Thanks for the replies.
To be clear this is not mine; I recently played in one that seemed unbalanced. Maybe I am missing something.
Most recent event was 5 rounds, 4 games with 4 players each time. That is, 20 group play qualifying games.
Top 16 advance with no byes. No divisions.
Finals were to be in a similar fashion with typical 4 player groupings. Unfortunately after 5 long rounds, finals were starting so late, a game in every bank was removed, namely all DMDs or any “long playing games” were axed. So 3 game finals matches.
That changed the flavor and dynamic of finals IMO.
If time is the enemy, (which it apparently was) and with so many people advancing, I was thinking afterwards why not either a) just play 6 or 7 total match play rounds as before and where players end up is the result, or b) shorten qualifying rounds to 3, maybe 4 and run finals using the intended games, or c) take fewer people to finals.
I don’t like b) because you don’t really get a feel for the distribution in 3 rounds.
I think the concept of c) is ok, in theory, but I am not a fan of trying to stack 5 rounds (20 games) and finals (9 more potential, maybe 6 if only 8 were advancing) in one day. Exhausting.
Option a) seems to allow the tourney to be in the spirit of matchplay, which is the format people signed up for. Having, or not having the finals in a 1/2 day doesn’t change that spirit. And after 5 rounds, 20 games, done, thank you for your order, drive through.
That’s why I was asking opinions of what would be a reasonable 1/2 day format using Pinburgh matchplay hybrid. My vote is a).
From a TGP standpoint, the 100%TGP was easily generated at the front end by extensive match play on 20 games. Using the doubling for 4 player groups, that’s 40 meaningful games. It’s a very solid event without the finals.
It just felt like there were 2 tourneys, but the first one didn’t count, and the second one that mattered was severely altered and abbreviated because the first one ran too long.