NAF World Headquarters :: View topic - Tournament Point Systems

NAF World Headquarters

North America - Tournament Point Systems

MightyQ - May 04, 2006 - 10:16 AM
Post subject: Tournament Point Systems

Just curious what point systems people use in their tournaments...

Paul - May 04, 2006 - 11:45 AM
Post subject:

Most tournaments that I've been to use 50 points for a win, 30 for a tie and 10 for a loss. You also get bonus 10 ponits for winning by more than 2 TDs, scoring the most casualties and keeping it close.

KarlLagerbottom - May 04, 2006 - 12:13 PM
Post subject:

I personally like only 20 points for a tie...the difference between a win and a loss should be signifigant in the standings.

I don't agree with the philosophy that a winning by one, and a tie, are the same thing. A dwarf team can totally dominate their opponent and win by 1.

Clan_Skaven - May 04, 2006 - 12:22 PM
Post subject:

Well the only person I'm sure that will agree with me on this is Garth, but to me your scoring system should be based on win/loss record not points

For example adopt one of 2 systems ...

A) 2 pts for a win, 1 pt for a tie 0 pts for a loss
B)3 pts for a win 1 pt for a tie 0 pts for a loss

Now lets say method A was used ......
Orc team goes 1 win , 1 tie 3 losses =3 points
Undead team goes 0 wins , 0 ties , 5 losses =0 points
Wood Elf team goes 0 wins , 3 ties , 2 losses = 3 points

The Orc team would still be ahead of the Woodies, because it has more wins. The Undead will never be ahead of the Orc or Wood Elf team. No matter how many close games were lost by.

As for tie breakers

1) Most wins
2)if just 2 teams, head to head match up (if more than two, or they never played go to step 3)
3)total Td's scored
4)total Cas (from blocks / blitzes)
5)TD+/-
6)Cas (from blocks/ blitzes) +/-
7)Sportsmanship
8)Painting
9)dice off (if it comes down to this call Guiness Book!)

Now I'm not saying thats the exact system I'd use but its the basic type of format I'd use.

-----------------------------------------

Now the only way I'd ever consider adopting close to the current system would be,

30 pts for a win
10 pts for a tie
0 points for a loss
2 points for every TD
1 point for every Cas

(but honestly I'd still prefer my first example better.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now I know everyone will cut my system down (tell me how it screws the bottom teams early) well the other system screws teams that win a game into being lowere than a team with no wins Rolling Eyes

While we are at it why not take the bottom 1/4 of teams after final round & have a lottery system for the wooden spoon (like they do for the draft choicees) so lts say a tourney has 20 teams after the final round lets say the bottom 1/4 (5 teams) is .....

16th Orc =1 lottery ball
17th Skaven =2 Lottery Balls
18th Goblin = 3 Lottery Balls
19th Dark Elf =4 Lottery Balls
20th Chaos = 5 Lottery Balls

There you go Chaos has the best chance of winning the Spoon cause they have 5 Lottery Balls in the bag. (but to be fair to the chaos coach he still has a good chance not to be last.)

Ok I'm not serious on the Lottery system on the Wooden Spoon, but to do it is just as ridiculas to have an 0-0-5 team finish higher than a 1-1-3 team!

Rod.

MightyQ - May 04, 2006 - 01:53 PM
Post subject:

I have been searching naf and previous run tournaments and alot of tournaments use

3pts win
1pt tie
0 pts loss

Never understood why you would get points for losing anyway...

I searched the internet for examples and the majority of tournaments us a system where the win is 2x the tie and 0 for loses...

like 3,1,0 or 6,3,0 or 12,6,0...

I feel bonuses like 2+ touchdowns, + in casualties can be a bit racist... Khemri and Dwarfs would rarely get the 2+ touchdowns and most teams playing against AV9 teams wont get many casualties...

Win Loss record should always be first...

CyberHare - May 04, 2006 - 04:51 PM
Post subject:

There are a lot of different scoring systems and at the end of the day the only thing that matters is what you are trying to achieve and if the system reaches that goal. None of them are wrong. It's all a matter of taste and desired effect.

