NAF World Headquarters

Europe - NAF Euro Cup

Pako - Jan 23, 2012 - 07:47 AM
Post subject: NAF Euro Cup

In order to create this event properly, I already contacted Pippy to assure NAF support. There is an interest from NAF to support the creation of a European Team contest every 4 years (two yeras from WC) so the first one should be set up at 2013.

Spanish community is organizing themselves to propose a bid. But all we (NAF and spaniards) think that every european country should have the chance to bid as well.

Details are still being proposed/discussed (timing, bidding requirements,etc.). This message is only to allow people interested to start considering it.

Hopefully, Pippy will provide us soon the guidelines for submit bids, the time schedule for decisions and the requirements.

This is only to inform that the project is going on and to give all us the same chances to organize it.

Grumbledook - Jan 23, 2012 - 10:27 AM
Post subject: RE: NAF Euro Cup

I think calling it the NAF Team Open would be better as it is more clear and distinguishes it from existing events

Pipey - Jan 23, 2012 - 12:11 PM
Post subject: RE: NAF Euro Cup

The NAF certainly supports team events like these.

Before discussion of any specific details (e.g. bids, hosting etc.), I would recommend a full debate about what the community might want from a tournament like this. Your concept seems to involve participation from all European nations so it would be good for them to have their say.

I guess the questions would be:
- How would the idea fit around existing team events in the calendar e.g. Eurobowl, NAFWC?
- What is the wider appetite for this tournament? Would there be widespread attendance?
- Would NAFWC attendance be affected?
- Is 4-year frequency preferred?
- Other details e.g. name, imagery?

Might be worth a plug on local forums to draw people in to the debate? RTOs could you help with this?

Grumbledook - Jan 23, 2012 - 01:22 PM
Post subject: RE: NAF Euro Cup

personally I think there could be room for an "open" team event, not restricted to nations either if people wanted a mixed team of players from where ever

I also think (as it was mentioned elsewhere before) piggy backing it on top of existing large team tournaments is well worth considering and rotating it around each time

perhaps also give it a higher K value, not as much as the majors but perhaps splitting the difference (the majors attract a larger travelling attendance)

Pako - Jan 24, 2012 - 12:39 AM
Post subject: RE: NAF Euro Cup

Name is provisional. As Pippy said, we need to discuss a little bit about relative interest of the tournament.

I guess about WC, it could be a smart solution to move WC outside Europe without substracting europeans (that wouldn't travel outside the continent) the chance to get a huge NAF team tournament.

Frequency would grant a different image than Eurobowl, and permits to have it as far as possible from WC, so maximizing the possible attendance.

I hope we could share in some extend the image, ruleset and names with other initiatives similar (Ausbowl, North American team tournament) in order to build a shared worldwide event. Could be a new issue for NAF.

Doubleskulls - Jan 24, 2012 - 01:53 AM
Post subject: RE: NAF Euro Cup

I think an open team tournament every 4 years (2 years after the world cup) is a great idea.

I would give a specifically European name, e.g. NAF European Team Open (NETO Laughing

) but since its Open you are implicitly allowing teams from anywhere to attend.

I don't think there is any time of year that is particularly open... so someone's toes will get trodden on. I'd keep it away from EuroBowl and NAFC time slots - so either July/August or Jan/Feb.

As to whether the NAFWC attendance would be affected, I can't see it TBH - two years is a lot of time for most people to save up, and people who can't afford going to a big team tournament every 2 years are much more likely to pick the world cup over the NETO.

Pako - Jan 24, 2012 - 02:56 AM
Post subject: Re: RE: NAF Euro Cup

Doubleskulls wrote:

but since its Open you are implicitly allowing teams from anywhere to attend.

Yes, but if we manage the business in order to provide a North American Team Torunament and Ausbowl as well, people will focus on their particular continental tournament without restricting the access.

To me, it is a question to make an event in three different localizations (North america, Australia and Europe) in 2013, that could be commented in 2015 at WCIII we all we join the tournament.

I would suggest (NAF) European Team Championship to share the name with americans (hopefully aussies will go on too). They (americans) moved first and I think is their prerogative to save the name and ours to follow in this particular issue.

A consensus could be made in order to have comparable (if not exact) rulesets and image (logos and so).

Volstagg - Jan 24, 2012 - 07:02 AM
Post subject: Re: RE: NAF Euro Cup

Pako wrote:

I would suggest (NAF) European Team Championship to share the name with americans (hopefully aussies will go on too). They (americans) moved first and I think is their prerogative to save the name and ours to follow in this particular issue.

A consensus could be made in order to have comparable (if not exact) rulesets and image (logos and so).

I also like the idea of sharing the name and having a similar logo in both Tournaments, I think it reinforces the idea of "community".

But we should ask them first, and see there are no IP/Copyright issues. Wink

Doubleskulls - Jan 24, 2012 - 08:23 AM
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: NAF Euro Cup

AusBowl (the Australian version) is already running and I suspect unlikely to change name - it shares its name of the Australian regional BB forum and the two are quite closely linked. As its already running they'd have the change management issue of rebranding.

The issue I'm trying to avoid is possible confusion with EuroBowl, the existing European team championship. Including the word Open in the name clearly shows that. Perhaps the North Americans could include Open in their name too?

magictobe - Jan 24, 2012 - 11:31 AM
Post subject:

I am all for an extra team event in Europe but I think it will effect attendence at eurobowl if it will be an extra tournament.

But I like the idea.

Pako - Jan 25, 2012 - 12:26 AM
Post subject:

I think Eurobowl attendants are very committed with the tournament. I think they will probably not join the Team Championship instead if they should choose. But most of spanish Eurobowl players told me they will come to both of them.

Valen - Jan 25, 2012 - 01:58 AM
Post subject:

I agree with magictobe, which is why when the WC is on the Eurobowl is not run

Pako - Jan 25, 2012 - 02:02 AM
Post subject:

Yes. But we won't mess it up with Eurobowl.

Spanish bid will try to be compatible with Eurobowl, setting up the tournament in different dates.

magictobe - Jan 25, 2012 - 02:20 AM
Post subject:

Yes, I understand that date could be far from eurobowl but two big team tournaments in a year can be harsh on bloodbowl budget Wink

But, again, I am all for NAF euro cup.

Maybe

eurobowl
Naf euro cup
eurobowl
World cup

as schedule?

Pako - Jan 25, 2012 - 02:23 AM
Post subject:

I already had a very unpopular relation with Eurobowl. And I won't go into that again (as Pippy's document for NAF sancioning solved the most of my concerns).

So I will pass in this particular issue.

However, I guess people who play Eurobowl are traveling quite a lot around Europe. I guess they will not have problem for play two big tournaments the same year every 4.

Purplegoo - Jan 26, 2012 - 10:21 AM
Post subject:

I probably mentioned this when the idea was initially tabled (so Iâ€™ll keep this short as to not repeat myself too much), but Iâ€™m not at all sure thereâ€™s a space for this event.

It would eat into World Cup budgets and appetite (making that event less special and / or attendable), and we already have Eurobowl three times every four years.Â I think if there really is a need (and Iâ€™m not sure at all there is; otherwise the result of the Presidential election may well have been different since this was part of what Pako mentioned at the time â€“ if it was a 'must have', heâ€™dve surely won?), just make the Europen a team event.

I just don't think we're big enough or pockets are deep enough.

Joemanji - Jan 26, 2012 - 11:32 AM
Post subject:

There are several existing team tournaments in Europe that do something similar to this already. For example Lutecebowl gets >100 coaches? Let's not reinvent the wheel here. Evolution not revolution. Wink

For example, some of the English guys enjoy team events so much that we decided we wanted to go to more. So what we did was find out where such events were already taking place (Lutece, Rugbowl?, Italy) and decide amongst ourselves to go to one of them. We are going to Lutece this year. If seems extreme to instead create a whole new event involving thousands of hours of discussion and organisation when we can just check the calender.

A Euro Open advertised in the way you are suggesting will definitely affect attendance at the World Cup and Eurobowl. The question is not whether coaches can afford the money, so much as whether they can justify the expense to wives, girlfriends and children. It is a game of toy soldiers at the end of the day.

The bigger issue for me is that holding the World Cup every four years makes it a bit special. If an Australian or American team wanted to come to the Euro Team Open, we'd obviously let them. But then could they justify the expense to do two in four years? Probably not. So they'd pick one, but due to scheduling not the same one. Holding it every four years gives it a "now or never" feeling. Without that, you'll have a lot of the less dedicated coaches going to neither. Instead of one event of 480 coaches you'll have two events of 150 coaches. That won't be the same, it won't have the magic. People will not come from Aus/USA for that, Europeans will not see it as special without them and the World Cup will die.

Back to Eurobowl. Again, could coaches justify the expense of that and the Euro Open in the same year? Not all, definitely not all. Many will choose one or the other. This will affect the attendance of both events. I know I'd choose Eurobowl, it's the best event I have been to buy miles (only the WC was close). Pako obviously has a previously stated agenda to kill Eurobowl, and this would be a good start in that crusade, so well done.

I don't understand this need for extra majors and double-weighted tournaments either. What does it achieve? Obviously some people have a chip on their shoulders about the English having high rankings, and think it is just because of the Blood Bowl. But there is a German major too, and an American and Canadian one. The latter two arguable much weaker in terms of coaching ability, and so easier to pick up points at. (As a point of interest, I've never taken Undead to the Blood Bowl or NAFC, so none of my points are from there).

Darkson - Jan 26, 2012 - 11:56 AM
Post subject:

[sarcasm on] What a shocking post from a pro-Lycos NAF staffer. Disgusting!

Deathwing - Jan 26, 2012 - 01:12 PM
Post subject:

I'm a little confused by the reference to the 'Spanish bid'. It infers that this is an event envisaged as per WC, and there will be bids from other locations to host.

What exactly are we discussing here? The NAF to announce the creation of a new NETO tournament at whatever date and go through a bidding process to host? In effect, a smaller scale WC?

If the demand/appetite is there, why not just run the thing?

"Pippy/Lycos/Paul, we think there's enough interest to make a euro WC style event a success and we want to organise and host the inaugural one. Here's our proposed dates/venue/ticket cost, here's our feasibility plan, here's the minimum number we need to attract. Can you help us in terms of official support, tournament name, announcements, dedicated sub-forums etc?"

There was some very vocal criticism of under-estimating the level of interest of the WC. As I said at the time, one of the main reasons I personally voted for Amsterdam was for it's central location and accessibility. I still firmly believe that a less accessible location would have drawn far fewer coaches. (We could have had capacity for 600 and maybe 350-400 attending.)

My point, I suppose, is that in trying to gauge interest level and potential numbers of attendees you have to surely begin with at least a rough framework. For example:

How many would be interested in a NETO event in late 2013 near Barcelona?

I don't think anybody is opposed to the *concept itself*, what needs to be ascertained is the *viability of the concept*. For that I think we need at least a rough dateline and potential venues.

generaljason - Jan 26, 2012 - 02:49 PM
Post subject:

Joemanji wrote:

But there is a German major too, and an American and Canadian one. The latter two arguable much weaker in terms of coaching ability, and so easier to pick up points at.

They have less coaches attending Majors in North America than their European counterparts for sure, but weaker in coaching ability???

Joemanji - Jan 26, 2012 - 03:35 PM
Post subject:

Look at the records of Brits who have traveled to the Chaos Cup.

Wightlord - Jan 26, 2012 - 07:06 PM
Post subject:

Joemanji wrote:

I've never taken Undead to the Blood Bowl or NAFC, so none of my points are from there).

Didnt you take them to the Bloodbowl in 2009 or 2010 - I remember us discussing the same 12 player 2 re-roll roster we had? Obviously a filthy NAF conspiracy going on if I'm right Wink

Pako - I'd love to attend an open European team event, has the advantage over the Eurobowl in that its an entirely inclusive event so could be huge!

Darkson - Jan 27, 2012 - 12:20 AM
Post subject:

Why not make A Open Team event that runs side-by-side with the Eurobowl (in every 4th year)? That way, nations can still send their national squad, but others can attend the same event.

Joemanji - Jan 27, 2012 - 01:14 AM
Post subject:

Wightlord wrote:

Didnt you take them to the Bloodbowl in 2009 or 2010 - I remember us discussing the same 12 player 2 re-roll roster we had? Obviously a filthy NAF conspiracy going on if I'm right Wink

Pako - I'd love to attend an open European team event, has the advantage over the Eurobowl in that its an entirely inclusive event so could be huge!

Haha yeah, totally forgot that. Hang me from a lamppost and set me on fire. Very Happy

It is interesting that you are in favour of a European team event, especially as someone who has little history of traveling to events outside the UK. It was a shame you couldn't make it to the World Cup, but if you think that the European open would be one of the 3/4 tournaments a year you make that is cool. Wink

Pako - Jan 27, 2012 - 01:37 AM
Post subject:

Hello,

First of all, I won't go through Joemanji issues to start again with the same business. Man, shut up a while and hear around you. Is quite shocking to hear you about how annoying were elections and see you charging again. Quite inappropriate, spacially from a NAF staff. This issue was discussed with the TD from the very beginning and he had a good feedback about it. As Deathwing pointed out, this is a discussion about how build the tournament, publish the news for potential bids and to explain a little the idea. You could disagree but please, let your personal problems outside this.

In a more general (and constructive way).

- I do think there is an appetite for such event. I don't want to underestimate the potential of team tournaments already running (spanish Dream Teams holds 120 players every year) but certainly Joemanji's point is true: people like team tournaments, and most important, people like the NAF supported tournaments (WC and NAFC). So I think is logical to sum up again the two issues and get a new event.

- As said, I already have no problems with Eurobowl. I had a concern about NAF sanctioning and Eurobowl was just an example of exception that is not desirable in a fair club where all members are equal. As comented, Pippy already solved it in a very smart way. So I guess we could offer a broader topurnament to all NAF members and it will decrease Eurobowl polemics as well.

- To Darkson, about to parallel running of European Open and Eurobowl, I guess then you will substract the players attending the chance to play with others. I guess could be better to schedule both and let the Eurobowl participants to decide if they will come or not to the European Open. You will have, at worst, the same result than running both at the same time (one group playing Eurobowl and others playing European Open) and at the best, most of Eurobowlers will finally come to the European Open. In a general way, the attendance issue will be a problem for the European Open, because the two tournaments that could compete with it (Eurobowl and WC) shouldn't have any problem with it, as they have very committed players attending. Players will play them and European Open, or just them.

- Some of the comments posted supposed that NAF WC will be organized in Europe in the future, I guess other places and continents deserve also the chance to organize Eurobowl. This certainly will increase appetite for the European Open (and also, will decrease polemics about WC location between NAF members).

To me, to have an European Open is to organize a "big brother" of the running team tournaments in Europe. It will be like a major of theam torunaments, and will provide NAF for a nice big event every two years.

Attendance to WC won't be affected at all (IMO) because if you should choose, probably you will get WC instead. But maybe with WC in North America, European Open will be better welcomed then.

I gree with you that to schedule a new tournament will provide some issues to consider, but I truly believe that it will give us more benefits than problems:

- Reduce WC anxiety (maybe 4 years for WC is too much for some players)
- Provide a "major" team tournament
- Supply in some way an alternative to WC when organized outside Europe for people who won't travel to the WC.
- To have a broader range of coaches than Eurobowl (so, reducing Eurobowl concerns about attendance).
- Increase NAF participation and visibility in tournament scene.

Ironjaw - Jan 27, 2012 - 01:51 AM
Post subject:

Wightlord wrote:

Didnt you take them to the Bloodbowl in 2009 or 2010 - I remember us discussing the same 12 player 2 re-roll roster we had? Obviously a filthy NAF conspiracy going on if I'm right Wink

Takes a tier-1-whore to know a tier-1-whore...

Joemanji wrote:

but if you think that the European open would be one of the 3/4 tournaments a year you make that is cool

Although tongue-in-cheek, that's not fair (which is rich coming from me, but I'm having a good day). He has a somewhat unique job, a family and still goes to more than me.

You probably don't need defending Wightlord, but today's your lucky day.

Purplegoo - Jan 27, 2012 - 01:58 AM
Post subject:

'Shut up a while and hear around you'.

I find this to be an interesting turn of phrase. Iâ€™m in no way trying to be difficult for the sake of being difficult, but this is one of a number of ideas you had. You were disagreed with, debate ensued. You were asked to represent your ideas in an election (by myself and others). Said ideas werenâ€™t voted for in nearly enough volume to give you a mandate to lead.Â

This event you have such faith in didnâ€™t garner you many votes. Itâ€™s managed a couple of pages in the forum so far (and many, many nations are conspicuous by their absence), whereas a smash hit would surely have set even this place on fire.Â

Iâ€™m not saying â€˜Pako is no longer allowed to have ideasâ€™. Iâ€™m not saying â€˜All of Pakoâ€™s manifesto was rubbish, and letâ€™s not discuss any of it ever againâ€™. What I am saying is perhaps itâ€™s time for everyone to follow your advice there, even you. How, despite signs to the contrary in both chat and votes, you still push this idea as if itâ€™s a no brainer and (again â€“ this is more than likely a language issue, no harm to you) appear dismissive of any view to the contrary Iâ€™m really not sure.Â

Youâ€™ve had an idea. Initial reception was luke warm. It didnâ€™t win you an election. I think your stance should be less â€˜This is brilliant, obvious, and I donâ€™t agree with any of your concernsâ€™ and more â€˜What do we think of this, can we improve it, is it viableâ€™.Â Â You make numerous assumptions regarding what people would do, perhaps ask them instead? I for one am a Eurobowler that wouldn't attend this as a matter if course, as you seem to surmise.

Whilst Joe's style may appear abrasive in text; you have to at least consider he's right, considering the evidence around you.

Joemanji - Jan 27, 2012 - 02:28 AM
Post subject:

Pako wrote:

First of all, I won't go through Joemanji issues to start again with the same business. Man, shut up a while and hear around you. Is quite shocking to hear you about how annoying were elections and see you charging again. Quite inappropriate, spacially from a NAF staff.

Yet again, somebody disagrees with you and you attempt to silence them with smear tactics, as you did all through the election and in the year leading up to it. Dirty tactics for the win eh?

Doubleskulls - Jan 27, 2012 - 02:51 AM
Post subject:

Purplegoo wrote:

It would eat into World Cup budgets and appetite (making that event less special and / or attendable), and we already have Eurobowl three times every four years.Â I think if there really is a need (and Iâ€™m not sure at all there is; otherwise the result of the Presidential election may well have been different since this was part of what Pako mentioned at the time â€“ if it was a 'must have', heâ€™dve surely won?), just make the Europen a team event.

I just don't think we're big enough or pockets are deep enough.

No one forces anyone to go to any tournament right, so we all make decisions about spending our time and money where we hope we'll get the biggest benefit. Given there are more tournaments than even Lycos can attend we all make choices every week about where to go and where not to. One more tournament doesn't affect that process. All it would effect is the choices about which tournaments to make. So I think your argument boils down to "I can't go to another tournament so you can't hold it".

I can't imagine many people picking a European Open over the World Cup, can you? So I can't actually see this hurting the World Cup at all. For those lucky enough to go to EuroBowl I can't see many of them thinking the European Open is a more prestigious event and not going to EuroBowl, or if they do I'm sure most national teams are heavily oversubscribed so EuroBowl attendance won't be affected.

generaljason - Jan 27, 2012 - 02:58 AM
Post subject:

Joemanji wrote:

But there is a German major too, and an American and Canadian one. The latter two arguable much weaker in terms of coaching ability, and so easier to pick up points at.

generaljason wrote:

They have less coaches attending Majors in North America than their European counterparts for sure, but weaker in coaching ability???

Joemanji wrote:

Look at the records of Brits who have traveled to the Chaos Cup.

Yeah well I wasn't at any of those Chaos Cups. Wink

Say what you want about Chaos, but no European has even won the Spike! though a few have tried. 7 Canadian victors and 1 American. Maybe you guys need to come over and show us how it's done. Wink

Gj.

Doubleskulls - Jan 27, 2012 - 02:59 AM
Post subject:

Pako wrote:

shut up a while and hear around you. Is quite shocking to hear you about how annoying were elections and see you charging again. Quite inappropriate, spacially from a NAF staff.

You are out of order here and should apologise.

Joemanji is making a reasonable point - there are several large team tournaments already, converting one of those into an open makes sense.

His dig about EuroBowl is probably one you really ought to address. I for one don't want to see a European Open as a mechanism for undermining EuroBowl and we need to clear that isn't the intent and showing how we will ensure it won't happen.

Doubleskulls - Jan 27, 2012 - 03:06 AM
Post subject:

Joemanji wrote:

The bigger issue for me is that holding the World Cup every four years makes it a bit special. If an Australian or American team wanted to come to the Euro Team Open, we'd obviously let them. But then could they justify the expense to do two in four years? Probably not. So they'd pick one, but due to scheduling not the same one. Holding it every four years gives it a "now or never" feeling. Without that, you'll have a lot of the less dedicated coaches going to neither. Instead of one event of 480 coaches you'll have two events of 150 coaches. That won't be the same, it won't have the magic. People will not come from Aus/USA for that, Europeans will not see it as special without them and the World Cup will die.

Quite frankly I just don't think this is a realistic scenario. Coaches who can only afford to travel inter continentally once every four years are almost universally going to pick a World Cup ahead of a European Open. Then there are coaches who would go to a World cup but can't make it for personal reasons have another near as prestigious tournament to attend, and then there are a hard core who'd come over every couple of years anyway. I reckon the next world cup would see 4~5 Australian teams (3 this time) and you'd get 1, maybe 2, for a European Open.

Its worth remembering there are quite a few ex-pats in Europe so its relatively easy to have an all australian team with only a few flying in from Oz.

Furthermore having the European Open in July/August may actually help inter continental travellers combine the tournament with their holidays.

Doubleskulls - Jan 27, 2012 - 03:12 AM
Post subject:

Deathwing wrote:

What exactly are we discussing here? The NAF to announce the creation of a new NETO tournament at whatever date and go through a bidding process to host? In effect, a smaller scale WC?

If that is what we are doing then the existing larger team tournaments would be excellently placed to bid and given their history of attracting large numbers and being able to cater for it would have sounds credentials any selection committee would be hard pressed to ignore - it would certainly be a lot less risky than a brand new team tournament.

Perhaps a good way forward would be to have this as something every 4 years the existing team tournaments bid for (or new tournament if they bid and the committee thought it was the best option) and then they'll get the extra attendance and prestige of having the NAF European Open mantle - but then the hosts are ineligible for a few cycles so that everyone gets a turn.

Purplegoo - Jan 27, 2012 - 03:30 AM
Post subject:

Ian; my point was not a selfish â€˜If you add more big events, itâ€™s possible that I wonâ€™t be able to go â€“ so donâ€™t do thatâ€™, itâ€™s that such an event would hurt everything we already have and spread us too thin. I understand you disagree, but I donâ€™t see how this event would not dilute attendance at what is already scheduled. If it doesnâ€™t (as you suggest people choose other things over it), what on Earth is the point of running it to begin with?Â

I think itâ€™s really naive to infer (not directed squarely at Ian â€“ itâ€™s something that is an undercurrent of this forum in numerous topics) that the NAF has this limitless coaches with limitless pockets and limitless hunger to attend all of these events. Itâ€™s madness. The World Cup was massive for us, but we only had 500 people â€“ it really shows how small Blood Bowl is, when you think about it. We had loads of guys travel with us that had never been overseas to play before, and one thatt had even never been overseas ever! To think these guys are now hardened vets that will doubtless attend this in 2013 is folly.Â It's not much better to presume Eurobowlers travel already, so what is one more?

