[ibreak4coffee]

Again on #15 - I strongly oppose keeping the rule as it is. TT is a prediction game that is built on picking correct results and accurate scores - yet we have a rule in place that rewards anything but accuracy.

Otherwise:
#1 - YES. You should be able to play in two places at once. We're taking this way too seriously if we start using real geography as a criteria in how this game is played.

#5 and #6 - Yes on both

#8 - NO. For TT draws, there should be no rule where you cant play your doubles partner. Its luck of the draw.
And we strive to keep this like "real" tennis, where no such rule would ever be considered.

#9 - YES. There are so many times managers disappear for various reasons.

#10 - NO. If you have a connection to send email, you can send to MTF.

#12 - 6 matches should be minimum for R1

#17 - YES. Points should be awarded for winning qualifying matches

#19 - keep rule as is.

#20 - Generally its good, but especially during Spring sometimes there are 3-4 European challengers while US challengers are skipped.

#21 - Its a slippery slope, but if a player sends at 6.05 for example and the deadline was 6.00 this should be at discretion of manager to accept - generally players are still warming up.

[justafanYYC]

#21 why don't we just make the deadline 6:05.
Let's make all deadlines 5 minutes after the first match (matches don't start on time anyways plus there's a warmup). No exceptions since we've given 5 minutes and nobody can complain.

[Sheva]

Originally Posted by keqtqiadv

First of all, thanks for all the suggestions We're now proceeding to the next step of the changes period. This thread will be used to discuss the topics which were brought up in the suggestions thread.

The suggestions are ordered by numbers. You can vote/discuss each of the topics and also reply to posts of other players.

It's not necessary to vote for all the topics, but the players' participation is important for a decision/change to be made.

COMMITMENTS

1) Should players be allowed to play in two places at the same time (the final of a week X event AND the qualifying of a week x+1 event)?
Yes/No? (Current rule: yes) yes

2) Should players who lose in a Grand Slam qualifying be allowed to play a challenger in the following week?
Yes/No/No if qualifying points are introduced? (Current rule: Yes) Yes
3) GS/IW/Miami week 2 events:
GS R16 - out of qualifying; GS QF - out of MD? (current rule)
Players who're still alive in the GS (or IW/Miami) by Saturday (GS R16) should be out of the 2nd week challengers, MD or qualifying? Qualies yes, MD no.
Players should be able to commit to the 2nd week challengers only after they're out of the GSs/IW/Miami? No
4) Late entries & SE's:
No restrictions? (current rule)
Players who commit as late entries 48 hours or less before the final deadline shouldn't be eligible to receive a SE? Agree/yesPlayers who commit as late entries shouldn't be eligible to receive a SE? Agree/Yes
5) Doubles commitments:
It should be enough if only a player commits the doubles team? (current rule)
Both players in a partnership should commit/confirm before being accepted in the doubles list? No.

6) Singles commitments by another person?
Yes/No (Current rule: yes) Yes

DRAWS

7) Late entries & seedings
No restrictions? (current rule)
Late entries shouldn't be seeded? No
8) Should there be a restriction to avoid singles R1 matches between doubles partners?
Yes/No (Current rule: no) No

SENDING PICKS

9) Should picks which were sent to the person who posted the OOP be accepted?
Yes/No (Current rule: no) Yes
10) Should picks sent by e-mail be accepted?
Yes/No/Facebook? (Current rule: yes) Yes
11) Should there be a punishment for players who don't send picks?
Yes/No (Current rule: no) No

OOP

12) Standard minimum of TT matches in first rounds (4, 5, 6, 7, no restrictions?) Minimum of 5 matches. If less than 5 matches are played on Monday, then adding a few matches from Tuesday would be a good solution.
13) Standardizing the OOP:
No - Manager's choice (Current rule)
Yes - The order should be decided by the number of differences of each match: more diffs -> higher in the SR order? I like this idea. Yes.Yes - The order should be decided by the order of the matches in the official OOP: left to right or top to bottom? No

