Talk Fantasy Football

I disagree with topper, I think attending one eurobowls even if it is your first eurobowl, is enough to judge if you think you can accept the nomination for next host.
You have directly on site the hosts and many other experienced players you could ask.

Also I don't demand that each eurobowl becomes more perfect then the previous one.
I think it's the bloodbowl that counts most, and while you remember perhaps one event for the perfect organisation and lots of gimmicks and prizes, you might have another eurobowl in good memories for another reason.

So I am also for the simple solution from pippy:
Highest ranked with lowest number of euro hostings, that accepts.
Only the accepting of the nomination is done post tournament and not per tournament ( to get more inside info if believe is there to be able to host it for first time participants)
And all are welcome to discourage a candidate team from accepting the hosting

That is my first timer view

Oventa wrote:I disagree with topper, [snip]

I also kind of disagree with Topper. I think the main factor to consider is commitment. However I think organizers having attended more than one Eurobowl i very desirable - if you only attended one it might be a bad one or just not representative of the Eurobowl. Also I would like to avoid a situation where only on nation is eligible.

In Joes suggestion you could change the modifier for having hosted to -8 or -10 and keep the dynamics of always being in competition and giving all a shot at it. And remember that this is not more complicated than that you will know your modifier en advance. only the tournament result is needed to find the final score.

If the desire is to go in a simpler direction I find it important that the candidates put forward a candidacy - by this I only mean that they tell the current organizers in advance that they are willing and able to host.

SillySod wrote:Approaching it from the perspective of someone who has run a smaller event....

What kind of things need to be put in place that you would not need to sort out for a regular tournament?

I dont know the nature of the event you have organized and I'm not experienced myself - in in terms of numbers anyway. I would however say that the one tournament I did take part in organizing was a pretty big succes.

I'll try to give my shot at the main parts that would differentiate a Eurobowl from a traditional tournament.

- Food and accommodation of a lot of people are handled fully or partially by the organizers.
- Handling 25.000 euro of other peoples money.
- the tournament is large so you need a large crew and coordination of all kinds of stuff. Handling registration, payments, rosters, match results in large numbers etc.
- Specially manufactured stuff should be handed out as gifts/prizes to a larger extend than I would expect at a smaller tournament
- I think there is a need to prioritize the side tournament, so in fact you could be organizing two tournaments. I believe there is a pretty large amount of people who are unlikely to make it to a national team, but are of value to the Eurobowl community. (we didn't succeed in this to the extend that I would have liked. Many Danes found the tournament to expensive and even though I don't understand it, I must still take that in to account)
- The border less love, but that comes with the territory.


That being said I think it can be done if you have the people and the commitment.

All manner of solutions, but the simplest are often the best. I think the clarity of the top eligible nation to then host should be retained. I think we agree that spreading it around agreeable nations is best, that the competitive aspect for potential hosts should be maintained (so let's not get to a position where we have only one or two potential host) and that therefore at some stage we should/will have to readmit nations to the cycle. The problem with readmitting nations to the cycle is that any timeframe will be arbitrary and possibly redundant as the event grows.

So how about at the captains' meeting of future events, captains of nations that have never hosted declare if their nation wants to be eligible (assuming they have at least six nationals).

If there are four/five nations then the top placed finisher then hosts the next one.

If there are less than that, then countries are readmitted to the cycle to make it back to 4/5 eligible nations, starting with the most distant (the Dutch presently). This way nations are only readmitted to the cycle through need to keep the next hosting competitive rather than an arbitrary timeframe.

We will then start each event with a shortlist of prospective nations that everyone can be clear on. It also means that nations that have never hosted but want to, are always in with a shout of hosting, but never get it just for showing up.

Why not make the hosting the result of a "bid" like the World Cup?
That way you can know in advance were the event will be held and can save money to go.

I agree with Sillysod, but also I have to admit that Toppers "warnings" are well said and justified. -Something you HAVE to calculate beforehand. That is exactly the reason why I put out our chances to host so bluntly.

I don't believe Topper was trying to rule anyone out; more likely he was trying to underline that "these things you really have to keep in mind" Kind of a margin of safety, or how do you say?

But if these things are ok, then no worries.

Hanu wrote:I agree with Sillysod, but also I have to admit that Toppers "warnings" are well said and justified. -Something you HAVE to calculate beforehand. That is exactly the reason why I put out our chances to host so bluntly.

I don't believe Topper was trying to rule anyone out; more likely he was trying to underline that "these things you really have to keep in mind" Kind of a margin of safety, or how do you say?

But if these things are ok, then no worries.

This is exactly what I tried to say

I like people disagreeing with me - as long as it´s constructive.
Because as Sigmund Graff once said.
"Unity makes strong - but also blind"

I also admit that I on some areas are a person who sees the potential difficulties before they happen and tries to eliminate these. Sometimes maybe too much.

SillySod wrote:Approaching it from the perspective of someone who has run a smaller event....

What kind of things need to be put in place that you would not need to sort out for a regular tournament?

I think apart from what Tripleskull already mentioned is:

- Discussing the rules and taking the time to meet everyones PMs is a halftime (job hour wise) for about a half a year or so.

- Correcting things, and checking up on errors, miscommunication and things like that is a larger task than expected for me. (Even though I wasn´t in charge of that part).

