The Instigator
mongeese
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
LB628
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

When Running a Seeded Tournament, the Best Players Should be Playing the Worst Players

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
LB628
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/11/2009 Category: Sports
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,050 times Debate No: 7776
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (15)
Votes (5)

 

mongeese

Pro

In most sports, a tournament is held at the end of the season where the top 16, 32, or 64 teams are arranged into a tournament. These players are already ranked by their season games. My arguments is that to have the fairest tournament, the Best Plays Worst method should be used. Here's a list of the different methods:
1. Pairing
In this method, the #1 team plays the #2 team, the #3 team plays the #4 team, etc. In the second round, the winners of the top two games play each other. The pattern continues in a bracket.
2. Split in Half
In this method, if you have 16 teams, the top team plays the #9 team, the #2 team plays the #10 team, etc. Basically, for every round, you split the number of teams down the middle, then pair everyone up.
3. Best Plays Worst
In this method, if you have 16 teams, team #1 plays team #16, team #2 plays team #15, etc. In the second round, the winner of 1vs.16 plays the winner of 8vs.9, etc. Basically, the best team always plays the worst team, the 2nd-best team always plays the 2nd-worst team, and so on.

The basis for my argument is that in a Best Plays Worst format, the best team is rewarded for being #1. For example, in each methods, their opponents would be:
Pairing: 2,3,5,9
Split in Half: 9,5,3,2
Best Plays Worst: 16,8,4,2
Number 1 should have the highest chance of winning, as that is what a tournament is designed to do, and it avoids corruption.

I thank whoever agrees to be CON.
LB628

Con

First, I would like to thank my opponent for creating this topic.

Now, to establish several things. First, my opponent, by making an affirmative statement, has the burden of proof for this round.
Second, because my opponents argument seems to be based around the idea of fairness, in order to determine whether or not "When Running A Seeded Tournament, the Best Players should be playing the Worst Players", we should see which methods are the most fair.

Fairness is defined by the Princeton Wordnet as "free from favoritism or self-interest or bias or deception; conforming with established standards or rules;" or "fairly: without favoring one party, in a fair evenhanded manner"

By this definition, we see that the method of best hitting worst is actually the least fair method of seeding because it gives the top seeds an unfair advantage. If the method of 1st hits 2nd, 15th hits 16th, and so on is used, it in fact creates the most fairness because it insures that no more unfairness is created that that which is naturally there I.E which team is better. In a Best-Worst scenario, the top seed has a very unfair advantage because it is hitting a team which it knows to be much worse than it. In a Best-Best scenario, the top seed has only a slightly unfair advantage, because statistically, they are only slightly better than the second best team. The Best-Worst method favors the top seed more than their natural skill would account for. Under a best-best scenario, the top seed still has the best chances to win, because they are still the best team, but they must do so by beating teams that are nearer to their skill level, a fairer situation.

I look forward to my opponents response.

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
Debate Round No. 1
mongeese

Pro

Thank you for accepting this debate.

I agree with your definitions for fairness.

However, I disagree with you in your main paragraph. You have to remember that to rank these teams, the teams go through a large number of games within the season, which requires effort and determination. At the beginning of the season, all of the teams have an equal chance of winning; their actions during the season are what determine the seeding. What the Best Plays Worst system does is reward this determination with an advantage over the other teams. If winning games in the season wasn't rewarded at the end, then the teams wouldn't put in as much effort, and we'd even see corruption and sabotage.

In the Pairing method, you have the top two teams playing each other. This results in one of these two teams not making it to the finals. Naturally, the top two teams should be the ones fighting for either first or second. Furthermore, why would a team try to be number one? This would only mean that they have to face team number two, and they'd have a less likely chance of moving on. Why win all your games and be put in the difficult position of number one, when you can put forth no effort in any of your games and land in seed 16, at the very bottom? At the bottom, you only play the worst teams, and have a higher chance of advancing. Teams should be rewarded for their efforts, not punished.

In the Split in Half method, the difference between team 8 and team 9 is tremendous. Team 8 has an easy ride playing team 16, but team 9 is likely to be destroyed playing team 1. The minor difference between 8 and 9 results in a huge difference between 1 and 16. Furthermore, team 2 has the advantage over team 1, because team 1 always plays better teams than team 2, until the two teams reach the finals. This would mean that a team would try to win and lose the correct amount of games to be team 2 rather than team 1. If two teams played each other at the end of the season, and the winner would be team 1 in the tournament while the loser would be team 2, both teams would try to lose. If you've ever seen a game where neither team is trying to win, it becomes very pathetic and boring to watch.

In the Best Plays Worst, the best teams get rewarded for their hard work by playing the worst teams. Every team would try to be #1, because #1 gets to play the worse teams. Additionally, teams are motivated not to be at the bottom, because whichever team ends up #16 is almost certainly destroyed in the first round. Keep in mind that it was completely fair at the beginning; their poor performance in the season is what sealed their fate. This incentive is what makes teams want to win.