TB System

14) TB method: The number of sets given to the winner when the player picks the loser (2-1, 3-2 & 3-1 losing picks) should be a tie-breaker before the SR shootout.
Yes/No (Curret rule: no) No
15) SR Shootout: Picking the correct winner or SR of a lower SR should have priority over giving a set to the winner when both players pick the loser in a higher SR?
Yes/No (Current rule: no) No
16) PTS:
Correct order of sets should always beat correct scorelines? YesGD should be used as the PTS system? No

RANKING POINTS

17) Qualifying points: There should be points for qualifying wins.
Yes/No (Current rule: no) Yes
18) There should be a Team Race for the World Tour Finals.
Yes/No (Current rule: no) No

OTHERS

19) Retirements should count for SR and shootout purposes (64 40 ret -> 64 60 win; 46 23 ret -> 46 63 60 win)? No
20) Challenger choices: ranking points/entry list quality or diversity of continents/timezones? Ranking points / entry list quality.21) Possible exception: Accepting picks 1/2/3/4/5 minutes after the deadline?No

See above my thoughts.

[Yves.]

COMMITMENTS

1) Should players be allowed to play in two places at the same time (the final of a week X event AND the qualifying of a week x+1 event)?
No

2) Should players who lose in a Grand Slam qualifying be allowed to play a challenger in the following week?
Yes

3) GS/IW/Miami week 2 events:
GS R16 - out of qualifying; GS QF - out of MD? (current rule)
Players who're still alive in the GS (or IW/Miami) by Saturday (GS R16) should be out of the 2nd week challengers,
qualifying?
Players should be able to commit to the 2nd week challengers only after they're out of the GSs/IW/Miami?
No

4) Late entries & SE's:
No restrictions? (current rule)
Players who commit as late entries 48 hours or less before the final deadline shouldn't be eligible to receive a SE?
Yes
Players who commit as late entries shouldn't be eligible to receive a SE?
Yes

5) Doubles commitments:
It should be enough if only a player commits the doubles team? (current rule)
Both players in a partnership should commit/confirm before being accepted in the doubles list?
Yes, both players.

6) Singles commitments by another person?
No


DRAWS

7) Late entries & seedings
No restrictions? (current rule)
Yes
Late entries shouldn't be seeded?
No

8) Should there be a restriction to avoid singles R1 matches between doubles partners?
No


SENDING PICKS

9) Should picks which were sent to the person who posted the OOP be accepted?
Yes

10) Should picks sent by e-mail be accepted?
Yes

11) Should there be a punishment for players who don't send picks?
No


OOP

12) Standard minimum of TT matches in first rounds
A minimum of 5 matches, in my opinion.

13) Standardizing the OOP:
No - Manager's choice (Current rule)


TB System

14) TB method: The number of sets given to the winner when the player picks the loser (2-1, 3-2 & 3-1 losing picks) should be a tie-breaker before the SR shootout.
No

15) SR Shootout: Picking the correct winner or SR of a lower SR should have priority over giving a set to the winner when both players pick the loser in a higher SR?
No

16) PTS:
Correct order of sets should always beat correct scorelines?
Yes
GD should be used as the PTS system?
No


RANKING POINTS

17) Qualifying points: There should be points for qualifying wins.
Yes

18) There should be a Team Race for the World Tour Finals.
Yes


OTHERS

19) Retirements should count for SR and shootout purposes (64 40 ret -> 64 60 win; 46 23 ret -> 46 63 60 win)?
No

20) Challenger choices:
I'm not sure what you mean, but I choose challengers like one would in real life, meaning playing a series of challengers in the same area.

21) Possible exception:
No picks are to be accepted after the set deadline, doesn't matter if matches have alreay started or not.

[lolada_4]

Originally Posted by justafanYYC

#21 why don't we just make the deadline 6:05.
Let's make all deadlines 5 minutes after the first match (matches don't start on time anyways plus there's a warmup). No exceptions since we've given 5 minutes and nobody can complain.

"#21 - Its a slippery slope, but if a player sends at 6.05 for example and the deadline was 6.00 this should be at discretion of manager to accept - generally players are still warming up."

