Originally posted by Leon Strauss:
I have to disagree. I quite like running tournaments as Aaron described, with prizes based on Swiss standing and the Top 8 being just for the byes/invite/whatever. That way, everyone who is in the Top 8 is playing for something they want.
While it's probably nice to have a bye in the Top 8 because your opponent didn't want the invite and dropped, it's hardly “fair.” It's based entirely on the standings and, in many cases, the nuances of tiebreakers that most players don't really know how to manipulate and therefore can't really be considered a skill. To my mind, also, it should hardly be an expectation that players in the Top 8 might not have to play their quarterfinals round and just get a win. That's not “fair” to the other Top 8 players who have to fight to get through to the semifinals because their opponents want the byes too while someone else's opponent didn't. “Fair” cuts both ways there.
Of course, that is kind of a separate discussion, given the situation at hand. Allowing the players who don't want the byes to go home IS good customer service, you're right. In the OP situation, I would bump up everyone to fill the missing seeds until no players remain, then pair using typical bracketing. In this case, seeds 1, 2, and 3 will get byes in the Top 8.
To avoid the situation, though, I tend to announce the Top 8, then post the standings and instruct players that if they wish to drop before playing the Top 8 to inform me of such. I also instruct the players close to Top 8 to remain a moment to see if they will have the chance to get in.