Now, take this scenario: In a season, you have nine teams that are very good (labeled 1337) and seven teams that completely fail at the sport (labeled n00b). At the end, the 1337s are on top, and the n00bs are on the bottom:
1-9: 1337
10-16: n00b
If we were to use the Pairing method, five 1337s would advance, and 3 n00bs would advance. This isn't right. The 1337s are the ones who deserve to move on to the next round. The n00bs should have all been eliminated.
If they are Split in Half, the 1337s that came in 2nd through 8th all have a free ride, because they got to beat n00bs. 1337 #1 and 1337 #9, however, have to fight to move on to the next round. Why should #1 be the only one in the top 8 to not have a free ride? He proved to be the best, and now he has an unfairly higher chance of being eliminated.
If the Best Plays Worst method is used, the top 7 1337s would all advance. The 1337 #8 and the 1337 #9 would be the only ones who actually have to fight to get to the top 8; rightfully so, because they are the weakest of the 1337s.
You can try this with any number of 1337s and any number of n00bs, but they results are always the same: Best Plays Worst always has the better players rewarded rather than punished.

CONCLUSION:
When running a seeded tournament, the best players should be playing the worst players. This system rewards effort, skill, and determination, and the best teams are rewarded. Other methods give advantages to the teams that don't try as hard, and encourage failure. Vote PRO.
LB628

Con

Your first point of contention seems to be that Best v. Worst rewards good playing during the season. But, there are several questions that need to be asked. The first is, what is the point of the end of the season tournament? As far as I am aware, it is to determine which of the teams is the best. Can this be best done by handicapping some teams, and rewarding others, or by giving all as level a playing field as possible? The second is clearly best fulfilling of the purpose, and the fairest. The only differing factor is skill level. In a Best-Best scenario, the teams must put out effort throughout both the season and the tournament. They would not be given easy rounds during the beginning of the tournament. The primary thing I do not understand is why teams need to be rewarded at the beginning of the tournament. The fact that they did well in the season does not mean they should be given easier games during the tournament. I fail to see how that creates a fair playing field for the tournament either.

Your second point, that it reduces incentive to do well in the season has is both irrelevant and wrong. First, because you accepted my points about fairness, in order to determine who wins the round, we are looking to which method is the most fair. This has nothing to do with fairness. But second, the primary incentive for players to do well comes not from an easier position in the end tournament, but the fact that how much money they make is related to how well they do.

I will ignore your Splitting in Half argument, because it has no relevance to either my points, or your burden of proof.

Finally, lets look at your scenario. You provide several examples of what is statistically likely to occur under every situation, but the concept that I really do not understand is the idea that some teams, which did better in the season, "deserve" to advance farther in the tournament. Look back to the definition of fairness. If a playing field is as level as can be, than no team deserves anything. They win it.

So you are going to vote Con because the Con has shown that a Best-Worst system of seeding is not the fairest system, and because, contrary to my opponents claims, a Best-Best system promotes skill development and competitiveness throughout both regular season and tournament, rather than just the season.

Vote Con.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Yeah, I lost.

PRO let CON establish the value of the debate, fairness, which PRO should have done in Round 1, and then PRO forgot to cite the NCAA.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
It's a cool picture.

And no, I did get parental permission.
Posted by InfraRedEd 7 years ago
InfraRedEd
Or of course Mark Harmon.
Posted by InfraRedEd 7 years ago
InfraRedEd
Take a look. Players and even whole teams will take a dive during the season in order to get a favorable position is the finals which they won't make if they take a dive. "Corruption."

And that's his only argument in two rounds. The rest is responding to his opponent.

This is from a child who does not have parental permission to participate as required by the terms of service and now we see why.

And take down that picture unless you are the fictional Special Agent Gibbs.
Posted by NOK_Domination 7 years ago
NOK_Domination
hockey's playoff system is actually the fairest. Teams are re-seeded after every round. What mongeese wants is more like the nba tourny or ncaa tourny in which the bracket is set and teams advance from there. In hockey, if both the 7 seed and 1 seed win, then they would match up in the second round. In the NBA the 1 seed would get the winner of the 4/5 even though the 7 seed is still out there. Overall I think we can all agree that the BCS is the best system.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
"Also, pro fails to realize the entire point of a seeding process which is to match teams up of comparable ability to determine which team is the best of them all."

The tournament was fair for everyone at the beginning of the season. What CON fails to realize is that Best vs. Worst is the only way to avoid corruption, and is the only method that will end up with the best teams (the ones who deserve to advance) making it through each round.
Posted by McBain 7 years ago
McBain
Also, pro fails to realize the entire point of a seeding process which is to match teams up of comparable ability to determine which team is the best of them all.

Con has a much stronger argument, you cannot claim fairness by matching up the best with the worst. Effort and determination has no bearing on how teams should be seeded.
Posted by McBain 7 years ago
McBain
I accepted because I really would like to have debated this as I am a coach and I could offer some insight into the seeding process.

However I have life to attend to and I'm very sorry that you are so impatient that you can't even wait for my first argument.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Is logic viable proof?
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
I don't think that my opponent understands logic...
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by crackofdawn_Jr 7 years ago
crackofdawn_Jr
mongeeseLB628Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
mongeeseLB628Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:25 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
mongeeseLB628Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Vote Placed by rofflewoffles 7 years ago
rofflewoffles
mongeeseLB628Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by acer 7 years ago
acer
mongeeseLB628Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51