PDA

View Full Version : Off-Season suggestion thread


~CANUCK~
Dec 12th, 2006, 02:05 AM
Does anyone have any ideas on how to improve upon the game for the new year?

The only thing that I would like people to think about would be the tie-breaker rule of games lost. This rule makes sense if there are more then one person to get all the picks right, but when everyone loses early it makes no sense to take games lost. For example lets say there are 2 people left and they both lose on day 5. They had all the same picks for the first 4 days, but picked different people on day 5 who both lost. This is where the problem lies, if player A picked Anna K to win and she loses 6-3 4-6 4-6 and player B picks Jen C to win and she loses 0-6 0-6 Player B would win because that player has fewer games lost.
Player A Games lost (4,4,4,4,15)
Player B Games lost (4,4,4,4,12) Player B wins with fewer games lost

This doesn't make sense to me as Anna at least won a set and came closer to winning then Jen did.

I hope this all made sense.

kittyking
Dec 12th, 2006, 04:43 AM
I think thats a great idea, makes more sense to me

selyoink
Dec 13th, 2006, 05:13 AM
I think for the most part no changes need to be made. Certainly not to the basic format of picking one person per day.

I would like to see byes eliminated but I'm probably in the miniority on that.

I like your suggestion for the tiebreak rule.

Drake1980
Dec 13th, 2006, 10:18 PM
Whatever you say works for me Shaun;)

~CANUCK~
Dec 13th, 2006, 11:09 PM
So my suggestion would be that if everyone loses before the final pick, we should use sets won first, then go to games lost if still tied.

kittyking
Dec 14th, 2006, 04:47 AM
I would like to see byes eliminated but I'm probably in the miniority on that.



Im all for that idea, would encourage more people to play suicide tennis too

smokovec
Dec 18th, 2006, 01:26 PM
So my suggestion would be that if everyone loses before the final pick, we should use sets won first, then go to games lost if still tied.

I think your idea is good, and also one of the bad rule is when we have the same Points for 2 or more Player and the first Player that made the pick is the Winner, but I don't find any other different rule to apply in this case. :sad:
We can give the exequo Win, but it's not a good solution for me... so any other idea is appreciate.

So, adding the Rule of sets won can avoid this situation.

~CANUCK~
Feb 24th, 2007, 07:26 PM
So of coarse this situation had to come up in an event that I ran again :p
So what happened was there were 3 people left, 2 lost on day 6 and one made it to day 7. The player to make it to day 7 wins but to figure out the finalist im going to do game lost without counting the games lost on day 6.

In The Zone
Mar 17th, 2007, 03:29 AM
I think we should have a Race to the YEC.
That way, the YEC isn't included in the rankings. As well, it rewards the loyal to the game.
I'd be happy to run it and with Ivanovic Fan's rankings, it'd be easy to tabulate up until now and join in progress based on 2007's results. All I would have to do would

In The Zone
Mar 17th, 2007, 03:29 AM
be is to add everyone's values to their current totals. ( Sorry, I pressed submit a little early ). Thanks.

MH0861
Mar 17th, 2007, 04:47 AM
I agree about the Race to the YECs.

DAVAJ MKirilenko
Mar 17th, 2007, 03:56 PM
It's no problem for me to do that as well.
Rank for YEC is easy, cause all the points counts.

~CANUCK~
Mar 30th, 2007, 05:52 PM
I was thinking maybe we should try to add a doubles version of the game. Basically it would be the same game except you play with a partner. You each make your picks for singles and it would also count for dubs. If one of the partners gets a pick wrong your team losses. You could each pick the same player on the same day. You don`t have to worry about not picking players that your parnter picked, as that rule only applies to your picks.
Anyways, what do you guys think?

