UK tournament series?

[lunchmoney]

.... why include best painted?

it has no bearing on playing ability

Involve the full range of hobby activities in the prize (hence use of the term ‘Blood Bowler’, rather than just ‘coach’ or ‘player’). So various scores and prizes would be included in points scoring such as Best Painted, Stunty Cup and to a lesser extent Most TDs and Casualties. Also perhaps bringing back ‘Most Travelled’ but as a UK only prize. Gaming in its own right would still represent a big chunk of the score.

[sann0638]

If you're awarding points for things, possibly arranging a tournament should get some. But then you get into fuzzy territory about what counts as "doing something for the community".

[Pipey]

My idea (for discussion of course) is to award achievement at tournaments besides winning only, precisely as the existing subsidiary awards (BP, SC, MT, MC) are designed to do. This is to involve more people besides those who end up in the running for the title. The original ‘UK Championship’ was a placings only award and it may have suffered as a result. Framing things around the existing set of tournament prizes seems more intuitive than trying to include intangibles like contributions as a TO etc.

I have to say I’m surprised to hear of big tournaments like ARBBL, Crumb and Exiles not including Best Painted contests. To me and many others painting is a core part of the hobby. There are some incredibly talented painters up and down the UK, and not least in the south e.g. Nazgob’s duel entry winner, Stig’s amazing teams (and many others). If a UK-wide series did include Best Painted as a scoring category, then TOs would need to do no more than invite painters to take part in a vote and then announce a winner. A simple admin task. Prizes, trophies or even certificates would not be mandatory.

BTW I realise I’m off the pace with respect to NAF Trophies as the NAF pre-tourney requirements now state that one can be awarded at “tournaments of three games with 24 or more coaches”. It would therefore be entirely appropriate to include tourneys in that category too, such as Crumb Bowl. Awesome!

@Vanguard – my idea is very much to award those who attend many tournaments. So someone who attends only 5 tournaments but scores big points in all, might end up with fewer points than the guy who goes to 15 who is slightly more hit and miss. I’m cool with that as encouraging people to take part in UK events is exactly what we want.

[babass]

SWTC gives tourney points by awarding more for bigger events and half points for 1 dayers. Is that what you mean by "weighting"?

Not sure if a 1 day event with 50+ coaches is worth "less" than a 2 dayer with 16 coaches however that's my slightly bias view

I like the idea.

A good way to balance this would be to evaluate the size of the tourney with the total number of games (and notre the total of coachs)

[Vanguard]

@Vanguard – my idea is very much to award those who attend many tournaments. So someone who attends only 5 tournaments but scores big points in all, might end up with fewer points than the guy who goes to 15 who is slightly more hit and miss. I’m cool with that as encouraging people to take part in UK events is exactly what we want.

Just to play devil's advocate, does this favour those near multiple tournaments who can attend multiple events more easily? Basically, a South-East bias?
Possible compromise could be to award minimal attendance points for all tournaments attended, but bonus points for placing on only the top six (for example).

Other than that, I do like the concept and particularly like the fact it's not purely results orientated. Hope you can repeat the sterling job you did with the UKTC.

[Joemanji]

Just to play devil's advocate, does this favour those near multiple tournaments who can attend multiple events more easily? Basically, a South-East bias?
Possible compromise could be to award minimal attendance points for all tournaments attended, but bonus points for placing on only the top six (for example).

Seems reasonable to skew the points in that direction.

[Darkson]

I have to say I’m surprised to hear of big tournaments like ARBBL, Crumb and Exiles not including Best Painted contests. To me and many others painting is a core part of the hobby.

I tried to run a "Team you'd most like to own" (like BP, but with less emphasis on it having to be the best painted, so conversions etc) the first two ARBBL events I ran, even extended the lunch "hour" to allow for it, then realised I'd have more success herding cats and gave up.

Given that you average BB tournament goer can't understand simple instructions such as "fill in the results sheet" and "next round will start at 3pm", asking them to leave their teams out and then vote is beyond most of them [tongue only slightly in cheek].

@Vanguard – my idea is very much to award those who attend many tournaments. So someone who attends only 5 tournaments but scores big points in all, might end up with fewer points than the guy who goes to 15 who is slightly more hit and miss. I’m cool with that as encouraging people to take part in UK events is exactly what we want.