- Making the event cheap but at the same time having good accommodation, venue and food is an issue. Especially in the more expensive northern countries.

- Keeping tow on the laws that one has to follow. Ie. rights for the bar, issues with noice, fire department in case of fires etc.

- and a hundred smaller issues that needs to be taken care of.

I don´t think that every one EB should surpass the previous one in gretness - as that is individually seen anyway.
I do believe that each one hosting should do their best to make it as perfect as they could.

Geggster wrote:All manner of solutions, but the simplest are often the best. I think the clarity of the top eligible nation to then host should be retained. I think we agree that spreading it around agreeable nations is best, that the competitive aspect for potential hosts should be maintained (so let's not get to a position where we have only one or two potential host) and that therefore at some stage we should/will have to readmit nations to the cycle. The problem with readmitting nations to the cycle is that any timeframe will be arbitrary and possibly redundant as the event grows.

So how about at the captains' meeting of future events, captains of nations that have never hosted declare if their nation wants to be eligible (assuming they have at least six nationals).

If there are four/five nations then the top placed finisher then hosts the next one.

If there are less than that, then countries are readmitted to the cycle to make it back to 4/5 eligible nations, starting with the most distant (the Dutch presently). This way nations are only readmitted to the cycle through need to keep the next hosting competitive rather than an arbitrary timeframe.

We will then start each event with a shortlist of prospective nations that everyone can be clear on. It also means that nations that have never hosted but want to, are always in with a shout of hosting, but never get it just for showing up.

Love your post, Gegg - a clear and simple solution.

The welsh being serious about the chance of hosting are looking into venues and accom accomadation etc so should we get oppotunity we can take it with both hands and run with it.

It was my first major tournee at Denmark this year. I love it, for the coaches and the spirit of the game. Methinks Netsmurf was a bit gamey in delaying a turn when the field was cleared, anyway he did not score on turn 5 ha!

Why can't there be a rota with a rule of those not attending won't get to host but if they come the year after they will have to host.

Seriously the idea of gaming all over Europe and getting drunk in different cities just makes the weekend great fun. Drinking with Danes and Swedes was great and then drinking with Finns and later the Danes asked if they got naked was brilliant (they did too). The Italians looking at us northern Europeans not worried at 14 degrees in T-shirts was fun too. Whilst the beer monsters went to the England team and I must admit that drinking with other teams it was tough competition.

Playing Blood Bowl hung over was a new experience and great fun. I enjoyed the Euroopen and maybe can be a Merc Coach for another team. But I will Long Bomb... it's fun!

Haha the English beer monsters were rescued and set to bed by the welsh before we shared another drink.

Jimjimmany was violated. Poor soul

Wales would be amusing.

There are 3 local airports and I know Cardiff and Bristol could be easy pick up points. British Public transport is not in the league of Public transport.

Birmingham is a bit of a travel and it would be a coach service to Wales.

Casper wrote:

Geggster wrote:All manner of solutions, but the simplest are often the best. I think the clarity of the top eligible nation to then host should be retained. I think we agree that spreading it around agreeable nations is best, that the competitive aspect for potential hosts should be maintained (so let's not get to a position where we have only one or two potential host) and that therefore at some stage we should/will have to readmit nations to the cycle. The problem with readmitting nations to the cycle is that any timeframe will be arbitrary and possibly redundant as the event grows.

So how about at the captains' meeting of future events, captains of nations that have never hosted declare if their nation wants to be eligible (assuming they have at least six nationals).

If there are four/five nations then the top placed finisher then hosts the next one.

If there are less than that, then countries are readmitted to the cycle to make it back to 4/5 eligible nations, starting with the most distant (the Dutch presently). This way nations are only readmitted to the cycle through need to keep the next hosting competitive rather than an arbitrary timeframe.

We will then start each event with a shortlist of prospective nations that everyone can be clear on. It also means that nations that have never hosted but want to, are always in with a shout of hosting, but never get it just for showing up.

Love your post, Gegg - a clear and simple solution.

+1 !

As long as the ideal of "move the event round Europe as much as possible" is adhered to, then Pippy's, Joe's, Juergen's, Geggster's and everyone else's simple suggestions are all great. I wouldn't like to see it "bid" for. And I don't subscribe to the view that new countries will host rubbish EBs; each EB is unique and it's the spin that the hosts put on it (whether we like it or not!!) that makes it so.

With regards organising, it's mainly the location, accommodation and food (which takes a fair amount of organising but can be done months in advance). I'm happy to continue to update the software to cope with anything new and freaky the hosts throw in, and Score! is the best thing to use for the side event (again, I'm happy to configure that too if it helps).

On the day you do need to direct people, but if you think about it in advance this can be done with well placed notices which remove the need for people to provide answers.

Similarly the software has been proven (waaaay back in 2005) that if its set up and left alone the players can enter the results themselves, again removing the need for paper results, someone to enter them, etc. We've got nearly 12 months till the next EB and I fully expect that EB 2013 or 2014 will have iPhone/iPad data entry available. Organisers just need to make sure there's wifi and a projector at the venue.....

Overall there are ways to make the EB run with less people on the day. Hmmm, I sense a "Tips on running EB" document coming on.......