Just out of curiosity, when running tournaments that break to the top eight, are people paired randomly for the bracket or are they seeded according to standings? I ask because during the SCG 10k at Boston, Gerard Fabiano and Alex Bertoncini where both ranked 4th and 5th respectively after the swiss portion of the tournament was completed. However, they both appeared in semifinals meaning they did not face one another in quarterfinals as they would of based on seeding. Additionally, Yoni Skolnik faced off against Alex Bertocini in the finals which is impossible using a traditional seeding process since Yoni was the 8th seed which means the two of them should of faced off in the semifinals. This suggests that SCG randomized the quarterfinal matches for Legacy which just seems odd since on the previous day, the standard top eight was paired and played out according to seed. Anyone else notice this?
Here is a link to the standings after round nine and the home page standings: http://static.starcitygames.com/www/...egacy/R9S.html
UPDATE
The pairings on the tournament home page have been updated, however the standings remain the same. If you compare the standings to the tournament seeding, you'll see the two are different. Its possible there is an error, however the results they post online are usually just replications of what the tournament software generates...
Originally Posted by Jared_SCG
Last edited by Fossil4182; 04-26-2011 at 06:06 PM. Reason: SCG Updated the Tournament Pairings
Pairings for Top 8:
1 vs 8
2 vs 7
3 vs 6
4 vs 5
(1v8) vs (4v5)
(2v7) vs (3v6)
This leaves the option that 1st and 2nd seed should only meet each other at the finals, assuming they win every match.
That is wierd however, since Reid and Alex played, and they were ranked 2nd and 5th, respectively by your link. Maybe there was updated standings after Round 9?
West side
Find me on MTGO as Koby or rukcus -- @MTGKoby on Twitter
* Maverick is dead. Long live Maverick!
My Legacy stream
My MTG Blog - Work in progress
Or maybe it was fixed so their golden boys could face each other.
Almost certainly the standings were corrected after they were posted to the coverage - this happens reasonably often. Rarely, someone might pair the T8 randomly by accident, but that almost always gets noticed.
“It's possible. But it involves... {checks archives} Nature's Revolt, Opalescence, two Unstable Shapeshifters (one of which started as a Doppelganger), a Tide, an animated land, a creature with Fading, a Silver Wyvern, some way to get a creature into play in response to stuff, some way to get a land into play in response to stuff (a different land from the animated land), and one heck of a Rube Goldberg timing diagram.”
-David DeLaney
how dare you suggest that starcity would ever mess with standings or disqualify players that beat their points leaders or make for a less attractive story! Thats has never and will never happen /sarcasm.
Im confused has this actually happened or is it just sour grapes?
I kind of doubt it since Gerry Thompson and Patrick Chapin were supposed to duke it out in the last round of swiss to take the top 8 spot for one of them and Pat decided to give it to Gerry as a courtesy. I would have loved to see the match, but they passed. It was supposed to be a feature match too. I wish they had at least played it out for fun, but it didn't happen. I was bummed.
Let's face it, that would have been worth a SCG cover story even if only a fun game. The two are good. If you were going to make sure a good match happened on purpose for pure publicity, that would have been it.
It happened at Boston. The pairings for the quarterfinal round were not in the same order as the final standings after the last round of competition.
The results from the final round generated these standings:
1 Lake, Paul 24 56.4506%
2 Duke, Reid 23 64.0741%
3 Malatesta, Nicholas A 23 61.7813%
4 Fabiano, Gerard 23 59.5062%
5 Bertoncini, Alex S 22 72.2222%
6 Sacher, AJ 22 67.0370%
7 Wang, Samuel 22 62.5220%
8 Skolnik, Yoni 22 59.7472%
The pairings for the quarterfinal round should of looked like this using traditional seeding:
Lake (1) vs Skolnik (8)
Fabiano (4) vs Bertoncini (5)
Duke (2) vs Wang (7)
Malatesta (3) vs Sacher (6)
The pairings that ended up happening were
Lake (1) vs Skolnik (8)
Fabiano (4) vs Wang (7)
Duke (2) vs Bertoncini (5)
Malatesta (3) vs Sacher (6)
Two matches remained the same while two were not paired according to the standings.
Last edited by Fossil4182; 04-26-2011 at 03:45 PM. Reason: Added specifics
Ok, so sour grapes.
Seriously, SCG would not intentionally mispair people. You're off your rocker if you think otherwise.
“It's possible. But it involves... {checks archives} Nature's Revolt, Opalescence, two Unstable Shapeshifters (one of which started as a Doppelganger), a Tide, an animated land, a creature with Fading, a Silver Wyvern, some way to get a creature into play in response to stuff, some way to get a land into play in response to stuff (a different land from the animated land), and one heck of a Rube Goldberg timing diagram.”
-David DeLaney
I'm not sure who you're referring to, but I'm not claiming or suggesting SCG intentionally altered the pairings. Regardless of why it ended up happening, its a concern that the top of a large tournament was not paired correctly.
You don't even know whether it was paired incorrectly - by far the most likely thing that happened was that the standings were updated.
It's also nothing worth being "concerned" about even if it was incorrect.
“It's possible. But it involves... {checks archives} Nature's Revolt, Opalescence, two Unstable Shapeshifters (one of which started as a Doppelganger), a Tide, an animated land, a creature with Fading, a Silver Wyvern, some way to get a creature into play in response to stuff, some way to get a land into play in response to stuff (a different land from the animated land), and one heck of a Rube Goldberg timing diagram.”
-David DeLaney
You're right, I don't "know" for a fact if they were paired correctly. Its possible the results were updated and your alternative is plausible. Regardless, the most likely conclusion I can come to is that the top eight was paired incorrectly. I say this because I have data to back up my claim and I don't have a reason to think otherwise at this time.
Additionally, it is something to be concerned about because of potential match ups in quarterfinals. If I was supposed to face a positive match up in quarterfinals and ended up getting a terrible one because the pairings were screwed up, I'd be pretty pissed off. When its the difference between $250 for a quarterfinal finish and $500 for a semifinal finish its something to be concerned about. That's not even assuming you care about things like DCI rating, SCG pts etc. If any/all of those things don't matter to someone, then yes, its not worth being concerned.
Hey everyone,
I just wanted to clear up why the pairings were a bit wonky in the SCG Legacy Open in Boston.
During round 5 of the event, the tournament lost all of the results from the first 4 rounds. I was able to recover the event partially, but I did not realize that, although the points had been recovered, the individual result,s and the resulting tiebreakers, were lost.
This came to light when standings were posted for the final round and some players had tiebreakers as high as 100%. At that point, I began reconstructing the entire event from the result slips.
The top 8 was a clean cut, so rather than wait the 30-45 minutes that it would take for me to completely reconstruct the tournament, we began the top 8 with the partial and incorrect tiebreakers.
Once the tournament was reentered, we passed out prizes to 9th - 32nd based on the correct tiebreakers. It is unfortunate that the tournament was lost and I couldn't reconstruct it fast enough to properly pair the top 8.
I figured people might be interested in the actual story.
-Jared Sylva
General Manager Events
Star City Games
Not sure if this is the correct topic, but how are byes awarded for SCG tournaments? I'm considering attending one when it swings by in Seattle if I'm not busy around then.
I don't mind a few people getting a bye or two, but I don't want to have to compete with a dozen pros or semi-pros all starting off 2-0 or 3-0, especially since they'll likely have better tiebreakers.
http://www.starcitygames.com/playersclub/
Level 4 and up get 1 bye, 5 and up get 2. From the look of it there aren't that many at that level anyway.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote