Talk Fantasy Football

My last post on this thread, so feel free to deliberately misunderstand, pick it apart, focus on two words and ignore the rest of the post etc etc etc.
Oh, and of course how I can't post this as I'm a Mod, regardless of the fact I'm posting as/also a TO.


If the NAF wants to bring in eligible scoring systems, so be it, and good for them. If they decide that BPs are the "big evil" and either won't get sanctioned or won't have a shield presented, again, good for them. I'll continue to run my event in the way that I feel is right for me. And if not having NAF sanctioning means that numbers drop to a point where it's no longer finacially viable for me to run it then that's fine to - means they'll be one (or two, depending on year) free weekends in our busy UK calender.


I'd also point out that Wulfyn's post on a 6-0-0 being beaten (using my scoring system) by a 5-1-0 isn't possible, as there aren't enough players in my event that would allow players with those records not to have meet (I think I'd need 64 coaches, and I have a space max of 50).
Yes, technically if a coach went 5-0-1 and scored 3TDs and 3 Cas in all the wins, and 3 Cas in their loss (which would have to be against the 6-0-0 coach) they could win over a low scoring 6-0-0 player, and that wasn't intentional, but I'm not really that worried as it's unlikely to happen, and if it did, well, the coaches know BPs are on offer.

As for turning up at an event and not knowing the scoring, I just say "tough". If you can't spare a couple of minutes to read the rules pack for an event (which, lets be honest, aren't exactly War & Peace) then that's your own fault, not the faulty of the TOs. Do you also assume that all events are TV100 and no skills? No, because you read the rules.

I have found this thread very interesting, but I'm sad like that.

As a TO with a very young tournament (Auld World Masters is about to have its 2nd outing in May) it has made me ponder a lot about the scoring system. Off the bat I want to say that I am a great believer in bonus points. In my mind there should always be something in a game to play for. We've all been in games where from pretty early on you see it getting away from you (my horrible match up v Nonumber at the Welsh . . . . 6 of my players in the Casualty box by half time and 2 or 3 KOs refusing to recover) and so by having bonus points it still gives you something to play for. You may not win the game, but the hope of one more casualty or one more score will give you something out of it.

I totally get the frustration though where bonus points stack up so much players with inferior records leapfrog teams that in theory would be higher ranked. Looking at the current points scoring system for AWM II this could happen and the more I think of it the more it doesn't still as well with me. My TOing partner is selfishly away on holiday at the moment, but I will talk to him when he returns on amending the points somehow.

As for Dio's event - it certainly got everyone talking. The random draw puts me off to be honest. I am not one of those coaches who in 10 years will have a shelf full of NAF trophies. Currently I own one from a small event I won last year (and wouldn't have won it if Hawk hadn't double 1'd a T16 score) and am quite pleased with it. I would like to win more of course but realistically don't expect to. To people like me having one of the NAF trophies means something and so if I won one in a raffle . . . . well I wouldn't want it. This is in no way a criticism of Dio or his event, I just want to win one on merit.

Darkson wrote: I'd also point out that Wulfyn's post on a 6-0-0 being beaten (using my scoring system) by a 5-1-0 isn't possible, as there aren't enough players in my event that would allow players with those records not to have meet

If bonus points are used to decide match ups then I am not sure that this is true, but assuming otherwise yes you are correct. However it is definitely possible that a 4-1-1 can place ahead of an otherwise winning 4-2-0, even if the former lost to the latter.

wobert wrote:To people like me having one of the NAF trophies mea4ns something and so if I won one in a raffle . . . . well I wouldn't want it. This is in no way a criticism of Dio or his event, I just want to win one on merit

Don't worry I am sad like that too

I think the argument is that things like bonus points from casualties are a lottery. You roll some big dice (random) and get a ton of casualties you can beat someone who played much better than you, got better results than you, and all this despite having subdued dice.

Dio's example is just a more extreme version of what we are unsure about. I like the idea of the odd bonus point for things like a close loss as they have in rugby based on the result and not how often i rolled 10+ in a row.

