Page 2 of 2

Re: Question for the board

PostPosted: Sat Jul 20, 2013 9:21 pm
by mighty moose
The board has a private forum and we are already kicking around getting ourselves in agreement on the 24 team format. Our goal is to still award 20 points in total, as we dont want to make the 24-team format any MORE relevant than any other event. But how many points for each round is still not settled. My suggestion was 2-3-5-10 - 2 points for winning the first round (quarterfinals) 3 points for the next, 5 points for the next and 10 for winning the WS.

But your suggestion could certainly be one of the things we will kick around. We have agreed that everything will be for the 2014 Barnstormers Tournament and that nothing will be retroactive.

Yes you are exactly right that when we looked at how many points were given for the 24-team event and WHEN the points were given, it was out of whack.

We also already been in discussion with SOM and they are ready to accomodate whatever we decide and when.



Re: Question for the board

PostPosted: Sun Jul 21, 2013 11:52 am
by labratory
5 points for winning your division. 5 bonus points for winning the championship. One point for every playoff win.

If the playoff points scheme was going to be changed in 2014, I think that would be a good alternative.

Re: Question for the board

PostPosted: Thu Aug 08, 2013 3:35 pm
by Outta Leftfield
Personally, I would favor leaving the assignment of bonus points as it now stands. To my mind, this has several advantages:

1. The present system is easier to administer--and in busy world, easier tends to be better.
2. The present system is well understood. Most Barnstormer players are reasonably experienced strat players. Experienced players are used to the present system. Why introduce an element of potential confusion? Many may wonder why the present widely accepted system is being changed.
3. There's no guarantee that changing the system will actually result in improvement. It might in fact introduce negative effects that we can't now anticipate
4. Another way to say points 1, 2 & 3 above is, "If it aint broke, don't fix it."

Just my two cents. ;)

Re: Question for the board

PostPosted: Thu Aug 08, 2013 8:28 pm
by rburgh
But there is a basic flaw in the "status quo" argument.

Our goal is to still award 20 points in total

You are not, in fact, awarding 20 points in total, you are awarding 20 points to the winning team. In a 12 team league, the loser in the finals has still received 10 points and the first-round losers have received 5 points. So you are awarding 20+10+5+5 = 40 points in total.

These points are available to 12 teams. In a 24 team league, to make the same points per team available, 80 points would have to be awarded in total. And only one team in 24 can win as many as 20 points, rather than one team in 12.

There is no good way to reconcile the two issues. If the points awarded for winning a wild card are reduced, then either other awards are increased (and someone could win more than 20 points by winning a division and the ring), or the total points for the league are further reduced below what would be awarded for two 12-team leagues.

In the current structure, I don't see much difference between distributing 75 bonus points among the top 1/3 of the teams in one 24-team league and distributing 80 among the top 1/3 of the teams in two 12 team leagues.