Talk Fantasy Football

Purplegoo wrote:I guess I'd be interested to see what our next hosts thought.

We'll come with a statement soon. By the end of this week by the latest. This will be in the eurobowl section.

I can tell that we had our first meeting and they asked me to be head of communications for Eurobowl 2014. The other things we discussed will be in the statement mentioned.

Excellent!

Following on from some of the suggestions there seems to be a number of competing suggestions and desires for what the scoring should reflect as suggestion how about something like:

Team results: 2/1/0 pts
Tie break: Total Games won/lost

This being used for the swiss format for all the games but after game 6 you add bonus points for 'big wins' against close opponents say team one above or below you you get +1 for a 7-1 and +2 for an 8-0 then maybe for teams two above and two below +0.5 for a 7-1 and +1 for an 8-0. These bonus points would be added once and be completely based on the standings after match 6.

This would mean that ther are bounuses for big wins but only against those in the a similar relative position at the end. Also people could not be completly sure of placings (unless someone runs away with it, which no scoring system can disguise) until the announcement.

Obviously it creates more work for someone in the organising group.

This is just an idea off the top of my head I'm not sure how it would work with real results. If any one has the time before I do feel free to have a look.

In regard to Round 1, did you considered to simply sum up the NAF points a particular team has for the precise races they will play?

It wouldn't be a perfect match with skillness, but could relect the overall performance of that team (and their experience with the races used).

I hope this time no one could argue this is not constructive commenting.

Pakulkan wrote:In regard to Round 1, did you considered to simply sum up the NAF points a particular team has for the precise races they will play?

It wouldn't be a perfect match with skillness, but could relect the overall performance of that team (and their experience with the races used).

I hope this time no one could argue this is not constructive commenting.

I think there is an issue with that, as for example we, the Danes, does´t play too much NAF games. Hence we are better than our scores will show. It´s even likely a top coach will take a race he has never played in Naf refi before, and thus seem (on paper) as a complete rookie.

While the idea, in itself seems good, I think it disfavors the countries that have many NAF tourneys in their countries.

My thoughts anyway.

I´ve also noticed the lack of a time schedule, which to my best memory, was the one thing everyone could agree on, would be the most important thing to get done?

Hi Chaps,

I've only attended two EB's, and have been quite involved in the first one and of course the WCII
The thing we really, really wanted in those two tournaments is simplicity!

I am therefore personally in favour of only counting the individual games.

Now I do see the problems here, the 8-0 trash putting a team in front and especially the fact that it doesn't really reflect the 'Team' aspect of EB.

On the other side of the spectrum there's ideas like the 1000-500-0 or anything similar. The disadvantage here is, imho the fact that this works quite well in long seasons (like with football/soccer) but in short seasons (like the 6 game EB) it's quite weak as the final score doesn't reflect the difference in power as good as it would over a long season where luck has the tendency to level even. Also, it's theoretically possible that a team collects zero points while losing all 6 games 4,5-3,5 (thus collecting 21 individual points) where another team collects 3 points after winning one game 4,5-3,5 and losing all the other 6-2 or worse. (thus collecting 14,5 individual points).

Therefore I think (Where I still think the counting just individual results is best) a bonus, none too big, for team performance on top of the individual score is probably the best of both worlds.

How bit a bonus? No idea, not too much and maybe one point is too little ...

Dave wrote: On the other side of the spectrum there's ideas like the 1000-500-0 or anything similar. The disadvantage here is, imho the fact that this works quite well in long seasons (like with football/soccer) but in short seasons (like the 6 game EB) it's quite weak as the final score doesn't reflect the difference in power as good as it would over a long season where luck has the tendency to level even.

I personally think it´s the other way around here. It´s easier to be lucky in a few "lone" games, than over a span of eight games. Ie a round.

The major issue, IMO, with the new proposals is that some countries risk getting no or very few points in total. That is in my view the major argument against going that way.
I am however playing on one of the teams that vie for the metal - and therefor my focus is primarily there. And it would, to the best of my beliefs, produce a more correct reflection of the teams performance.

Dave wrote: Therefore I think (Where I still think the counting just individual results is best) a bonus, none too big, for team performance on top of the individual score is probably the best of both worlds.
How bit a bonus? No idea, not too much and maybe one point is too little ...

Perhaps a compromise could be to "up" the bonus points given to a higher stadium i.e. 2 for a draw, 4 for a wins for example. That would make the team effort much more important than the single games but still make individual games count - some.

Reading through the last couple of post's I would still say that the basic question of what is the scoring trying to reflect needs to be answered; is it just about the overall teams win/loss result or the actual player matches result.

Without a consensus or at the very least statement from the TO or some other position of power on which the Eurobowl is trying to reflect there are always going to be people pushing team results vs those who just want the matches counted.

Loki +1
First we Need to make that Choice, then we discuss what rules Reflect that most.

Topper wrote:

Dave wrote: On the other side of the spectrum there's ideas like the 1000-500-0 or anything similar. The disadvantage here is, imho the fact that this works quite well in long seasons (like with football/soccer) but in short seasons (like the 6 game EB) it's quite weak as the final score doesn't reflect the difference in power as good as it would over a long season where luck has the tendency to level even.