If you book it, they may well not come. If you dilute the importance of what we already have or if you saturate the market, youâ€™ll diminish tournament Blood Bowl. We are already seeing this a little in the UK, as tournament numbers increase, the playing base is spread more thinly, and even the well established, big tournaments are shrinking. You canâ€™t just presume because youâ€™ve added something that works brilliantly on a domestic level (a la Lettuce) across a continent and slap the NAF name on it people will show up, and even if they do, that theyâ€™ll show up next year, or in two years time.Â I just donâ€™t think, realistically, the addition of another continental tournament would serve to do anything but muddy the waters and shrink flagship events (so in a sense we agree, Ian, people would choose rather than do it all). And I donâ€™t think thatâ€™s a good thing.Â

generaljason - Jan 27, 2012 - 04:09 AM
Post subject:

I absolutely agree with Purplegoo - it's Blood Bowl overload, Blood Bowl burnout or whatever else you want to call it. The World Cup get's those numbers because it is a unique team event once every four years. If you over saturate that idea it's only going to dilute the numbers for World Cup or these lesser team challenges in the end. It's just too much Blood Bowl.

North America has been talking about setting one up (a team challenge) once every four years but 2 years apart from World Cup because most of us have resigned ourselves to the idea that the actual World Cup should remain in Europe (and rightly so).

I'm still a big fan of importing the team challenge tournament idea to North America, but that's only because the World Cup is in Europe. Add an additional European team challenge that takes place at the same time you have a North American one, and it'll just dwindle down the numbers and interest even further.

2 Team Challenges world wide 2 years apart from each other, every 4 years at different locations across 2 different continents is about as large as the idea should ever go. Anymore than that and it loses it's appeal imho.

Honestly I could live with one World Cup team event that takes place in Europe and no other team challenges whatsoever, and again this is because I want the event and team challenges to remain unique amongst other Blood Bowl events. This way they will retain their mystique and number of participants.

Gj.

Doubleskulls - Jan 27, 2012 - 04:41 AM
Post subject:

I agree we are already saturated and some tournaments will lose out, but I don't believe it would be the World Cup or EuroBowl. I think adding this to an existing team tournament is a really good answer... which sort of weakens the argument we shouldn't have more tournaments.

@generaljason - I'm a bit disappointed that you don't want a World Cup in North America. I'm in favour of one as I know a few others are, biggest is not always best. Saying there shouldn't be a European team championship because it may dilute the NATC seems a little bit odd to me. I doubt there would be many North Americans who would go at all (only 1 US & 1 Canadian team went to the World Cup after all), and I don't know how many inter continental travellers you are expecting for the NATC - do you really think it would have that big an impact? You aren't complaining about EuroBowl or AusBowl are you? So why pick this tournament specifically?

Pako - Jan 27, 2012 - 04:41 AM
Post subject:

Doubleskulls wrote:

Pako wrote:

shut up a while and hear around you. Is quite shocking to hear you about how annoying were elections and see you charging again. Quite inappropriate, spacially from a NAF staff.

Sorry about it. as noted the shut up phrase were refered to:

Quote:

Pako obviously has a previously stated agenda to kill Eurobowl, and this would be a good start in that crusade, so well done.

I think this is very inappropriate sentence for this discussion. I pointed out that most of us are wasted about this kind of posting (Joemanji said it also) and I don't get why he goes through again... Again insults and unfounded accusations based on personal animosity... What I could do?

Joemanji wrote:

Pako wrote:

Yet again, somebody disagrees with you and you attempt to silence them with smear tactics, as you did all through the election and in the year leading up to it. Dirty tactics for the win eh?

No. Again I am just demanding respect. You could disagree as much as you would without "obviously" throwing shit over my opinions. I think smear tactics are not on my side. There are a number of players here thinking this idea is worthy (including TD) and you don't enter in these type of accusations with them, so again, save these insults and respect a little bit the NAF members (as I am) as your position requires.

So let's continue with the point, please.

Grumbledook - Jan 27, 2012 - 04:55 AM
Post subject:

I disagree, if you are going to bring up saying that another tournament is going to hurt when it has already been suggested that it piggy backs on top of existing team tournaments (initially at least), then I would suggest there are far too many NAF sanctioned events in the UK too. In fact I've said for a few years now I think there are too many in the UK and the only large one there is now is the NAF Champs/Blood Bowl. If it is piggybacked onto an existing tournament then it won't even be adding an extra event anyway...

So I totally think there is space for this. As Ian said already having it in the summer will let more people link it up to summer holidays, especially those who can't get time off the rest of the year (teachers for example), will let them get the flavour of a bigger international community event that they otherwise can't.

I would also like to suggest perhaps having teams of 4 as well to make it a bit different. Eurobowl has 8 and WC has 6, all typically from the same nation. Teams of 4 made up with any 4 coaches from anywhere will make it totally unique from those two. I think it is absurd to suggest having this every 4 years causes an overload. It is also easier to get a team of 4 together, logistically for hotels, taxis etc that also makes things easier.

One extra event every 4 years which encourages more interaction between nations is far more beneficial for the NAF community overall as well, in my opinion at least. Sure those who go to the Eurobowl (some every year) love it but there are many coaches who aren't presented that option. Due to that a large majority never even travel to any events outside of their own nation. This extra interaction should be encouraged over the creation of yet more localised events with less than 20 coaches.

I also don't see an argument against it having a slight bump in K value either.

If it is such a bad idea then people just won't go, but without trying it everything else is purely speculation.

Pako - Jan 27, 2012 - 05:02 AM
Post subject:

Following Doubleskulls points, I guess WC nor Eurobowl shouldn't be afraid of losing players if an European Open is set up. People involved should priorize them over the European Open.

So then, European Open will dilute them? Guess not.

What about team tournaments?

All we could agree that even most successful team tournaments (I played Rugbowl and Dream Teams) fail into the attraction of foreigner players (although they have some teams, and they have impressive attendance over 100 coaches). From my experience, Dream Teams never had more than one Italian team, and Rugbowl have a quite impressive success when 4/5 spanish teams join in 2009. Indeed, it was due to the suitability of their location (Rugbowl in the south of France).

I guess there is potential for an European Team Tournament. hat is because NAF image have the power to attract other people that usually don't travel outside their country to play Lutece, Dram Teams or Rugbowl. So these tournaments will also not lose their local players as well, because they will remain cheaper.

We have then the place for the European Open, to provide an alternative to WC (too far in time) and regular team tournaments (too local).

What about team tournaments bidding for this extra option? I agree it will be desirable, but hopefully the success will assure that new venues should be addressed in order to accommodate a larger number of participants.

Purplegoo - Jan 27, 2012 - 05:22 AM
Post subject:

Iâ€™m bowing out of this thread now (Iâ€™ve had my say, itâ€™s pretty needless to repeat things), but Pako (to contradict myself and repeat one point), I think it might be worth actually considering opinions contrary to your own rather than just seizing on the positive responses and repeating everything will be great using a few assumptions and guesswork.Â

Again, youâ€™ve sampled a handful of views here from one or two nations at the very beginning of a prospective project and youâ€™re already miles down the road thinking all will be a smashing success and considering who may â€˜bidâ€™. Whilst I disagree with Ian and Jon, at least Iâ€™m reading what theyâ€™re saying and considering it (and not just ignoring them). Much of our disagreement is hypothetical, and wonâ€™t be solved by doing the loop once again. I think much of the friction you feel and have felt recently is just down to the belligerent way you hammer ideas home over and over.Â

I hope that Iâ€™m wrong and that this is a smash hit, and moreover (if it were to happen) doesn't dilute anything else. Itâ€™d just be nice to feel like you recognised quite how far away you are from having your event, and that itâ€™s not going to be brilliant because you say it is every other post.Â

generaljason - Jan 27, 2012 - 05:28 AM
Post subject:

Doubleskulls wrote:

Ian, it's not a question of not wanting to host a World Cup on North American soil, it's just that the majority of tournament players who travel reside in Europe. To maintain the sheer number of coaches attending is the only reason I believe it should remain there and no other reason.

I'd love nothing more to see a World Cup over on this continent if it could attract 200+ coaches. If it could get into the 200s like the first World Cup 2007 then I'd consider it a success and could justify the move. We are never going to match the 480 coaches that Amsterdam got and I doubt few will no matter where it's held in future. Four words: no hookers, no pot. But 200s would be good enough. I could even live with high Blood Bowl aka NAF Championship coaching count, like 170-80s, but anything less than that and it just seems like charity to me as oppose to awarding the bid that can bring in the most participants. And I agree it's not the only consideration but it's a big one.

Btw I have no problems with Ausbowl or EuroBowl, but they're singles competitions right? I just piped up in here because this very idea of a Team Competition was brought up to take place at the same time as a proposed NA one. Anyway, I'm going to stay out of this discussion on future team competitions. No offence intended but we are diametrically opposed on how I think they should be set up.

Gj.

Pako - Jan 27, 2012 - 05:36 AM
Post subject:

Purplegoo wrote:

I am soory if you have the whole worldwibe picture. I am not. I agree that I am making deductions based on my personal experience. I guess my personal experience is not little as I was in UK, Austria, Italy, France playing Bloodbowl. I can't do it better to have a broader picture...

I think all we are doing few assumptions and guesswork here. Some of us are in the way this is worthy, some others are in the other way round. I agree every one of us have his own opinion and regarding your comments about shrinking flagship tournaments I don't know how you will objectively support this idea.

I am actually trying to get some deductions from the present scene, and pointing them out. Sorry if it sounds like repeating, I tried to get new arguments.

1- I think is objective data that people don't travel so much outside their country to play a team tournament actually.

2- This is also objective to say that WC was an exception to 1-

3- I guess some people (probably lots of) could manage to travel to an international tournament every two years. (you don't think so)

4- It is also true that Eurobowl is already an international European tournament. (agre with you)

5- Regarding 4-, Eurobowl is indeed involving a small % of European NAF players, so I think is worthy to think there is space to provide new European events. (maybe this is the origin of the end of flagship tournaments?).

Otherwise is if you feel that Eurobowl should remain as the only one European level tournament in Europe. I think is also worthy to think it, but you should agree this is even more to do assumptions and guesswork.

I don't know why you are so afraid of losing Eurobowl or Eurobowl attendance. You were the first ones to note Eurobowl players will give it the priority, so what's wrong with having a tournament which could include all NAF members? I just could figure out you won't lose the exclusivity of Eurobowl?

I think we could provide a new tournament from the NAF, and I think it could be great. You could think the other way but certainly no one could base their arguments in other than guesswork until the job is done. So you're right in the most and we just could wait for new opinions, I thnik this thread is more based on to sum up opinions than to defend them.

Darkson - Jan 27, 2012 - 05:52 AM
Post subject:

Grumbledook wrote:

I also don't see an argument against it having a slight bump in K value either.

I am. Why bump this when other worthies aren't (the WC for instance)?

Darkson - Jan 27, 2012 - 05:54 AM
Post subject:

generaljason wrote:

Btw I have no problems with Ausbowl or EuroBowl, but they're singles competitions right? I just piped up in here because this very idea of a Team Competition was brought up to take place at the same time as a proposed NA one.

They're both Team events.

Darkson - Jan 27, 2012 - 05:57 AM
Post subject:

Just a quick question - if there's already Rugbowl, Dream Team and Lutece as Team tournaments, why not try to promote one (or more) of them as an international event, rather than starting a new one? Surely it's easier to build when the foundation are already there?

longfang - Jan 27, 2012 - 06:32 AM
Post subject:

Could those existing team events provide room for an increase in player numbers.

I think there is no harm in trying to get this up and running. To hell with the Eurobowl, it's not "open", it shouldn't even be considered in this. This is about providing an open international team event. If it only attracts 50 players so what! This should be tried and backed by the NAF.

@ Grum. Good post, good thinking.

