Why was Win and Advanced Created?

To clearly understand the following debacle, please reference the attached link, where you can either view or download the six (6) team double elimination tournament format used back in 2002.   

Never delay a playoff format until the last minute.  This situation was the definition of politics ... or better said, politics-out-of-control.  Plan all post season and tournament play prior to the first regular season game.  Just request that your association, or your travel team, or you upcoming tournament director use the WinNAdvance format, in advance, regardless of the number of tournament entrants, and you'll never have to worry about another political nightmare ... ever again.  

The WinNAdvance format and its design is set in stone. WinNAdvance provides, dare I say, an equitable chance for all participants, regardless of how they are seeded.  It's the only format that will ensure that the cream will rise to the top, without the chance of political tampering, without regard to prior performance.      

It's June 19th, 2002.  There are six coaches huddled together with various board members for the purpose of deciding how the upcoming 6-team C-level tournament would be played, which was scheduled to start in two days.  At the time of that meeting, we were close to or just had completed the 2002 regular season, where all six teams faced each other in-house 3 times each.  

To understand the driving force behind creating the WinNAdvance tournament format, a little additional background is required.  In 2002, our C-level baseball league was made up primarily of 9's, 10 & 11 year olds, but the actual ages allowed at this level were from age 8 (sons of coaches) to age 12.  Simultaneously, we also had three additional elite level teams, that were apart of a separate league, that traveled to different associations that were not apart of our in-house C-level league.  In my opinion, the 2002 C-level league season was one of the best on record, not based upon won/loss records, but in how the six head coaches, along with their assistants, had acted together collectively.  The assistant and head coaches had to sign up for, and split the duty of umpiring for all the regular season C-level games (although alternate sources were used for the playoff tournament format).  Umpiring by every C-level coach was mandatory and umpire participation was regulated and monitored closely by the board.  Non-participation meant censure from future coaching.  Coaches at other levels were not allowed to umpire C-level games.  This not only saved on costs, it also forced civility between the C-level coaches, something that had been sorely lacking for many many years, where to this day, we six head coaches have forged a bond between us that today begins with an outstretched hand of friendship.  All six coaches were all good to great teachers and they all either had character or were characters ... and I was very glad to have known them.  

My approach was to umpired their games as I wanted my games called, and in return, they did the same.  It was beyond a simple honor system as none of us wanted our games blown by a bad call ... and it rarely happened ... in fact I never had a problem.  To get an idea of the level of civility, at the end of my season, after we lost our final game, both teams were sitting together in one dugout cutting watermelons and spitting seeds together.  To be direct ... it just doesn't get any better than this, and both Harry and I had great big smiles on our faces ... and our team lost.

So back to June 19th.  Of the six C-level teams, there was one team that had one loss, where our team had lost all 3 of our games to this first place team.  This coach must not had been well liked by the political power structure because they decided in that meeting that seeding for the C-tournament would not be based upon a won/loss record.  Our team had 4 losses, where we would have been the 2nd seed.  Instead, they decided upon a blind draw using the attached double elimination tournament format.  If you study this closely, you'll begin to understand the driving force behind creating the WinNAdvance tournament format.  The ludicrous format was rammed down our throats at the last minute and without regard to the efforts of the season. Although no board member benefited from this format, it angered many nonetheless.      

In the blind draw, it pitted the 3rd place team with the last place team in Game #2.  Hello, they were already given a bye in the winners bracket and now the 3rd place team will get to face the last place team in their first game.  Up to that day, the last place team hadn't won a game the entire season.  Our 2nd place team was pitted against the 1st place team in Game #1.  Again, we lost to this team on all three prior occasions.  The 4th and 5th place teams played in Game #3.  

Believe it or not, we won our first contest and earned the right to play Game #4.  In Game 4, we were tied in the final inning with the meat of our lineup being due up in the extra inning session.  Instead, we lost in the bottom of that inning to a team that we beat 3 time earlier on a freakish play.  With a runner on third base, the potential final out was hit as a line drive that passed belt high just under our 2nd baseman's mitt.  There was no bending or diving, as it was hit right at the 2nd baseman.  Stuff happens!  

