Most complicated sporting tournament format

[Diable Rouge]

Following on the European Cup rugby revamp, which TBF becomes more explicable on subsequent examination, have there been any sporting formats that defy any attempt at comprehension? An outsider to the world of GAA would certainly struggle with the recent Gaelic football championship structure:

1. Four provincial champions go directly into QFs.
2. 16 first-round losers in open draw.
3. 8 winners of opening qualifiers meet the 8 provincial SF losers.
4. Round Two winners play each other in Round Three.
5. Round Three winners meet provincial final losers.
6. Round Four winners meet provincial champions in QFs.

[pebblethefish]

Nah, you explained it in six short bullet points, and I understood it. Whereas the qualification for the Euros via the Nations League in football has still completely flummoxed me.

I also don't fully understand the Conferences and Leagues and Divisions in American Football, but then again I don't really try.

[S. aureus]

The Nations League was what I immediately thought of.

[Rogin the Armchair fan]

The NFL fixture list is actually a thing of beauty, guaranteeing as it does home and away fixtures against traditional rivals but then a schedule that means weak teams play more other weak teams outside their division season by season, in a way that tries to give a balance.

The next Rugby League World Cup is (was?) going to actually be 16 teams starting in 4 groups of 4. The last one was some insane thing that had the 4 top seeds starting in one group of 4, with 3 of those all qualifying to the semi-finals, to be joined there by a single team that had come through a kind of plate competition involving 6 minor teams off to the side.

[S. aureus]

American Football's not really complicated, but it is a strange way of doing things. I'd guess related to the large distances involved between some of the teams?

[S. aureus]

American college football, on the other hand, is ridiculous.

[Jah Womble]

Whereas the qualification for the Euros via the Nations League in football has still completely flummoxed me.

Yep, ditto. I've tried a few times - perhaps with diminishing conviction.

There's also a part of me questioning how sensible it is to persist with the NL this time around, given how congested the international calendar is going to become in the next season or two. (Okay, I guess it's good news for the smaller nations, but when are the 2022 World Cup UEFA qualifiers supposed to start? I mean, isn't it 'now'?)

[Rogin the Armchair fan]

These Nations League matches do count towards the eventual 2022 World Cup playoffs. 2 teams get a backdoor route into those via these. Honestly, haven't you got your wallchart up yet?

[Walt Flanagans Dog]

The next Rugby League World Cup is (was?) going to actually be 16 teams starting in 4 groups of 4. The last one was some insane thing that had the 4 top seeds starting in one group of 4, with 3 of those all qualifying to the semi-finals, to be joined there by a single team that had come through a kind of plate competition involving 6 minor teams off to the side.

The one you are thinking of was the 2008 edition, which was:

"Super group" of 4 teams, three of which went into the semis.
Two groups of 3 teams each, the winners of each playing off for the last spot in the semis.
There were play-offs for the runners-up and bottom placed teams in the groups, to determine world rankings and direct qualifying places for the next tournament

2013 and 2017 were:

2x groups of 4, top three into the QF
2x groups of 3, winner only into the QF

(Although each of these were complicated further by having inter-group games between the groups of three, so they got three games each).

Overall it is fair to say that the Rugby League World Cup has had numerous formats, largely driven by the need to produce commercially attractive and/or evenly matched games, rather than a few weeks of blowouts followed by Australia blowing someone out in the final.

[Walt Flanagans Dog]

American college football, on the other hand, is ridiculous.

The ridiculous-ness is part of the brilliance. If they made it more prescriptive as to how teams progressed to the "final" it would make it less interesting. When the "regular season" gets to the last couple of weekends with numerous permutations as to who will make the 4-team play-offs, it is splendid.

[Wouter D]

This year's NHL playoffs were a bit nontrivial.

Judo tournaments often follow a double elimination scheme, which isn't that hard once you have a bird's eye overview of the schedule, but can be unintuitive at first.

[Wouter D]

There was a tournament form whose name I have forgotten, which had the goal to make it more likely that the second-best participant takes the silver. You know how, in a knockout phase of an Olympic tournament, it feels unfair if the two strongest teams have to face off in an early knockout round? Shouldn't the second best participant be awarded the silver, even if they meet the best participant in the quarter final? This tournament form was designed to fix that.

You play the standard straight knockout tournament, and award the gold medal to the winner. Then, from the earliest until the latest knockout rounds, you have the teams defeated by the gold medalist square off. For instance, first the team beaten by the champion in the round of 16 and the team beaten by the champion in the quarter final play a round, then the winner meets the team beaten by the champion in the semi final, then the winner meets the team beaten by the champion in the final. Award the silver medal to the winner of that last match.

Repeat the procedure*, if you want, to determine the bronze medalist.

