I hope to run some scholastic tournaments next school year. They will be combined individual-team tournaments. There are different versions for restricting players from the same school from playing each other. Which method is the best?
Mr. Smith, I have two clarifying questions to ask.
Is the word “versions” being used as a synonym for “methods”?
Also, does the phrase “combined individual-team” refer to Swiss system individual events with team prizes? These are often referred to as “medley” events.
For the purposes of being able to answer your question, I will assume the answer to both of my questions is “yes”.
Now, based on my above assumption, my answer is that, IMO, there is no “best” method. The question of how severely an organizer restricts the possibility of teammates playing is probably best answered with the organizer analyzing the purpose/goals of the event, figuring his own preferences into the equation, and talking with at least some past or potential participants to gauge their feelings.
As a practical matter, most medley events use some sort of severe, but not absolute, restriction on teammates playing each other. Some events, though, don’t have that restriction (think a mature, well established scholastic event where one school brings, say, 20-40 percent of the field). Still other events simply forbid teammates from ever playing, no matter the effect on pairings.
Which of these is best for you will depend on how you weigh and balance the above factors, along with any others that you feel are important. You may find that you end up running events with different restrictions - or even changing the restriction in one event as you tinker with the format to address customers’ desires.
Good luck with the events, if you decide to run them.
One thing to remember with pairings of teammates is that it can affect the team aspect either advantageously or disadvantageously for the team having its teammates paired. If the team needs to pick up only one point to clinch a place then having two leading teammates play can guarantee that point (teams trying to catch that team would not be happy). If a team needs to have all of its leading players pick up a point to catch up to another team then having two of them play each other prevents it from catching up (the trailing team would not be happy).
If the primary goal is the individual championship then you could pair teammates if it is the only way to pair any particular score group. If the individual and team aspects are equally important then you could pair teammates if it is the only way to pair the top score group(s). If the primary goal is the team championship then you could prohibit any teammate pairings at all (or only allow them in the top score groups if a team has already clinched its spot).
If one school has an unusually large percentage of the field then you may have to make adjustments for that.
In Illinois, for the ordinary one-day tournaments, the standard procedure was to use an (effectively) absolute teammate preference, that is, teammates weren’t paired unless the only alternative was to dupe an earlier pairing. The attitude was that you didn’t come to that to play a teammate. As pointed out, however, if too many players are from one school, the pairings might get distorted beyond recognition. WinTD has an override to avoid drops of more than x.x points.
For the State Championship, we took both the individual and team titles very seriously, with the “tie break” going to individual, so we used a “+6 rule”: pair teammates only if necessary in the last round if they’re tied at 6-0. I think Nationals is more like a +4 rule now (Jeff?).
One year in IL one team had four of the five 5-0 players. One was paired down, one played the non-teammate 5-0 and the other two played each other (to a draw if my memory is right). The coach did complain at the time but I pointed out that there would be a good chance of four 6-0 players going into the final round with two 7-0 co-champions possible. With the team needs not trumping the individual needs the coach did accept that pairing (I said that if he was going to have a problem then having an abundance of 5-0 players was probably one of the better problems to have, and at least this way his team was guaranteed a point). As it turned out I think there were only two 6-0 players that were then paired against each other (they were not teammates). The team that had four 5-0 players obviously took first by a hefty margin.
At nationals the team aspect is even more important and the general rule is that teammates will only be paired if the team clinched first. After the mid-way point is finished (after round four) is when the intra-state restrictions are removed (intra-state pairings could still happen in the first four rounds, but only if they couldn’t be readily avoided).
Do you remember what year that was? In 1998, Eisenhower had the only 3 5-0’s and they weren’t paired. (One lost, two drew, so round 6 didn’t matter). The only time I remember the teammate pairing preference coming off was with Dubin and Feng. Of course, I haven’t been involved in the K-8 for a few years.
yes to both