Doubleskulls - Jan 27, 2012 - 06:43 AM
Post subject:

generaljason wrote:

I'd love nothing more to see a World Cup over on this continent if it could attract 200+ coaches. If it could get into the 200s like the first World Cup 2007 then I'd consider it a success and could justify the move. We are never going to match the 480 coaches that Amsterdam got and I doubt few will no matter where it's held in future. Four words: no hookers, no pot. But 200s would be good enough. I could even live with high Blood Bowl aka NAF Championship coaching count, like 170-80s, but anything less than that and it just seems like charity to me as oppose to awarding the bid that can bring in the most participants. And I agree it's not the only consideration but it's a big one.

A bit off topic... but presumably you'd get a lot more North Americans than a European tournament would - 100 at least? There would be 4-5 Aussie teams, so you'd only need about 10 European teams to come over (from the 75 at the last one) to make 200.

generaljason wrote:

Btw I have no problems with Ausbowl or EuroBowl, but they're singles competitions right?

Nope, they are both team competitions. EuroBowl is representative (1 team per country), and AusBowl alternates between Open & Representative.

Doubleskulls - Jan 27, 2012 - 06:45 AM
Post subject:

Darkson wrote:

Agreed. Every 4 years one of the major regular team tournaments gets to be the NAF European Team Open or whatever, and gets its regular attendance plus a few more international travellers.

Maybe even make it qualifying criteria for the NETO to have been previously run.

Pako - Jan 27, 2012 - 06:53 AM
Post subject:

longfang wrote:

Could those existing team events provide room for an increase in player numbers.

Sure but it will not be possible in all the cases IMO.

But I also like the idea. Even if the tournament organizers should search an alternative venue, they will have the experience.

Darkson wrote:

But does it means we should restrict bids to only the existing team tournaments, or whoever would run the European Open could bid for?

I guess is the fair way. Dream Team organizers for example (who are good friends of mine - yes, I have some of them Wink

) don't want to modify their tourney when we propose it as the spanish major... don't know about to change it even more to became European Open.

Another example is Rugbowl. This is an open air event, I don't know if they could sustain more than 120 players in the country. Or even if they want to change this excellent open air venue to a closeed one in order to accommodate the European Open.

My personal opinion is if there is any running tournament that would host the European Open it will be welcome, but if someone else wants to bid with a new project, should be also allowed to. Isn't it?

Joemanji - Jan 27, 2012 - 07:03 AM
Post subject:

Pako wrote:

... when we propose it as the spanish major...

What Spanish major?

Pako - Jan 27, 2012 - 07:06 AM
Post subject:

Joemanji wrote:

Pako wrote:

... when we propose it as the spanish major...

What Spanish major?

WHEN there was a chat considering that majors number could be increased, Dream Teams Cup was pointed out as the most important spanish tournament. So then, a good candidate if finally the idea progress.

I know you feel there are enough majors now. Probably I agree with you if I already have one close to my home.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

txapo - Jan 27, 2012 - 08:09 AM
Post subject:

Doubleskulls wrote:

Furthermore having the European Open in July/August may actually help inter continental travellers combine the tournament with their holidays.

Or eastern time could be good too at least only a short holiday needed!

Doubleskulls - Jan 27, 2012 - 09:24 AM
Post subject:

Easter I discarded because its too close to NAFC.

Deathwing - Jan 27, 2012 - 10:44 AM
Post subject:

Pako wrote:

I know you feel there are enough majors now. Probably I agree with you if I already have one close to my home.

Don't want to sidetrack this discussion, but the vast majority of us European coaches are closer to our TWO European majors than many Aus or US coaches are to their ONE. We are very lucky in comparison with both the density of players and the sheer number and variety of tournaments to choose from.

Wightlord - Jan 27, 2012 - 12:17 PM
Post subject:

Ironjaw wrote:

Wightlord, today's your lucky day.

Dances around the room singing " I feel Pretty" Exclamation

Pipey - Jan 27, 2012 - 02:42 PM
Post subject:

A few thoughtsâ€¦

The NAF does hold certain tournaments as â€˜specialâ€™: the majors and NAFWC definitely fall into this category.

In a slightly different way, Eurobowl fits in here too. It is part of the four-year cycle of grand-scale team events i.e. it steps aside when the NAFWC is held.

Eurobowl also has a long history as the first ever Blood bowl team event of any kind, the first to see nations compete against one another. And it continues to be one of the bigger tournaments in Europe: in France in 2010, 126 coaches attended Eurobowl + EurOpen together.

I believe the NAF should seek to support fantastic celebrations of the hobby like Eurobowl.

However I do acknowledge that in the past it has not fully upheld the spirit of inclusivity that the NAF represents. France took big steps to make it more inclusive (EurOpen), Denmark seem to be carrying on the good work from conversations I have had with Topper. They will also include a large open tournament, and have been in discussion with me about fulfilling the approval criteria in the new Tournament Approval Document regarding â€˜selection eventsâ€™ (i.e. that there needs to be a â€˜democraticâ€™ element to team selection within each community)

(As discussed elsewhere, the Eurobowl organisers / captains / players are not forced to comply. However if they donâ€™t, the event cannot be NAF supported or NAF ranked. Document available here [see pre-tournament requirements, point 4]: http://thenaf.net/downloads/NAF_Tournament_Approval_Document_update_Dec_2011.doc)

So how does this relate to the NAF Euro Cup concept? Well in light of this aim to support Eurobowl as a de facto European Team Tournament, I would agree that there this a genuine question to be asked: â€œdo we need this extra tournament?â€ I agree saturation of the calendar with big events could be a factor.

Reading this debate I note there is somewhat of a split between some existing â€˜Eurobowlersâ€™ and other â€˜non-Eurobowlersâ€™ (who may even have had a bad experience of the Eurobowl system).

Thatâ€™s understandable if some feel theyâ€™re frozen out of the Eurobowl experience. I would like to change that though. I would like everyone within each national community to be able to have their say on how the team is chosen to represent their nation at Eurobowl.

I wonder whether it is a coincidence that this tournament concept emanates from Spain, where the selection of the national team at Eurobowl has been â€˜closedâ€™ i.e. the same team year-on-year. (This is how it appears from the outside; though I fully admit I am not in possession of all of the facts.) Itâ€™s perhaps no surprise that such a large and vibrant Blood bowl community has made this move for a more regular piece of the team tournament action.

Maybe also itâ€™s no coincidence that other large BB-playing nations where Eurobowl teams are selected with wider community participation (e.g. France, UK, Germany) have not felt the need for another European team event.

Also I believe the NAF committee should lead in terms in decision making on issues like this, where â€˜specialâ€™ large-scale tournaments are concerned, indeed thank you Pako for coming to me with the idea to request support. Thanks everyone for the input on here, this is a really important debate. The committee do need to discuss this in much greater detail to decide what direction to take.

Keep the comments coming!

Grumbledook - Jan 27, 2012 - 07:48 PM
Post subject:

Darkson wrote:

Grumbledook wrote:

I also don't see an argument against it having a slight bump in K value either.

I am. Why bump this when other worthies aren't (the WC for instance)?

TBH I was surprised the WC wasn't double K value, no reason that couldn't be bumped up as well. That isn't an argument why increasing the K value to try and get some more tournaments that get a greater mix of international coaches together shouldn't be done.

I can totally see space in the tournament calender for a roving 1.5k event personally. What are the downsides? What are the upsides? I've outlined the benefits I see behind the idea and so far the only downside is that it might detract from the Eurobowl, though that won't be known unless it actually takes place.

Seeing how many teams france and spain wanted to send to the WC even getting a more democratic method for picking Eurobowl teams still leaves a LOT of coaches who aren't likely to attend for a long time. 6 players on 15 teams is 90 coaches, it would take 12 Eurobowls for at least all of those players to play assuming you take a totally new team every time. And that isn't even counting the coaches that didn't apply to the WC for logistical reasons who may also consider the Eurobowl.

An open event of smaller teams may also attract more coaches from the smaller European nations who have trouble getting a Eurobowl team together. It will be easier for them to build a smaller team up and experience a large mixed nationality event which can fuel their local community more, as it has done in the more traditional larger BB nations.

Darkson wrote:

This has been suggested quite a few times already and it's what I'd expect as the source of a lot of bids if that was the way this went forward.

Regarding only a few people posting in this thread so far, perhaps it would help if the national NTOs posted a link to it in their respective localised forums to get a wider view? I think more people haven't posted cause they don't know this thread is here rather than lack of interest in the idea.

Doubleskulls - Jan 28, 2012 - 04:16 AM
Post subject:

I think the whole reason for different K values has been forgotten. It isn't to reward some tournaments for being more important than others, its to artificially "average" out the K value that people on different continents were playing for so that Europeans didn't dominate the rankings quite as much. The landscape has change a lot since then (8~9 years ago) so its worth revisiting, but if the rationale is the same then there is an argument for reducing the European majors even further as the rankings are dominated by Europeans (about 10% of the top 50 are non-European, where it should be more like 20%).

Volstagg - Jan 28, 2012 - 09:44 AM
Post subject:

What about equal K value for ALL tournaments? Wouldn't that be easier than increasing the number of Majors or turning some tournaments into Major Tournaments?

Isn't the extra K value the last thing you think about, when you are considering to attend a Tourney?

Deathwing - Jan 28, 2012 - 12:57 PM
Post subject:

Grumbledook wrote:

Regarding only a few people posting in this thread so far, perhaps it would help if the national NTOs posted a link to it in their respective localised forums to get a wider view? I think more people haven't posted cause they don't know this thread is here rather than lack of interest in the idea.

Pippy's already on it Jon. I'm sure he won't mind me sharing this from the RTOs section (posted 4 days ago):

Pippy wrote:

Hi everyone

Pako has proposed a new team tournament in Europe, similar to the North American Team Championship (which is being discussed on the North American boards).

Pako's thread:
http://www.thenaf.net/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=5485&sid=0842f2f0517d69bf20313b587c22d536

The aim is for this to be a 'European' event so it would be good to have a wide debate about what people want, involving a wide range of countires.

RTOs - could you bring the above thread to the attention of your communities via national forums etc.?

Thanks
Brendan

Doubleskulls - Jan 28, 2012 - 03:37 PM
Post subject:

Volstagg wrote:

I think some people think an increased K value does attract more coaches, particularly international ones. I think tournaments with an elevated K value are just considered more prestigious anyway so attract more coaches. There would probably be an equivalent effect with better prize support or something else.

Flat K might work, I haven't done any modelling on it though. I suspect the best answer to reduce the importance of frequency of play is a higher K value all round. Higher K values mean you are playing for more points every game, so recent form becomes more important and slowly building up ranking harder. Although I'm not even sure the principle that Deathwing & I worked on still stands.

Doubleskulls - Jan 28, 2012 - 03:43 PM
Post subject:

Just checked and USA/Canada only had about 4 non-major tournaments in 2011 that hit the cap, and Australia and 3. That makes a flat K (or at least a lower cap) seem like a good approach, probably combined with a higher K value.

Doubleskulls - Jan 28, 2012 - 03:44 PM
Post subject:

We could also fix the rankings to make the formula more accurately reflect the importance of ranking whilst we are at it Smile

Currently the formula underestimates the importance of ranking differential for winning - its a about a 1/3 more significant than estimated.

Deathwing - Jan 28, 2012 - 06:32 PM
Post subject:

Just a quick point ( because I have been out drinking tonight!)...let's not get sidetracked by k-values/rankings/majors....it has little to do with the subject in hand....

Sebco - Jan 29, 2012 - 06:25 AM
Post subject:

Pako wrote:

1- I think is objective data that people don't travel so much outside their country to play a team tournament actually.

2- This is also objective to say that WC was an exception to 1-

3- I guess some people (probably lots of) could manage to travel to an international tournament every two years.

4- It is also true that Eurobowl is already an international European tournament. (agre with you)

5- Regarding 4-, Eurobowl is indeed involving a small % of European NAF players

I would say I agree more or less with these 5 sentences, Pako. That said, I'm not sure I'm with you about the solution.