MightyQ - May 04, 2006 - 06:04 PM
Post subject:

CyberHare wrote:

It would be nice since tournaments are NAF sanctioned that there be some kind of NAF standard scoring system for all events...

CyberHare - May 04, 2006 - 07:04 PM
Post subject:

Ahh but how would you design a standard system that takes into account the desired goals of every Blood Bowl tournament world wide. My goals are not your goals and neither are they the goals of the Aussie scene, the Spanish scene or any of the other flourishing tournament scenes. The BB tourney scene has grown because of it's open nature. Not despite it.

MightyQ - May 04, 2006 - 07:24 PM
Post subject:

Tournament - A series of contests in which a number of contestants compete and the one that prevails through the final round or that finishes with the best record is declared the winner.

I have been running tournaments now, every Saturday (except when I am at a Blood Bowl tourney) for 2 years... The only goal I have seen is people playing to win and get the prize and recognition... Having fun comes 2nd, which all seem to do even when they lose...

skummy - May 04, 2006 - 08:47 PM
Post subject:

CyberHare wrote:

100% on the money. NAF shouldn't dictate the metagame of global scoring. If a slightly different scoring system is used in some tournaments, there's no real probem as long as all coaches know what the system is to start with.

And if you win all your games it shouldn't matter, anyway.

Xtreme - May 04, 2006 - 08:54 PM
Post subject:

Quote:

I have been running tournaments now, every Saturday (except when I am at a Blood Bowl tourney) for 2 years... The only goal I have seen is people playing to win and get the prize and recognition... Having fun comes 2nd, which all seem to do even when they lose...

IMO the only time having fun should come second is if you are getting paid to play. Since there are no proffesional BBers to my knowledge we should all be having fun first. If you told me you were running a tournament and having fun was second, you wouldn't see me there. I don't play Bloodbowl to boost my ego.

Clan_Skaven - May 05, 2006 - 12:56 AM
Post subject:

MightyQ wrote:

CyberHare wrote:

It would be nice since tournaments are NAF sanctioned that there be some kind of NAF standard scoring system for all events...

I diasagree, one thing I like is that many tourneys have different themes or styles.

Having different point systyms adds to the variety. I may not like certain systems but as they change is good. Gawd how hum drum would it be to play every tourney a carbon copy of all the rest. Also if someone doesn't want to play in a certain type of tourney cause it doesn't appeal to them (whether its the point system or tourney theme , or number of games or whatever the reason), the individual can always chose to skip that tourney. Not even the wealthiest BB gamer can make every tourney, so pick the best one(s) for you to attend.

IMO, variety in tournies is what will make them more enjoyable!

Rod

Clan_Skaven - May 05, 2006 - 01:11 AM
Post subject:

Xtreme wrote:

Quote:

I have to agree with Xtreme here, going to tournies for me is all about meeting other BloodBowlers like myself. Having a fun time winning or losing (sure you can get a frustrating string of bad luck) Ask anybody I am usually in the mid to bottom end most of the tourney, but still have a great time! (Having my Rat Ogre roll triple Skulls blitzing a gobbo blows chunks & ruins a perfectly good play, but is funny as hell! Laughing

)

I have never heard of any tourney that having fun was 2nd to winning. If thats how the people play in your weekend tournies remind me not to compete in it. BB tournies is way more the social aspect of the game than it is the actual game itself for me (& I bet many will agree with me) Jeez if I had to list all the new friends I have aquired through BB Tournies.... lets just say it would be a very long list!

If BB tournies ever evolved into serious win at all cost events, thats when it would be time for me retire my block dice cause the game would be all but ruined!

Rod.

MightyQ - May 05, 2006 - 02:00 AM
Post subject:

Well thats one reason I posted to get a better understand things...

This weekends Heroclix tournament, the winner gets a seed in the World Championships in June at Wizard World East, so yes it will be competitive... At some tournaments you can win complete sets...

I do play to have fun, but am going to try my hardest to win... It's just some comments made seemed to make a tournement pointless...

