  We study a sequential elimination contest where players are filtered prior to
the round of competing for prizes. This is motivated by the practice that many
crowdsourcing contests have very limited resources of reviewers and want to
improve the overall quality of the submissions. We first consider a setting
where the designer knows the ranking of the abilities (types) of all $n_1$
registered players, and admit the top $n_2$ players with $2\leq n_2 \leq n_1$
into the contest. The players admitted into the contest update their beliefs
about their opponents based on the signal that their abilities are among the
top $n_2$. We find that their posterior beliefs, even with IID priors, are
correlated and depend on players' private abilities.
  We explicitly characterize the symmetric and unique Bayesian equilibrium
strategy. We find that each admitted player's equilibrium effort is increasing
in $n_2$ when $n_2 \in [\lfloor{(n_1+1)/2}\rfloor+1,n_1]$, but not monotone in
general when $n_2 \in [2,\lfloor{(n_1+1)/2}\rfloor+1]$. Surprisingly, despite
this non-monotonicity, all players exert their highest efforts when $n_2=n_1$.
As a sequence, if the designer has sufficient capacity, he should admit all
players to maximize their equilibrium efforts. This result holds generally --
it is true under any ranking-based reward structure, ability distribution, and
cost function. We also discuss the situation where the designer can only admit
$c<n_1$ players. Our numerical results show that, in terms of the expected
highest or total efforts, the optimal $n_2$ is either $2$ or $c$.
  Finally, we extend our model to a two-stage setting, where players with top
first-stage efforts can proceed to the second stage competing for prizes. We
establish an intriguing negative result in this setting: there does not exist a
symmetric and monotone Perfect Bayesian equilibrium.