I Agree

[AdeyC]

Originally Posted by lolada_4

"#21 - Its a slippery slope

I'd rather keep my feet on solid ground

[sfar]

Answers in red.

1) Should players be allowed to play in two places at the same time (the final of a week X event AND the qualifying of a week x+1 event)?
Yes/No? (Current rule: yes) No, if he plays the final he should apply for a SE.

2) Should players who lose in a Grand Slam qualifying be allowed to play a challenger in the following week?
Yes/No/No if qualifying points are introduced? (Current rule: Yes) If the player is qualyfied for the main draw, yes.

3) GS/IW/Miami week 2 events:
GS R16 - out of qualifying; GS QF - out of MD? (current rule)
Players who're still alive in the GS (or IW/Miami) by Saturday (GS R16) should be out of the 2nd week challengers, MD or qualifying? Yes, to make it easier for managers.
Players should be able to commit to the 2nd week challengers only after they're out of the GSs/IW/Miami? No, they can commit before.

4) Late entries & SE's:
No restrictions? (current rule)
Players who commit as late entries 48 hours or less before the final deadline shouldn't be eligible to receive a SE?
Players who commit as late entries shouldn't be eligible to receive a SE?
I'd say that a player cannot change tournament to ask for a SE, for example, if a player's playing a 90 point Challenger, he can't move to a 120 Challenger if he knows he'll get a SE.

5) Doubles commitments:
It should be enough if only a player commits the doubles team? (current rule)
Both players in a partnership should commit/confirm before being accepted in the doubles list?
I think teams should be confirmed.

6) Singles commitments by another person?
Yes/No (Current rule: yes) Yes, but only if it's before the 1st deadline.

8) Should there be a restriction to avoid singles R1 matches between doubles partners?
Yes/No (Current rule: no) No.

9) Should picks which were sent to the person who posted the OOP be accepted?
Yes/No (Current rule: no) I think this should be a manager decission, posted in the rules post clearly before the tournament start.

10) Should picks sent by e-mail be accepted?
Yes/No/Facebook? (Current rule: yes) Yes, but only in exceptional ocassions (the manager has the PM box full, for example)

11) Should there be a punishment for players who don't send picks?
Yes/No (Current rule: no) No.

12) Standard minimum of TT matches in first rounds (4, 5, 6, 7, no restrictions?) I think 6 is OK.

13) Standardizing the OOP:
No - Manager's choice (Current rule)
Yes - The order should be decided by the number of differences of each match: more diffs -> higher in the SR order?
Yes - The order should be decided by the order of the matches in the official OOP: left to right or top to bottom? Managers choice.

17) Qualifying points: There should be points for qualifying wins.
Yes/No (Current rule: no) Definitely yes

18) There should be a Team Race for the World Tour Finals.
Yes/No (Current rule: no) Why not.

19) Retirements should count for SR and shootout purposes (64 40 ret -> 64 60 win; 46 23 ret -> 46 63 60 win)? No.

21) Possible exception: Accepting picks 1/2/3/4/5 minutes after the deadline? No late picks and no exceptions.

[Crvena Zvezda]

COMMITMENTS

1) Should players be allowed to play in two places at the same time (the final of a week X event AND the qualifying of a week x+1 event)?
No

2) Should players who lose in a Grand Slam qualifying be allowed to play a challenger in the following week?
No

3) GS/IW/Miami week 2 events:
Players should be able to commit to the 2nd week challengers only after they're out of the GSs/IW/Miami?

4) Late entries & SE's:

Players who commit as late entries 48 hours or less before the final deadline shouldn't be eligible to receive a SE?


5) Doubles commitments:

Both players in a partnership should commit/confirm before being accepted in the doubles list?

