Can Sandbagging be Eliminated in a VB National Tournament

A couple hundred years ago, a Danish chemist named Hans Christian Ørsted came up with a new way of pursuing science–to use imagination.  The term he created was ‘gedankenexperiment’–a thought experiment.  This is usually used with science–Einstein wondering about people traveling close to the speed of light or Schrödinger’s Cat.  Combined with what is the traditional club VB complaint as Qualifiers/Nationals come around about teams which sandbag to win easy divisions (which IS pathetically something that does happen), I saw an assertion in an argument that fixing this was impossible.

Well, why not a Thought Experiment?  Is it possible to determine an actual champion and limit the effects of sandbagging?  Can this be done without scrapping current infrastructure like AES?

I think the actual answer is–yes.  It is possible.  I also think it would require administrators to rethink things…because it would mean a completely different schedule for teams playing.  I’m going to make some assumptions here–one for ease of math, the other based on Convention Center size/available courts:

• I’m going to assume there are 256 teams playing in an age group.

• I’m presuming there are 100 courts available for competition (this is roughly the number used at the Mideast Qualifier)

Since AES already exists and creates ‘seeds’, we’re going to use those to rank the 256 teams.  We will then create a schedule of 1v256, 2v255, 3v254–all the way down the line.  Could this create mismatches?  Sure.  But everyone’s going to get a crack at winning–and if you want to be champ, you have to beat whoever is in front of you.  This means already you have no benefit from sandbagging–you’re just going to get lined up to face a better team.   This is a total of 128 matches.

Once the first round is finished, we have a winner’s bracket and a loser’s bracket–basically, we are setting up a “Swiss tournament”–so that all teams play in each round.  With each round, the winners are narrowed down, so after the 2nd rd, you would have four ‘brackets’: Win-Win, Win-Lose, Lose-Win, Lose-Lose.  After the third, you get Win-Win-Win; Win-Win-Lose; Win-Lose-Win; Win-Lose-Lose; Lose-Win-Win; Lose-Win-Lose; Lose-Lose-Win; and Lose-Lose-Lose.  Make sense?  For us to get to the point of only having two undefeated teams will require 8 rounds–a total of 1,024 matches.

That means we’re going to occupy those 100 courts for a total of 10.24 time slots.

Well, that means if we have 256 18s, 17s, 16s, 15s, 14s, 13s, 12s, and 11s, we’re going to need 81.92 slots of court time.Well, that means if we have 256 18s, 17s, 16s, 15s, 14s, 13s, 12s, and 11s, we’re going to need 81.92 slots of court time.Well, that means if we have 256 18s, 17s, 16s, 15s, 14s, 13s, 12s, and 11s, we’re going to need 81.92 slots of court time.

At a Qualifier, courts are generally used for an AM pool and PM pool, so 12 slots/day.

USAV Nationals were slotted for nine days last year–which would be 108 slots of court time available.  AAU teams play for a week or so–that’s 84 court slots of time.

That means there’s plenty of court time available–even if some matches go long.  It means the initial schedule would be a pain to put together–8 age groups trying to be fit in over a week…but it would eliminate a ton of coach confusion regarding what comes next–it’s either/or.  You win–you go here.  You lose–you go there.  There would be no more tie-breakers based on point differential, no need for teams to wait around to play a single set at midnight to determine who plays at 8am the next day.

You win, you advance.  You lose–you get to keep playing, you just won’t be playing for a title.  It would eliminate sandbagging, create an actual champion, and would still give teams a full 8 matches–with a bracket-system that SHOULD make each match more balanced than the one that came before it.

Thoughts?