WC is an exception to 1- because it is rare (every 4 years) and there's no other big tournament like that with so many nations represented and so many coaches. 4 years is not so much for a so exceptionnal event. In my mind, it only can be too much when you can't attend 1 and so have to wait 8 years.

In my opinion, organising a World Cup bis (even if called eurosomething) would make these 2 World Cups (the real one and the bis) less rare and less exceptionnal.

If we want some more coaches to attend tourneys in other countries, a solution could be to give more attention to the majors, as it has already been suggested in this topic. I would say there will have 6-7 french coachs at Blood Bowl tournament (well, NAF championship...) in 2012 and no french coach at Dungeon Bowl in 2012 (I don't even know if some french coaches already attend to Dungeon Bowl). This surely could be improved. Wink

Pako - Jan 30, 2012 - 12:55 AM
Post subject:

I think your points could be right also, Sebco. but as Grumbledook's pointed out, there is no way to include all the coaches interested into the Eurobowl, even enhancing democracy in team selection, we have the numbers issue.

Then you could improve the majors attendance, but in fact they will remain individual, and we all agree people became more motivated and spend more effort to travel to team tournaments.

And finally the third one is to dillucidate if an European Open will substract interest to the WC. This third point is impossible to clarify. We still don't know if two years between those tourneys will affect or not the WC. I do think 4 years is too much, people starts and ends a "bloodbowl career" between those 4 years (I did see it) so maybe two will be fine. Moreover, you are always supposing WC will stay in Europe forever? I think a WC outside Europe will be desirable, and then the European Open will fill the gap for the people that are not going to travel outside the continent.

As said, I do agree with you on this, and the major concern to me is also to dilute WC attendance. But my different point of view is that we still don't know if it will happen or not.

Indigo - Jan 30, 2012 - 02:35 AM
Post subject:

Pako, maybe take a step back and think about it Smile

Logically if you have a "Euro Team Tournament" that's held every 2 years between the NAFWC and countries from outside Europe wish to attend, you must oblige them - otherwise it's not NAF sanctioned which is defeating the objective. Hosting the NAFWC every 4 years gives everyone the chance to plan ahead and for those outside the continent it's going to be held at, a chance to save up the money needed. If you host a tournament two years later that does exactly the same thing you will split attendance between each event and the overall effect of both is diminished.

I fail to see why there are already outstanding team tournaments being held in Europe that you seem to suggest are incapable of meeting the need for a "euro team tournament". What is wrong with Lettuce, for example?

Wanting "more of a good thing" is a great attitude to have but you seem to be blinded to your own ulterior motives here, ignoring good advice and good tournaments that already exist. It's a GREAT idea to have a team tournament in europe anyone can attend! Nice one! Except it's already happening, successfully - why can't you support the existing efforts? Simply saying "Lettuce might not be able to expand big enough" does not mean "therefore it's an invalid option" - why don't you promote and support one of the existing tournaments?

Indigo - Jan 30, 2012 - 03:01 AM
Post subject:

Let's put this another way. I went for a cup of coffee only to turn around and come back to post again, all to try to make the point clearer.

Wanting to host a tournament is great and should be encouraged, with the advice of others on the tournament scene. An all inclusive european "large scale" event (can't use the word major event for obvious reasons) is a lovely idea.

What people are trying to tell you is that

a) trying to get it to be the main NAF euro team event would detract from the NAFWC. The NAF cannot and should not start running tournaments everywhere - it's there to support the players & their tournaments not become the only kid on the block who can run tournaments. Adding more NAF events would choke the calendar, potentially kill off smaller events doing the same thing and dilute the tournament scene. When the "big kid" starts running events, people generally want to be involved so the NAF has to be exceedingly careful as to what it does so as not to damage the scene as a whole. Or, put another way - it's here to support tournaments, not own them.

b) there already are multiple European team tournament events. Does this mean you shouldn't bother trying to run one? No. Does this mean that yours is more likely to be smaller and certainly less "important" than you hope because people are more likely to attend the events that they already know and love? Yes.

So in a nutshell, people aren't criticising the idea because the idea is already tried and tested and in action. My suspicion is they are criticising the delivery. The way you post your thoughts and ideas doesn't help - to be honest you DO ignore any advice that goes against your vision and hold up supporting arguments as though delivered from heaven! Also, considering that you have very publically criticised the NAF, Eurobowl, NAF staff etc. in the past, as well as your very public remarks after being unfortunate enough to miss out on the NAFWC all combine to suggest you have ulterior motives behind this.

Whether this is true or not - only you really know. But you have to at least acknowledge that because of what you have said and done in the past, this is what people PERCEIVE, and public perception matters a lot - it's what will make your ideas succeed or fail.

Doubleskulls - Jan 30, 2012 - 03:18 AM
Post subject:

Indigo wrote:

I agree. In practice you can't stop it since an Aussie team could say they represent Malta or something. You couldn't restrict attendance based on nationality.

Indigo wrote:

If you host a tournament two years later that does exactly the same thing you will split attendance between each event and the overall effect of both is diminished.

If it were "tournament A" and "tournament B" you'd have a point, but one is a World Cup, and one isn't. An open European team competition is clearly a junior tournament so I think people who have to make a choice will overwhelming prefer the prestige of a World Cup.

Indigo wrote:

I fail to see why there are already outstanding team tournaments being held in Europe that you seem to suggest are incapable of meeting the need for a "euro team tournament". What is wrong with Lettuce, for example?

I *think* Pako is arguing that if we did have bidding it should be open to new tournaments as well as existing tournaments to compete to host (which I think is reasonable).

Generally, I just don't agree that having more tournaments is a bad thing. There is saturation, and people will attend based on where they think they'll get the most enjoyment. People make these choices all the time about how much time and money they want to spend on their hobby - but they are already doing so, so adding another tournament into the mix makes no meaningful difference.

Pako - Jan 30, 2012 - 04:05 AM
Post subject:

Quote:

The way you post your thoughts and ideas doesn't help - to be honest you DO ignore any advice that goes against your vision and hold up supporting arguments as though delivered from heaven!

Well, to be honest, if the advice against the idea is "you shouldn't do that" it is certainly difficult to include them. I do hear about existing tournaments hosting the European Open, and I think is worthy. But also I think people who are not running team tournaments could bid for. On the other hand, people organizing Dream Teams Cup wouldn't be involved on this, so we should take into account the possibility of that organizers of present team tournaments won't be involved but attending to this.

As commented, here we have just a small number of points of view. More input will be welcome. In the spanish forum the idea had a massive support (I know, I know, I only talk from my point of view...) and the only negative comments it had come from the Eurobowl players.

About this, and about my image here. I did criticize many things about NAF. But I also think I never lose the personal respect that is needed for posting them, I think is worthy to disagree (and even strongly disagree) without entering in insult, or personal discredit. Sadly, others could not say the same, and their image are still inpolute. So sorry but I think here we are discussing about ideas, and although you could take into account my image, but then take into account the image of Joemanji as NAF Staff actively discrediting me with no other than falsehoods cooked in his mind.

So I decided to pass through but we could consider these type of things, but please, consider them for all us.

Related with the important discussion here, as said most criticisms come from usual Eurobowl players. Again I think is worthy but if their only advice is to close this initiative I also could doubt about their personal interest on it other than in Bloodbowl community.

But I won't do that. I only want to point out that the main point against this idea is that Eurobowl and WC are going to shrink because diluting the events. I am sorry but any point of view on that is subjective, which it means we are in a endless discussion.

We will set up a poll instead, but unfortunately NAF website is underused, so if it is representative could be doubt. We could wait to the NAF TOs to get the feedback from the players and then have an idea about interest, but in this particular case (and taking advantadge about image created) probably no one in UK will attend the European Open, if Joemanji is the man collecting this feedback Wink

Darkson - Jan 30, 2012 - 04:36 AM
Post subject:

Nice to see you're still playing the"wronged victim" card, but then end your post with a personal insult (but used a smiley, so it's "fine").

You also say that most of the critism is from Eurobowl players. Can you list who those players are?

Pako - Jan 30, 2012 - 05:19 AM
Post subject:

This is called irony... it is like hear the person who haven't any problem in publicly insult me that note I am playing any victim card. So don't enter here, we will meet personally and then we will discuss about it for sure, Darkson.

God... Rolling Eyes

@ Others. I am really sorry about it. I promised myself to never will go into discussion with those two...

About the question, I know Joemanji usually plays in Team England. Kewan also was quite critic with and usually plays for Spanish Team. I know you probably don't play Eurobowl, but I know you are absolutely in disagree with all my ideas, probably you are on disagree on my mere existence but any case.

I know also that some Eurobowl players are fine with the idea of an European Open. Let the exam pass, please.

Kewan - Jan 30, 2012 - 05:27 AM
Post subject:

Hi Everybody

I'm the captain of the Spanish team who played Eurobowl last year, and I want to tell you several things.

1Âº Pakulkan, one of my best friends, and a guy really respected at the spanish forum, not here. He is trying to change NAF as organization, probably his way is not the best, I'm not agree with some of his ideas, but I've read some comments really unpleasant, as he want to destroy Eurobowl, or something like this, or he was cheating during NAF president election, no sense for me. Please, trust in me, he want to help NAF as organization, that is his thinking and he doesn't want anything else. He has his own point of view, and it's quite stubborn, but that's it.

2Âº Pakulkan and the WC. Several spanish coaches talked with him, because we thought it was unfair that his team, LBN, didn't play the WC, and he must be there, but we also thought his way of telling that things, wasn't the best. Here, in this forum, people think that's the "revenge" for that WC incident, and you're wrong. Probably if Pakulkan had played the WC, we didn't speak about Euronaf, or he didn't put himself forward as a candidate for NAF the president, but when he decided to do that, it's not for a nonsense revenge, it's because he really thinks he can do it better, than actual staff.

(I don't think like him, I prefer Lycos)

3Âº EuroNAF. Euronaf or Eurobowl or eurowhatever... I think there is one tournament for european players, that's Eurobowl. While we've different sistems of choosing the teams, Eurobowl must be a no-naf event. I'll play Eurobowl every time possible for me, because it's my favourite tournament, but another tournament called Euronaf it's not necessary.

I understand players who ask for the celebration of this tournament, but I'm not agree with them, because devalue Eurobowl, and I repeat, it's my favourite tourney, and I'll play as NAF sanctioned or not Â¿that's important? not for me

Wink

4Âº I don't speak english, only a few times, so writting less times, if I did some mistakes, you know, I'm spanish Wink

Pako - Jan 30, 2012 - 05:37 AM
Post subject:

Thank you Kewan. I appreciate that.

Just point out one issue

Quote:

Probably if Pakulkan had played the WC, we didn't speak about Euronaf, or he didn't put himself forward as a candidate for NAF the president

We talked about it before. I was making critics to the NAF management far before the WC places were sorted. It is posted so I could say I presented myself because I had concerns other than WC and before WC and that this European Open concept is not also related to.

I do think if most Eurobowl players like you or Joemanji will give it the priority, no event could then devaluate Eurobowl.

On the other hand, your comments suggest that Spanish Team selection will remain as was in the past, so this will imply less people could attend to. I should disagree with you then that an Open European Team Tournament is not necessary.

longfang - Jan 30, 2012 - 06:33 AM
Post subject:

@ darkson. Please stop with the bitching!

If I was still an active tourney player I would very much be interested in an open European team tourney which, (and let's all be honest, no matter how you select teams for Eurobowl because its limited to 1 team per country) there isn't. So perhaps we should not even consider Eurobowl in this discussion. A 4 player per team event with no restriction on being all one nationality gets my interest.

Darkson - Jan 30, 2012 - 10:33 AM
Post subject:

No bitching, but if someone is complaining of personal insults aimed at them, whilst throwing insults at the same time, I believe I'm in my right to call him on it. Same with tarring all Eurobowl players with the same brush.

As for team tourneys, I'm all for them, but I still haven't seen any compleling reasoning on why it needs to a NAF tourney, instead of just a NAF sanctioned tourney - I see no need for a WC-lite, when there are already at least 3 events out there that could be promoted.

