Seeding question

Welcome to Discuss Fastpitch

Your FREE Account is waiting to the Best Softball Community on the Web.

Jun 12, 2015
3,848
83
Most tournaments are set up where you get a benefit for seeding high. The #1 seed in pool A will play the #4 seed in pool B. #2 and #3 play each other. This set up makes logical sense to me, creating more even games later in the bracket by knocking the weaker teams out earlier.

There is one local director who does the opposite. High seeds play high seeds and low seeds play low seeds. It seems to result in weaker teams often staying in longer than stronger teams, because of getting to play other low level teams early in the bracket. I cannot figure out the logic behind this and thought I'd ask if anyone here knows. I could probably just ask him but I don't want to seem like I'm complaining. I'm not. I just don't understand the why, and I would like to.
 
Jul 16, 2008
1,520
48
Oregon
We have played in these types of seedings as well, although the higher seeds go into the Gold Bracket, and the lower seeds go into the Silver Bracket.
 
Jul 5, 2016
652
63
Seems illogical to me. The best teams in pool play should have the chance to go the farthest on Sunday.

I was at one tournament where they had a 2nd bracket on Sunday. The seeding is standard - best vs. worst in the early rounds. However, teams eliminated in the primary bracket then play in the 2nd bracket so they get some more games in. The winner of the 2nd bracket did not play the winner of the the primary bracket. It isn't like the loser's bracket in the WCWS, but I thought it was nice for the girls
 

panthadad2

fastpitch pops
Jun 27, 2017
144
18
Most tournaments are set up where you get a benefit for seeding high. The #1 seed in pool A will play the #4 seed in pool B. #2 and #3 play each other. This set up makes logical sense to me, creating more even games later in the bracket by knocking the weaker teams out earlier.

There is one local director who does the opposite. High seeds play high seeds and low seeds play low seeds. It seems to result in weaker teams often staying in longer than stronger teams, because of getting to play other low level teams early in the bracket. I cannot figure out the logic behind this and thought I'd ask if anyone here knows. I could probably just ask him but I don't want to seem like I'm complaining. I'm not. I just don't understand the why, and I would like to.

If there aren't enough teams to form different classes and there's a mix of upper and lower level teams, this appeases the lower level teams who probably wouldn't play in the tournament if they knew they would get blown up and out right away by top level teams. For the top teams, the thought is that they need to beat the other top teams sooner or later anyhow.

That said, I've never set up a tournament like this and would much rather form small classes when possible or split teams right away into Gold/Silver (the weakness in that method is that the low seeds get annihilated in the early games).
 
Jun 8, 2016
16,118
113
Most tournaments are set up where you get a benefit for seeding high. The #1 seed in pool A will play the #4 seed in pool B. #2 and #3 play each other. This set up makes logical sense to me, creating more even games later in the bracket by knocking the weaker teams out earlier.

There is one local director who does the opposite. High seeds play high seeds and low seeds play low seeds. It seems to result in weaker teams often staying in longer than stronger teams, because of getting to play other low level teams early in the bracket. I cannot figure out the logic behind this and thought I'd ask if anyone here knows. I could probably just ask him but I don't want to seem like I'm complaining. I'm not. I just don't understand the why, and I would like to.

He wouldn't happen to be affiliated with one of the weaker teams would he???;)
 
Jun 12, 2015
3,848
83
If there aren't enough teams to form different classes and there's a mix of upper and lower level teams, this appeases the lower level teams who probably wouldn't play in the tournament if they knew they would get blown up and out right away by top level teams. For the top teams, the thought is that they need to beat the other top teams sooner or later anyhow.

That said, I've never set up a tournament like this and would much rather form small classes when possible or split teams right away into Gold/Silver (the weakness in that method is that the low seeds get annihilated in the early games).

This seems logical enough to me.

pattar - as far as I know he's not. lol
 
Jul 4, 2013
126
43
We've played a couple brackets where the higher seeds got a bye while lower seeds played each other. I actually thought that was a decent compromise because it had a chance to create a greater number of competitive games without taking a seeding reward away from those who won pool.
 
Jul 14, 2018
982
93
One possible explanation is to avoid piling on in pool play. I've seen lots of teams thump an overmatched opponent on Saturday just to get a +20 run differential to get the best draw on Sunday. Also, having the best team play the worst isn't good for anyone. When it comes to eliminations, if you're in the top five would you rather play three games where at least one is a pushover or play just two competitive games? The best tournaments I've been to split up the teams to an A bracket and a B bracket to make sure the play is competitive. First-round byes are good way to accomplish this as well.
 
Feb 17, 2014
551
28
It doesn't make much sense to me if they are in the same double elimination bracket. I'm kind of surprised this TD did it more than once. I was a TD for 3 years and if anything deviated from the norm, I heard about it from many, many folks.

If they were split up then I get it, but to be in the same bracket makes no sense. If they're in the same bracket, the higher seeds have earned the easier road in the bracket.
 

Latest posts

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
42,830
Messages
679,468
Members
21,443
Latest member
sstop28
Top