BP allows TO to encourage behaviors not directly related to winning.
I'm not convinced W/D/L primacy is the even the ideal.
3/1/0 is really a BP system.
Equal opportunity is always "fair." The debate is about inclusion of luck.
If you are playing to win, you should be playing to the rules as posted.
If you don't like the rules as posted, politely discuss it with the TO for the next
My pet peeve is giving a benefit to the loser of the match.
I know this thread died, but I'm a first time TO and I wondered into this corner of TFF. I will be addressing how my tournament falls within this discussion and my opinions on others comments. If you want to reference my rules they are here
I us BP. It is calibrated for a strict W/D/L primacy per match, but not for the entire tournament. It was done with intent and thought. I had not considered everything mentioned in this thread and might revise it for next year, but generally I stand by my current rules. The main reason I prefer BP over SoS is because I can reward behaviors I want to encourage. For instance I give one or two points for registering early and submitting rosters. I give two points per round for finishing on time. I estimate the winner will have about 200 points. I don't mind a small token in tiebreakers to encourage the coaches to make things easier for me. All of my BP for TDs are based on the differential. I. e. losing by one or winning by more than two. This helps distinguish between barely winning and blowing your opponent away. I am okay with a coach who barely won 4 games being ranked below a 3/1/0 coach who dominated for three games. Yes, I intend that this can break strict W/D/L ranking. I find it to be fair, but I understand if people disagree.
This thread has really gotten me to think about my BP for CAS though. Warning, the following is tongue-in-cheek.
you are making Cas an end in itself which is not what BB is.
You abbreviated "BB." You might have missed that the first "B" stands for "Blood." Most of what has been said about the valuation of CAS I respect, but I think CAS is a lot of what Blood Bowl is about. Yes it is more random, I find that unfortunate for the entire system. In tournaments though, my Undead throw A LOT more blocks than my Wood Elfs. Bashy teams getting more CAS than agile teams, isn't luck, it is playing to your strengths. I believe that if TD differential is rewarded, then teams with different strength sets need a method to get BP. After reflecting on this thread, I see how it could be seen as adding a detractor to the system I use.
My tournament has 10 awards not based on coming out on top. I still don't feel that that is enough incentive to keep people in games that have gone downhill. By the last round people know if they are not in the running. BP can keep them involved, even in the last round.
I do believe it is the players responsibility to understand the scoring system and not make assumptions. All six of the tournaments within 500 miles (800 kilometers) use BP. Five of them are calibrated similar to mine. The other one is intentionally wacky and based on CAS (and even points for KO); and it should be obviously weird when looking at the rules.
Enough about my tournament. This is already long enough, I will not be quoting from others when referring to there posts.
Even though I have used the phrase, what exactly is meant by "W/D/L primacy?" A 3/1/0 system was stated as maintaining it. Is 3/0/1 greater than 2/2/0 maintaining it? I can't find reference to this phrase being used anywhere else, so I am unsure.
3/1/0 is just a 2/1/0 with one BP for having a TD differential greater than 0. For that matter almost all systems can be viewed as 2/1/0 (times a constant) plus bonus points. Head to head and flipping a coin (and "goblin knife fight") are the only tiebreakers I can recall that can not be boiled down to a BP system
On page 4 Darkson makes an argument against SoS. Round one may be random, but if your first opponent went on to do better than the first opponent of someone you tied with, then that is the exact argument FOR SoS. Using Darkson's example and coaches A, B, C, and D. The days record indicates that A was better than C. Of course B should win the tiebreaker over D because if maybe A wasn't so good, then B could have one in round one. I do think head-to-head should be a tiebreaker before SoS though.
On page 5 Geggster makes some good arguments against BP as "tiebreaker." On average his arguments are not applicable, but BP does add more of a luck factor. Coaches care about their
games that day, not that it all balances out. I get it, but I prefer the additional control BP systems give the TO.
If the ONLY goal is to determine who wins games the most often based on a limited sample, I do believe:
Head to Head
Total of 2/1/0 of all opponents
Flip a coin
I accept a little more randomness so that I am free to not define the goal so strictly. I do not believe the above goal is even the same as determining who plays the best. Measurement of playing the best is a more complicated variable (to me) than just winning.
I mentioned the wacky tournament in my area earlier. It is so skewed that I went undefeated and ended in the middle of the pack. I took Wood Elfs to a bash fest. I ran circles around my opponents. I knew the rules and this outcome was deliberate on both my part and the TO's. I would understand if that tournament was not included in the NAF rankings. I chose to take a team that would go up in NAF rankings at the expense of doing well in the tournament. That is the exact problem I think the OP is referring to. All I can say is that it is a fun tournament and if you even glance at the rules pack you should see what you are in for. ("Goblin knife fight" mentioned earlier is a tiebreaker of this tournament.) This tournament is a fine example of, if you want to win the tournament then play to the rules of that tournament. If A plays to the rules better than B, but B has the better record, then A should still win. If you don't like this, politely discuss it with the TO before he posts his next rules.
I do have one pet peeve that is a tangent, but I feel related. In one of my regions tournaments, after each match the winner gets Foul Appearance on a random player and the loser gets to pick the player to gain that skill. First this adds more randomness to the outcome, which is what it sounds like the consensus in this thread is against. Second, a tournament is about distinguishing the better player from the worse. Of course randomness makes this nigh impossible, but this mechanic raises the floor so you have less room to spread the players out. Therefore the inherent randomness of this game will cause even more overlap.