16 seeds in the finals please

[Keith Bennett]

I would like to see the finals of normal series expanded to 16 players (which just conveniently makes 3 weeks of programmes).

In the early days when series were only 3 months long there were 8 seeds, some of whom may only have won 3 or 4 games. Now in most series there are often half a dozen octochamps. Some very good players have been eased out as a result, notably Matt Croy and Phyl Styles in recent times.

Because the series run a full 6 months they require more challengers and sometimes it does seem there are people who perhaps are a little fortunate to be there. 8 more finals games would take a few of the weakest challengers out. And it would also make the finals a bit more substantial - it always feels to me they are over almost as soon as they begin.

Yes, it's possible that seed 1 would hammer seed 16, if that's how it was worked out, but most top seeds have already hammered a few people en route to the finals anyway, so what's new? (Actually personally I would separate the top 8 seeds and have an open draw in each series for which of 9-16 plays them, rather than always start 1-16, 2-15 etc..)

And even for those viewers who don't enjoy a lot of games between the better players (can't imagine why, but there you go) 3 weeks out of 26, or whatever it is with holidays and racing etc., is not a lot is it?

Anybody else agree? And if so, would the Countdown team consider it?

[Tom]

Decent enough suggestion, but personally I don't think its a particularly good idea. Probably fair to say that seeds 9-10 could probably give the top 8 a run for their money on a good day but anything below that then the remaining players would just be there to make up the numbers.

I'm guessing to be seeded anywhere between 13-16th, you would probably only need 3-4 wins to do it; (maybe one for ask Graeme!)

When I did my run back in 2002 I was one of 8 Octochamps in the series and from memory there were three 7-time winners and maybe for something unusual like that, opening the tournament to 16 may not have been a completely awful idea but I'm glad they kept it as it was. I am not 100% sure, but as far as I know there has never been 8 Octochamps in a series since mine.

All in all, if it ain't broken don't fix it!

[Gavin Chipper]

They had 16 seeds in series 2 (I just checked), even though it was a 3-month series. But anyway, I'm not sure I see the point. I wouldn't be particularly bothered by it, but I think you'd get players on 3 or 2 wins and we'd be wondering if they'd really done enough to deserve a place in the knock-outs. It's not that they'd necessarily be rubbish - if you lose a game, you're just as likely to lose your 2nd as your 8th. Actually for a any given skill level (and assumed equal probability of winning each heat game), and the the assumption that you do lose, 0 wins is most likely followed by 1, 2, 3 etc. But I think generally for the depth of skill that is in a given series, 8 is probably enough.

[Conor]

I agree with the above. Just scanning over the last few years, 16 seeds would usually let a few players on 2 wins scrape in and some on 3. The 16 seeds in Series 2 was very strange and it led to one player qualifying who'd lost his only game. Were there ever 9+ octochamps in 1 series I'd like to see something changed to accommodate this, either by increasing the number of players in the finals or allowing some to qualify for the next series (lowest scoring ones? latest ones?).

[Nick Deller]

16 seeds is probably too much, and a 1 vs. 16 match would realistically add very little to the tournament.

Might be nice to fill out the finals to exactly two recording days though, by having evenly matched 8 vs. 9, 7 vs. 10 and possibly 6 vs. 11 as preliminary play-ins for a place in the quarter-finals. I say "possibly", as series 67 was an example where "finals fortnight" would only have been 9 games because of horse racing.

[Tom]

16 seeds is probably too much, and a 1 vs. 16 match would realistically add very little to the tournament.

Might be nice to fill out the finals to exactly two recording days though, by having evenly matched 8 vs. 9, 7 vs. 10 and possibly 6 vs. 11 as preliminary play-ins for a place in the quarter-finals. I say "possibly", as series 67 was an example where "finals fortnight" would only have been 9 games because of horse racing.

In my view, having 8 v 9, 7 v 10 etc is an ok thought but 7 and 8 still beat 9, 10, 11 and the top 8 have the right to be guaranteed automatic entry as a top 8 seeded player let alone a play off. When I filmed my finals from memory they did the last 3 heats then the finals in the evening block and the next day. What I think could be a good idea is maybe having an interim 2-3 games per series before or after the series finals to include some special games i.e. 2 highest scoring losing players of the series or themed game i.e. replayed finals which I think could make good viewing.

As far as I know, my series (47) has been the only ever series where all finalists have been Octochamps. As good as it was to be involved in a series like that, I'm personally glad there weren't another 1 or 2 Octochamps as I believe it would have been unfair for those who just missed out. Maybe a way of rectifying something like that if it ever happened would be to guarantee them a finalists spot in the next series but maybe some might deem that unfair.

[Andy Platt]

An NFL-style top 12 (top 4 get byes to quarters) wouldn't be terrible but honestly it's already great how it is.

[Ian Volante]

Nowadays, I'd say it's much more justified than in early times. Possibly because I'd have been somewhere in the 12-16 range, along with a few other three-time winners in series 56.

[Johnny Canuck]

If CoCs are gone, I'd like it to be raised to 16 seeds. If they continue, IMO, 8 seeds is fine.

[James Laverty]

Think I would call for it this series since the standard has been so high

[Gavin Chipper]

Think I would call for it this series since the standard has been so high

But you have to specify the rules in advance or it's not a fair contest.

[Philip Wilson]

Speaking as an interested viewer who's enjoyment of Countdown has increased even more since being on this board, I would say 16 finalists sounds a lot. However, it would seem harsh this series if [eg] James H and Zarte don't make the finals. How about something along the lines of anyone who scores over a given total of points per game played in the heats, returns for the finals, if not already in the top 8? If so, they would play the lower seeds of the Top 8 before the actual finals begin. I guess those who finished 7th or 8th might not like this idea so much though.
Of course in some series there may not be any players who would fall into this category, but that's ok.
Just a thought.

[Callum Todd]

I do like the idea of a larger finals, but unless there were more heat games (e.g. 1 series per year rather than 2) then the first round at least would not be competitive enough, as people with 2 or 3 wins would be pitched against the octochamps.

[Anthony Endsor]

I don't think a finals with 16 players would be the best idea. There is a case for it if the series was extended to cover the whole year, instead of 2 half years, but I think it would make the early games a bit one sided.

One idea I think could work though, and certainly would have been interesting for series 69, would be to extend the seedings to 10 players. Then the top 6 seeds would automatically qualify for the finals, and seeds 7 to 10 would play off for the remaining 2 places. There have been a few series where some good players have won a few games then been knocked out by a player who went on to make the Quarter Finals as one of the best seeds, and then other players who may not have been quite as good as them qualifying for the Quarter Finals instead of them by virtue of having had an easier run. It would be a good way of helping to ensure the best 8 players of the series actually did make the QF's.

Just a thought

[Gavin Chipper]

If a good player loses before becoming an octochamp because they meet another good player on the way, they're just as likely to come across this good player in their first or second game as their seventh or eighth, so it might not help them anyway. Unless you're going to fundamentally change the system (e.g. have a league system before the knockout stage so one defeat doesn't end your run - this would of course create further problems such as reducing the number of people that could go on), then I say leave it as it is.

[Anthony Endsor]

Mmmm a further problem reducing the number of people who could go on
There's an easy way to solve that - Ban Horseracing