NAF World Headquarters :: View topic - 2013 East Coast Grand Prix

NAF World Headquarters

North America - 2013 East Coast Grand Prix - Preliminary Discussion Thread

Glamdryn - Nov 15, 2012 - 01:56 PM
Post subject: 2013 East Coast Grand Prix - Preliminary Discussion Thread

Hey All,

2012 is coming to a close and I enjoyed putting up the stats for the ECGP. This thread is to discuss whats in store for 2013. Who intends to participate with their tournament? Should we change anything? Was the scoring good in 2012? What can we do better? etc etc

Glamdryn - Nov 15, 2012 - 01:57 PM
Post subject: RE: 2013 East Coast Grand Prix - Preliminary Discussion Thre

RESERVED

LINKS:
ECGP Standings 2012
ECGP Standings 2011
ECGP Tournament List and Discussion
North America Tournament/League Map

Daggers - Nov 15, 2012 - 03:17 PM
Post subject: RE: 2013 East Coast Grand Prix - Preliminary Discussion Thre

I liked the system, I don't think we need to change much. Just get the word out there more, so more people know about it.

Gaixo - Nov 16, 2012 - 06:18 AM
Post subject: RE: 2013 East Coast Grand Prix - Preliminary Discussion Thre

It sounds like we're running five tournaments in Southeastern Virginia this year. I can't speak for all of the organizers, but I'm pretty sure they'll want to be included.

The items that were essentially tabled in last year's discussion were:
-Travel points
I think there should be travel points. It's obviously much easier for people who live in a BB hub to earn a ton of points, so I don't see any harm in making the field slightly more even. Maybe double participation points for any out of state/province tournament played in? The idea last year was a single bonus point per state played in, I believe.

-Tiebreaker(s)
Maybe top placement in any one tournament, followed by most #1 finishes, most #2, etc.

-Should organizers acquire points in the usual fashion?
Does this mean that organizers shouldn't get any points for playing in their own tournament? I guess I can support that, as I'd generally prefer the organizer not play at all.

Daggers - Nov 16, 2012 - 08:48 AM
Post subject: RE: 2013 East Coast Grand Prix - Preliminary Discussion Thre

K, I actually read the requirements breakdown and have some additional comments (I remember reading all these threads, but somehow forgot what was actually discussed).

Travel Points
I do think there should be travel points. State/Province is a simple way to decide, but ideally, distance travelled would be the best. The only thing I don't like about province/state is that if you live close to a boarder, you are getting easy bonus points. ie I live in Ottawa, Ontario and Montreal, Quebec is 2hrs away, but Toronto is 4 hrs away. Why should I get bonus points for travelling a shorter distance.

Tie-breakers
I like Gaixo's idea. Top number of top placements is the tie-breaker, then # of 2nd place finishes, etc etc.

Organizers acquiring points
Yes, normally they won't play. But if its a small tournament, then usually they will be the odd man out. Either way, I am okay with TO's getting points. Its not like Jonny_P or Xtreme or GeneralJason are going to play in their own tournament with the other 50-80 coaches, that would be insane.

Majors
I do think Majors should be included in the standings. But maybe just a +1 for 50+ coaches. Then maybe someday we can have a tournament in our region grow to that size.

runki_khrum - Nov 16, 2012 - 09:11 AM
Post subject: RE: 2013 East Coast Grand Prix - Preliminary Discussion Thre

About travel points........

I played in 6 tourneys in the Toronto area ( Niagra to Cobourg), 3 in Ottawa, 1 in Montreal, 1 in Savanah, GA.

I live a 5 hour drive from TO. 90 minutes from Otttawa and about an hour from Montreal. Georgia is days away, just happened to be in the area.

Maybe like car shows just for the furthest traveled?

I honestly don't think travel points will affect the points standing all that much but if it will get people to show then I'm all for it!

Stimme - Nov 16, 2012 - 09:57 AM
Post subject:

Thanks Glamdryn for your efforts.

To me, the system should meet three criteria: Honour the best coaches, motivate the people to participate in tournaments, and be simple.

To meet the second point, the participation points were a good idea. But as Dwarfrunner pointed out, starting to take in account travelling distances will bloat the scoring system dramatically. There are people from the US driving two hours to Niagara into another country, and there are others that stay within the same state/province, but travel six hours each way. The fairest way would thus be to measure distances. Then of course we would have to have some complicated system like one extra point every 100km and hope there won't be any participants from Australia. I don't think it's worth the effort. Because in the end, the coach with the most wins should take home the trophy, not the one with the most frequent flyer points.

Finally, I don't think giving point to the organizers is a big problem. Most of them will play Tier3 teams anyway at their own tournament.

Glamdryn - Nov 16, 2012 - 10:53 AM
Post subject:

Some proposals to rules:

1) Travel Points - 1 pt added for each state/province where a coach participated in a tournament

2) Majors/Participation Points - +1 for each day, +1 for each 50 coaches (ie 2 day and 80 coaches = 3 pts for participation)

3) Tie Breakers - Add up number of 1st place, 2nd , 3rd, etc whomever has the most wins.

