps inevitable.
I scanned the entire Code and could not find any references to 3 game guarantees, 3-game elimination brackets, or even copies of official ASA brackets. A sample 48-game bracket, based on the three game guarantee, was in the Mobile handout, but not a 64-game bracket. I emailed several ASA officials asking for a sample bracket but none have responded.
My understanding, which I have asked ASA to confirm, is that all Gold teams are guaranteed three games. A team which loses both of its first two games is guaranteed a third game. But, if it wins that game, it can continue playing all the way to the championship, provided it does not lose again. However, if a team wins either of its first two games, or loses later in the winners bracket, it can only sustain one more loss -- and will be eliminated. That team has had its guaranteed three games. Theoretically, there could be teams alive in the winners bracket with a 1-2 record, while other 1-2 teams have gone home. And, we could have a national champion with two losses.
Obviously, we could not have triple elimination top-to-bottom – the tournament would mire down in complications. Imagine fighting your way through the losers bracket all day Saturday and early Sunday, then having to defeat the team in the winners bracket three times. Twice is enough of a hurdle. However, I know at least one ASA Commissioner who thought they had approved triple elimination – for every team. The prevailing opinion seems to be that ASA approved a format which combines double elimination with a limited form of triple elimination.
It is disappointing that there are no reports concerning Council decisions on the ASA web site – 12 days after the JO Committee approved the change – even though both ASA publicists and a raft of other ASA officials were on hand.
There are of course many opinions. Some Gold coaches preferred the status quo. Some wanted to keep pool play and the four game guarantee but eliminate pool play as a factor in seeding.
A number of coaches wanted to keep pool play, particularly if it was not linked to seeding the bracket, because they could play their entire roster. Without exception, the coaches whom SPY has consulted believe the new format ensures that every team will play their “best nine” and some youngsters who are in the developmental process will sit on the bench throughout the tournament. Hopefully, the tournament officials will facilitate a bevy of practice games.
Again, I am disappointed that ASA did not consult with Gold and other coaches before making these changes.
end