Kewan - Jan 30, 2012 - 10:34 AM
Post subject:

Pako wrote:

On the other hand, your comments suggest that Spanish Team selection will remain as was in the past, so this will imply less people could attend to. I should disagree with you then that an Open European Team Tournament is not necessary.

It's my opinion, not spanish team opinion. We don't know what kind of selection system we're going to choose this year, and who is going to be the captain (Lupus come back please) Crying or Very sad

Kewan - Jan 30, 2012 - 11:27 AM
Post subject:

Darkson wrote:

As for team tourneys, I'm all for them, but I still haven't seen any compleling reasoning on why it needs to a NAF tourney, instead of just a NAF sanctioned tourney - I see no need for a WC-lite, when there are already at least 3 events out there that could be promoted.

That's your opinion, and I'm agree with you, but it's not necessary to destroy all their hopes (I mean finish with their ilusions) of this new tourney. NAF comunity must talk and must be heard, then our NAF staff will decide what's the best option, we choose them for making this kind of decisions, no?

Unfortunately, spanish people who plays bloodbowl didn't speak english, high percentage, and Pakulkan words represent the wish of many people, probably they choose a wrong speaker, because there are people in this forum who dislikes Pakulkan, but there are few bloodbowl players in Spain able to defend this idea speaking in english.

Vinz_D - Jan 30, 2012 - 02:26 PM
Post subject:

Doubleskulls wrote:

Generally, I just don't agree that having more tournaments is a bad thing. There is saturation, and people will attend based on where they think they'll get the most enjoyment. People make these choices all the time about how much time and money they want to spend on their hobby - but they are already doing so, so adding another tournament into the mix makes no meaningful difference.

I completely agree with what you're saying here, but the saturation in itself is a danger in itself, as in the current economical situation money will become a much bigger motivator as to what tournament you'd be going towards.

If I look at the size and variety of nations represented at the Dutch Open in 2005 and 2012, you see that the bigger Blood Bowl communities (France, Germany, England) that were generally coming over now let such a tournament pass by, partly (I assume) because there are so many more tournaments now then seven years ago... It isn't a bad thing, but it does mean that a new tournament that aims to be really international has to have an amazing venue, price support, etc. in order to actually get that large variety of represented nations.

So, in that regard, I find myself in the camp of building this idea up from existing team tournaments that have 'proven' themselves and can count on a solid player base that visits the tournament anyway.

Greetz

Sebco - Jan 30, 2012 - 04:40 PM
Post subject:

Pako wrote:

The main point against this idea is that Eurobowl and WC are going to shrink because diluting the events. I am sorry but any point of view on that is subjective, which it means we are in a endless discussion.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm not "against" your idea. But I do think if a new big team tournament is organized by NAF every four years, it will be a competitor for NAF World Cup. This is only one personal opinion. I can easily admit that's subjective but that's my opinion and I suppose this topic has been created to share our opinions about this possible new event. The more we are to give our opinion, the more it will be easy to evaluate if the Blood Bowl community is interested in such an event.

Pako wrote:

Then you could improve the majors attendance, but in fact they will remain individual, and we all agree people became more motivated and spend more effort to travel to team tournaments.

As I've written it in my previous post, I agree with most of the facts you have described to explain why you wanted to create a new event. I also would like the different European national communities to travel a bit more. And I would say we sometimes only need a few things to have crowd effects. But I'm not convinced in your solution. That's why I was quoting other solutions! Cool

One could be to give more attention to the Majors (yes, i know, they aren't team events), another one could be to give also more attention to some existing team events. I don't know how exactly. I have to admit I didn't think about that before.

Maybe could we simply have a few "Master Team" tourneys. No new Majors as 5 seem to be enough, but a new tournament grade between Majors and other tournaments. These tournaments would idealy have a better communication on the NAF website (as for the Majors, see http://www.thenaf.net/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=5502&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight= , they could have their NAF website special page) and/or maybe special rewards... It could also be a mean to give the chance for countries who have no Majors to now have one more attractive tournament.

Well, all that to say that's not an angry "no" but only a "maybe could we do things differently, trying to improve what do already exist before to create something new". Wink

Doubleskulls - Jan 31, 2012 - 01:52 AM
Post subject:

Vinz_D wrote:

So, in that regard, I find myself in the camp of building this idea up from existing team tournaments that have 'proven' themselves and can count on a solid player base that visits the tournament anyway.

I agree. Giving one of the existing team tournaments a "NAF European Open Team Championship" boost every four years seems like a good way to encourage international travel.

If an organising group were going to set up a new tournament to bid from it would have to have a lot going for it to beat an existing annual event.

Pako - Jan 31, 2012 - 02:03 AM
Post subject:

Sebco wrote:

Sure. And I am also with you in that to promote existing tournaments and to boost up some of them is desirable. Sorry because I understood you propose it as an alternative to team event by itself instead of alternative ways to promote the same feeling. Quite subtle consideration. I missed it.

Pako - Jan 31, 2012 - 02:30 AM
Post subject:

So then, I will list some pros and cons and I hope I could do it in objective resume. Please notice to me if I forgot any issue as I will do it just remembering the general ideas.

EUROPEAN OPEN TEAM TOURNAMENT

+ More inclusive than Eurobowl (all NAF players could attend)
+ New NAF supported event (i.e. could promote more the international traveling)
+ Could get profit on already existing Team Tournaments stuff
+ Could reduce polemics in an hypothetical WC outside Europe
+ Could provide most active players a new NAF Team Event other than every 4 years
+ Similar initiatives running in North America and Australia (question of homogeneity of presented events to the members)

- Is somehow competing with Eurobowl for the "Euro" name and prestige
- Could reduce WC attendance
- To add a new tournament could stress tournament scene (money, too much to offer)
- We could boost other tournaments instead
- NAF should promote, not support, events (one exception each: team and individual are enough)

I guess more or less these are the main topics addressed.

Being in danger to repeat, I guess most of the stuff addressed is in principal subjective (mine included, BTW). This is logical because we are just prospecting the implications of a future possibility. So as Sebco pointed out, the most important thing here IMO is to get massive feedback from players in order to refine the predictions about a European NAF Open. It will give us the most accurate idea of the interest for a new tournament. I would suggest the setting up of polls in main country forums in order to properly pulse this interest.

On the other hand, Longfang and Grumbledook stressed out a quite important point: although Eurobowl team selection became more open, simply by a question of numbers it will never be inclusive (agree, we now have the most inclusive eurobowl we could have, but still is a funnel in the attendance question. This should be a very important point to take into account.

To add on top of this is the time lapse between WCs. It is quite important to know also if NAF players feel that 4 years between every WC level event is too much for wait, or that is exactly the desirable option to promote avidity for coming. In this particular point, players like me could argue that we want to have as many as we could (quite active, traveling players). On the other hand, there should be players that need to save money or that not have such this interest to travel. So then to have a WC level event every year is a madness in time lapse. To have it every four years assures all NAF players that could, would come. But what about every two years?

This last point is related with the point about diluting Eurobowl and WC attendance. Although this is a real question to be addressed, most of Eurobowl players express their desire to priorize Eurobowl. Could we have a priority list like:

WC>Eurobowl>European Open?

If it is true, the only tournament with such diluted attendance will be European NAF (which in fact is MY biggest concern because I don't believe any of the other two should be affected). There is another point kind of less objective which is "prestige" of Eurobowl.

Although I should concede I don't care so much about this "prestige" (basicly, because to really have it, the best ranked NAF players should attend Eurobowl to have the BB level prestige, which is a question that I am absolutely against) I think we could consider it also.

To end with the resume, if we take into account the possibility of an attendance reduction, we could pay attention do Doubleskulls suggestion of to promote existing team tournaments. I could help the setting up of the European Open by assuring a minimum number of players, but it will also dilute the "NAF" image of the event. We need also to consider that maybe existing team tournaments organizers could be not interested in to organize it (again, feedback will be welcome from those organizers).

I truly believe this will be the best option in the future (an existing team tournament hosting the European Open every 4 years) but maybe not for the first time. The organization in a brand new place could help to promote the image of the event by itself, while in the future (with this image already fixed) it could travel around Europe by existing team tournaments.

However, I guess we still allow independent bids to be considered, just in case there will not be existing tournaments interested on (or capable to host) the tournament. This will be a backup solution to assure it continuity.

To sum up, I think the main problem is to know if there will be the situation 1:

500 people attending WC

230 people attending European Open

Or 2:

270 people attending WC

230 people attending European Open

Which could means in 1 we have 230 people attending both. And in 2 a sharing of the same 500 players between two options.

Again, I will end up with a final remark. I am with all you concerned about the idea because the diluting attendance issue, I was considering it very carefully before posting it and contact with Pippy. But the difference is that I think the only event that will pay it will be the new one. And to avoid it we only need to propose an attractive event to assure NAF players interest. I do believe all we want the best situation for the NAF, and although I finally get different conclusions to myself, I am also concerned about to have a worse instead a better situation with this. But as pointed out, we receive also good feedback about it and could be worthy just to think positive and try it once. Let's see if it fits or not.

Pako - Jan 31, 2012 - 02:53 AM
Post subject:

I already posted a Poll Topic on spanish forum with 5 options to decide:

Question

Will you be interested in the organization of a NAF European Team Open every 4 years?

Yes, I will attend to both, World Cup and NAF European Team Open

Yes, but I will choose to attend to just one event

No, there is already Eurobowl as the European team tournament

No, I think two years between every NAF team tournament is too close

No answer

Hope you will find it unbiased. I will further sum up Yes/No answers, but I think is better to know a little bit more "why" Yes/No is selected.

Roller - Jan 31, 2012 - 12:22 PM
Post subject:

Pako wrote:

I already posted a Poll Topic on spanish forum with 5 options to decide:

Question

Will you be interested in the organization of a NAF European Team Open every 4 years?

Yes, I will attend to both, World Cup and NAF European Team Open

Yes, but I will choose to attend to just one event

No, there is already Eurobowl as the European team tournament

No, I think two years between every NAF team tournament is too close

No answer

Hope you will find it unbiased. I will further sum up Yes/No answers, but I think is better to know a little bit more "why" Yes/No is selected.

Interesting. I have posted the same Poll in the Italian forum.
I'll inform you about the replays.

By the wai I'm for

Yes, I will attend to both, World Cup and NAF European Team Open (or nonNaf European Team Open or wathever you'd call european team tournament hosted every 4 year)

Sebco - Jan 31, 2012 - 01:19 PM
Post subject:

Roller wrote:

Pako wrote:

I already posted a Poll Topic on spanish forum with 5 options to decide:

Question

Will you be interested in the organization of a NAF European Team Open every 4 years?

Yes, I will attend to both, World Cup and NAF European Team Open

Yes, but I will choose to attend to just one event

No, there is already Eurobowl as the European team tournament

No, I think two years between every NAF team tournament is too close

No answer

Hope you will find it unbiased. I will further sum up Yes/No answers, but I think is better to know a little bit more "why" Yes/No is selected.

Interesting. I have posted the same Poll in the Italian forum.
I'll inform you about the replays.

I did the same on the main french forum (even if I'm not really convinced by this idea).

generaljason - Jan 31, 2012 - 02:11 PM
Post subject:

Why don't you guys just make Eurobowl a tiered event? Like instead of making another European team event, elevate current Team events (that want to convert) to Eurobowl qualifiers instead? And for countries that don't currently host a team event but participate in Eurobowl - create one for your country. This way everyone in Europe gets a chance to participate at their country's Eurobowl qualifier event, and Eurobowl is never accused of being closed because it's a tiered event. Dice beat committees and elections anyday.

2 cents.

Sebco - Jan 31, 2012 - 02:32 PM
Post subject:

generaljason wrote:

Thats could be another solution but if I understood well, the aim was to have a great team event with a lot of coachs travelling far away from their countries and playing against teams from other countries. A team losing at their national team event and so not being qualified to the new EuroBowl you described would not achieve the orginal goal explained above.

