Journal of Combinatorial Optimization

, Volume 35, Issue 1, pp 170–188 | Cite as

Competitive intensity and quality maximizing seedings in knock-out tournaments

  • Dmitry Dagaev
  • Alex Suzdaltsev


Before a knock-out tournament starts, the participants are assigned to positions in the tournament bracket through a process known as seeding. There are many ways to seed a tournament. In this paper, we solve a discrete optimization problem of finding a seeding that maximizes spectator interest in a tournament when spectators are interested in matches with high competitive intensity (i.e., matches that involve teams comparable in strength) and high quality (i.e., matches that involve strong teams). We find a solution to the problem under two assumptions: the objective function is linear in quality and competitive intensity and a stronger team beats a weaker one with sufficiently high probability. Depending on parameters, only two special classes of seedings can be optimal. While one of the classes includes a seeding that is often used in practice, the seedings in the other class are very different. When we relax the assumption of linearity, we find that these classes of seedings are in fact optimal in a sizable number of cases. In contrast to existing literature on optimal seedings, our results are valid for an arbitrarily large number of participants in a tournament.


Knock-out tournament Seeding Combinatorial optimization Operations research in sports 


  1. Baumann R, Matheson VA, Howe C (2010) Anomalies in tournament design: the madness of March madness. J Quant Anal Sports. doi: 10.2202/1559-0410.1233
  2. Ely J, Frankel A, Kamenica E (2015) Suspense and Surprise. J Polit Econ 123(1):215–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Forrest D, Simmons R (2002) Outcome uncertainty and attendance demand in sport: the case of English soccer. J R Stat Soc Ser D Stat 51 Part 2:229–241Google Scholar
  4. Glickman ME (2008) Bayesian locally optimal design of knockout tournaments. J Stat Plann Inference 138:2117–2127MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Groh C, Moldovanu B, Sela A, Sunde U (2012) Optimal seedings in elimination tournaments. Econ Theory 49:59–80MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Horen J, Riezman R (1985) Comparing draws for single elimination tournaments. Oper Res 33:249–262CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Hwang F (1982) New concepts in seeding knockout tournaments. Am Math Mon 89:235–239MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Palomino F, Rigotti L (2000) The sport league’s dilemma: competitive intensity versus incentives to win. Working Paper, University of California, Department of EconomicsGoogle Scholar
  9. Rosen S (1986) Prizes and incentives in elimination tournaments. Am Econ Rev 76(4):701–715Google Scholar
  10. Ryvkin D (2005) The predictive power of noisy elimination tournaments. Working paper, Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education–Economic Institute, PragueGoogle Scholar
  11. Schwenk A (2000) What is the correct way to seed a knockout tournament. Am Math Monthly 107:140–150MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Vu TD (2010) Knockout tournament design: a computational approach. PhD dissertation, Stanford University, Department of Computer ScienceGoogle Scholar
  13. Wright M (2014) OR analysis of sporting rules: a survey. Eur J Oper Res 232:1–8MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Research University Higher School of EconomicsMoscowRussia
  2. 2.Stanford Graduate School of BusinessStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations