 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Doubleskulls |
|
Post subject:
 Posted: Jan 27, 2012 - 02:59 AM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Mar 05, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2627
Location: Kent, UK
Status: Offline
|
|
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. |
_________________
Ian 'Double Skulls' Williams
SLOBB
NAF Racial Results
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
Doubleskulls |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jan 27, 2012 - 03:06 AM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Mar 05, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2627
Location: Kent, UK
Status: Offline
|
|
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. |
_________________
Ian 'Double Skulls' Williams
SLOBB
NAF Racial Results
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Doubleskulls |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jan 27, 2012 - 03:12 AM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Mar 05, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2627
Location: Kent, UK
Status: Offline
|
|
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. |
_________________
Ian 'Double Skulls' Williams
SLOBB
NAF Racial Results
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Purplegoo |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jan 27, 2012 - 03:30 AM
|
|
Joined: Jan 14, 2008
England
Posts: 493
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
Ian; my point was not a selfish ‘If you add more big events, it’s possible that I won’t be able to go – so don’t do that’, it’s that such an event would hurt everything we already have and spread us too thin. I understand you disagree, but I don’t see how this event would not dilute attendance at what is already scheduled. If it doesn’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 it’s really naive to infer (not directed squarely at Ian – it’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. It’s madness. The World Cup was massive for us, but we only had 500 people – 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. 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, you’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 can’t just presume because you’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 they’ll show up next year, or in two years time. I just don’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 don’t think that’s a good thing. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
generaljason |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jan 27, 2012 - 04:09 AM
|
|
Joined: Dec 04, 2009
British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 439
Location: British Columbia, Canada
Status: Offline
|
|
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 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jan 27, 2012 - 04:41 AM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Mar 05, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2627
Location: Kent, UK
Status: Offline
|
|
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? |
_________________
Ian 'Double Skulls' Williams
SLOBB
NAF Racial Results
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Pako |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jan 27, 2012 - 04:41 AM
|
|
Joined: Jul 15, 2005
Spain
Posts: 471
Location: Spain
Status: Offline
|
|
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.
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.
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: 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?
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. |
Last edited by Pako on Jan 27, 2012 - 05:06 AM; edited 2 times in total
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Grumbledook |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jan 27, 2012 - 04:55 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
Posts: 922
Status: Offline
|
|
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. |
_________________
'Boomshanker an Interception'
Jon
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Pako |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jan 27, 2012 - 05:02 AM
|
|
Joined: Jul 15, 2005
Spain
Posts: 471
Location: Spain
Status: Offline
|
|
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 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jan 27, 2012 - 05:22 AM
|
|
Joined: Jan 14, 2008
England
Posts: 493
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
I’m bowing out of this thread now (I’ve had my say, it’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, you’ve sampled a handful of views here from one or two nations at the very beginning of a prospective project and you’re already miles down the road thinking all will be a smashing success and considering who may ‘bid’. Whilst I disagree with Ian and Jon, at least I’m reading what they’re saying and considering it (and not just ignoring them). Much of our disagreement is hypothetical, and won’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 I’m wrong and that this is a smash hit, and moreover (if it were to happen) doesn't dilute anything else. It’d just be nice to feel like you recognised quite how far away you are from having your event, and that it’s not going to be brilliant because you say it is every other post. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
generaljason |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jan 27, 2012 - 05:28 AM
|
|
Joined: Dec 04, 2009
British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 439
Location: British Columbia, Canada
Status: Offline
|
|
Doubleskulls wrote: 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?
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 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jan 27, 2012 - 05:36 AM
|
|
Joined: Jul 15, 2005
Spain
Posts: 471
Location: Spain
Status: Offline
|
|
Purplegoo wrote: I’m bowing out of this thread now (I’ve had my say, it’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, you’ve sampled a handful of views here from one or two nations at the very beginning of a prospective project and you’re already miles down the road thinking all will be a smashing success and considering who may ‘bid’. Whilst I disagree with Ian and Jon, at least I’m reading what they’re saying and considering it (and not just ignoring them). Much of our disagreement is hypothetical, and won’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 I’m wrong and that this is a smash hit, and moreover (if it were to happen) doesn't dilute anything else. It’d just be nice to feel like you recognised quite how far away you are from having your event, and that it’s not going to be brilliant because you say it is every other post.Â
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. |
Last edited by Pako on Jan 27, 2012 - 05:54 AM; edited 3 times in total
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jan 27, 2012 - 05:52 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2696
Location: Undisclosed
|
|
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)? |
_________________
_____ and rankings - that is all
#27 of the "24 club" (due to some dodgy accounting)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jan 27, 2012 - 05:54 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2696
Location: Undisclosed
|
|
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. |
_________________
_____ and rankings - that is all
#27 of the "24 club" (due to some dodgy accounting)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jan 27, 2012 - 05:57 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2696
Location: Undisclosed
|
|
| 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? |
_________________
_____ and rankings - that is all
#27 of the "24 club" (due to some dodgy accounting)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
