BuzzerBeater Forums

And I still got eliminated in the 1st round.:(

And yet, there will still be more active teams advancing more weeks into the tournament than in any previous year, and each teams chances of drawing a top level (DI-DIII) team is less for each round than before. So, if your goal is to play as many cup games as possible, your chances of doing that have been increased this season.

I certainly don't understand the need for a DVI at this point and think it is a waste, but there is absolutely no support for the sentiment that the extra teams have caused good teams to have a lesser chance to advance in the tournament.

I agree that there are too many teams. It is unfair if a D3 team has to face a D2 team. While a D5 or D6 bot can make it all the way to the fourth round by just getting lucky.

In that case you should be complaining about the randomness of the matchups, not the number of teams. Just read BFiddy explanation, because he's right.

Agreed. The numbers of teams is fine. It's actually better for active managers because it makes it less likely to face another good team in early rounds. The issue people seem to be complaining about is the randomly generated match ups, which I agree kind of stinks all around.

I like the randomness. Much better than going with USA ranks and have first against worse, second against next worse...and so on.

I like the randomness. Much better than going with USA ranks and have first against worse, second against next worse...and so on.

I'd be a bigger fan of the randomness if the original pool of teams were only actively managed ones.

I think the point was that everyone got their shot...which also produce lopsided match-up, but potentially some exciting upsets. Kind of like the FA Cup (is it?)...sorry, I don't follow English soccer that closely.

I am trying to figure out which planet has mathematical equations when having more bad teams as potential matchups, increases active teams chances of drawing other good active teams?

That is silly talk.

If you got rid of all the inactive teams, all you would be left with are active teams, and the further you go along, all you would have left are good teams, thus increasing your chances to draw a good team.

The way it is now, you have a greater chance of drawing a bad, incactive, or bot team. Not saying that is good or bad, but that is just the way it is.

If you draw a very good team now, that is just the random luck factor. If you remove all bots and inactive teams from the equation, you are removing luck, and pretty much ensuring tougher matchups.

The point is more a fairness issue than a mathematical probability one. While you are correct in that more bots give you a greater chance to draw a bot, try explaining that to someone unfortunate enough to draw nothing but quality opponents while his conference mate draws nothing but bots. Now add to that a presumption that the guy drawing tough opponents has a quality team and the guy drawing bots has a mediocre one. Who has the greater chance of advancing?
What I am advocating is a more competitive tournament that rewards the active manager who's put time and effort into improving his team and setting his lineups. The current tournament set up favors pure dumb luck over rewarding good managers. We just had the fourth round in the USA. There's no reason why bot teams should have even been in the tournament by that stage. If you want to make the tournament a lottery, well that's your design choice. It's your game, not mine. I'm just saying, I don't find the current tournament to be a rewarding experience given the complete randomness of pairings and the astronomical number of computer controlled entries.