As someone who's attendance is reduced for a few reasons, the biggest being finances but mainly working weekends, I see that as a huge turn-off, and would not lead me to attend more, or further afield, tournaments. Not everyone is lucky enough to be able to afford multiple weekends, either in cost or time, part of the reason the SWTC was "best 3 of X", so even people that could only make3 had a chance.

[SillySod]

Given that you average BB tournament goer can't understand simple instructions such as "fill in the results sheet" and "next round will start at 3pm".

Pft. Not everyone runs a tournaments on the same weekend that the clocks change

[Wulfyn]

I'd make a suggestion that you pick x number of tournaments that you feel is a reasonable number for someone to play over a year (I'll pick 10 for my example), and then have the final score decided on your best x results.

So using the example of 10:
- if someone attends 8 events then all 8 score.
- if someone attends 12 then they pick their best 10 and those score, with 2 being dropped.
- if someone attends 40 then they pick their best 10 and those score, with 30 being dropped.


This still puts things in favour of people that will attend a lot of tournaments as they get to drop the bad ones. However simply being able to play 30 tournaments a year would not get you the crown. (If the number was high enough) it would encourage people to leave their regional tournaments to make a few further away to get up to their 10 scoring tournaments for a year, and maybe a few more to drop their bad results. If the number were too high then people might be discouraged from trying at all as they feel they cannot compete on just attrition.

[Pipey]

Thanks all for the input.

Maybe it is best to pick a number of tournaments which ‘count’ e.g. 5 or 6. So that allows those who only attend a relatively small number to compete with those who attend 10 or more.

On the issue of encouraging people to travel – I did toy with the idea of picking 10 or 11 established and geographically representative events up and down the country (e.g. a mix of Scottish, northern, midlands, Welsh, southern) like Lycos’s original UK Championship. Politically impossible to include (and therefore exclude) some tournaments only? Or better to use more quantifiable reasons to determine which events are more ‘important’ e.g. size of field / number of games etc.?

[Wulfyn]

I think make them all count as that will encourage people to make new ones, but only allow players to take their best 10 (or howevermany) scores. You would need enough so that people couldn't complete it from just their local tournaments.

That way no arguing over favouritism from tournament organisers. If you are worried about a ton of smaller events starting just to game the system then apply a heavier weighting to larger, longer, and older tournaments.

Just ideas of course!

[sann0638]

On the issue of encouraging people to travel – I did toy with the idea of picking 10 or 11 established and geographically representative events up and down the country (e.g. a mix of Scottish, northern, midlands, Welsh, southern) like Lycos’s original UK Championship.

Interesting. Maybe allow 3 scottish, 3 northern, 3 south west and 3 south east to count? Something like that?

[Pipey]

I guess this is where it's tricky. What factors are most relevant? Population density, tournament density, community activity, geographical spread?

Had one idea of...

4 Southern
1 Midlands (NAFC)
4 Northern
1 Scottish
1 Welsh

So 11 tournaments. Chosen based on size, established tradition, even distribution around our community hotspots. Tricky no doubt, as I worry there'd be disagreement if regions were felt to be under / over represented. Maybe Scotland should get a second?

I wondered whether these 'chosen' events could count more than the others e.g. double points, rather than including them exclusively. Therefore still making it accessible to all tournaments.

This geographical spread feels like the best way to encourage players to travel more, but as I say it could be difficult to strike the right balance.

Would people support this style of series?

[lunchmoney]

Would people support this style of series?

I'd support, yes, but I still cant afford to travel to more tourneys

[Pipey]

Would a series like this suddenly see people travelling to all corners of the country in their droves? OK I doubt it, but it might just make a small difference. If even one coach decides to travel a little further afield to engage with a UK series then it will have been a success. It’s a no lose situation really. I do understand though that travel restrictions and other obstacles are ever present; I am realistic.

As Joemanji has pointed out (here or Team England, not sure) one factor that might prevent north and south mingling so much is the lack of midlands tourneys. It’s really only the NAFC where north and south come together. It’s a shame Poo Bowl died a death. Someone should really bring that back!