6) Singles commitments by another person?
No

DRAWS

7) Late entries & seedings
No restrictions? (current rule)


8) Should there be a restriction to avoid singles R1 matches between doubles partners?
No


SENDING PICKS

9) Should picks which were sent to the person who posted the OOP be accepted?
No

10) Should picks sent by e-mail be accepted?
Yes

11) Should there be a punishment for players who don't send picks?
No

OOP

12) Standard minimum of TT matches in first rounds (4)

13) Standardizing the OOP:
No - Manager's choice (Current rule)


TB System

14) TB method: The number of sets given to the winner when the player picks the loser (2-1, 3-2 & 3-1 losing picks) should be a tie-breaker before the SR shootout.
No

15) SR Shootout: Picking the correct winner or SR of a lower SR should have priority over giving a set to the winner when both players pick the loser in a higher SR?
No

16) PTS:
Correct order of sets should always beat correct scorelines?
GD should be used as the PTS system? no


RANKING POINTS

17) Qualifying points: There should be points for qualifying wins.
Yes

18) There should be a Team Race for the World Tour Finals.
Yes


OTHERS

19) Retirements should count for SR and shootout purposes (64 40 ret -> 64 60 win; 46 23 ret -> 46 63 60 win)? no

20) Challenger choices: ranking points/entry list quality or diversity of continents/timezones? diversity

21) Possible exception: Accepting picks 1/2/3/4/5 minutes after the deadline? definitely NO

[keqtqiadv]

COMMITMENTS

1) Should players be allowed to play in two places at the same time (the final of a week X event AND the qualifying of a week x+1 event)?
Yes/No? (Current rule: yes)
Yes, current rule is fine as it is. The ATP rule says you can actually play the main draw of a tournament and the qualifying of a next week's tournament provided that there's no conflict of schedules.

2) Should players who lose in a Grand Slam qualifying be allowed to play a challenger in the following week?
Yes/No/No if qualifying points are introduced? (Current rule: Yes)
I don't know if it would be necessary to play a challenger if the GS players weren't allowed to participate. The current rule works fine, and it also allows the GS qualifying losers to play some TT in the week following (otherwise they would not play at all for almost 2 weeks). Another important point is that it's allowed in ATP as well (many players who lost in the USO qualifying played Como: Capdeville, Golubev, Sousa, Gianessi, Gil...).

3) GS/IW/Miami week 2 events:
GS R16 - out of qualifying; GS QF - out of MD? (current rule)
Players who're still alive in the GS (or IW/Miami) by Saturday (GS R16) should be out of the 2nd week challengers, MD or qualifying?
Players should be able to commit to the 2nd week challengers only after they're out of the GSs/IW/Miami?
It's not the ATP rule, but it would make management much easier.

4) Late entries & SE's:
No restrictions? (current rule)
Players who commit as late entries 48 hours or less before the final deadline shouldn't be eligible to receive a SE?
Players who commit as late entries shouldn't be eligible to receive a SE?

5) Doubles commitments:
It should be enough if only a player commits the doubles team? (current rule)
Both players in a partnership should commit/confirm before being accepted in the doubles list?
It think it's easier for the manager if one player is enough.

6) Singles commitments by another person?
Yes/No (Current rule: yes)
If the other person is not able to commit for some reason, I don't see why we shouldn't accept a commitment by another person. Sometimes it's used by players who would actually be able to commit, but I don't really see it as a problem.

DRAWS

7) Late entries & seedings
No restrictions? (current rule)
Late entries shouldn't be seeded?
I don't like the fact that players who are behind in the entry list get byes over the players who actually commited on time.

8) Should there be a restriction to avoid singles R1 matches between doubles partners?
Yes/No (Current rule: no)
It's unfortunate, but it's part of the game.

SENDING PICKS

9) Should picks which were sent to the person who posted the OOP be accepted?
Yes/No (Current rule: no)
I think it's not hard to send picks to the correct manager. But if picks have to be sent to someone other than the manager who opened the thread (like it happened in Newport and Valencia this year), it's very easy to make a mistake, so I wouldn't disagree with an exception here.

10) Should picks sent by e-mail be accepted?
Yes/No/Facebook? (Current rule: yes)
Players wouldn't have a reason not to send picks by e-mail if MTF access was possible.

11) Should there be a punishment for players who don't send picks?
Yes/No (Current rule: no)

OOP

12) Standard minimum of TT matches in first rounds (4, 5, 6, 7, no restrictions?)
I don't think it's necessary to estabilish a number. If the managers feel there aren't enough matches to play a full round, they will make it a two-day round.