I personally think it´s the other way around here. It´s easier to be lucky in a few "lone" games, than over a span of eight games. Ie a round.

The major issue, IMO, with the new proposals is that some countries risk getting no or very few points in total. That is in my view the major argument against going that way.
I am however playing on one of the teams that vie for the metal - and therefor my focus is primarily there. And it would, to the best of my beliefs, produce a more correct reflection of the teams performance.

Hi Topper, interesting answer. It falls into two parts as I read it:
1) agreed, and I even think we say the same. Bear in mind that I was talking big leagues here (34 games) and not EB with merely 6 games. The argument that you give here could even point in the direction that contains no bonus points whatsoever.

2) Interesting and I think this is a very important part of the discussion. Should the scoresystem profit the 'upper teams', the 'lower teams' or none at all? This different perspective is VERY important. IF team Holland will ever be able to make a claim for a top(pish) spot it's probabely not going to happen in a system where only the team performance counts. I do see your argument though that it will make the battle for the top spots more interesting and maybe more 'honest'.

BTW guys, the Belgians have submitted a full rule set to me. I have approved it with only one exception which I have asked captains to vote on. That is a proposed modification to the scoring system which very much relates to the topics discussed right here.

If your current captain is not aware, please ask him to check out the captains only EB discussions section here on TFF. It will then be your captain's job to discuss the Belgian proposal with his community and cast a representative vote. Yes or no.

Any new captains already in place will need to ask a TFF moderator to gain access.

Magictobe is awaiting access to eurobowl.eu and will email all captains once able.

Pippy wrote:Any new captains already in place will need to ask a TFF moderator to gain access.

Quick clarification - new captains will need to ask a TFF Admin to gain access - I don't believe a moderator can do so.
Admins are Galak, Thadrin, Draco, myself and of course, Doubleskulls.

Darkson wrote:

Pippy wrote:Any new captains already in place will need to ask a TFF moderator to gain access.

Quick clarification - new captains will need to ask a TFF Admin to gain access - I don't believe a moderator can do so.
Admins are Galak, Thadrin, Draco, myself and of course, Doubleskulls.

can't indeed

Dave wrote:

Topper wrote:

Dave wrote: On the other side of the spectrum there's ideas like the 1000-500-0 or anything similar. The disadvantage here is, imho the fact that this works quite well in long seasons (like with football/soccer) but in short seasons (like the 6 game EB) it's quite weak as the final score doesn't reflect the difference in power as good as it would over a long season where luck has the tendency to level even.

I personally think it´s the other way around here. It´s easier to be lucky in a few "lone" games, than over a span of eight games. Ie a round.

The major issue, IMO, with the new proposals is that some countries risk getting no or very few points in total. That is in my view the major argument against going that way.
I am however playing on one of the teams that vie for the metal - and therefor my focus is primarily there. And it would, to the best of my beliefs, produce a more correct reflection of the teams performance.

Hi Topper, interesting answer. It falls into two parts as I read it:
1) agreed, and I even think we say the same. Bear in mind that I was talking big leagues here (34 games) and not EB with merely 6 games. The argument that you give here could even point in the direction that contains no bonus points whatsoever.

2) Interesting and I think this is a very important part of the discussion. Should the scoresystem profit the 'upper teams', the 'lower teams' or none at all? This different perspective is VERY important. IF team Holland will ever be able to make a claim for a top(pish) spot it's probabely not going to happen in a system where only the team performance counts. I do see your argument though that it will make the battle for the top spots more interesting and maybe more 'honest'.

1) Hmm what I tried to say was that the fewer games played the more important it is to have a way to fix the "luck" - which means a bonus point system or something along those lines I read it as if you feel exactly the opposite?

2) I think you´re right this is part of what people should take into account when thinking about rules change. If the system changes, then I believe it will be more of a team effort rather than eight games that are added together. This have some good points certainly and a few drawbacks.

I do think that while some games will become less important other games will mean even more.
As it is a 3.5 loss isn´t all bad - but with the new rule set it would be. As I feel it would be better to move to a new system where not loosing as a team becomes very important I do also see the issue - especially from the smaller countries sides. There´s a real risk that some team will end up with absolutely no points.

I ain´t sure what a change will bring around for getting many teams to attend? Will it be harder to attract players for the smaller nations or?

Hi Topper,

I think we feel very, very much the same. Still, one question.
I suppose we agree 'luck' should be decimated as much as possible but isn't there two sides on the coin of 'luck'?

One one side there's the lucky draw resulting in a 7-1 trashing and thus a lovely lead after round one (or later).
One the other side there's the lucky 4,5-3,5 win.

I think the challenge is to find a score-system that rewards both results differently as luck is too much part of BB to reward the 3,5-4,5 loss equally to the 1-7 loss.

Maybe, and just musing here, the idea of a 'draw' should be widened? Not just the 4-4 but also the 3,5-4,5 counts as a draw? (I feel 3-5 is a much more decisive difference between the teams).