Our reward for winning our first contest and losing the second contest was then to be placed in Game #7, where we now required a record of 6 wins and 1 loss to win the tournament (7 games versus potentially 3 games for the participants of Game #2).  In other words, our reward for winning the first game and losing the second was that we were required to now play and win one more game than any other team in the tournament.  We lost Game 7, again to a team that we beat 3 times that year, and ended up spitting seeds together in their dugout.  It was that teams first victory of the year.  At first, I was disappointed but very quickly I felt great for Harry and his squad for finally getting their first win.  The reaction of that team was something to see.  The 3rd place team (the team that drew seed 1 in Game #2) eventually won the tournament winning and playing a total of 3 games.          

So your first thought might be sour grapes ... hello, together spitting seeds together is not the sign of coaches at odds.  My quip was with the brain trust that pulled this debacle from their hind quarters and rammed it down our throats last minute.  If anyone cares, the first place team also lost their first two games.    

What compelled me, or motivated me, is this story can almost without question, be recounted by organization after organization ... team after team ... as the horror stories proliferate and probably reach every point all over this globe.  My objective was to prevent this from ever happening again by creating a universal format that replaces single and double elimination formats forever.  

WinNAdvance can be used with pool or bracket play that first guarantees the number of games played.   In other words, a 3 or 4 game round robin, for seeding, can precede a WinNAdvance tournament format, regardless of the number of teams that qualify (keeping in mind that some teams drop out or forfeit for various reasons).  

For years, we've taken part in a 6 team basketball tournament, where team entrants pay a fee to participate in these tournament.  The tournament director most likely is also entering a team, where the other teams support their costs to participate as payment for running the tournament (most likely using volunteers).  

This was a classic 6-team format using a round-robin for seeding followed by single elimination tournament to crown an eventual champion.  This format is where the players are told that round robin games don't really matter, because it's just for seeding ... where you can't be eliminated in these rounds ... but in fact, these particular games are paramount for those that make the rules.      

In my opinion, laying your money down for any double elimination format or even the common round robin format followed by single elimination puts allot of faith within a system that can stack the odds against your organization or team.  These formats favors the tournament director, or the power structure that is in control of the tournament.  Some draws are done randomly in the presence of the entrants, but this is very rare indeed.  In most cases, especially for travel tournaments, the entrants have to travel the day prior to the start of the tournament and just cannot attend the seeding-draw meeting.  Since there are no other competing systems ... the team and participants have just learned to accept it and eat what ever they are dished.  Also, any tournament that has a message where games don't count ... is simply just the wrong message.  This requires additional elaboration.    

It's not uncommon for the power structure to pit the two best teams against each other in the round-robin rounds.  Why?  Because politics does exist and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  What pitting the two best teams does is penalize the two best teams into having to play the more difficult seeds and tournament games.  The loser of the first round robin game then forgoes its opportunities toward a potential first round bye in an upcoming single elimination tournament.  In any case, these games become a war of attrition ... where to gain position, you may need to apply your best resources early in the tournament.  This tactical advantage alone is significant and is too overwhelming for the power structure or a tournament director to ignore.  Meanwhile, with a bit of slight of hand, the tournament directors anticipate by saving the weakest teams for their team, or their organization, to play in the round robin format, securing the best position for the upcoming tournament, thereby guaranteeing a first round bye due in part to their power play.  If you think this isn't happening, or that this is not a common occurrence ... you're fooling yourself.            

So the concept here is simple.  To maximize your investment dollars, to prevent this type of shenanigans, look for, seek out and request the WinNAdvance tournament logo and certification before you lay your money down because it really doesn't matter where your seeded.  If this logo and certification is not on the tournament documents ... my suggestion is to take your money, and your team, to a tournament director that's running an equitable tournament format that can guarantee a level playing field for all the entrants that ensures fairness and the greatest value for your dollar.  Today, this can only be found using WinNAdvance!

I ask you:

1. What value can you place in knowing your squad will face teams of similar levels of skill and ability rather than getting pounded on?  
2. What value can you place on knowing that if you do lose to the best squad in the first round that you are guaranteed the right to be able to once again face that very same team, without having to pay an insurmountable penalty? 

Only the WinNAdvance tournament format can guarantee this playing field.  Before you lay your money down ... insist on WinNAdvance or move your dollars ... or better said ... your vote to where it will do the most good for your squad.  Over time ... they'll get the message.