The good thing about this is that there is an element of fairness in awarding non-gold medals in this manner. The bad thing is that the game determining the gold medal is necessarily played somewhere in the middle of the entire tournament. Nobody wants that, so this tournament form is not used a lot.

*I forgot the details on how exactly.

[Walt Flanagans Dog]

This year's NHL playoffs were a bit nontrivial.

Judo tournaments often follow a double elimination scheme, which isn't that hard once you have a bird's eye overview of the schedule, but can be unintuitive at first.

A taekwondo tournament that my kids once took part in sprung to mind when reading this thread, but I wasn't able to describe the format, and I'm still not sure if double elimination was the format or not. I'm not sure what went on really.

Our junior school had a chess league where the fixtures rotated and were determined by the placings before each round, with a rolling league ladder (like the ones you got in Shoot!) displayed on the wall. In week 1, it would be 1v2, 3v4, 5v6 and so on. Week 2, 1v3, 2v5 etc. Week 3, 1v4, 2v6 etc. So someone could leap from 7th to 1st with two victories late in the season. Even back then we knew it was unfair.

[Kevin S]

There was a tournament form whose name I have forgotten, which had the goal to make it more likely that the second-best participant takes the silver. You know how, in a knockout phase of an Olympic tournament, it feels unfair if the two strongest teams have to face off in an early knockout round? Shouldn't the second best participant be awarded the silver, even if they meet the best participant in the quarter final? This tournament form was designed to fix that.

You play the standard straight knockout tournament, and award the gold medal to the winner. Then, from the earliest until the latest knockout rounds, you have the teams defeated by the gold medalist square off. For instance, first the team beaten by the champion in the round of 16 and the team beaten by the champion in the quarter final play a round, then the winner meets the team beaten by the champion in the semi final, then the winner meets the team beaten by the champion in the final. Award the silver medal to the winner of that last match.

Repeat the procedure*, if you want, to determine the bronze medalist.

The good thing about this is that there is an element of fairness in awarding non-gold medals in this manner. The bad thing is that the game determining the gold medal is necessarily played somewhere in the middle of the entire tournament. Nobody wants that, so this tournament form is not used a lot.

*I forgot the details on how exactly.

That sounds fun, but I think double elimination does achieve the same thing, doesn't it? If the 'true' second best competitor is knocked out early by the best competitor, then they go into the loser bracket but will win all of their matches in that bracket, coming back to be defeated by the best competitor again in the final?

[Southport Zeb]

There was a tournament form whose name I have forgotten, which had the goal to make it more likely that the second-best participant takes the silver. You know how, in a knockout phase of an Olympic tournament, it feels unfair if the two strongest teams have to face off in an early knockout round? Shouldn't the second best participant be awarded the silver, even if they meet the best participant in the quarter final? This tournament form was designed to fix that.

You play the standard straight knockout tournament, and award the gold medal to the winner. Then, from the earliest until the latest knockout rounds, you have the teams defeated by the gold medalist square off. For instance, first the team beaten by the champion in the round of 16 and the team beaten by the champion in the quarter final play a round, then the winner meets the team beaten by the champion in the semi final, then the winner meets the team beaten by the champion in the final. Award the silver medal to the winner of that last match.

Repeat the procedure*, if you want, to determine the bronze medalist.

The good thing about this is that there is an element of fairness in awarding non-gold medals in this manner. The bad thing is that the game determining the gold medal is necessarily played somewhere in the middle of the entire tournament. Nobody wants that, so this tournament form is not used a lot.

*I forgot the details on how exactly.

This was the Bergvall system, used for water polo at the 1912, 1920 and 1924 Olympics (Erik Bergvall was a Swedish water polo player who then moved into sports administration). In 1920 it was also used for football, ice hockey and tug of war. As far as I can see exactly how the silver/ bronze playoffs proceeded varied between sports and editions, in some cases holding separate playoffs for both minor medals and in some cases commbing them into a single playoff.

The 1920 football tournament is perhaps the strangest. The final of the gold medal playoff was abandoned when Czechoslovakia left the pitch in the first half in protest at the refereeing. Belgium were awarded the gold but the Czechs were disqualified from the entire tournament. At this point a playoff between the two losing semi finalists (France and Netherlands) was planned to determine the silver and bronze medals. However several members of the French team had gone home, so the Dutch instead the winners of a playoff between the four losing quarter finalists (I think this playoff was originally intended only to determine 5th place). Spain won this playoff, and then beat Netherlands, so winning the silver medal. As it happened Spain had lost to Belgium in the quarter finals, so the system did eventually sort of justify its underlying theory.

