Hmm... I don't like the idea of having more "easy" matches for the "strong" players. It will turn out that only they will be playing. Why can't we create a system where "strong" and "weak" players are proportionally distributed in each group? And I don't quite understand how your idea will help create a "normal" final (and what even is a "normal" final?!).
Well, what is the point of the tournament? I think it's to identify the strongest players and, if possible, do so more accurately, right? Usually, for this purpose, the "top" players are simply scattered across different groups in the group stage, and then, in 90% of cases, the seeded players make it to the final. This is done so that a player who has the potential to be in the top four, for example, doesn't get eliminated in the qualifying stage. This can still be done now. But some people don't like this scheme because playing against someone who doesn't know how to play is perceived as a waste of time, and often unknown players play a couple of games and then drop out, which makes it difficult to keep track of things and is generally annoying. That's why the idea of an alternative to seeding emerged – the top 16 (for example) from the previous tournament play among themselves – there are likely to be fewer "random" players and less uninteresting games. But we need to compensate for the fact that we are pitting good players against each other in the qualifying rounds, so there should be more "easy" spots in their groups. Therefore, I suggest making groups of 6 people, for example, but the top 4 places from the "strong" groups advance, and the 1st and 2nd places from the "weak" groups. This will create an incentive to take higher places and compete for every position throughout the tournament, and not just for the top 3, for example, because the tournament result will be taken into account in the future. Then we can also create a ranking.
Well, that's my suggestion. If you don't like it, we'll do it the way the majority wants, it's you who will be playing...