All-Star Worlds Bracket Contest

OARoyalsbiggestfan said:

Is this just a list of your picks? Or teams with paid bids? Because I know Orlando Allstar Royals hadba score if 93.01 in the SSrCoed division at NCA this year.

The Fierce Board App! || iPhone || Android

Click to expand...

It was intended to be the top 32 scores for teams that left NCA with a paid bid. (either got one that weekend or already had one.)

I think there should be a separate bracket for each division on each day of competition.... Since Large Senior only has 6 teams, leave them out of the brackets and make the tie breaker the one who matches the top 3 for that division.

The first brackets would be due the day before prelims/at large , and it would include all participants, separated by division, and then we'd choose who makes it to semis... 1pt for each correct

The second brackets would be due that night, and would have all the semis participants on it, separated by division, and we'd choose the top 10... 2pts for each correct

The third bracket would be due before finals, and would have the top ten on it, separated by division, and we'd choose the medalists.... 5pts for each correct

Obviously not a "bracket," but I think a traditional bracket is going to be tough to do because of the whole head-to-head aspect

This will be easier to set up when the schedule comes out, by the way.

BlueCat said:

This will be easier to set up when the schedule comes out, by the way.

Click to expand...

Yeah I figured. Do we know when that is? People should only need two weeks to make their choices I would assume.

Also, I have been thinking about the bracket idea. The thing that works so well in for basketball is that level of uncertainty when two teams play. Though it has never happened (yet and came close this time) a 1 seed has never lost to a 16 seed, but could.

With how cheerleading works the only way a 1 seed could lose to a 16 or 32 seed is by having an extreme amount of deductions. Even when Panthers had a, for them, pretty horrendous day one last year they still made finals and were in 5th (I don't remember exactly). So the game of the entire thing, the guessing and wondering and performing, has to be based on personal performance and potential and teams competing in their own level.

Now if we could handicap certain teams such as in golf so that Team A (a top tier team) gets a a 5 point bonus to start and is right on par with team B that might work.

OR

If this was an NCA scoresheet (it is still NCA to me) we COULD do a bracket based solely on execution. That is an idea for next year.

I think you are underestimating the volatility of most of the divisions lately. I'd bet if you had done a full-on NCAA Bracket type of contest for NCA, you would probably would have had more than few people with at least 1 or 2 of: CA Wildcats, CA Cheetahs, and SOT Medium Coed as #1 seeds going into the weekend. Yet all of 3 of those teams finished out of the top 20 scores. For that matter, I doubt many outside of Plano would have put CA Panthers higher than a 3-4 seed, but they ended up with the highest score. (There are other examples, but I am more familiar with those teams.) I think that all but maybe 2 divisions are pretty hard to predict.

<<MATH ALERT>> I do think that at Worlds there is a downward pressure on scores in closely-contested divisions. Perhaps we only include divisions that do not have a clear favorite?

BlueCat said:

I think you are underestimating the volatility of most of the divisions lately. I'd bet if you had done a full-on NCAA Bracket type of contest for NCA, you would probably would have had more than few people with at least 1 or 2 of: CA Wildcats, CA Cheetahs, and SOT Medium Coed as #1 seeds going into the weekend. Yet all of 3 of those teams finished out of the top 20 scores. For that matter, I doubt many outside of Plano would have put CA Panthers higher than a 3-4 seed, but they ended up with the highest score. (There are other examples, but I am more familiar with those teams.) I think that all but maybe 2 divisions are pretty hard to predict.

<<MATH ALERT>> I do think that at Worlds there is a downward pressure on scores in closely-contested divisions. Perhaps we only include divisions that do not have a clear favorite?

Click to expand...

I think outside of large senior the group of teams battling for 1st is relatively small, 2-3 teams. I think most people could pick the winner of all divisions if they were allowed to pick 3 per division. There are very few surprises outside of those top 3 teams-ish. So how do you create a game about that? Or a bracket? I am not against the idea, I just don't know how it will provide enough movement to be exciting.

As well Saturday would be mostly a wash for all the brackets. Very few people would have teams go that far who competed Saturday, or they would only use Large Senior and Coed.

