| Author |
Message |
swissbob |
|
Post subject: How are teams ranked in leagues?
 Posted: Jul 04, 2004 - 05:31 PM
|
|
Joined: Jul 02, 2004
Posts: 10
Status: Offline
|
|
It might be that I am missing something very obvious, but there doesn't appear to be anything in the rules, or on the forums, about how teams are ranked in leagues. Are there any official rules for how to rank teams?
We have previously run a small league, with a fixed arrangement of games for each team. We used the soccer rules of 3 points for a win and 1 for a draw, which worked well because every team played the same number of games.
However, with the variable number of games played by teams in a normal BB league, how are they to be ranked? Simply counting the number of wins for each team doesn't seem a fair measure of a team's achievements. Simply by playing more games than the other teams will tend to push a team up the league table. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jul 04, 2004 - 07:50 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
| There is no official way of ranking teams, and about as many different systems as there are leagues. Just do what makes the most sense to you. |
_________________
They will slowly add bits of the vault in on each RR leading up to 2007, starting with LRB 4.0, so it will be a slow and agonising death for BB.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
swissbob |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jul 04, 2004 - 08:04 PM
|
|
Joined: Jul 02, 2004
Posts: 10
Status: Offline
|
|
 It seems like quite an omission from the rules then, especially since they go into so much detail wrt the league games, winnings, "commissioners" etc.
Surely there should be a recommended method of ranking teams?
Or is the problem that there aren't any very satisfactory ways of doing so in such a free-form league structure? |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jul 05, 2004 - 12:06 AM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
No, the thing is that many methods are perfectly all right, so you can just choose whatever you like best. It doesn't really matter what you use as long as everyone in your league is happy with it.
In your case, you might wanna try a variant of the following :
Win = +10
Loss = -5
Draw = 0
Each TD for = +1
Each TD against = -1
Adjust to your own needs. Add CAS for and against if you like a bashy league. Really, whatever floats your boat. |
_________________
They will slowly add bits of the vault in on each RR leading up to 2007, starting with LRB 4.0, so it will be a slow and agonising death for BB.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
slup |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jul 05, 2004 - 02:29 AM
|
|
Big Mek
Joined: May 06, 2004
Undisclosed
Posts: 455
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Status: Offline
|
|
The league system in the current BB version was created (in 1993) after watching many leagues crash.
The main problem was that coaches who were on a loosing strike didn't bother to play the rest of their games and then the league stalled.
So they disbanded the strict leaguerules.
Now teams are only ranked after how they perform in tournaments for which they have to sign up, allowing for coaches to drop out and replacements to be added.
Many leagues houserule this area.
So i (like Zombie) suggest the same thing for you:
Find the system that suits your league the best and use that. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
GColeman76 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jul 05, 2004 - 11:55 AM
|
|
Joined: Apr 01, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 76
Location: Undisclosed
Status: Offline
|
|
For rankings in our league we have several methods,
1) In tournaments we have a tournament co-ordinator and that person specifies how points are scored and how teams can score bonus points at present we are playing the Chaos cup and a bonus point is awarded for causing 4 casualties and 2 points for 6 casualties the co-ordinator is horrible!!! 
2) Team rating: in most instances for tournaments this is what we use to seed teams, not great but an obvious choice. 
3) Form Guide: based on the last 10 games 3 pts for a win and 1 pt for a draw. Sometimes this may get used for seeding teams. 
It is up to the commisioner what system to use and make sure everyone is having fun. |
_________________
High Elves or Chaos Dwarves?
High Elves, it has to be High Elves
I think.............
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
swissbob |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jul 05, 2004 - 03:15 PM
|
|
Joined: Jul 02, 2004
Posts: 10
Status: Offline
|
|
OK, thanks everyone for answering. I can fully imagine the situation with players dropping out if they are losing. The bottom players in our previous league did nothing but bitch and moan about how the rules weren't fair, the other teams were too hard, they didn't get enough money etc...
I might try and devise a seeding system then that rewards teams for beating teams higher up the league table. i.e. if you beat the top team, you get more points/money than if you beat the bottom team. This should slow down the better teams and assist the poorer teams.
