Talk Fantasy Football
http://www.talkfantasyfootball.org/

A bit of feedback for the NAFC organisers
http://www.talkfantasyfootball.org/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=39875
Page 5 of 6

Author:  Gaixo [ Sun May 25, 2014 8:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: A bit of feedback for the NAFC organisers

Pug wrote:
errr...SOS?

Strength of schedule. The lead tiebreaker is based on the record of your prior opponents.

Author:  robsoma [ Sun May 25, 2014 9:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: A bit of feedback for the NAFC organisers

Your never going to make everyone happy with tie breakers unfortunately, however the refs did a top job of telling the top tables that it was down to SOS going into round 5 so we all knew what was happening. Personally I knew then that I needed to be 5-0-0 to even be in with a sniff of making the final.

Author:  Geggster [ Mon May 26, 2014 12:11 am ]
Post subject:  Re: A bit of feedback for the NAFC organisers

besters wrote:
Surely if say 6 could make the final this option would pit 1 v 6, 2 v 5 and 3 v 4 ?


I guess I'd say SOS is meant to be a simple tie-breaker, not a seeding system.

If you do want to seed it, how does odd numbers work? How about there being 12 in contention on different records (as there were this year).

The current system is simple - guys are randomly paired with other chaps on a similar record, top two after 5 rounds qualify for final. If a tie-breaker is required, chap who has beaten the guys who have beaten the most other guys gets the nod.

Okay perhaps it doesn't sound that simple but until we have 64 man events over 6 rounds (including OT) and make Bloodbowl like a tennis tournament, then it's as equitable as we are going to get.

Author:  besters [ Mon May 26, 2014 1:05 am ]
Post subject:  Re: A bit of feedback for the NAFC organisers

Geggster wrote:
besters wrote:
Surely if say 6 could make the final this option would pit 1 v 6, 2 v 5 and 3 v 4 ?


I guess I'd say SOS is meant to be a simple tie-breaker, not a seeding system.

If you do want to seed it, how does odd numbers work? How about there being 12 in contention on different records (as there were this year).

The current system is simple - guys are randomly paired with other chaps on a similar record, top two after 5 rounds qualify for final. If a tie-breaker is required, chap who has beaten the guys who have beaten the most other guys gets the nod.

Okay perhaps it doesn't sound that simple but until we have 64 man events over 6 rounds (including OT) and make Bloodbowl like a tennis tournament, then it's as equitable as we are going to get.


I wouldn't disagree, I think it is the fairest tie break, I also agree with regard seeding the fifth round at the NAFC that an odd number might make it difficult , although in that case the No 1 position could possibly play the next highest player, the first one not in contention.

My comment was only regarding the methodology mentioned which I thought the way it was stated wasn't correct as to how the idea should be represented.

I have been to all the NAFC and BB GT tournaments, we all know the rules including tie breaks and as long as they are clear, which I think they are, I don't have any issues.

I thought this was the expected well run tournament, my only issue is with the food choices, but you can't please everyone!


Jim

Author:  Ruthy [ Mon May 26, 2014 12:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: A bit of feedback for the NAFC organisers

I'm not a fan of sos myself (this is a bit biased as it ranked me above my husband in rounds 5 and 6 and he ended above me after losing by more in the last game, which seems to not reflect our last games) but I understand the reasons for it to be used, and did feel that in most cases the sos did reflect the td/cas difference (as bearing in mind the above example jt-y deserved the be above me on td and cas difference). However with such a large tournament surely a 3-1-0 system would seed people better than the 2-1-0, and make the random draws of players at your level more accurate, it would also reduce the number of players on the same points. I don't know how this affects the players at the top as I was mincing around the bottom end with flings, but still feel the football style points system ranks people better.

Regarding any other issues, I don't really have any, food was fine for such a large tournament, I enjoyed the packed lunches, the healthy bars were a lot nicer than last year, and you can't really go wrong with curry. I thought the announcements could of been made a little earlier as it interupted games, but understand why you wanted everyone sat down first so we didn't miss anything x

Can't wait til next year guys xxx

Author:  Vanguard [ Mon May 26, 2014 12:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: A bit of feedback for the NAFC organisers

besters wrote:
Geggster wrote:
Imagine we have coaches 1&2 on SOS playing, 3&4 & 5&6.


Surely if say 6 could make the final this option would pit 1 v 6, 2 v 5 and 3 v 4 ?


I believe with strict Swiss pairings, once coaches have been grouped they would be paired 1v4, 2v5 and 3v6.
However, that requires a method of ranking them within the group and it sounds like there is not one being used, hence random pairings within your points bracket.

I'd be curious to know if there was a mathematical argument for not ranking the groups from, say, round 4 onwards.

Author:  robsoma [ Mon May 26, 2014 12:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: A bit of feedback for the NAFC organisers

Not sure if changing the points awarded would have made much difference on the top tables as the problem was that there were alot on the same 4-1-0 record, so same points regardless.

Author:  Ruthy [ Mon May 26, 2014 2:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: A bit of feedback for the NAFC organisers

robsoma wrote:
Not sure if changing the points awarded would have made much difference on the top tables as the problem was that there were alot on the same 4-1-0 record, so same points regardless.


May not affect the top then, but as a quite new player who ranks in the bottom half at most tournaments I'd like to see my 1 win show that I worked hard to get that to someone who has just managed to hold out for 2 draws, it would rank the lower ranked players as I still care where I come despite not having chance of contention of the final, and give less use of the tiebreaker, which should be a tiebreaker as I feel the sos or any other tiebreaker use has too much of an influence at the lower levels.

football scoring might not make a huge difference at final standings but could make a difference between draws x

Author:  Joemanji [ Mon May 26, 2014 2:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: A bit of feedback for the NAFC organisers

Hi Ruthy,

Sorry, the organisers all believe that in Blood Bowl a draw should be worth half of a win. The consequences of this (that a 1/0/5 record is equivalent to 0/2/4, or 4/2/0 to 5/0/1) are very much intentional.

Cheers
Joe

Author:  Ruthy [ Mon May 26, 2014 2:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: A bit of feedback for the NAFC organisers

That is perfectly reasonable, thanks for your answer joe xxxx

Author:  Joemanji [ Mon May 26, 2014 2:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: A bit of feedback for the NAFC organisers

You are most welcome. :)

Author:  daloonieshaman [ Mon May 26, 2014 4:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: A bit of feedback for the NAFC organisers

I am dumbfounded that with such organization the group has failed us on one major point and what I feel is very amateurish
When and where is the next NAFC
that should have been decided so it may be announced at the NACF
I can argue with you all day about the logistics but with the Major this should have already been sorted
but hey who am I to have exptications

Author:  robsoma [ Mon May 26, 2014 4:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: A bit of feedback for the NAFC organisers

?? Well the NAFC has been historically held in May and always in Nottingham, I would hazard a guess that this will continue and an announcement will be made when the venue is agreed? It has after all just been a week since the last one?

Author:  Maverick [ Mon May 26, 2014 4:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: A bit of feedback for the NAFC organisers

But the NACF isn't until September :D

Author:  Joemanji [ Mon May 26, 2014 4:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: A bit of feedback for the NAFC organisers

We are dealing with a corporate venue. Declaring where and when we hope to hold the event massively weakens our bargaining position with regards to to signing next year's contract. In anticipation of the inevitable "why didn't you do just do this sooner?" comment: because both parties wish to reflect on the event we have just held, and issues such as people being sent to other hotels must be addressed.

As soon as we know you will, and hopefully that will be very soon.

Page 5 of 6 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/