I understand the sense it makes to have a match play system for this game: there are two sides of the Force and two seperate card pools that a player should play over the course of a tournament. I agree with those that say that it creates some wierd situations. For example, this weekend I played in a tournament where I lost my first two games, scoring zero points. I won the remainder of my games in the tournament, but still came in fourth because the second and third place finishers split games in two rounds (they each also lost two games over the course of the tournament), each scoring two more tournament points than me.
If the game were set up similar to Decipher's round system, where every round you played each side of the Force, it might solve some of those problems. The system is simple, each game is one half of a round where players play both sides of the Force. At a random assignment inside of your tournament point group, players play one side of the Force in the first game of the round. After the first game is complete, the pairings are realigned, and players finish the round by playing the side of the Force not played in the first game.
First, there would be less emphasis on agressive dark decks, but would award them based on the nature of the game - the dial ticks when objectives are destroyed. DS control decks would also have a place, as it is just as viable a strategy to ride the Force struggle and defend objectives. The LS would be unchanged, their goal is to destroy objectives, but would gain the advantage of the "alternate" win conditions introduced in the core set - i.e. Trench Run introduced by the LS and Heart of the Empire introduced by the DS.
Second, it would eliminate entirely the need for a tie-breaker point. Whether or not they kept a system in place for timed games would be up to FFG. This would always reward people for winning games, and reduce the disparity that happens when those who lose an entire "match" to zero. There are advantages and disadvantages to having a full/timed win point system and outside of the context of my current post.
Third, it would move people of similar skill levels together faster. In a four match tournament with 12 participants, you will only see 1/3 of the players, and it is possible that after those four rounds, your second and third place finishers have not played against each other at all. In our specific case this weekend, the guy that got second place vaulted himself there from because he got paired down twice in the last round (he had already played me and the 1 & 2 were playing each other). With a match play system, the maximum number of opponents you will face is fixed at half the number of games played. In a round system, the minimum number of opponents you will play is the number of rounds (assuming that by the end of the tournament you were paired against the same opponents twice). It should be noted that it is very difficult for this to happen. In the end, you will play more opponents, reinforcing the SOS tie-breaker system and setting up a clearer winner.
Lastly, if the two best players play each other in the first game, it does not mean that one of them will get 1st and the other 4th merely because of a random assignment. This means that if each game were scored individually and then the pairings realigned, the top players would stay at the top, and those players who suffered early losses to the top players - if they kept winning - would find their way to the top by the end of the tournament. Those who had early wins but failed to continue their winning would naturally settle toward the middle or bottom.
Just some thoughts.