@YumGumYum
A double-elimination bracket isn't a bad idea. Alternatively, I could also rearrange the song order, based on either RNG or perceived likelihood of winning (and the rearranging could even be done each round), albeit only rearranging by the latter would be the only actual effective option in terms of meaningfully changing the format.
There are a few issues with changing to a double-elimination bracket at the moment, though.
[ol]
1. It would require prolonging the tournament by at least four voting phases (possibly more depending on the exact changes). Keeping the phases at a rate of four match-ups per day, i.e. eight every two days (which I prefer, as it's balanced imo), that would make the tournament go from the current 19 days to at least 27 days.
[ol]
a. Burnout will be far more likely to occur (for both myself as well as the voters) not only with a tournament twice as long, but also with the fact that the format has been changed on the fly.
[ol]
ab. Ofc, this is under the assumption that the average of four match-ups per day is kept, which isn't an absolute, but still a factor that could negatively affect the tournament if changed.[/ol][/ol][/ol]
Uhh yeah I had more reasons but stepped away and forgot most of it. Post is prob longer than necessary as is lol.
I'd say that a basic visualization helps when conceptualizing how double-elimination brackets work. Something like
would take at least 30 days going by the current average match-up (this is just a basic one, changes would be made to the format in the later rounds of course. And it's not like it has to be a 64 submission tourney in the first place, although 64 would be preferable imo.)
All in all, I'm sold on the idea of double-elimination for future tournaments (the specifics of the format can be worked out before then), but changing it for this tourney is something I wouldn't do. These are good ideas above tho, so I'll be referencing them when deciding future formats (assuming there are future tournaments I hold).