13) Standardizing the OOP:
No - Manager's choice (Current rule)
Yes - The order should be decided by the number of differences of each match: more diffs -> higher in the SR order?
Yes - The order should be decided by the order of the matches in the official OOP: left to right or top to bottom?
Perhaps the order of the matches could be decided by the official OOP (it wouldn't be necessary for another person to post the OOP for the manager, players would just have to check the official OOP and send picks), but the order of the SRs should be decided by the manager.

OOP:
Matches start at 3 AM
Federer vs Navarro
followed by
Blake vs Ljubicic
followed by
Klizan vs Cilic
followed by
Bellucci vs Falla

Federer vs Navarro SR4
Blake vs Ljubicic SR1 PTS
Klizan vs Cilic SR3
Bellucci vs Falla SR2

TB System

14) TB method: The number of sets given to the winner when the player picks the loser (2-1, 3-2 & 3-1 losing picks) should be a tie-breaker before the SR shootout.
Yes/No (Curret rule: no)
I think it would be a great addition to the TB system, but I'm in favour of its introduction only if it's possible to adapt the spreadsheet to the new rule. If player A gives a set to the loser and player B doesn't (match tied, same picks & SRs except for this match), he wins the match on shootout, which is alright. But if A gives sets to 4 losers and B just one, he might still lose on shootout (if the match is tied - picks & SRs - no matter the SR order I think Player A should win).

SR1: Blake def Ljubo
SR2: Buzny def Saretta
SR3: Alejo def Falla
SR4: Suzuki def Santoro
SR5: Fed def Bibon

Player A = Ljubo 2-0, Saretta 2-1, Falla 2-1, Santoro 2-1, Bibon 2-1.
Player B = Ljubo 2-1, Saretta 2-0, Falla 2-0, Santoro 2-0, Bibon 2-0.

15) SR Shootout: Picking the correct winner or SR of a lower SR should have priority over giving a set to the winner when both players pick the loser in a higher SR?
Yes/No (Current rule: no)
I think the rule is fine as it is.

16) PTS:
Correct order of sets should always beat correct scorelines?
No. Player A: 62 26 61 vs Player B: 67 76 75 - the match ends 76 67 75. I think Player B was much closer to the correct score and should win the PTS decision.
GD should be used as the PTS system?
I think the current system is fine.

RANKING POINTS

17) Qualifying points: There should be points for qualifying wins.
Yes/No (Current rule: no)

18) There should be a Team Race for the World Tour Finals.
Yes/No (Current rule: no)
Not everyone is lucky enough (or wants) to have a permanent partner. If the permanent team is good enough, both players will qualify. This rule would only force players to find permanent partners and make those who don't find anyone become singles specialists.

OTHERS

19) Retirements should count for SR and shootout purposes (64 40 ret -> 64 60 win; 46 23 ret -> 46 63 60 win)?
No. Many of the current TT players must not know, but this rule has already been used in TT (if one set has been completed). But it was valid for a very short period, as it caused a lot of controversy. We opened a poll in the middle of the season and decided to change the rule back. I actually like the suggestion, but many players would strongly disagree with it. It's probably better to leave the rule as it is.

20) Challenger choices: ranking points/entry list quality or diversity of continents/timezones?
I think 100K+ events should always be chosen over weaker events, unless there's a week where no one is able to manage a 100K+ event in a given timezone but there's someone who would be able to manage a weaker challenger.
If the week has more than one challenger played in Europe on the same surface (75K events) and there's a weaker challenger being played in USA/South America/Asia, then I think some diversity is good.

21) Possible exception: Accepting picks 1/2/3/4/5 minutes after the deadline?
No.

[Belludal]

My vote is for No TT Rules Changes for 2013.

FAQ is PERFECT.

[Ilovetheblues_86]

Originally Posted by Belludal

My vote is for No TT Rules Changes for 2013.

FAQ is PERFECT.

FAQ is PERFECT.
I want to vote like Favoritelludal.