Petkorazzi
Mar 30th, 2007, 06:15 PM
I was thinking maybe we should try to add a doubles version of the game. Basically it would be the same game except you play with a partner. You each make your picks for singles and it would also count for dubs. If one of the partners gets a pick wrong your team losses. You could each pick the same player on the same day. You don`t have to worry about not picking players that your parnter picked, as that rule only applies to your picks.
Anyways, what do you guys think?
:yeah: I think it's a good Idea but If all the top players team up, what's left for the lower ranked ones? But I still think it's a great Idea :p

~CANUCK~
Mar 30th, 2007, 06:47 PM
:yeah: I think it's a good Idea but If all the top players team up, what's left for the lower ranked ones? But I still think it's a great Idea :p

Well thats why suicide is such a good game, your success in this game is based on what you do and not other people. If two teams finish the event they both get the same points.

MH0861
Mar 31st, 2007, 01:26 AM
I quite like that idea actually. :)

~CANUCK~
Apr 2nd, 2007, 09:48 PM
I quite like that idea actually. :)

So should we get a test event going soon, to see how it goes and what people think.

In The Zone
Apr 12th, 2007, 04:39 AM
The doubles idea is merely singles in a new form. It won't reflect a new ability, right? The doubles ranking will be a 2nd chance for singles. Why not do doubles suicide with the doubles bracket? But as a team. IDK. Shoot me.

~CANUCK~
Apr 12th, 2007, 04:46 AM
The doubles idea is merely singles in a new form. It won't reflect a new ability, right? The doubles ranking will be a 2nd chance for singles. Why not do doubles suicide with the doubles bracket? But as a team. IDK. Shoot me.

Its not really a second chance at singles coz you have to rely on your partner to pick well also. You could be the best suicide player but if your partner picks tammy tanasuagarn to beat anyone on clay then you aren't going to win.

Petkorazzi
Apr 12th, 2007, 06:58 PM
Its not really a second chance at singles coz you have to rely on your partner to pick well also. You could be the best suicide player but if your partner picks tammy tanasuagarn to beat anyone on clay then you aren't going to win.

I agree!

In The Zone
Apr 16th, 2007, 09:23 PM
US Open Series Challenge.

Since me and Sjoerd are running all the US Open Series tournament [ and Matt the US Open ], I figured we could have our own series with the top 3 winning rewards, privileges, etc. We could use the same scoreboard/standings as the real US Open Series. But what would the prizes, rewards be? A 1R bye at the US Open has been discussed but the rewards need to come in three -- with the top prize being more lucrative than the second, and the second more than the third.

Any ideas? :angel:

~CANUCK~
Apr 17th, 2007, 12:11 AM
I know this won't fly with most people, but its an idea, why not give more ranking points for the winners. The series winner gets 175% of their us open points, 2nd place gets 150% and 3rd gets 125%.

In The Zone
Apr 17th, 2007, 01:22 AM
Making one grand slam worth more than the others -- I don't think so. Thinking of rewards will be difficult. :(

Stingray
Apr 19th, 2007, 04:44 PM
why don't u give the winner 3 byes, second place 2 etc for USO?

In The Zone
Apr 19th, 2007, 09:19 PM
3 byes in a grand slam means only choosing 9 girls. Choosing 9 girls in a slam is really throwing ranking points at the champion.

~CANUCK~
Apr 20th, 2007, 04:06 AM
This is harder then i thought it would be :lol:

MH0861
Apr 20th, 2007, 02:58 PM
Maybe we can just do it for fun. ;)

In The Zone
Apr 20th, 2007, 11:31 PM
Maybe we can just do it for fun. ;)

Of course, just like you: boring. :rolleyes:

MH0861
Apr 21st, 2007, 12:10 AM
Of course, just like you: boring. :rolleyes:

:lol:

You just WAIT for this year's US Open Preview and seed report :D

Oh.. there aren't seeds for players ranked in the 80s though. :( :sad:

In The Zone
Apr 21st, 2007, 02:55 AM
:lol:

You just WAIT for this year's US Open Preview and seed report :D

Oh.. there aren't seeds for players ranked in the 80s though. :( :sad:

WOW. Below the belt. I am putting a curse on Kirilenko -- well, that'd be a waste of a curse, forget that. I WILL BE RANKED IN THE TOP 32 BY THE US! :o :o :o

Petkorazzi
Apr 21st, 2007, 11:34 AM
Maybe the 3 best players get a 1st round bye in US Open?? of courese, if they're not top 32.. or maybe the privilege to choose one player twice :p???

