Talk Fantasy Football

With the Eurobowl XIV tourney being pushed back one year to October 2021, the TE Committee have been pondering what to do about team selection. This unusual circumstance is not covered by the TE Charter. We already have teams selected for the Eurobowl and EurOpen in Poland. Should these selections remain the same if the team members are keen to participate in 2021 or should we reset the selection process given the long delay?

Please post your thoughts below. This consultation thread will be open for 1 week (closing on 14 May) at which point the committee will make a call on whether to stick with the current teams or reset the selection process.

Hey Jim,

I am very comfortable with a reset of the team-members. In a normal 12 months on the BB scene, we'd see new players come to the fore and old players review their availability for an event they couldn't previously attend - so not sure why a team selected for a certain event (mostly from those that attended many events) should be automatically pencilled in.

Of course, this 12 month delay is sure to change tabletop BB a whole lot more. Tourney attendance may well be significantly affected for most of the selection period and availability for Poland 2021 is so far off, who can tell.

I'd see reset the team. However, I'd not change captaincy and I would hope special dispensation given to those that had been selected this time for the first time. Playing at a EB is such a privilege, that those that had not managed it yet through such an unfortunate act should still get to experience it.

Hi Gents,

Hope you don't mind me inputting. The Scottish Blood Bowl committee has just had a very similar discussion. So recent I won't actually post what decisions were made but I think it's fine to share a couple of the points that came up…

I won't repeat the one Paul's included above as they seem pretty clear.

This is actually in the same vein as one of Paul's points but gives an alternative conclusion... Those who are currently selected may have worked hard to get to the point they have been included and it would look like 'penalising' them if the team selection were to be scrapped and they miss out on a EB/EO. I think Paul's correct in saying 1st timers should be given special consideration but isn't that arbitrary i.e. why not 2nd or 3rd (I do understand why 1st, I’m playing devil’s advocate here!)

The main thing that I wanted to raise, and this comes from personal experience as TO I've just cancelled the Bristol 2-dayer. The geeky, tournament attending gamer in me was... yeah it can work, we can wear gloves and facemasks and respect all the necessary protocols but the professional, rational part of me in the background was aware that actually is would just be putting people at risk to run the tournament. I think those with an degree of 'authority' and 'responsibility' in the BB community have to be seen to be protecting people. If a new qualification process is required it could be seen as pressuring people to attend tournaments and therefore put themselves and family at increased risk. It's not to say that should be the way to go but I would suggest its a hard decision to say the program for qualification will start in a particular month as its not clear when its may be 'safe' to do so. Anyway I think you get the point

Hope you are all well,
D

I'm happy with whatever decision the committee reaches. I'm honestly not sure what the right answer is here. For a new team to make sense it would require new information and I doubt we are going to get many tournaments played between now and a theoretical new selection in January 2021. But there are other kinds of information. What if Poland decide to change the rules? GW have just announced a new Snotling team, what if they announce other new (actually good) teams between now and October 2021? It is 16 months away, what if several people have a baby? What if flights go up by 500%? Is a team picked two years beforehand 'reflective' of the English Blood Bowl community?

Loki wrote: This is actually in the same vein as one of Paul's points but gives an alternative conclusion... Those who are currently selected may have worked hard to get to the point they have been included and it would look like 'penalising' them if the team selection were to be scrapped and they miss out on a EB/EO. I think Paul's correct in saying 1st timers should be given special consideration but isn't that arbitrary i.e. why not 2nd or 3rd (I do understand why 1st, I’m playing devil’s advocate here!)

I guess the only thing that separates us here is that we, the Scots, have a formalised qualification based on a Championship (4 qualifiers from the Championship, 4 Captains picks based on standout tournament performances etc) whereas the English don't but I still agree with the point raised.

It's a weird situation to be in as both a player and TO for sure.

My natural inclination is that we should start again. It's far from cut and dried, however, and I'm certainly not going to be upset if we decide to stick.

My first instinct would be for a reset the process. As others have said a lot of things will have changed in the next year, including costs and personal circumstances.

That being said we can't ignore that there will probably be no tournaments for around six months. For that reason I would support an extension of the selection 12 month criteria to, say 18 months, or perhaps just create a 'black hole' where we don't count the lost months and count back 12 'blood bowling' months from when we start again.

As an uninvolved party, I'd say that resetting the team is probably the fairest, and most sensible way (a lot can happen between now and Oct 21), but keep the Capt, and perhaps up the number of "capt picks" that can be used on the previously selected team (in the unlikely event some of them don't qualify).

Joemanji wrote:I'm happy with whatever decision the committee reaches. I'm honestly not sure what the right answer is here. For a new team to make sense it would require new information and I doubt we are going to get many tournaments played between now and a theoretical new selection in January 2021.

Agree with Joe on this, and obviously availability will play a part. Just gone 11 eleven wins in a row on Cyanide, my best ever in the current format, but it followed my worse results ever, form is such a transient thing.

Surely it has to be reset? The only questions for me would be whether it’s a full reset, or whether certain elements of the team have to be protected (Captain, new caps, none of the above?).

I think with the passage of time between this selection and the event then there is a significant amount of change in both peoples personal lives and in gaming participation/results that would necessitate a fresh squad to be picked. People on the current squad may be unable to attend, people who didn’t put their names forward may now be able to attend, and of course there will be a vast difference in how many competetive games people will be able to play.

My opinion is that Pete stays as Captain, but picks a fresh squad from scratch. The subjective tournament limits and reasons for selection should be relaxed due to the lack of tournaments that will happen in 2020.

Just one observation. Entries have to be paid for by the end of May 2020. Are you going to ask the current selection to pay their entries with the caveat that they may not go if they are not re-selected if you go down that route.

What? The organisers are still asking for payment now?

Personally I would have thought the fairest approach would be give the current selected team first option of whether they wish to continue to attend or not.

It seems a little harsh to me that someone could lose out on a spot that had been offered to them due to events out of their control. It doesn't matter if they have attended before or not - they were selected on merit.

I would also say that there is a fair chance that tournament attendance will not get back to pre-lockdown levels until a vaccine is widely available so arguably results post lockdown will be more variable.

Also, given that selections are made in December-January, I don't really see that there will be that much time/opportunities for someone to really set the world alight anyhow so why go through a process that could leave a sour taste if de-selected?

Don__Vito wrote:... people who didn’t put their names forward may now be able to attend ...

That's a really good point.

I agree with those saying that some sort of reset of the selection process is sensible.

I'm not familiar with the selection process - but I think broadening the selection criteria (either in time, or across platforms - there will be a lot of online tournaments in the next 12 months) would be very sensible.