Friday 16 January 2015

University Challenge: More Thoughts on Format Reform

OK guys, time for me to examine some more potential new formats that could be implemented. The second round this year was, fair to say, average at best. Only two matches I would call 'close', and the rest of the matches were hardly that exciting.

One can only hope the QFs will bring some much needed tension back into the series. We haven't had that many close matches this series, and most of the ones we've had have been rather low scoring. The quarter-finals usually bring some good matches, with at least one close match in the play-offs.

Anyway, I'm rambling. Over the past couple of weeks, I've been discussing various theories on how to reform the series with someone on the DoND forum.

If it were up to me, and you asked me to reform the series tomorrow, I'd do it like this: cut the number of teams to 24; twelve first round matches, twelve winners plus four highest scoring losers go through to the second round, just like the first four series of the BBC revival.

Then, split the sixteen teams into four groups of four, and it's your standard World Cup Group Phase format for the second round: four teams, who all play each other once; top two go through to the QFs, then straight elimination to the final.

This would take 12 first round matches, 24 group phase matches, then seven final knockout games. That's 43 matches overall, unless I've got my sums wrong. To cut down the run time, air two shows a week during the group phase, so that all four teams form one group play in the same week, and they all finish one week after another.

The forum member I have been conversing with has put forward two formats where the first round is the group phase, which they have given me permission to reprint here:

8 groups of 3 teams, top 2 from each group go through.
or
6 groups of 4 teams, top 2 from each group + 4 highest scoring 3rd-placed teams go through.

Then straight elimination from the second round onwards. Those would work, even if they do mean extra weekly matches early on.

The case for prolonging the first round, as put forward by Weaver's Week, is that it gives all the teams at least two fixtures and no team will have had a wasted journey. Which is why Only Connect introduced the round robin format, allegedly.

The case against prolonging the early rounds, as put forward by various contributors on here, is that it would drag things out well beyond the average viewer's patience. As Filip Drnovsek Zorko said, the only reasons it's working with OC is because there are fewer teams to begin with.

On the other hand, many average viewers who don't watch UC weekly like us have expressed confusion at the current QF format. As WW points out, it is hard to tell from week to week whether the losing team will get another chance or not. If the show does what OC does, and group the elimination and qualification matches together in the group phase, it would be easier to follow.

The only other possible theory I can put forward is going back to straight elimination from Round 2 onwards; that way, getting a second chance isn't discriminated against unlucky Round 2 dropouts, if you get what I mean.

Since the QFs were reformed five years ago, I usually, after the final fixture is confirmed, try to plot out how the series could theoretically run if the QFs were straight knockout. Last year and the first year this was used (2009-10), this was easy; same for the 'Clemo-Cudmore' series of 2010-11. The other two, however, require tweaking. I'll go into that some other time.

I suppose you could also say the same about the first round. Some teams will get a tough first round draw, but survive to the repechage (Christ Church last year) and others won't (Durham in 2010). This makes the case for giving all the teams at least two games more traction.

That's enough for now. Any more thoughts on reform will be welcome.

I'll be back on Monday with my usual UC write-up. I hope.

5 comments:

  1. I really don't understand the argument that the QF format is confusing. Jeremy is always at pains to point out before each match what victory and defeat mean for the teams, and the concept of "play until you win two or lose two" really isn't that hard to understand in the first place.

    But I even if you have something against the quarter final format (which I don't) how on earth are earlier group stages supposed to fix anything? That will just mean more mediocre matches and more confusion. If people can't handle the group stage-esque quarter finals, how are they supposed to deal with a full-blown group stage? A summary of the current standings before each match? An online resource to keep track? That just makes it more difficult for average viewers to enjoy the show, and wastes time with unnecessary explanations. At the moment, the most explanation UC matches require is "the losers will have another go" or "the losers will not have another go". I think it should stay that way.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fair comment Filip. I suppose the 'losers get another go or not' line goes back to something WW said late last year.

      I don't have any real problems with the current format myself, and these proposals are in the interest of fairness to the teams rather than whether the viewers understand it. My only slight issue with it is that a strong team can get an unlucky draw in the first or second round and go out, whereas they can get one in the QFs and get another chance.

      I have nothing wrong with the current format; it's just that, in my mind, the QFs are supposed to feature the eight best teams in the series, and sometimes the sudden-death second round draw can mean that isn't always the case.

      Delete
  2. Aside from the format, does anybody else think that the pacing of the UC episodes themselves could be greatly improved? Much of the boring, sluggish nature of the matches so far this season has been down to teams taking far too long conferring on bonuses during the first 20 minutes of matches. Often, nobody in the team has a clue and they just sit there aimlessly groping for a guess that generally turns out to be wrong (and that reminds me: why do they always whisper to each other? There's no danger of the other team being given a crack at the question).

    At the end of the day, you either know the answer or you don't. It would be great if Paxman did his trademark "come on, let's have it/let's crack on" throughout the show, not just in the closing stages. Perhaps a maximum of 5 seconds for conferring before prompting? An exception could be made in the case of mathematical questions where the contestants obviously need time to work the answer out. I think this would speed things up, create time for more starters, and therefore more excitement.

    Another alternative is for the producers to simply edit out most of the conferring on bonuses, allowing them to squeeze more starter action into the 25-minutes or so duration.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that the questions and conferring need to be cut down; this is partly the reason WW stopped doing proper reviews.

      And the teams whisper so that Paxo doesn't accidentally accept a conference as an answer, like he did once.

      Delete
    2. I dunno. We were told to speak up while conferring. I think it's just kind of an instinct to whisper.

      Delete