Golden Gauntlet UK 2016/17 *BESTERS WINS*

[Garrick]

A weighted score based on size of tournament (and number of days) would be more admin but IMHO would also be a better.

[lunchmoney]

SWTC is weighted with number of attendees. Wasnt that hard - Tojurub did a spreadsheet for me

[besters]

At the risk of self-interest, I quite like the current system, but perhaps rather than choosing tournaments for double points, that could be weighted by attendance, a possible cut off being 30+ people, for double points, but then you lose the possibility of weighting for historically important tournaments.

[Pipey]

Might try this...

NAF tournament qualifying for NAF shield (12+ or 24+) up to 40 NAF players = single points i.e. from 25 for 1st

40+ NAF players = double points i.e. from 50 points for 1st

NAFC = triple points i.e. from 75 for 1st

Last one should make the conclusion of the series more exciting. Think F1 did something like this at one stage.

[frogboy]

Historical tournements are dead, long live Foul Bowl...

Only 9 more needed for double points, come on lets do this

[frogboy]

In all seriousness though i quite like the "classics"

One perspective though it means that new events are a little meaningless

If it changes to triple points​ for the NAFC then it will kind of overshadow anyones achievements elsewhere.

Im proberally not qualified to coment though

[Garrick]

Might try this...

NAF tournament qualifying for NAF shield (12+ or 24+) up to 40 NAF players = single points i.e. from 25 for 1st

40+ NAF players = double points i.e. from 50 points for 1st

NAFC = triple points i.e. from 75 for 1st

Last one should make the conclusion of the series more exciting. Think F1 did something like this at one stage.

[Pipey]

My main rationale for the "Classics" was to encourage attendance at specific larger tournaments, centring ourselves around bigger events instead of spreading ourselves out over lots and lots of small ones.

In truth we already have that sense of mass gathering with NAFC. To a lesser extent I think (I hope!) we're seeing that with UKTC too. One or two events like this in our calendar seems to work just fine.

On reflection I don't think there's a need to attempt to encourage this gathering concept more than we already have, nor do I think it's likely to work anyway!

Therefore I'm in favour of an objective quantity for extra points, any tournament eligible. 40 is pretty attainable I think. And the NAFC triple bonanza is a fun way to end the season.

Yes a NAFC win would put impressive results at small events in the shade. But coming first out of 200 is a pretty tough gig, deserving of the reward I'd say.

Like I say this is meant to be simple, inclusive. I wouldn't attempt to claim it's a perfect way to identify our leading player each year, but it's a bit of fun and looks like at least some of you have enjoyed following it

I'll get the GGUK 2017/18 thread on the go asap!

[speedingbullet]

Could the larger events award points to further down the list than 10th place? Something like:
<40 coaches, points awarded down to 10th place
41 to 150 coaches, points awarded down to 20th place
>150 coaches, points awarded down to 30th place

[lunchmoney]

Or just down to half way?

[Pipey]

Thanks for suggestions folks. Will take a closer look asap.

[frogboy]

Even if you don't change something its still a good thing, change it/don't change it i believe the tournament series' are great.

[speedingbullet]

Even if you don't change something its still a good thing, change it/don't change it i believe the tournament series' are great.

+1 Whatever changes you decide to make, or not, I'm sure to be following GGUK 2017/18