We decided to seed team, and now why we do RR?i am against this RR, take to much time.

RR groups of 6 are too big. That's 5 group stage matches. In practice, I believe 5 group matches will take twice as long as 3 group stage matches (energy of these things wane over time).

Maybe we should just drop seeding altogether? Basing seeding on the votes of a handful people doesn't seem meaningful. Put everyone in random groups of 4, the top two teams advance. And as RvW hints to: Avoid having several instances of the same team (say GB&I 1 and GB&I 2) in the same group.

Best idea was seed 32 team in single elimination.

I thought the idea of seeding was not to have a round robin at all to avoid the drop-out that we experienced last time.

I'm still a fan of a RR though and seeding can help with this. But we certainly must have no more than 4 teams per RR. If you have a seeding, the best way to distribute them over the groups would be: (remark this is the same pattern as Gnuffone's example starting from Top 16 assuming the seeds finish in that order)

Group A: 1, 15, 18, 32
Group B: 2, 16, 17, 31
Group C: 3, 13, 20, 30
Group D: 4, 14, 19, 29
Group E: 5, 11, 22, 28
Group F: 6, 12, 21, 27
Group G: 7, 09, 24, 26
Group H: 8, 10, 23, 25

I: Winner A - Runner-up B
J: Winner B - Runner-up A
K: Winner C - Runner-up D
L: Winner D - Runner-up C
M: Winner E - Runner-up F
N: Winner F - Runner-up E
O: Winner G - Runner-up H
P: Winner H - Runner-up G

Q: Winner I - Winner P
R: Winner J - Winner O
S: Winner K - Winner N
T: Winner L - Winner M

U: Winner Q - Winner T
V: Winner R - Winner S

W: Winner U - Winner V

you are wrong

I: Winner A - Runner-up B
J: Winner B - Runner-up A
K: Winner C - Runner-up D
L: Winner D - Runner-up C
M: Winner E - Runner-up F
N: Winner F - Runner-up E
O: Winner G - Runner-up H
P: Winner H - Runner-up G

winner A should be with runner H....

andm ake an initial RR take at least 3 month. dunno if is good. go with single elimination is better way imho.

I'm afraid I have to agree with the majority of posts. Whilst an RR is an excellent idea for the teams who lose straight away, I think single elimination is better. If teams wish, I (or someone) can set up a double-elimination style tournament for them, so they get another game..

No Gnuffone, it's correct as it stands in my post. You want seed 1 vs. seed 16 in the round of 16, not seed 1 vs. seed 10. (I know there is a risk that it will be seed 1 vs. seed 2 but this is not unreasonable. If one of them finished below a seed 15 or seed 16, the seeds were 'wrong' in the first place.

Yeah, i think dom may be right. Maybe just double elim would be good enough to give more teams a chance but not lengthen it like a RR would

but 32 is such a nice number, you can so easily cut it equally;

round 1
make 4 initial RR's

round 2
make 2 upper tier RR's for #1's & #2's((mixed)
and 2 lower RR's mixing the #3's & #4's

round 3
make a champion RR for the upper tier #1's + #2's
make a pro-RR for the upper tier #3's + #4's
make a medium-RR for the lower tier #1's + #2's
make an aspiring-RR for the lower tier #3's + #4's

this way every team gets to play against 9 other teams

I personally wouldn't mind it lasting longer, but then you risk inactive teammates. I suppose we have alternates to alleviate that though.

If we decide for RRs, one thing i think we should do is begin all the 3 games at the same time (we can have fewer games in rrs).
Otherwise people that get defeated by a large margin wont play out the next games.
Double elimination is also bad, since the double bracket ads a lot of rounds more.

lets continue this talk to try and define this as soon as possible.

RR take too much time guys. remember last time. 4 month + a lot of inactive guys.

I agree with single elimination,
but the method might be harsh for the 16 first loosers that will play 1 game only.

lol.
isn't goof reason for waste month on RR ;)

Then we ask the 16 losers if they wish to play another match, just for fun. See how many "yes'es" we get, and have a certain amount of friendlies, alongside the competition.

The way I see it (though I cannot claim infallibility :p ), in order of importance:

1: Top priority: get this thing started. A long tournament risks losing people; talking endlessly without getting anywhere will have the same result, only much worse.

2: My strong preference (and I've seen a lot of people agreeing with it): if you manually assign teams, spend a reasonable amount of effort on postponing matches between teams from the same country as long as possible. An alternative would be fully random, but do not deliberately put them together.

3: What Dom365 said, that's a pretty nifty idea in all its simplicity!

Yeah, please make teams from the same region not face each other until semi-finals (like USA Central 1-3, I do not include East or West as they are different regions in this).

I would use NCAA March Madness Bracket format (1 half).

Like this:
http://www.threedogyoga.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/ncaa_finalfour_bracket_blank.jpg

And snake the ranks/points you already have among the top seeds.

I will do this and post in a few minutes.

Here is my seeding based on points...

*Note that the US Central 2 (3 way tie) was moved to top bracket and Neth 2 was moved to bottom (both 6 seeds) to avoid match-up with their #1 teams before finals. Poland 2 was also placed in top bracket and GB/Ireland 2 for same reason (3 way tie for 8/9 seeds). USA Central 3 placed farthest spot from #1 and #2 teams (10 seed) for same reasons (3 way tie).

These are all the teams that got votes, the rest can be filled in randomly:

1 - Brazil 1
16 -

8 - Poland 2
9 - Czech

5 - France 1
12

4 - Neth 1
13

6 - USA Central 2
11 - Canada

3 - Germany
14

7 - Lithuania
10 - USA Central 3

2 - GB/Ireland 1
15



1 - Italy 1
16 -

8 - Aus/NZ
9 - GB/Ireland 2

5 - Norway
12

4 - Poland 1
13

6 - Neth 2
11 - France 2

3 - USA Central 1
14

7 - USA West
10 - Serbia

2 - Isreal 1
15