The EuroBowl you described would still be reserved to a limited number of teams and so would not be suitable for Pako and the other ones who thought this new project.

That said, as you, I think if this new project is really launched, we will also have to think about the consequences on EuroBowl (at least thinking about having EuroBowl only each 2 years, so when there isn't World Cup nor Euro Cup).

Grumbledook - Feb 01, 2012 - 01:14 AM
Post subject:

Another advantage that hasn't been mentioned is that it could be held in the summer, thus making it available to those coaches who can't travel in the Novemeber time slot that eurobowl and the WC have had up till now.

Eurobowl qualifiers that gj suggested I can't see being practical. At least in the UK existing tournaments wouldn't fit that model very well. It would cause far more upheaval than just giving one of the existing large team events a NAF stamp. I would also drop any notion of calling it "Euro", Team Challenge Open works fine. Doubleskulls mentioned there may well be aussie expats who would want to make a small team for example.

If the idea is to make it an open all inclusive team event to as many as possible, drop the euro, have smaller teams of 4 which are easier to get together and host it in a time of the year that doesn't compete with the eurobowl. I don't see it competing with the eurobowl either, coaches willing to travel to that will still go, those who aren't picked on the eurobowl team are then free to choose to attend the team open...

I also don't see the problem with just having the Eurobowl on alternating years either. If you have two teams of four then perhaps the two highest placed teams of four per nation make up the eurobowl team for that country the following year? Then the other eurobowl the year after the WC is picked via different means? Just throwing the idea out there, of course those same players may not, or could not be free to travel for the eurobowl anyway. Could just have the top team at the team open going, and the other four places are made up some other way. Plenty of ways this could all work for the good of the community.

Pako - Feb 01, 2012 - 01:15 AM
Post subject:

I don't think Eurobowl should change.

I could put me on the place of an Eurobowl player and I won't disturb the feeling and friendship carried by Eurobowl by making this tournament a carrot for an increase in competition on former team tournaments.

Qualifiers have a very undesirable side effect: to affect the fair play and good relations in the tournaments.

For this reason, I think Eurobowl could still being the same tournament. It deserves to remain as it was planned at the very beginning of the NAF.

But also Eurobowl players should put them in the place of the rest of NAF players to admit that is worthy that the rest of NAF players could have avidity for something comparable at european level. Be careful and read "comparable" in terms of scale and international variety. I don't mean "competitive".

generaljason - Feb 01, 2012 - 04:57 AM
Post subject:

Sebco wrote:

How so? From my understanding of the way Eurobowl is set up is that a limited number of teams from each country are allowed to go. It is not unlimited hence why Francisco wants to create another European Team Challenge - one that is open to everyone in Europe. His problem - and rightly so, is that the tournament is essentially closed, not the"great team event with a lot of coachs travelling far away from their countries and playing against teams from other countries" that you described above, (I'm mean I'm sure whoever get's to go thinks it's a good event and I'm not arguing that) but a team event with a limited number of teams from each country with ad hoc selection that changes from country to country. A tiered event solves that bitch once and for all. And if one team doesn't get to go - too bad, should've played better at the qualifier, better luck next year.

Sebco wrote:

The EuroBowl you described would still be reserved to a limited number of teams and so would not be suitable for Pako and the other ones who thought this new project.

Yeah that's exactly what I'm saying - leave Eurobowl with the same number of teams per country as it already is, but for those countries that have players that never seem to be able to get past the selection process every year have a qualifier event, let the dice decide and put the bitching to bed.

Grumbledook wrote:

Eurobowl qualifiers that gj suggested I can't see being practical. At least in the UK existing tournaments wouldn't fit that model very well. It would cause far more upheaval than just giving one of the existing large team events a NAF stamp. I would also drop any notion of calling it "Euro", Team Challenge Open works fine. Doubleskulls mentioned there may well be aussie expats who would want to make a small team for example.

If the idea is to make it an open all inclusive team event to as many as possible, drop the euro, have smaller teams of 4 which are easier to get together and host it in a time of the year that doesn't compete with the eurobowl. I don't see it competing with the eurobowl either, coaches willing to travel to that will still go, those who aren't picked on the eurobowl team are then free to choose to attend the team open...

Jon to be honest I have not heard one UK player bitch about how his team was not able to compete in Eurobowl, but I have heard this from Spain numerous times and for at least a year in a number of threads. If the UK selection process is working for their end of Eurobowl then great, but if the selection process in Spain doesn't seem to have a consensus then make them roll for it. That way nobody can argue that Eurobowl is essentially a closed event but the best teams won and came to play.

Pako wrote:

I don't think Eurobowl should change.

Really - you don't think Eurobowl should change? C'mon dude, level with me, were you visited by 3 ghosts or something over the holidays? I'm not going to, but I could site thread after thread after thread where you've said the exact opposite.

Pako wrote:

I could put me on the place of an Eurobowl player and I won't disturb the feeling and friendship carried by Eurobowl by making this tournament a carrot for an increase in competition on former team tournaments.

Qualifiers don't do that. They don't cause cancer either.

Pako wrote:

Qualifiers have a very undesirable side effect: to affect the fair play and good relations in the tournaments.

Qualifiers affect fair play and good relations? How so? Do you guys play in a den of cheaters that will do anything to win, and after such wins, your players are such poor sports that it actually carries over and taints good relations? Tournaments whether they are qualifiers or whatever are competitive anyway and this creates rivalries. That's a good thing not a bad thing unless you're a poor sport loser - and you don't need to cater to those guys.

Pako wrote:

For this reason, I think Eurobowl could still being the same tournament. It deserves to remain as it was planned at the very beginning of the NAF.

Hey I'm all for tradition but NAF has barely been around for 10 years. I'm for making the Eurobowl better, more inclusively to everyone who may want to participate, and tiered does that. Tiered makes it so one rule in the Tournament Approval Document - specifically Point #4, never has to be in there in order to explain why one closed tournament a year receives sanctioning as if it were open like any other.

More importantly though, making it tiered bazookas all bitching about not being able to go to the event. You lost, didn't qualifier, boo hoo, go cry somewhere else and get me a beer while your at it. Your whole point of the thread was that Eurobowl wasn't inclusive enough, so you wanted to make a Euro Team Challenge or whatever that would be. Why not spend your efforts making Eurobowl do that instead?

Per country qualifiers and a tiered Eurobowl does that. Plus you get to try out every year anyway. I could only wish that North America could do something like that every year.

Darkson - Feb 01, 2012 - 06:03 AM
Post subject:

Eurobowl is one nation, one team, and has never been specifically about sending the "best" players.

generaljason - Feb 01, 2012 - 06:08 AM
Post subject:

So it's ad hoc, hence the bitching.

Pako - Feb 01, 2012 - 07:04 AM
Post subject:

Pako wrote:

I don't think Eurobowl should change.

generaljason wrote:

Please, re-read again those posts. I just pointed out that Eurobowl was an exception to NAF approval rules. An exeption that NAF shouldn't permit if it will maintain an image of fairness. Once NAF approval document was changed to fairly decide how a tournament could get the NAF sanctioning, I have no further problems with Eurobowl.

We could call again Kewan and he (as Spanish captain of Spanish Team) could confirm I never want (and will never want) play Eurobowl. So bitching is not there.

Moreover, I did not put Eurobowl on the table. Were eurobowlers the ones to start with. I just add it to the discussion because, if not, I for sure will be accused to ignore some people's points.

I don't care about Eurobowl AT ALL.

I just want to have an international European tournament for all NAF players.

You will call it Team Championship or whatever, I don't care about flagship tournaments because the only real flagship tournament will be setted up by selecting best players of each nation (by qualifiers or best rating or win % or whatever you want), I concede it to you, it is clear. But you know what? I do not like this type of managing. Take a look on my numbers, I am playing goblins like crazy. And that's because in this game the most important thing is not win the tournament, nor your points NAF or if Eurobowl is a national tournament. And I think I could do it, as well I think I could personally think qualifiers are going to make people crazy. Personal opinion.

Most important thing is to play, to meet people and to travel. I will be very happy if people who wants continue playing Eurobowl (and continue assuming is representative :S ) and let the other 90% of european NAF players to play altogether.

That's it.

generaljason - Feb 01, 2012 - 09:26 AM
Post subject:

Pako wrote:

Yeah and you should have a problem with it because it was a clarification to only explain an exception made for one tournament, and this was done well after the fact and only after complaint. It reminds me of Stakes - a skill to explain only one player, while it remains closed to everyone else.

Pako wrote:

We could call again Kewan and he (as Spanish captain of Spanish Team) could confirm I never want (and will never want) play Eurobowl. So bitching is not there.

We're obviously using different history textbooks or something. The one I'm reading has you making this very complaint repeatedly, but now you're saying that you had never had any intention of ever playing in Eurobowl and you brought it up only to prove a point? And after some ad hoc clarification being added to the Tournament Approval document was done you were suddenly placated? Fair enough.

Clannish team events, comprising of only chosen members of each country, that may happen to be chosen by the loudest months and not elected representatives are sanctioned. I get it, now I understand. You might as well just call it AdminBowl while you're at it.

Just don't be all shocked and surprised when BCBowl tries to get approval, comprised of only one team from each of the British Columbian city-states.

Pako wrote:

Moreover, I did not put Eurobowl on the table. Were eurobowlers the ones to start with. I just add it to the discussion because, if not, I for sure will be accused to ignore some people's points.

I don't care about Eurobowl AT ALL.

I just want to have an international European tournament for all NAF players.

You will call it Team Championship or whatever, I don't care about flagship tournaments because the only real flagship tournament will be setted up by selecting best players of each nation (by qualifiers or best rating or win % or whatever you want), I concede it to you, it is clear. But you know what? I do not like this type of managing. Take a look on my numbers, I am playing goblins like crazy. And that's because in this game the most important thing is not win the tournament, nor your points NAF or if Eurobowl is a national tournament. And I think I could do it, as well I think I could personally think qualifiers are going to make people crazy. Personal opinion.

Most important thing is to play, to meet people and to travel. I will be very happy if people who wants continue playing Eurobowl (and continue assuming is representative :S ) and let the other 90% of european NAF players to play altogether.

That's it.

And again we are at an impasse. I agree with your original argument that Eurobowl is closed and doesn't warrant sanctioning, and no added clarification after the fact is going to justify an essentially closed tournament receiving sanctioning in my mind.

Tiered yes. Elected Yes. Voluntary yes. If either of these options are being used to determine Eurobowl teams in their respective countries then I have no problem with NAF sanctioning being given to this event as it is still essentially open to the public. But Chosen no.

And no - I'm not into over competitiveness which is why I'm a firm believer of no prize money. But Goblins or no Goblins, we all play to have fun and meet new coaches but we all also try to win. If we didn't then why do people always seem to bitch about rankings, and what constitutes a Major and what doesn't? If winning was never a consideration you'd never hear it come up ever. And playing to win and building rivalries with coaches, and being great sports and meeting new coaches are not mutually exclusive. So pushing for qualifiers doesn't necessarily imply or constitute an overly competitive environment.

Anyway man, I'm a European citizen but reside in Canada, I'm never going to this one over World Cup so it doesn't really concern me. What does concern me are closed tournaments receiving sanctioning if they are in fact closed. I thought a tiered event would help solve your Eurobowl errata necessity as well as feed the clear need to host another team event in Spain.

Good luck with ETC or whatever you guys are calling it. You guys have a better chance of setting that up than poor North America.

Sorry for the length of the post boys, but when you can't display sarcasm and tone without a billion emoticons you tend to have to type more.

Best regards,
Gj.

Sebco - Feb 01, 2012 - 10:03 AM
Post subject:

generaljason wrote:

Sebco wrote:

The EuroBowl you described would still be reserved to a limited number of teams and so would not be suitable for Pako and the other ones who thought this new project.

I will try to be short. English is not my mother tongue and I may have bad translated my thoughts.

