Each club plays one game and you have 16 winners and 16 losers. So the winners play against each other and the losers. This means you have 8 teams that have won twice, 16 teams that have won once and lost once, and 8 teams that have lost twice. Then the respective “groups” play against each other again, so that in the end you have 4 teams that have won 3 times, 12 teams that have won twice and lost once, 12 teams that have won once once and lost twice and 4 teams have lost three times.
Those who have won all three games are in play, those who have lost all three are eliminated.
So the two groups of 12 play a game again.
In the end there are 6 teams that have won 3 times and lost once, 12 teams have won twice and lost twice and 6 have won once and lost 3 times.
Those with three wins are qualified, those with three losses are eliminated.
On the last day of the game, the remaining teams play against each other, 6 teams win and advance.
Put simply, you need three wins to advance and six out of three losses, you play until all scores are set and you always play against those teams with the same stats.
As a result, “good” clubs would be rewarded as they would have to play fewer games against “bad” clubs, and clearly weak clubs would be eliminated relatively quickly, in addition to which a “final character” developed especially at the end, which surely creates additional tension.
There are also two such rounds at Counterstrike. In a preliminary round 16 clubs, of which the 8 best clubs later on 8 seeded matches. This would also be conceivable here to then start with the 8s progressing in KO format. Or you play 32 clubs twice and then have a lot more matches. Overall, I think the system is much better and fairer, because you no longer have to rely on luck in the group draw.