I know the issue of BO1 vs BO3 in big tours like SPL has been litigated since the beginning of time (see this post from BKC -- post) , but I'm gonna wade in.
Currently, in the three big team tours, the only tier that has bo3 is RBY. The argument for BO3 RBY (I couldnt find the original thread rip, but BKC explains some of this in the thread above) is that prep intensiveness is much less in RBY. It takes comparatively less time to build RBY teams because there are comparatively less decisions you have to make as a builder: you don't have to deal with EVs 99.9% of time, there aren't many choices available both in moves and mons, and most teams feature three if not 4 or more of the same Pokemon. As such, it doesn't take a lot of time to get three teams ready to go for a BO3 so you can test them out etc. There's also another argument that there's a high degree of variance in RBY, but I disagree with this. I think RBY teaches you a lot on how to manage luck in Pokemon (shoutout to hipmonlee), and the better player wins the majority of the time.
I've heard a lot of discussion in the ADV and DPP community in particular about how awful bo1 is. You can spent a lot of time preparing only to lose to some of the inevitable variance in Pokemon -- untimely critical hits, bad match-up, a surprise tech, poor play. Even our all time best players only have a win rate in SPL of around 65% with a high sample size (this is also largely true in SCL and WCOP): looking at you ABR and BKC. Why not try to make an objectively better format that we already use in individual tours, should the players themselves vote for it, in these tiers?
If you're an excellent player in any tier like we expect in the flagship tournaments, you should already have multiple team ideas for any of your opponents. Hell you might even have multiple unused great teams in your builder already before the tour starts. Even if you don't, there's a wealth of previous teams out there and potential teammates/helpers to help you build stuff. You can tweak previously available stuff quite easily to prepare it for a set. I know the classic argument against BO3 is that it involves a lot more potential burnout and we all don't have the time any more to build 3 really good teams every week for 3 months. Building just one great team every week can feel like a challenge and we all do this for a hobby anyway. However, the advantage of BO3 is that it gives you the luxury of running more experimental stuff in one game, because each game individually is not do or die like it is in BO1. This could lead to decreasing the variance individually and making a competitive format even better.
I'm not asking to make everything BO3. I'm asking to let the players vote, maybe once everyone has been drafted, if they would like their tier to be BO3 for that tour. Maybe you'd get people voting in their own interest to make it BO1 or BO3, but I think you'd get around this community backlash to BO1 that some old gens like ADV and DPP have. If we find for one team tour it's bad, we can just reverse it. Why not at least try it out?
Also, previous people have argued for and against BO3 in tiebreaks. I think should the players vote on it before the tiebreak. Why should we not allow two people who want to BO3 not be allowed to BO3? That way, if someone is against BO3, they don't have to do it and worry about the prep load.
tl;dr What I'm saying is let the players in a tier before a team tour vote if they'd like their matches to be BO3 like RBY's are. For a format where everything is one tier like WCOP, we could ask players to put their preferences on BO1 vs BO3 on their sign up and then record it in a spreadsheet. If anyone is up against a player who prefers BO1, then they play a BO1. Players are free to tell the TD in charge at any time if they want to change their preference.
Maybe something like this?
Player Name: johnnyg2
Tiers Played: ADV OU / DPP OU
Tiers NOT Played: ORAS OU / SM OU
BO1 vs BO3: BO3
Timezone: GMT-5
Thank you for reading!
Currently, in the three big team tours, the only tier that has bo3 is RBY. The argument for BO3 RBY (I couldnt find the original thread rip, but BKC explains some of this in the thread above) is that prep intensiveness is much less in RBY. It takes comparatively less time to build RBY teams because there are comparatively less decisions you have to make as a builder: you don't have to deal with EVs 99.9% of time, there aren't many choices available both in moves and mons, and most teams feature three if not 4 or more of the same Pokemon. As such, it doesn't take a lot of time to get three teams ready to go for a BO3 so you can test them out etc. There's also another argument that there's a high degree of variance in RBY, but I disagree with this. I think RBY teaches you a lot on how to manage luck in Pokemon (shoutout to hipmonlee), and the better player wins the majority of the time.
I've heard a lot of discussion in the ADV and DPP community in particular about how awful bo1 is. You can spent a lot of time preparing only to lose to some of the inevitable variance in Pokemon -- untimely critical hits, bad match-up, a surprise tech, poor play. Even our all time best players only have a win rate in SPL of around 65% with a high sample size (this is also largely true in SCL and WCOP): looking at you ABR and BKC. Why not try to make an objectively better format that we already use in individual tours, should the players themselves vote for it, in these tiers?
If you're an excellent player in any tier like we expect in the flagship tournaments, you should already have multiple team ideas for any of your opponents. Hell you might even have multiple unused great teams in your builder already before the tour starts. Even if you don't, there's a wealth of previous teams out there and potential teammates/helpers to help you build stuff. You can tweak previously available stuff quite easily to prepare it for a set. I know the classic argument against BO3 is that it involves a lot more potential burnout and we all don't have the time any more to build 3 really good teams every week for 3 months. Building just one great team every week can feel like a challenge and we all do this for a hobby anyway. However, the advantage of BO3 is that it gives you the luxury of running more experimental stuff in one game, because each game individually is not do or die like it is in BO1. This could lead to decreasing the variance individually and making a competitive format even better.
I'm not asking to make everything BO3. I'm asking to let the players vote, maybe once everyone has been drafted, if they would like their tier to be BO3 for that tour. Maybe you'd get people voting in their own interest to make it BO1 or BO3, but I think you'd get around this community backlash to BO1 that some old gens like ADV and DPP have. If we find for one team tour it's bad, we can just reverse it. Why not at least try it out?
Also, previous people have argued for and against BO3 in tiebreaks. I think should the players vote on it before the tiebreak. Why should we not allow two people who want to BO3 not be allowed to BO3? That way, if someone is against BO3, they don't have to do it and worry about the prep load.
tl;dr What I'm saying is let the players in a tier before a team tour vote if they'd like their matches to be BO3 like RBY's are. For a format where everything is one tier like WCOP, we could ask players to put their preferences on BO1 vs BO3 on their sign up and then record it in a spreadsheet. If anyone is up against a player who prefers BO1, then they play a BO1. Players are free to tell the TD in charge at any time if they want to change their preference.
Maybe something like this?
Player Name: johnnyg2
Tiers Played: ADV OU / DPP OU
Tiers NOT Played: ORAS OU / SM OU
BO1 vs BO3: BO3
Timezone: GMT-5
Thank you for reading!