I wonder if the 'drama' and exciting ness is if the Funky Rhinos (I forget what division they are in, but let us say small senior) have an at large bid. They come out of nowhere and make top 10 to go onto day 2. That is probably as far as they are going to get, but just getting to day 2 for them is probably a big deal and in picking that team to be one of those to go to day 2 would be fun (since I think there will be a lot more movement in teams 10-80 than in 1-10).

I am not against the bracket I just have trouble seeing where the wild variation is at the end. I want something so unpredictable in the end no one got it completely right.

You have a point. However, I was throwing all of those teams together into one bracket without regard for division.

Brainstorm ideas:

Have a normal prediction contest 1-5 (or 1-10), but REVERSE the scoring. (More points for getting #5 right than #1.)

Have a two-bracket contest using final scores, one with all the paids & one with all of the at larges. Maybe the overall winner is handicapped somehow?

Have play-in rounds, and/or don't seed 1 vs 16. (put more similar teams against each other earlier.)

BlueCat said:

I think you are underestimating the volatility of most of the divisions lately. I'd bet if you had done a full-on NCAA Bracket type of contest for NCA, you would probably would have had more than few people with at least 1 or 2 of: CA Wildcats, CA Cheetahs, and SOT Medium Coed as #1 seeds going into the weekend. Yet all of 3 of those teams finished out of the top 20 scores. For that matter, I doubt many outside of Plano would have put CA Panthers higher than a 3-4 seed, but they ended up with the highest score. (There are other examples, but I am more familiar with those teams.) I think that all but maybe 2 divisions are pretty hard to predict.

<<MATH ALERT>> I do think that at Worlds there is a downward pressure on scores in closely-contested divisions. Perhaps we only include divisions that do not have a clear favorite?

Click to expand...

Ok more thoughts (people this is gonna get more nerdy before it gets less nerdy):

If we normalize the range of scores in each division THEN a team from large senior could compete against a team from small senior. In a way it would be able to compare apples to oranges. Is the appleness of this apple better than the orangeness of this orange.

So when a score comes in from small senior because they are typically scored lower than large senior but they score high for their division they could compete against someone else.

BlueCat said:

You have a point. However, I was throwing all of those teams together into one bracket without regard for division.

Brainstorm ideas:

Have a normal prediction contest 1-5 (or 1-10), but REVERSE the scoring. (More points for getting #5 right than #1.)

Have a two-bracket contest using final scores, one with all the paids & one with all of the at larges. Maybe the overall winner is handicapped somehow?

Have play-in rounds, and/or don't seed 1 vs 16. (put more similar teams against each other earlier.)

Click to expand...

I REALLY like the reverse prediction idea. A LOT

BlueCat said:

You have a point. However, I was throwing all of those teams together into one bracket without regard for division.

Brainstorm ideas:

Have a normal prediction contest 1-5 (or 1-10), but REVERSE the scoring. (More points for getting #5 right than #1.)

Have a two-bracket contest using final scores, one with all the paids & one with all of the at larges. Maybe the overall winner is handicapped somehow?

Have play-in rounds, and/or don't seed 1 vs 16. (put more similar teams against each other earlier.)

Click to expand...

So let us look at Saturday as if it was a one day event. For Small coed and senior and medium senior all the at larges compete and they just take the top 10. This is probably the wildest and most unpredictable day. Would people know enough to pick 5 for each division?

These are all at larges that go right?

Ok, so for simplicity sake:

Every division pick 1-5 (and international just 1-3).

5 points for getting 5th right, 4 for 4th, 3 for 3rd, 2 for 2nd, and 1 for 1st.

5 Bonus points for each division if you are able to pick 6 teams all correctly that make it to Sunday from small senior and small coed.

That seems a lot easier than some of the other ideas I have had. I do think something less complicated is good.

Now I get why people get excited about NCAA brackets, I'm stoked about this no matter what the format!


The Fierce Board App! || iPhone || Android

Is 5 too many? Maybe just 1-4?

Is there a format and a list of teams??


The Fierce Board App! || iPhone || Android

Remy Kobernusz said:

Is there a format and a list of teams??


The Fierce Board App! || iPhone || Android

Click to expand...

There will be. But it wont be officially released until later. We are just figuring out the rules right now.