[BrunoBeidacki]

I think most of the rules are good enough right now. The only one I would change is rule 18, where I think it SHOULD exist a Team Race for the WTF.

[ESimp]

COMMITMENTS

1) Should players be allowed to play in two places at the same time (the final of a week X event AND the qualifying of a week x+1 event)?
Yes/No? (Current rule: yes)

2) Should players who lose in a Grand Slam qualifying be allowed to play a challenger in the following week?
Yes/No/No if qualifying points are introduced? (Current rule: Yes)

3) GS/IW/Miami week 2 events:
GS R16 - out of qualifying; GS QF - out of MD? (current rule)
Players who're still alive in the GS (or IW/Miami) by Saturday (GS R16) should be out of the 2nd week challengers, MD or qualifying?
Players should be able to commit to the 2nd week challengers only after they're out of the GSs/IW/Miami?

4) Late entries & SE's:
No restrictions? (current rule)
Players who commit as late entries 48 hours or less before the final deadline shouldn't be eligible to receive a SE?
Players who commit as late entries shouldn't be eligible to receive a SE?

5) Doubles commitments:
It should be enough if only a player commits the doubles team? (current rule)
Both players in a partnership should commit/confirm before being accepted in the doubles list?

6) Singles commitments by another person?
Yes/No (Current rule: yes)


DRAWS

7) Late entries & seedings
No restrictions? (current rule)
Late entries shouldn't be seeded?

8) Should there be a restriction to avoid singles R1 matches between doubles partners?
Yes/No (Current rule: no)


SENDING PICKS

9) Should picks which were sent to the person who posted the OOP be accepted?
Yes/No (However, if that person who posted OOP forwards picks before deadline I tend to be inclined to accept) (Current rule: no)

10) Should picks sent by e-mail be accepted?
Yes/No (unless the site is down)/Facebook? (Current rule: yes)

11) Should there be a punishment for players who don't send picks?
Yes (but not the first time, however this would be hard to keep track of and may cause less players to play)/No (Current rule: no)


OOP

12) Standard minimum of TT matches in first rounds (4, 5, 6, 7, no restrictions?)

13) Standardizing the OOP:
No - Manager's choice (Current rule)
Yes - The order should be decided by the number of differences of each match: more diffs -> higher in the SR order?
Yes - The order should be decided by the order of the matches in the official OOP: left to right or top to bottom?


TB System

14) TB method: The number of sets given to the winner when the player picks the loser (2-1, 3-2 & 3-1 losing picks) should be a tie-breaker before the SR shootout.
Yes/No (Curret rule: no)

15) SR Shootout: Picking the correct winner or SR of a lower SR should have priority over giving a set to the winner when both players pick the loser in a higher SR?
Yes/No (Current rule: no)

16) PTS:
Correct order of sets should always beat correct scorelines?
GD should be used as the PTS system?


RANKING POINTS

17) Qualifying points: There should be points for qualifying wins.
Yes/No (Current rule: no)

18) There should be a Team Race for the World Tour Finals.
Yes/No (Current rule: no)


OTHERS

19) Retirements should count for SR and shootout purposes (64 40 ret -> 64 60 win; 46 23 ret -> 46 63 60 win)? No

20) Challenger choices: ranking points/entry list quality or diversity of continents/timezones?

21) Possible exception: Accepting picks 1/2/3/4/5 minutes after the deadline?

[Boarder35m]

I have got to use the fact that my computer runs fast at the moment.



COMMITMENTS

1) Should players be allowed to play in two places at the same time (the final of a week X event AND the qualifying of a week x+1 event)?
Yes/No? (Current rule: yes)

2) Should players who lose in a Grand Slam qualifying be allowed to play a challenger in the following week?
Yes/No/No if qualifying points are introduced? (Current rule: Yes)

3) GS/IW/Miami week 2 events:
GS R16 - out of qualifying; GS QF - out of MD? (current rule)
Players who're still alive in the GS (or IW/Miami) by Saturday (GS R16) should be out of the 2nd week challengers, MD or qualifying?
Players should be able to commit to the 2nd week challengers only after they're out of the GSs/IW/Miami?