It might be useful for GW to put together a sample selection of league methods. They gave us the different tournaments, so it wouldn't hurt to provide two or three league styles in the rules. They should at least state somewhere that there aren't any league rules provided, if nothing else.
Cheers  |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Apedog |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jul 05, 2004 - 03:40 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Posts: 146
Status: Offline
|
|
You might want to try a ladder style league where players can only move up the league if they beat the (a?) team above them. I think most leagues of this sort have rules that say you must play at least 1/3 games downhill to give players below you a chance to overtake.
Our league plays using a variant of the NAF ranking formula calculated in an Excel sheet. It's pretty good as it allows players at the bottom to catch up quicker if they start beating teams at the top. |
_________________
Munkey
Boom! He's on his back!
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Clan_Skaven |
|
|
Post subject: ...
Posted: Jul 05, 2004 - 03:41 PM
|
|
Joined: Aug 19, 2003
Niagara Falls ON, Canada
Posts: 2604
Location: Niagara Falls ON, Canada
Status: Offline
|
|
To me in a "perfect" world, a fixed season with a set scheadual, would be the best system, but more times than not it doesn't seem to work. (not all players can make it every week due to work/family obligations)
The system we use is play as many games as you wish (not the vs the same team twice in a row, but against any and all as often as you wish in a set time period.)
We do not allow ties, all games must have a winner & loser. Coaches may have more than one team in the League, but only one of thier teams can qualify for the playoffs.
Teams are ranked based on win % , (with a minimum of 8 games played, I'd suggest 5 games, but was out voted)
if wi% is the same higher games played breaks the tie, if thats still the same, differance in opponents TR, there are many tie breaker rules you can have, (very seldom you will get ties to that degree in the standings anyway.
Hope this may help you, if not , ow well. Good Luck! |
_________________
"2006 SPIKE Champion!"
"Death-Bowl IV & V, Most Casualties!, Death-Bowl VI Best Team!"
"2008 Dagger Bowl Champion"
Host of the Warpstone Cup, Q'ermitt Bowl & the Hope Bowl
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
swissbob |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jul 05, 2004 - 04:43 PM
|
|
Joined: Jul 02, 2004
Posts: 10
Status: Offline
|
|
The fixed schedule of matches worked for us, but we only had 6 players, so it wasn't a huge feat of management. I wanted a more fluid system this time, which is why I turned to the rule book, only to find that there simply aren't any rules there.
The main problem with the fixed schedule is that the top teams seem to just get stronger, while the weak teams get weaker - they lose a couple of players early on and struggle to put a full team on the pitch for the rest of the games. The skaven team got to the stage where he was refusing to let his players stand up because they were just getting pummelled each time, and it was safer to keep them on the deck. I would like to avoid such situations!
Perhaps the more fluid system will help this by allowing the weaker teams to avoid the better teams for a while and play each other instead. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jul 06, 2004 - 09:55 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2696
Location: Undisclosed
|
|
You could always try this (or a variant). It's the system GW used when 3rd was run at the HQ:
Score=(games won/games played*100)+(TD diff)+(Cas caused/5)
That would allow you to play as many or few games as you wanted, or to even change teams midway through the season. |
_________________
_____ and rankings - that is all
#27 of the "24 club" (due to some dodgy accounting)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
swissbob |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jul 06, 2004 - 08:15 PM
|
|
Joined: Jul 02, 2004
Posts: 10
Status: Offline
|
|
I like that formula. I am not sure about using casualties in the scoring though - doesn't seem very sportsmanlike and there are already plenty of advantages gained from injuring the other team. Or do you feel that it is needed to counter the advantage that the potentially higher scoring teams will have over the bashy teams?
One possible problem is that the longer the league goes on, the less impact each game will have on the positioning. Perhaps just using the last ten games when the formula is calculated might be the way to use it? |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
slup |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jul 07, 2004 - 12:55 AM
|
|
Big Mek
Joined: May 06, 2004
Undisclosed
Posts: 455
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Status: Offline
|
|
swissbob wrote: I am not sure about using casualties in the scoring though - doesn't seem very sportsmanlike...
Well it isn't called Blood bowl for nothing.
If you include TD-diff in any calculation you should also include Cas-diff in some way in order to even the score. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