It was only my 3rd NAF tournament and it was different then I expected, different then the other 2 I was in... And in posting and talking with a few others, they pointed out things I was unaware of and things I should and shouldn't expect, much appreciated...

CyberHare - May 05, 2006 - 04:32 AM
Post subject:

MightyQ wrote:

May I ask if those are BB tournaments or other events such as Hero Clics or a CCG? I only ask because there in might lie the difference.

Xtreme wrote:

Bang on the money there Xtreme. And I put my money where my mouth is to back that up. 3 years in a row driving 16 hours to Gencon as the odd man out. A trip to England to help referee & several other events as TO or help in some other manner. The social aspect of the BB tournament scene is the backbone of the tournament scene.

Sputnik - May 05, 2006 - 07:06 AM
Post subject:

To add to the above comments, the tournament organisator may use whatever point system he thinks suits him best. There is no NAF-ruling or whatsoever. As a result, most tournament rules slightly differ from each other.

Same is true for the format. For example, it appears that in North American tournaments, a system including overtime is applied frequently, thus a draw is a rare event. In most European tourneys however, no overtime will be played except for a final (if there is a true final at all).

Further, extra points and tiebreakers can broadly vary, and indeed slightly favor some races. You might want to do a search for tie breaker discussions on this board in this connection, where total TDs as compared to net TDs was discussed, for example. While this was about tiebreakers, it is true for bonus points as well.

If you play for fun and you want to socialize Wink

, you might basically want to play your favorite team since you have most fun with it (hopefully). If you are more into maximizing your winning chances, you might want to carefully check the rules whether they put some preferences on certain aspects, such as bonus points for 2+/3+ TDs etc.

Sputnik

MightyQ - May 05, 2006 - 08:23 AM
Post subject:

CyberHare wrote:

May I ask if those are BB tournaments or other events such as Hero Clics or a CCG? I only ask because there in might lie the difference.

Yes mainly Heroclix tournaments and because of my posts I am learning the differences...

CyberHare wrote:

I want to have fun, I like socializing with other Blood Bowlers, I chat with them from all over the world from the online leagues I am and have been in, it would be nice someday to place faces with names...

And because it's also kind of a social event, that also effects the game greatly and kind of slows the game down... People want to have fun, people want to see how other friends are doing while they are playing thier own game but it's also hard trying not to be a scrouge and say to your opponent, can you stop fooling around so we can our finish without leaving a bitter taste in his mouth...

Clan_Skaven - May 05, 2006 - 10:22 AM
Post subject:

As for tie breakers I did have an idea. I have seen tournies where the tie breaker heavily favours high scoring teams such as Wood Elf, Pro Elf, Skaven, & I have others that favour the bashy teams such as Chaos, Orc, Dwarves.

Now how bout a tie breaker system that still uses TD's & Cas but benifits both High scoring & High Cas. causing teams equally? I think this can be done like this.

Ok in tournies in the past I have seen tie breakers that go (1) most td's scored (2) most cas scored.... well in that example the Wood Elf type teams will usually dominate the Dwarf type teams in a tie breaker & if the reverse was done where Cas was the 1st tie breaker the Dwarf type teams would usually dominate the tie breaker.

So this is my idea .... have this order for tie breakers (1) whatever is your highest total TD's for or Cas for (2) Whatever is your lower score TD's for Cas for.

So for example you have Wood Elf team & a Dwarf team tied in the standings after the final round with 210 points. The Wood Elf team has lets say 15 TD's for & 6 cas caused, the Dwarves have 15 cas caused & 7 TD's scored. The Dwarves would win the tie breaker.... Thier higher number (cas for 15) ties the Woody's higher number (TD's for 15), but the Dwaves lower number of 7 TD's is higher than the Wood Elves lower number of 6 Cas scored.

I think this system would elinminate the trend that just b4 a tourney you have a bunch of coaches changing to high scoring or bashy races to suit the scoring system. With my idea you can play the bashy game with pretty much equal success as the high scoring game, & I'd think both types would benifit equally from the tie breaker rules.

Anyone think this is a good idea?