I like the current rule although it can be difficut for managers and players, but we have to be careful with the timezone of the challengers to avoid late draw changes.

4) Late entries & SE's:
No restrictions? (current rule)
Players who commit as late entries 48 hours or less before the final deadline shouldn't be eligible to receive a SE?
Players who commit as late entries shouldn't be eligible to receive a SE?

5) Doubles commitments:
It should be enough if only a player commits the doubles team? (current rule)
Both players in a partnership should commit/confirm before being accepted in the doubles list?

6) Singles commitments by another person?
Yes/No (Current rule: yes)
This happens quite rarely anyway

DRAWS

7) Late entries & seedings
No restrictions? (current rule)
Late entries shouldn't be seeded?

8) Should there be a restriction to avoid singles R1 matches between doubles partners?
Yes/No (Current rule: no)


SENDING PICKS

9) Should picks which were sent to the person who posted the OOP be accepted?
Yes/No (Current rule: no)
I would agree with the idea of letting the manager or opponent have a word on this

10) Should picks sent by e-mail be accepted?
Yes/No/Facebook? (Current rule: yes)

11) Should there be a punishment for players who don't send picks?
Yes/No (Current rule: no)


OOP

12) Standard minimum of TT matches in first rounds (4, 5, 6, 7, no restrictions?)
I am really very much against split OOP and I avoid them when possible, because in fact it make matches less fair (If you are behind you have to risk on a small number of matches)

13) Standardizing the OOP:
No - Manager's choice (Current rule)
Yes - The order should be decided by the number of differences of each match: more diffs -> higher in the SR order?
Yes - The order should be decided by the order of the matches in the official OOP: left to right or top to bottom?

If this could be implemented in the spreadsheets

TB System

14) TB method: The number of sets given to the winner when the player picks the loser (2-1, 3-2 & 3-1 losing picks) should be a tie-breaker before the SR shootout.
Yes/No (Curret rule: no)

15) SR Shootout: Picking the correct winner or SR of a lower SR should have priority over giving a set to the winner when both players pick the loser in a higher SR?
Yes/No (Current rule: no)

16) PTS:
Correct order of sets should always beat correct scorelines? No
GD should be used as the PTS system? No


RANKING POINTS

17) Qualifying points: There should be points for qualifying wins.
Yes/No (Current rule: no)

18) There should be a Team Race for the World Tour Finals.
Yes/No (Current rule: no)
When 2 regular teams could be torn apart in the finals this rule should really be changed

OTHERS

19) Retirements should count for SR and shootout purposes (64 40 ret -> 64 60 win; 46 23 ret -> 46 63 60 win)?
Yes

20) Challenger choices: ranking points/entry list quality or diversity of continents/timezones?
I am abit unsure on this but I guess it would be rather ranking points/entry list quality. With the financial crisis going on there won´t be so many tournaments to choose from anyway and it is always easier to find managers for tournaments in Europe/America.


21) Possible exception: Accepting picks 1/2/3/4/5 minutes after the deadline?
No

[savesthedizzle]

Originally Posted by keqtqiadv

COMMITMENTS

13) Standardizing the OOP:
No - Manager's choice (Current rule)
Yes - The order should be decided by the number of differences of each match: more diffs -> higher in the SR order?
Yes - The order should be decided by the order of the matches in the official OOP: left to right or top to bottom?
Perhaps the order of the matches could be decided by the official OOP (it wouldn't be necessary for another person to post the OOP for the manager, players would just have to check the official OOP and send picks), but the order of the SRs should be decided by the manager.

OOP:
Matches start at 3 AM
Federer vs Navarro
followed by
Blake vs Ljubicic
followed by
Klizan vs Cilic
followed by
Bellucci vs Falla

Federer vs Navarro SR4
Blake vs Ljubicic SR1 PTS
Klizan vs Cilic SR3
Bellucci vs Falla SR2

TB System

This would definitely make it easier for people to send if a manager cannot be at the computer RIGHT when the OOP is released I could support that