Talk Fantasy Football

I agree Oventa, we have to act.
For my part, i vote to keep the actual system : the nation who never organise the Eurobowl who have the best position win the organisation of the next Eurobowl.


I think to change we need to have a comittee. We don't have a comittee.
If we decide to change, first we make a comittee and after we can see the options. I am candidate to be in the comittee if it is possible.

I think there are a lot of really good points here and a lot of common themes.

I can't find any formally agreed existing rules, there appears to just be a vague sort of understanding which has worked upto now which we seem to have pieced together but as is clear in the posts in this thread not all of those pieces match.

That understanding will come to an end at some point either because all countries will have hosted, we'll run out of countries willing to host or the countries that have already hosted will become upset at their lack of chance to be able to host again (not that I'm saying that's happening here).

Whatever we decide I think it needs to be formalised and agreed for a fixed period of time, for me the World Cup feels like a natural break. Whether we formalise the existing understanding until the 2019 World Cup or comeup with a different plan. A vote with one per country seems like the best way to do this, with a re-vote during a World Cup year.

I do like the idea of the countries up for hosting having a plan but I think that an agreed format for what's required of that plan is needed first. I don't think a huge amount of detail should be required at that stage but more of a framework for location, organisational structure and accommodation.

Costings should be considered but I don't think they should be fully nailed down because there are too many variables involved and to get to that point you'd have to negotiate with providers and if you don't end up hosting you could just alienate them.

Currently I'm working on a playbook for the hosting of large tournaments.
The meaning of this is to have a guideline for countries that want to organize a large event (be it Eurobowl, World Cup or some other tournament).
It's based on past and present experience in organising large event (both bloodbowl and other)
After it's finished (at the end of this year's november) it will be made available for everyone to use.
This means (if allowed) putting it on the NAF-website.

driesfield wrote:Currently I'm working on a playbook for the hosting of large tournaments.
The meaning of this is to have a guideline for countries that want to organize a large event (be it Eurobowl, World Cup or some other tournament).
It's based on past and present experience in organising large event (both bloodbowl and other)
After it's finished (at the end of this year's november) it will be made available for everyone to use.
This means (if allowed) putting it on the NAF-website.

driesfield i search the like button for your message

there is not so
driesfield +1

driesfield president

Joemanji wrote:

Valen wrote:I understand there is a big difference in running a 25 man torni in a boozer from running a 300+ man EB, but as far as I know, only Holland and the UK have done that before? (apologies to any nation if they have done this, not sure how big the last EB in Denmark was). So does that mean only the two nations who have proved they can do it (3 after this year and 4 after next EB if successful) can apply?

I guess not. But there are some nations who have never hosted a single NAF tournament of any size. Whereas there are nations with good experience to draw upon: running multiple medium-sized events, regularly attending large events such as the majors, large player base. So this isn't a catch-22 of "need it to get it", but rather "have experience of it to understand it". There are plenty of 80, 90, 100+ coach events around.

Don't forget that The largest tourney organized in Belgium was the Brassbowl. It was "just" a +50 event (by Dries actually )

And finally, Belgium is hosting 2 team tourneys in parallele with around 250 participants in total!

driesfield wrote: This means (if allowed) putting it on the NAF-website.

If it's good.

babass wrote:Don't forget that The largest tourney organized in Belgium was the Brassbowl. It was "just" a +50 event (by Dries actually )

Dries has been to every Eurobowl, both World Cups, several NAF Championships and run many, many events. Even still he has taken on ten other people to help him run the event, which makes me confident he knew what he was letting himself in for.

Joemanji wrote:

babass wrote:Don't forget that The largest tourney organized in Belgium was the Brassbowl. It was "just" a +50 event (by Dries actually )

Dries has been to every Eurobowl, both World Cups, several NAF Championships and run many, many events. Even still he has taken on ten other people to help him run the event, which makes me confident he knew what he was letting himself in for.

It was about the proposal of "requirement" that a country should have already organized huge event, to be eligible for hosting the eurobowl:
Dries and Belgium are showing, that it's possible

Not suggesting that as a requirement at all.

Sorry if this is out of place (a non-Eorobowler that can obviously read this), but if putting on an event this size in 9-ish months is a concern, and I can understand whyit might be, why not use the upcoming years break as a means to "reset" the terms to allow countries more time to get prepared.

Namely:

EB2014: Top place non-hoster gets EB2016 (approx 2 years to prepare)
EB2014: 2nd place non-hoster gets EB2017 (approx 3 years to prepare)
No EB in 2015
EB2016: Top place non-hoster (or reset if not applicable) gets EB2018
EB2017: Top place non-hoster (or reset if not applicable) gets EB2020
EB2018: Top place non-hoster (or reset if not applicable) gets EB2021
No EB in 2019
EB2020: Top place non-hoster (or reset if not applicable) gets EB2022
etc etc


This will mean that every country will get at least 2 years to organise the event.

I hate to say it, but Darkson makes a good point,

With the expectancy of a large euro open as well now, we are doubling the logistics for the organisers, have 2 years to prepare makes sense.

The question is if you trally need 2 years to prepare?
Aside from Spain in 2008 and Denmark 2012 each country "only" had 1 year to prepare.
Though the number of participants could increase each year, I think it will not be that much different from this year and that
he biggest issues can be tackled in a year.

I can't believe that there's a single country in Europe where the requirements for hosting can't be met.
Maybe a system with points were the top 5 (or whichever is decided) countries who haven't hosted get those points.
Each year the one that hosts gets replaced by a country who didn't host it for the longest time?

That way ypu can still play for hosting the event, the smaller nations stand a chance and the oldest organisers also get a new introduction.

So to get to an end result I suggest that we split things into three sections and vote on each one

1 – Tournament rules from Eurobowl 2016 whether hosting for the following year or having a 2 year prep time
A – We stick with the current format but actually write it down somewhere. As far as I can tell the current format is the team that places highest that has never hosted before & that has at least 6 declared countrymen on its team gets to host. It’s mentioned in this post that the team has to have been to 2 of the last 3 Eurobowls but I’d not heard that before.
B – We move to a bidding process as suggested in Joes post
C – We restart the system sticking with the format in suggestion A but with every country eligible
D – We stick with option A but with the facility to add 1 country per year that has already hosted, a point system as suggested by Dries. My suggestion would be that the winner or the tournament gets put into the ranking for hosting but after adding half of the amount of countries to their result. I.e. 18 teams so first place is ranked at number 10 for the hosting competition. Last year for example England would have been ranked 10 behind Belgium and tied with Portugal.

2 – Decision length
A – Reviewed during every world cup year with this review counting as the one for WC 3
B – Keep whatever we decide until the system breaks or until we all get bored – minimum 4 years

3 – Planning
A – Each country wanting to be considered for hosting must bring a plan confirming a venue, accommodation plan and organisational structure
B – No plan needs to be revealed

I suggest that these things are voted on with a captains vote at a meeting in Belgium giving us two weeks to have a discussion with our communities as to what is best.

Thoughts?

Agree.
Currently I think the details of the proposals are less important than simply come to a decision at all.
(Sometimes even bad decisions are better than no decisions )
Let's vote on this in the captains forum.
Can someone sanction this process so that we can move on?

Oventa wrote: Can someone sanction this process so that we can move on?

Interesting - it has been pointed out before that the NAF does not own the Eurobowl as such, so there is no-one to sanction it. The Captains' forum seems to be the sanctioning body (as per the rules vote) so probably best just to crack on, in my opinion.