Rod.

Paul - May 05, 2006 - 10:29 AM
Post subject:

MightyQ wrote:

I feel bonuses like 2+ touchdowns, + in casualties can be a bit racist... Khemri and Dwarfs would rarely get the 2+ touchdowns and most teams playing against AV9 teams wont get many casualties...

The bonuses in the games are actually pretty fair and balanced I find. Strong, slow teams (Dwarfs, Khemri, Orcs etc) don't expect to win by 2+ TDs, but they can expect to score more Cas then their opponent. A fast team like Skaven or Wood Elfs shouldn't expect to score more Cas than your opponents, but they can resonabbly expect to score 2+ TDs and get the bonus points there. So, each race has a shot at scoring one set of bonus points for a win. In rare cases, you can score both.

I've gotten both sets of bonus points playing with Skaven before. I outcasualtied a Chaos Dwarf Team and beat them 2-0. Thats a full 70 points for me in a game where I played very well (and got lucky). My Dwarf team has done the same thing many times. I've won games 2-0 and outcasualtied my opponents. So, it is possible for all races to get these points. Its rare, but when you play well in the game and it happens, you should be rewarded.

The Keeping it close bonus is a good one too. It means that one loss does not eliminate you from having a shot at the championship. Everyone can manage to pull this off if they play well in the game.

I'm like everyone else, I play for fun and to meet new people. If I didn't I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have come back Sunday at the North American Cup, but hey, I came back, and had some more fun. I like to win too, and I like to consider myself a fairly competitive player, so its nice to go to a tournament where you know that 1 loss doesn't compleatly kill your chances.

Clan_Skaven - May 05, 2006 - 10:34 AM
Post subject:

Well Paul you have been at both sides of the extreme, 1st two NAF tournies 2nd place!

The the NA Cup 2nd last.

A humbling expeariance I'd imagion!

Wink

Rod

Paul - May 05, 2006 - 10:38 AM
Post subject:

Clan-Skaven wrote:

(snip)

Anyone think this is a good idea?

Rod.

Its interesting Rod, and I'd like to hear what other people have to say about it, but for me, TDs are the most important factor in breaking a tie, even if it does favour a team like Wood Elfs or Skaven over Dwarfs.

Basiclaly, if me and you play to a 0-0 tie, but I get 4 casualties and you get 3, I still don't win the game, its a tie. Same is true if you beat me 2-1 but I out cas you 2-1, we don't tie (which is what would happen in your situation)

I'd like to see something like TD Differential as the first tie breaker. This way, slow teams that focus more on defense get a fair shot at a tie breaker. If my dwarfs win every game 2-0 in a 5 game tournament, I would be a +10. If your Wood Elfs win ever game 4-3, you'd be +5. if we were tied, I'd win the tie breaker because I clearly played better defense throughout the tournament, even though you scored 2x the number of TDs that I did.

Paul - May 05, 2006 - 10:39 AM
Post subject:

Clan-Skaven wrote:

Well Paul you have been at both sides of the extreme, 1st two NAF tournies 2nd place!

The the NA Cup 2nd last.

A humbling expeariance I'd imagion!

Wink

Rod

Heh, I'm not humble. I'll still kick your *censored* next time we play Smile

Clan_Skaven - May 05, 2006 - 10:43 AM
Post subject:

Paul wrote:

Clan-Skaven wrote:

(snip)

Anyone think this is a good idea?

Rod.

I don't mean as a tie breaker in a single game, a tie in a game is a tie! I'm talking for standings (inbetween rounds or final standings)

Rod.

Paul - May 05, 2006 - 10:45 AM
Post subject:

yea I got that Rod, but the point of the game (well, the sport of blood bowl say, ie, if it were in real life) is to score more TDs than your opponent. Casualties are just a by product.

consider the NHL, would it make sense if 2 teams were tied at the end of teh regular season in the standings for the last play-off spot, and they let the team in that had the most penalty minutes? No, they use goal differential becaue the point of a hockey game is to score more goals than your opponent in the games.

