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.