This is something that I thought very hard about. I agree that watching a close BO5+ where every map in the pool gets played is awesome. The issue lies in the format we're using. If these cups used single elimination things would be completely different, but these cups are played out in double elimination. In double elimination every participant is granted a second chance after their first match loss. They are sent to the lower bracket and if they lose another match they are eliminated. One extra chance for every player. So If a player wins all of their matches why should they have to forfeit their second chance? The same second chance that every single other participant in the event had. I can't think of anything that is equal in value to that.

In the past I tried awarding a one map advantage to the winner bracket finalist in the grand finals. At first glance this idea seems great! We get to enjoy a long series and the winner bracket finalist still gets a reward. Everything is peachy right? Wrong! Now this player can only lose a single map instead of an entire set like their opponent did. Sounds a lot more like a punishment than a reward. Also consider how similar the amount of maps a double-BO3 or a modified BO5+ are able to produce. In both scenarios each player is capable of quickly ending the finals by winning two or three maps. In fact a double-BO3 and a modified BO7 are only able to produce a maximum of six games.

This is why I default to the double-BO3 grand final. It only seems logical to give every player the same safety net, and force the lower bracket finalist to reset the bracket and win a second series.

WILL A BEST OF FIVE WORK? Kappa

[/q]