I'm suggesting random.
Unlucky for those guys. Side benefit: if the top players are all paired against each other, half of them are guaranteed to advance.
The people who did the best job against what was presented to them by the format are the people who should be in the finals. Stacking the format in favor of trying to pit the two highest ranked players (based on accomplishments achieved outside of the scope of the tournament) makes me a little uneasy.
If we're following along with the matches, then we should feature these matches as they happen. In the WSOP, if two world class players end up randomly seated at the same table, guess what happens? It becomes the featured table, and earns the focus of the cameras and commentary.
This happens at all levels of sport. What happens if most of the best teams are in the NFC? Unfortunately we might end up watching the Buffalo Bills losing four straight Super Bowls.
What if a stuck ball causes Trent to lose to a noob in the first round and that player goes on to get demolished in the finals? Oh the horror. Following this noob on their path to the finals is a true underdog story that will make for great viewing.
Aren't many finals just a game of who will get crushed the least by Keith Elwin anyway?
If the Heads Up Championship wants to be this kind of format (like the SCS, IFPA Worlds, Circuit Finals, etc)...where the entire year leading up to it is considered qualification, then I suppose it makes sense. (Though none of the other events mentioned are open tournaments...they are all closed, and invite only).
But seeing it in the HUC, and in the biggest local monthly in my area...I just hope that this doesn't start to become some kind of trend.