I'll try and break it down to get some order into it.
1. Day one. Larger groups with A=B, playing each other once. Did everybody enjoy this? Were there any problems? Anybody think that we should instead return to playing in smaller groups and two legs - and if so, then why?
2. The final position after day 1 immediately determines what you are playing for the next day. No chance, say, that if you end up 5th you can still win the World Cup (by beating the 4th in another group on day 2). Again, did you like that? Please state your reasons.
3. Whether with another round or not (see 2.), players on day 2 are (eventually) split up into groups of (ideally) 16. With 48 players, that makes three groups, with 64 it would be four. Did that work well? Would you like to see it kept that way?
4. "North vs South", as Robert called it. The idea being that only in the final do players from the two "halves" meet up. To keep it easy and in spirit with the WC that just ended, let's say there are four groups, A to D. Obviously, on Day one people only play others in their group, Then on day two they will only meet players of one more group (A meets B, C meets D), before the final. I am fairly certain there is one adjustment to this which most people can agree on. After A1-B4, in the quarter final that winner should not face the winner from A2-B3, but B2-A3. Which if all goes according to plan would be (from the point of view of A1): Play B4, then B2, then B1, then face somebody from C/D in the final. Give us your thoughts.
5. Mixing it up. From the quarter finals onwards, all four groups meet, as an alternative to North vs South. It would look something like this: A1 plays B4 first, then the winner plays the winner of C2-D3 and then the semis would ideally be A1-C1/D1 and B1-C1/D1. Upsets are possible but the chances of meeting somebody from your Day one group are slim (only in the semi final or final). Is this better? Fairer?
6. Alternative to knockout rounds: Leagues on Day 2. I guess the top 16 don't want to try this, but for the middle 16 (still working with roughly 48 players) this is an alternative and especially for the bottom group this could be interesting. On day 2, 2 of each group are put together into a day 2 league (in fact, 2 leagues). 8 players per league, play each other once, makes 7 games each. Final position altogether could/will be determined by playing the person who ended up in the same place in the other league, with one leg everybody would end up with 8 games, just like playing knockout rounds. One game would definitely be against a Day one player and possibly so would the match for your final position, though it's not so likely. For the "middle 16" of Day one (assuming we have 4 groups with 12 players on the first day) each league would look something like this: A5, A6, B5, B6, C7, C8, D7, D8. (Possibly A5, A8, B6, B7, C5, C8, D6, D7).
6b. The idea would be especially useful for the "league of shame" with an imperfect number of players (which, in fact, was planned for this year if 56-ish players had turned up). So, for example, a league instead of knockouts for the bottom 8 if 40 players turned up. Or for the bottom 8 if 56 turned up. As it was, we had 50 players. Two went sightseeing but maybe we could have stopped them if the bottom 18 had played in two leagues of 9 players instead of knockouts. If time is restricted, then they cannot play out a final position (one more game each, the bottom one being the Game of Shame, of course).
Did I forget anything? Please add your ideas and comments - after taking a deep breath (preferably from a joint, it's very soothing
).