I do know that EuroBowl is limited to 1 team per country. I do understood that your proposal would allow more than 1 team per country to participate to the qualifications round. But, if I understood well, the qualification rounds would take place in each country with only teams for this said country. Even with your system, at the final EuroBowl, there would still have 1 team per country.

On the french forums, until now, there are a lot of votes for Pako's project of an Euro Cup organised in the same way than World Cup (so an open cup with an unlimited number of teams per nations, so teams aiming to win the cup or at least having good rankings, but also teams with funny rosters, teams with painters, teams with whatever you want). I'm not saying your proposal is bad or whatever, I'm just saying it does not fit with what Pako and his counterparts seem to want. If I understood well, they do not want to change EuroBowl fonctionment, they want to organize a new event, modelled on World Cup, but inevitably in Europe.

Volstagg - Feb 01, 2012 - 11:07 AM
Post subject:

I say let's just do it!

I cannot even understand why so much discussion. It's just a Tournament!

I already posted this idea sometime ago. I think everything would be easier if we could set a rotating World Cup Program, like for example:

Europe/North America/Europe/Australia/ and once again E/NA/E/Au

This way we would always know where the next WC is going to be played well in advance and we could foresee ( or at least have a better idea ) what the attendance would be. This would help all of us, since in North America are already planning to run their Team Championship.

Another good reason to this formula is to make it easier to all players around the globe the possibility to attend a WC...

You can call me mad in this thread... Wink

http://thenaf.net/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=5510&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=

Even if the WC had less players as a result of this team tournament(s), IÂ´d go for it. The community is growing every day, and there are new tournaments coming up every week, and no one is protesting.

Think positive people! Very Happy

Roller - Feb 01, 2012 - 12:33 PM
Post subject:

Volstagg wrote:

Pako - Feb 02, 2012 - 12:41 AM
Post subject:

Sebco wrote:

If I understood well, they do not want to change EuroBowl fonctionment, they want to organize a new event, modelled on World Cup, but inevitably in Europe.

That is exactly it.

We don't want to mess it with Eurobowl. We truly believe Eurobowl could survive as usual due to it very commited community of players. We don't think also that people will choice European Open before WC if they could do. And we think there is an avidity to have an open team tournament at european level.

Generaljason, as Sebco pointed out, to participate in Eurobowl under your selection criteria, goblins will not have any chance to be qualified. Why we should force players to be competitive in order to play an European Team Tournament?

This was my point. All we play for win. But to have 2-4-0 with Nurgle is also a win for the player even if they end the tournament in the middle of the table.

I don't want to set up a qualifier plenty of Undead, Dwarf, Wood Elf and Orc just to choose who deserves to play an international tournament. I prefer to spend my effort in to set up an European Open Tournament plenty of different races and coaches doing whatever they want do.

And moreover, I don't think I have the prerogative to comment anything about Eurobowl management. And never pretend to do it. I just comment about Eurobowl as a part of the consideration about affecting already existing tournaments.

Kewan - Feb 03, 2012 - 05:23 AM
Post subject:

Pako wrote:

We could call again Kewan and he (as Spanish captain of Spanish Team) could confirm I never want (and will never want) play Eurobowl. So bitching is not there.

In the spanish forum, Pako and his "followers" never said that Eurobowl must dissapear or Euronaf must substitute Eurobowl, they always have said let's play both tournaments. And Pako has said several times he will never play Eurobowl with Spanish team, he only will play with EL PRAT team, when they get the independence of Spain (Obviusly, that's a joke)

I've read several people that think like me, new tourneys are good, whenever another tournament isn't harm, but this tourney for me it's not new, it's a bad copy of Eurobowl/WC and it's against Eurobowl interest

Grumbledook - Feb 03, 2012 - 09:08 AM
Post subject:

Not sure why you feel like that, imo it runs exactly along the same lines as the Eurobowl and the WC in that it is trying to get more interaction between the national communities.

Pipey - Mar 25, 2012 - 10:29 AM
Post subject:

(slight thread resurrection)

Hi Pako

Hopefully the feedback in this thread has been useful. What do you feel is the best way to move forward with this?

My personal favourite idea would be the suggestion of tagging onto existing large European team events e.g Lutece, Rugbowl, Dream Teams (etc.) on a rotational basis. Perhaps on a biannual basis as you have suggested. Of course this would require discussion / agreement with the other TOs involved.

Though as a TO of this tournament, how to structure it would be your call.

Thanks
Brendan

Ironjaw - Mar 25, 2012 - 02:57 PM
Post subject:

I would never attend this tournament.

longfang - Mar 25, 2012 - 04:43 PM
Post subject:

Ironjaw wrote:

I would never attend this tournament.

For what reason?

Grumbledook - Mar 25, 2012 - 06:44 PM
Post subject:

he came 4th to last at the world cup, fears a repeat ;]

Pako - Mar 26, 2012 - 03:15 AM
Post subject:

Pippy wrote:

Hello Brendan,

I am still considering this issue. I will talk with people involved in those tournaments (at least the Rugbowlers and Dream Teams organizers) searching for some feedback.

I will also comment some issues with you personally if I could move to one tournament in UK Wink

I am still aware of this, but certainly there will be no big movements until summer I guess.

Pipey - Mar 29, 2012 - 09:53 AM
Post subject:

Cool. If you make it to a UK tournament, very happy to discuss Smile

PM me in the meantime of there's anything else.

Thanks
Brendan

daloonieshaman - Apr 15, 2012 - 05:43 PM
Post subject:

I just think it is short sided and pathetic to limit the number of players in a big tournament. It is just plain bad management.
As said in the army ... Piss Poor Prior Planning

Grumbledook - Apr 15, 2012 - 05:50 PM
Post subject:

short sided huh ;]

though in all seriousness where did that post come from, doesn't seem at all related to flow of the conversation in the thread

daloonieshaman - Apr 15, 2012 - 06:32 PM
Post subject:

Grumbledook wrote:

short sided huh ;]

though in all seriousness where did that post come from, doesn't seem at all related to flow of the conversation in the thread

?
As GJ pointed out there are some teams that will NEVER be there (goblins, halflings , and about 7 others off the top of my head)

It is your event, play it your way

Pako - Apr 16, 2012 - 04:30 AM
Post subject:

Sorry I am lost.

Certainly I not agree with most GJ concerns about this project, but as far I know his last comments were about my complains with Eurobowl... :S

But for sure, the aim of this event is to be inclusive, not exclusive in any way, including races played.

daloonieshaman - Apr 16, 2012 - 02:58 PM
Post subject:

Pako wrote:

My bad I missed the point of. "It being a special event for only really special people"
Silly me I thought it was a Blood Bowl tourney :p

Rodders - Apr 18, 2012 - 01:23 AM
Post subject:

DLS your comments just show your complaining about nothing the "lower tier" teams are often represented at these types of tourneys as some people play for thr craic more so than anything else. yes the "top" teams are over represented but Pako is trying to do somthing here as inclusive as possible its completely up to players to bring what they want.

Pako - Apr 18, 2012 - 01:39 AM
Post subject:

Ah, ok daloonieshaman, I finally get your point. Forget my previous answer, sorry.

I agree with you that maybe some of the low tier teams will be played in less number than the Tier1 ones. This is certainly a problem for all tournaments, not only this one in particular.

As said, I am proud to note I am the NAF coach with most Goblin matches played. So you could trust me if I say I like tournaments boosting these teams in order to make them a bigger pain in the ass of Pro-players. Wink

But in this case, my concern is about to present a comparable event to NAF WC. In one hand, we have the aim to link it with this WC spirit and image (including the ruleset), on the other hand we have this concern about to have as many teams played as possible (enhancing their rosters maybe). This is a question that, honestly, is secondary to me at this moment.

I am by now trying to get feedback from Team Tournament organizers about to host the event. I am also considering the costs to set it up in Barcelona in an event room to launch the first edition. And finally also considering the inclusion of meals in local restaurants in Barcelona, and prizes such coins, exclusive miniatures and so.

So sorry for the misunderstanding. As Rodders said, I hope it finally come out as the most sexy event we could provide you. But I am now focusing in other issues and I hope ruleset will be secondary as well for players.

Pako - Apr 18, 2012 - 02:19 AM
Post subject:

Hello, I let the poll in Spain a few months, and I guess we could retrieve results:

SPAIN

Question

Will you be interested in the organization of a NAF European Team Open every 4 years?

[26]

Yes, I will attend to both, World Cup and NAF European Team Open
[5]

Yes, but I will choose to attend to just one event
[2]

No, there is already Eurobowl as the European team tournament
[0]

No, I think two years between every NAF team tournament is too close
[2]

No answer

No such high participation, but taking into account that polls deciding Eurobowl team seleciton had 60 votes and Eurobowl team captain election had 30 it is not so bad. Most of people usually don't enter into that questions.

Pako - Apr 18, 2012 - 02:21 AM
Post subject:

FRANCE

Will you be interested in the organization of a NAF European Team Open every 4 years?

[14]

Yes, I will attend to both, World Cup and NAF European Team Open
[2]

Yes, but I will choose to attend to just one event
[2]

No, there is already Eurobowl as the European team tournament
[3]

No, I think two years between every NAF team tournament is too close
[3]

No answer

longfang - Apr 18, 2012 - 06:27 AM
Post subject:

Ok 40 people from 2 countries, so things look positive.

Pako - Apr 18, 2012 - 06:44 AM
Post subject:

Right. But as said previous experiences with polls in forums were not so impressive. Participation in these threads was never so high despite the interest that you finally could get. We have in Spain a team tournament with +100 coaches every year, I couldn't imagine they are not interested. At least spanish people have this benefit (location) so we could expect more than the ones that answered.

I prefer to focus in the % of people answering each option, most of people interested have no complains with problems expressed here.

On top of that, certainly if we could get a mean of 20 people from each country with an active Bloodbowl community in will be certainly positive Wink

OldManDraco - Apr 19, 2012 - 04:45 AM
Post subject:

Pako, just to make it simple. I wouldn't bother about any other tournament at all. Host it where ever and when ever you want. A lot of tournaments are held these days. Too many in my opinion to get back the really great events like the Dutch Open used to be. I am ok with all that competion. It's a matter of choice from the organisers and we should respect that. Strange that when an open Euro Team Tournament would be organsied people would think it might destroy their own tournament. It happens all the time. Last weekend I was at KlingenCon and could have been at the Goblin Slaughter Fest (same ruleset even!) as well. I think there is only 110 km difference for me between both places to reach. Both tournaments combined would have giving an international field of over 40 players. Now there were 24 in Germany and about the same amount or less in Belgium. If people REALLY think that it's about the international scene, then communicate with eachother, look at the Calendar and join forces to gather more people to tournaments to create that gig you really want. I forsee a future where there are so many tournaments that there will always be a problem to get more than 20 peple attending. Positive about that is you don't need a big venue.:p

Everybody know how I think about Eurobowl, I'm with you there. I would rather see your teamevent instead of Eurobowl. Also because you can go Stunty if you want without being a disgust to the Nation. What if we would loose because of my halflings.... The shame would be to great.

And sorry to say this, the talk about the NAF ranking. People take the NAF ranking to serious. It effects gameplay. It's nice to have it, but as soon as it effects gameplay it's a bad thing in my opinion. Well, not the list itself, but the people who need to be on top of that ladder and during a game only think about their NAF points. Sorry, but I think you don't see what Bloodbowl is about. It's about friends coming together, having fun and a good time after. Not about stupid points. Don't get me wrong, I like to win as well, but not at all costs.

Anyways, drifting of here again. Don't make a bidbook, just ORGANISE the thing, where ever and whenever you want. You'll see if it's a succes yes or no. I hope for you it will be.

OldManDraco - Apr 19, 2012 - 04:47 AM
Post subject:

Oh and I don't recall seeing any poll from our TO in the Netherlands at all. Nor a mention of this thread. I also have not seen this appear in Belgium. Wonder what happened there. Could be I'm to old to read properly. Wink