MH0861
Apr 21st, 2007, 04:10 PM
Maybe the 3 best players get a 1st round bye in US Open?? of courese, if they're not top 32.. or maybe the privilege to choose one player twice :p???

Well, it doesn't matter if they're in the Top 32, because there are no byes at slams.

Petkorazzi
Apr 21st, 2007, 05:41 PM
Well, it doesn't matter if they're in the Top 32, because there are no byes at slams.

Better.. What do you think?

In The Zone
Apr 21st, 2007, 08:31 PM
Okay. We'll just give the Top Three byes and fake money incentives, 100, 50, 25%. A+.

~CANUCK~
Apr 23rd, 2007, 02:21 AM
Okay. We'll just give the Top Three byes and fake money incentives, 100, 50, 25%. A+.

I like it, and then for next year we can do a money awards and keep track of how much money you earned.

Petkorazzi
Apr 23rd, 2007, 06:10 PM
I was just wondering.. Why Dont We make Suicide Doubles..A game based on the doubles draw to pick a winner pair each day ??? I think it'd be nice!

In The Zone
Apr 30th, 2007, 02:06 AM
Based on Budapest, where the winner was determined by who posted first because the other two tiebreakers were tied, we have been trying to think of a new tiebreaker.

I have thought of this: the backups. The person who has the LEAST amount of backup LOSSES can be determined winner. If they both have the same number, then use the games lost. Now, this way, backup choices are more important and as well, more circumstances for a tie to be fairly decided and less likely to occur.

Petkorazzi
Apr 30th, 2007, 12:30 PM
Based on Budapest, where the winner was determined by who posted first because the other two tiebreakers were tied, we have been trying to think of a new tiebreaker.

I have thought of this: the backups. The person who has the LEAST amount of backup LOSSES can be determined winner. If they both have the same number, then use the games lost. Now, this way, backup choices are more important and as well, more circumstances for a tie to be fairly decided and less likely to occur.

yeah but there are some who are too lazy to write a BU !!!:rolleyes:

In The Zone
Apr 30th, 2007, 03:43 PM
yeah but there are some who are too lazy to write a BU !!!:rolleyes:

I can think of only one person! :o :o :o
And that would be his penalty.

~CANUCK~
Apr 30th, 2007, 03:48 PM
Ya that sounds like a good idea. I think we need a tie breaking thread, which will give the order of tiebreakers and the rules and stuff.

Petkorazzi
Apr 30th, 2007, 04:50 PM
Did anybody Read the post #36?

~CANUCK~
May 1st, 2007, 04:44 PM
Don't worry we are working on a dubs game. We have just been rather busy recently.

~CANUCK~
May 12th, 2007, 12:13 AM
Ok, so anyone think of some ways to run the dubs game? I would really like to get some test events going so we can get fed back.

Petkorazzi
May 12th, 2007, 06:54 AM
Ok, so anyone think of some ways to run the dubs game? I would really like to get some test events going so we can get fed back.

I'll run one, If you want, I cant start from Strasbourg/Istanbul!

Petkorazzi
May 12th, 2007, 06:55 AM
Based on Budapest, where the winner was determined by who posted first because the other two tiebreakers were tied, we have been trying to think of a new tiebreaker.

I have thought of this: the backups. The person who has the LEAST amount of backup LOSSES can be determined winner. If they both have the same number, then use the games lost. Now, this way, backup choices are more important and as well, more circumstances for a tie to be fairly decided and less likely to occur.

Wouldnt it be better to count the sets lost and then the games?