4) TOs Playing - Make TOs that play limited to low tier teams?

Glamdryn - Nov 16, 2012 - 11:00 AM
Post subject:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ah83Vz7D7wXidGdRUzlIMjZfdmZOX3cwWjVvZmh6aGc#gid=0

Here is the link to the spreadsheet for including tournaments and comments for rules. Gonna try to keep this up to date while we discuss.

Lizardcore - Nov 16, 2012 - 11:21 AM
Post subject:

Basically, everything is sorted out, just need to clarify the tie breaker Wink

Daggers - Nov 16, 2012 - 12:04 PM
Post subject:

Glamdryn wrote:

1) Sounds fair, is that including your home state/province? Not that it matters really. You played in 4 different states/provinces gives you 4 points. Seems simply, a little bit of extra work to calculate, but not terribly time consuming.

2) That sounds reasonable. So if +100 coaches show up to NATC (a 3 day tournament). That would be +4 to participation? I can live with that.

3) Something like that. But you may need more than one tie-breaker (just playing devils advocate here). So total 1st, 2nd and 3rd is the first one, then # of 1st, then # of 2nd, then # of 3rd. Thats four tie-breakers.

4) I don't think we need to limit TO's to playing low tier teams. Just say TO's can't get placement points for their own tournament, only participation points. I don't know many TO's that would accept winning their own tournament (I can only think of one, and its not me).

Glamdryn - Nov 16, 2012 - 12:28 PM
Post subject:

We didn't count majors last year for ECGP. Should we count Spike, Chaos Cup, NATC?

runki_khrum - Nov 16, 2012 - 12:36 PM
Post subject:

None of those majors are East coast. Just saying. Smile

Stimme - Nov 16, 2012 - 12:46 PM
Post subject:

General question: If this is about strengthening the tournament scene, why are we encouraging people to attend already big and established tournaments by giving them more points to fly to Chicago for a major than to drive 6h to the Pub, Dagger or Stinky Cheese Bowl?

Lizardcore - Nov 16, 2012 - 12:48 PM
Post subject:

whatever rules you pick, Colin will win again, just sayin'

@ dagger: who would win his own tournament ? Very Happy

Glamdryn - Nov 16, 2012 - 12:53 PM
Post subject:

Stimme wrote:

Good point, but I think our majors still need a larger attendance from coaches all over the country. So adding incentive (however little) to attend a major and to also attend east coast tournys is in my mind a good thing. Plus it shows to the community who made the trip out to the majors.

Gaixo - Nov 16, 2012 - 02:42 PM
Post subject:

I don't think that the incentive will convince anyone to make a trip of that length, and the points probably won't impact the standings. So just to keep things "cleaner" I would still prefer to keep the majors out of the ECGP.

jrock56 - Nov 16, 2012 - 04:53 PM
Post subject:

Lizardcore wrote:

whatever rules you pick, Colin will win again, just sayin'

@ dagger: who would win his own tournament ? Very Happy

I think I may know who Daggers is talking about Wink

Might his initials be JTB ! Razz

Daggers - Nov 17, 2012 - 05:44 AM
Post subject:

jrock56 wrote:

Lizardcore wrote:

whatever rules you pick, Colin will win again, just sayin'

@ dagger: who would win his own tournament ? Very Happy

I think I may know who Daggers is talking about Wink

Might his initials be JTB ! Razz

A very notorious jtb

Glamdryn - Jan 18, 2013 - 11:20 AM
Post subject:

Question here:

Are we only allowing NAF sanctioned tournaments into the ECGP results?

Daggers - Jan 18, 2013 - 11:35 AM
Post subject:

Yes..no questions.. we are trying to promote NAF are we not?

Glamdryn - Jan 18, 2013 - 12:41 PM
Post subject:

Freak Frenzy 2013 over on fumbbl (Massachussetts), wasnt able to get their tournament into NAF due to the timing requirements as an example.

Stimme - Jan 18, 2013 - 01:58 PM
Post subject:

Taking in account only NAF-approved tournaments has the advantage that we don't have to deal with smaller league-internal tournaments or tournaments with funky rosters. We can simply point at the NAF rules and don't have to set our own standards.

Clan_Skaven - Jan 18, 2013 - 03:32 PM
Post subject:

Dwarfrunner wrote:

jrock56 wrote:

Lizardcore wrote:

whatever rules you pick, Colin will win again, just sayin'

@ dagger: who would win his own tournament ? Very Happy

I think I may know who Daggers is talking about Wink

Might his initials be JTB ! Razz

A very notorious jtb

Actually the year Lizardcore won the Warpstone Cup it was only cause the 2 that shared a spot surrendered 1st place to him (the 2 of them co-ran the tourney )

What a disgrace to win your own tourney,
Wink