BuzzerBeater Forums

It's not that good idea, in my opinion.

Current number of qualified teams is determined partially because of easier organization of second phase of tournament, I guess. If you just want to increase number of qualified teams, you couldn't do it with existing tournament organization that easy.

1) If you would like to keep all-play-all system you would need to increase number of matches and that means you would need to play 2 games in one week at some point.

2) I suppose you could increase number of groups in second phase from 2 to 4, but then only the first team from those groups would go in the semifinals. Also, if you increase number of those groups, you would have 2 second-phase groups with 2 teams that won in their first-phase groups. So you would need to decrease number of groups in first phase from 6 to 4. That doesn't look nice to me, 4 groups 12 teams, first 6 advancing to second phase.

3) You could lose all-play-all system, I guess, but in that case, every season would have teams who complains that their schedule isn't fair, that it is harder than someone else's.

I mean, yeah... Maybe we could get some new feature to break this monotony, but with your suggestion, maximum we would get, is a little bit of shuffle of group sizes and nothing more. I don't think that admins are willing to change core of their tournament organization.

Basic idea looks fine, but the system is also very important. There are 14 weeks in every season, what is your idea? Now the system is:
Week 1 - scrimmage
Weeks 2 to 8 - group stage
Weeks 9 to 13 - second group stage
Week 14 - semifinal (friday) and final (monday)
How would you change it to be able to compete 24 teams in second phase?

Week 1 - scrimmage
Weeks 2 to 7- group stage 12 groups × 4 teams (3 games at home and 3 away)
Weeks 8 to 10 - second group stage 6 groups ×4 teams (3 games) 16 best teams advances from group to 1/8 play-off.
Weeks 11 to 14 - 1/8, 1/4, 1/2, final.

I see a lot of advantages, top teams in small groups will not be able to accumulate enthusiasm (or they will have to take risks to accumulate enthusiasm) and will be wary of every opponent.

16 best teams advances from 6 groups .... please no, I don't like these system 4 best of 3rd place.

16 best teams advances from 6 groups .... please no, I don't like these system 4 best of 3rd place.

I don't like system where top teams accumulate enthusiasm in long group distance, it's not interesting. Maybe you have better suggestions about it?

I'm more or less fine with current system.

But if I have to think of change with 24 teams in second phase it should look like this:
1) First stage 8 groups of 6 teams, advance for top 3 of each group - 5 weeks
Big disadvantage - 24 eliminated teams would end 2 weeks earlier than now, maybe could exist some other tournament for them
2) second stage 4 groups of 6 teams - 5 weeks more
advance for 2 or 4 of each group
3) playoff - for 8 or 16 teams - 3 weeks, in case of 16 teams semifinal on Friday es it's now

I think enthusiasm is another problem, maybe there could be some change of this system, maybe less drop of enthusiasm in case of CT, lower limit of max enthusiasm or somethink like this. Then we could see more surprising results.

Last edited by rwystyrk at 12/19/2023 06:23:33

I'm more or less fine with current system.

But if I have to think of change with 24 teams in second phase it should look like this:
1) First stage 8 groups of 6 teams, advance for top 3 of each group - 5 weeks
Big disadvantage - 24 eliminated teams would end 2 weeks earlier than now, maybe could exist some other tournament for them
2) second stage 4 groups of 6 teams - 5 weeks more
advance for 2 or 4 of each group
3) playoff - for 8 or 16 teams - 3 weeks, in case of 16 teams semifinal on Friday es it's now

I think enthusiasm is another problem, maybe there could be some change of this system, maybe less drop of enthusiasm in case of CT, less limit of max enthusiasm or somethink like this. Then we could see more surprising results.

This format is also more interesting than now

This just translates the problem to the second round. Now, you have 25% teams qualifying to the second round, and then 33% teams going to the semis. In your system, you would have 50%/17%, the former being way too less and the first a bit much (given a large number of European teams).

I believe each round should have a "transmission" more or equal to one quarter and less or equal to one half. 16 seems like much nicer number (and not such a drastic change), but with initial group of 8 (which I guess is the bare minimum, so each team gets to play at least 50% competitive games in the season), there might be some problems.

You could have groups of 8, first two teams plus four with the best score advance (7 games), then 3 games in four groups of four, first two advance, then quarter final (11th game), semi final (12th game) and final (13th game). Now it seems a bit random to squeeze the semis on Friday.

An interesting alternative would be division I/division II/division III EC, so lets say 12, 16 or 24 teams in each division would play separate championships, with elimination/promotion each EC year. As in hockey or now nations league in soccer. For a 16 team division, an example would be something like 2 groups of 8 (first 6 advance, last two go to the relegation round), then similar as is now. And the last two (pairs of) teams would play a round of 4, with the last two teams being relegated.

Advantage of such system would be, that every single European team would have something to fight for. Either medals, or promotion/avoiding relegation. I know it is a major change, but is maybe worth putting on the table.




Last edited by Deschamps at 12/19/2023 07:18:58