[Rogin the Armchair fan]

Double elimination formats work for me up until some end up with a grand final where team A (who are sat twiddling their thumbs) have to play team B (who they beat in the first place) and lose the whole thing. It's double elimination. Team B should have to beat team A twice to win it, and if that fucks up the overall scheduling tough crap.

[Hot Pepsi]

College baseball did that for a while, I think, just so the Final could be on Sunday on TV.

Dumb.

Their current format is somewhat complicated, but easy if you see it mapped out.

16 four-team regional tournaments. Double elimination.

The following weekend, the 16 regional winners play eight best of three “superregionals.”

The eight superregional winners go to Omaha to play the CWS, which is double elimination, but the last two teams standing play best out of three.


The issue with most national college tournaments in all sports is seeding because it determines who hosts the first round games.* But then at some stage in the progression of the competition, the tournament goes to prespecified “neutral” sites, but if the site is near one of the team’s home, it’s not really neutral.


Pennsylvania high school sports do the neutral site thing too and it’s fan unfriendly. You have both teams traveling - often far - to play a playoff game at another high school that isn’t involved at all. There’s also the complication that teams play in league competitions that may be separate from the district tournaments that feed into the state tournaments and each district has a different number of teams in a given sport at a different level. The regular season in football, for example, is 10 games, but the playoffs seem to go on forever. Or Christmas. Whichever comes first.


*In some sports, like basketball, all the games are at prespecified “neutral” sites, including the first round.

[Sporting]

So double elimination is akin to repechage?

[Sporting]

Not especially complicated, but it's interesting to see how different leagues organise promotion and (sometimes) relegation play-offs. In Spain's 2nd B (regionalised third division):

"Since the 2008-09 season, the four group winners had the opportunity to be promoted directly and be named the overall Segunda Divisi?n B champion. The four group winners are drawn into a two-legged series where the two winners are promoted to the Segunda Divisi?n and enter into the final for the Segunda Divisi?n B championship. The two losing semifinalists enter the playoff round for the last two promotion spots.

Until 2019, the four group runners-up were drawn against one of the three fourth-placed teams outside their group while the four third-placed teams were also drawn against one another in a two-legged series. The six winners advanced with the two losing semifinalists to determine the four teams that will enter the last two-legged series for the last two promotion spots. In all the playoff series, the lower-ranked club played at home first. Whenever there was a tie in position (like the group winners in the semifinal round and final or the third-placed teams in the first round), a draw determined the club to play at home first.

In the 2019–20 season, the promotion playoff rules were altered by an RFEF resolution after that season was suspended and later curtailed during the coronavirus disease pandemic in Spain. Thus, the playoffs will be contested differently at neutral venues. The four group runners-up are drawn against one of the three fourth-placed teams outside their group while the four third-placed teams are also drawn against one another in knockout matches. The six winners advance with the two losing semifinalists to determine the four teams that will enter the last single-match series for the two remaining promotion spots."

Doesn't rugby league in England offer a second chance to top-ranked teams who lose the opening match of the title play-offs?

[Hot Pepsi]

So double elimination is akin to repechage?

As I understand it, yes.

[Kevin S]

Double elimination formats work for me up until some end up with a grand final where team A (who are sat twiddling their thumbs) have to play team B (who they beat in the first place) and lose the whole thing. It's double elimination. Team B should have to beat team A twice to win it, and if that fucks up the overall scheduling tough crap.

Good call! Even if the finalist from the loser bracket were beaten by someone else in fact - they should have to defeat the unbeaten finalist twice.

[Kevin S]

So double elimination is akin to repechage?

I think repecharge usually limits a loser to third at best, whereas double elimination would allow them to win the tournament.

[Jah Womble]

These Nations League matches do count towards the eventual 2022 World Cup playoffs. 2 teams get a backdoor route into those via these. Honestly, haven't you got your wallchart up yet?

Yes, but it currently resembles Rock Family Trees with a brain tumour.

[fatbear]

Repecharge in rowing allows the winning boat to progress to the final and so potentially still win gold.

I can't say I've understood the knock-out stages of Aussie NRL.

Weekend 6 round chess tournaments use what they call the Swiss System. A random draw in round one, afterwhich the draw matches players on the same number of points to try and get even games over the rest of the tournament, and ensures the overall winner has played several decent opponents.

[Wouter D]

This was the Bergvall system, used for water polo at the 1912, 1920 and 1924 Olympics (Erik Bergvall was a Swedish water polo player who then moved into sports administration). In 1920 it was also used for football, ice hockey and tug of war. As far as I can see exactly how the silver/ bronze playoffs proceeded varied between sports and editions, in some cases holding separate playoffs for both minor medals and in some cases commbing them into a single playoff.

Thank you! Yes, that's the bunny.