Darkson wrote:My last post on this thread, so feel free to deliberately misunderstand, pick it apart, focus on two words and ignore the rest of the post etc etc etc.
Oh, and of course how I can't post this as I'm a Mod, regardless of the fact I'm posting as/also a TO.

The tournament you made a massive fuss about not being the organiser of anymore?

Darkson wrote:Yes, technically if a coach went 5-0-1 and scored 3TDs and 3 Cas in all the wins, and 3 Cas in their loss (which would have to be against the 6-0-0 coach) they could win over a low scoring 6-0-0 player, and that wasn't intentional, but I'm not really that worried as it's unlikely to happen, and if it did, well, the coaches know BPs are on offer.

As for turning up at an event and not knowing the scoring, I just say "tough". If you can't spare a couple of minutes to read the rules pack for an event (which, lets be honest, aren't exactly War & Peace) then that's your own fault, not the faulty of the TOs. Do you also assume that all events are TV100 and no skills? No, because you read the rules.

If you can't be bothered to read / understand the rules when you are the one who wrote them, how can you expect anyone else to?

Darkson wrote:My last post on this thread, so feel free to deliberately misunderstand, pick it apart, focus on two words and ignore the rest of the post etc etc etc.
Oh, and of course how I can't post this as I'm a Mod, regardless of the fact I'm posting as/also a TO.

I don't think anyone has done anything other than treat posts like "I do it 'just because'" with the utmost generosity. Your last post about the prem league and 3/1/0 just beggars belief. If you can't see that the Prem league uses an equivalent of 2/1/0 plus a tiebreaker rather than any sort of stupid bonus point system then I don't know what to say. You still don't seem to get the basic premise about what systems respect a Win>Draw>Loss hierarchy and what don't. To be clear (although I think it is as clear as it can be in this thread) W>D>L hierarchy is a short hand for saying systems which award points only for winning, drawing and losing and therefore whatever points those award dictate the order that teams are ranked - and no other factor. Such a system could award 8/1/0 for W/D/L if it wanted - the point is regardless of the weighting between Wins and Draws the system provides a W/D/L hierarchy that is always respected. Because points are not awarded for anything else arbitrary like CAS or TD or goals scored or freekicks conceded.

As for your contributions of course you have a right to contribute as a TO - a valuable contribution it should be - but you must also keep one eye on the fact that as a moderator you are here to encourage discussion. Even when you don't agree with some of what is being discussed. I don't see any way to read your initial posts as anything other than attempting to shut down discussion with "I can do what I want and I don't have to answer to the likes of you". 'Just because' is a justification for why you tell a 2 year old to do something - it's a pretty rude response to any adult with a reasonable question. The fact that you eventually went on to answer the question properly twice with 2 different answers (TOs make a lot of effort so can do what they want & using bonus points as a tiebreaker) only serves to highlight that. For me it is borderline behaviour for any contributor - but for a moderator I think it's over the line.

And this last super aggressive, very negative post which only has a core point of "I can do what I want" - does not serve to change my mind on that. Very out of step with the other posts in the thread whether they agreed with the core point or not.

Wobert wrote: it has made me ponder a lot about the scoring system.

Great. That was the sole aim. Thanks for contributing constructively.

I am very surprised yet that nobody has mentioned yet that Most Cas and Most TD prizes do already represent "something to play for" apart from the general ranking. It would be very easy to introduce more prizes of the like - a good example being Best Comeback on day 2 - without messing with the latter.

RoterSternHochdahl wrote:I am very surprised yet that nobody has mentioned yet that Most Cas and Most TD prizes do already represent "something to play for" apart from the general ranking.

Excellent point.

RoterSternHochdahl wrote:I am very surprised yet that nobody has mentioned yet that Most Cas and Most TD prizes do already represent "something to play for" apart from the general ranking. It would be very easy to introduce more prizes of the like - a good example being Best Comeback on day 2 - without messing with the latter.

At the Welsh we do this. Tds and cas earn their own prizes and have no bearing on points gained.

This way they have their value with out impacting on the w/d/l and scoring.

On the subject of "something to play for" I give plenty of awards:
Exiles Open Champion (top spot)
Runner up (second place)
The Glowworm Award (fourth place)
Stunty Cup (highest placed Stunty team*)
Most Violent (most CAS caused)
Most Squishy (most CAS taken)
Top Scorer (most TDs scored)
No Defence (most TD’s let in)
Red Card Magnet (most players sent off for fouling)
The Wooden Spoon (last place)

The Best Sunday Comeback has been awarded in the past if the rise was significant, but it's a judgement call by me on the day for that one.

But as you can see, there's plenty of "awards" to chase and I've known coaches, who know they cant win the top after a loss or two, aim for the other ones. (Red Card Magnet was violently contested a couple of years back, between two coaches; one getting 14 (iirc) and the winner 16 across the 6 matches. Violent buggers )

None of these give BPs, at my events, as I use 3/1/0 and SoS.

hawca wrote: At the Welsh we do this. Tds and cas earn their own prizes and have no bearing on points gained.

With the grand total of 5 NAF-tournaments under my belt, I have yet to play in one where BPs are included. And I am the lucky winner of my first NAF shield, and to be perfectly honest this is a big deal for me. See: I even make posts talking about it.

Anywho: At the Welsh Open I finished first with 5-1-0. Hawca was second with 5-0-1. He had about 10 more cas than me over the weekend, and in a different system where that actually mattered (beside the obvious advantage on the pitch) he probably would have won the tournament. I would have travelled home with a bad feeling if this had happened, and I am very pleased the rules were constructed for it not to matter.

This would be my issue with BPs: Sure, read the rules, and don`t go if you don`t like them (and I will be sure to do so): But if someone leaves the Weekend grumbling about something that has been set in place for no apparent reason ("just because") then that something is a silly thing. If enough people feel that the wrong person is Crowned winner, then the TO should have a look at the system set in place.

Let`s look at the arguments:

"More people get the chance to win"
Fair enough. But I disagree. How would that 4-1-1 win feel against a 5-0-1 player? Would you feel you deserved the trophy? I wouldn`t. And if you are good enough to go 4-1-1 and finish top6, then you just might go 5-0-1 next time and win it. And it feels good!

"Give them something to play for"
Sure, this is important. The most important is always to nerd it out and have fun. But some purpose on the pitch helps. This thread has created several good suggestion for things to play for, and even some nice alternatives (tiering) to SoS as Tie-Breaker.

"Different rules = different play/challenge"
Actually, I don`t think the different rules make anyone play different. BPs for cas? Well, the Dark Elves won`t stop columning in their "boring" way. Noone is likely to play more risk-oriented. Perhaps you will do that 2die block with no reroll before running in the TD that you normally wouldn`t, but the change in play style would be miniscule. An excellent way to shake up things is the rules for team creation. Gold, handicaps, skills, random star players, weather; you name it. The scoring system won`t change anything unless you do it proper "Bugman style". If you really want something different and to give incentive to different play then do something like Bugmans.

@Straume - couldn't agree more, well put. Even if you are the sort of schmuck who wins a big tournament at only the 5th attempt

@Lunchmoney - obviously from this thread this is the approach I back. Scoring that respects w-d-l records 100% but where real imagination is shown in awards the rest of us can play to win. You seem to be a world leader in that regard since the 'well done you did OK' award I was reading about last night was you. And that's one I might be in with a chance of winning!

Greshvakk, so do you think any of this really matters then, will you ever be close enough to win a tournament with your dodgy Norse team. I mean this has been a heated debate, although you have cunningly tried to disguise your contempt at people who can't spell or put together 20000 word essays using clever sarcasm. All this debate and your not even good enough to win a bloody trophy lol better get yourself down to Cardiff bud a try win one in a raffle

frogboy wrote: better get yourself down to Cardiff bud a try win one in a raffle

I intend to!

Ps thanks for the unflattering write up I hope I haven't appeared that way to everyone. Personally I've enjoyed seeing how the debate has flowed without my help and I learned a lot more than I bargained for.

frog, do you think this should only be a discussion amongst those who have won or got close to winning a tournament?