KarlLagerbottom - May 05, 2006 - 11:14 AM
Post subject:

Sorry...I can't go along with this...CAS are a bigger part of Blood Bowl than PIMs are to hockey.

The fluff behing Blood Bowl, as I take it, is that there is football-type sport used as a reason to pound upon one another. It is the proxy for war...the TDs are just a product of the game that some races feel is inconsequential.

Now, as a game mechanic winners and losers are determined by TDs, but beating down your opponent can lead to a win as much as a pass or a catch...and as such CAS should be NEARLY equally considered.

EDIT: Total TD's is beat as the 1st tiebraker...how about if a dwarf coack wins all of hi/her games 2-1/1-0...are they really a worse coach than the elf team that wins 4-3/3-2? I don't think so...differential can even be misleading because elf teams can score 2 tds by mistake...if they win 4-2 they should not beat-out the 1-0 Dwarf win.

Of the 2 I like differential, but including CAS helps to set these things apart...more reflective of the coaches overall ability.

Sure its a dice game and luck is a factor in ALL results, but coaching creates opportunities for the rolls.

Clan_Skaven - May 05, 2006 - 12:10 PM
Post subject:

Paul wrote:

I agree, but this I think would stop certain tournies from being heavily populated one way or the other (& as I stated before a tournies with varied scoring systems/rules/themes is what makes them , to me anyway more appealing.

Answer me this would my idea at least even the population of races represented at the tourney between bashy & non bashy races?

Rod

Paul - May 05, 2006 - 12:13 PM
Post subject:

@Karl

you're right, CAS in Blood Bowl is more important than PIMs in hockey. It was just an analogy that I tried to draw up but you do raise some valid points regarding the fluff where the strong teams just use it as an excuse for war/to kill people etc.

@Rod

yea, I will say that your format will encourage more people to play whatever race they want to play, I'll give you that. But, its been my finding that what races other people bring all depends on what I bring. If I bring a strong stompy team, I find myself playing lots of finesse teams that run around and generally dodge away and piss me off. If I bring a fast, agile team, everyone else brings in strong stompy teams that decimate my players. So, your format has absoultly no bearing on what other people bring, but rather, its what I bring to play that determines what others play. Smile

(btw, I'll be playing flings at the next tournamnet, so get your bashy teams ready for them)

Uthrac - May 05, 2006 - 01:34 PM
Post subject:

At last weekend's tournament, the last place finisher (1-1-3) finished below teams with no wins (0-5-0, 0-3-2, etc.) This scoring system, as previously pointed out, seems "broken" when ties count as much (or more) than wins.

Certainly a team with a win and a tie should finish ahead of a team with 5 losses, but that wasn't the case.

I always look at the game designer's ideas (they get paid to work on these things), and was wondering if anyone had thoughts on an "out-of-the-book" scoring system . . . based on win/loss/point differential. They key added in the rulebook is the "post best 3 results" line . . . meaning that an "early loss" doesn't automatically keep someone out of the championship. [Of course, in this format, there are semi-finals and finals.]

Perhaps Total Casualties+TDs could then be used as a tiebreaker . . . since the secondary tiebreak is team rating which, winnings considered equal, is the most drastic differential in TR.

IMHO, a win should always count more than a tie should always count more than a loss, all things considered.

And yes, it's important to have fun, but if that's really the goal, then why keep score at all? Wink

For some people, the competition is the fun part of the game. The key to keeping Bloodbowl an ongoing success is to continue to offer tournaments (and scoring) which appeal to the broad range of players who enjoy the game.

I, for one, will not be playing in tournaments where a lost match can score more points than a tie. It just doesn't work for me.

Smile

Uthrac - May 05, 2006 - 01:51 PM
Post subject:

Another thought occurs to me . . . casualties are a "means to an end" for bashy teams . . . prevent your opponent's ability to run their offense/defense by removing players. Why is this in the scoring system at all?

Casualties are generally a function of which teams you happen to play . . . AV 7 teams give up casualties, AV 9 generally do not. Unlike TDs, coaches have very little control over the number of CAS they cause in the game.

My proposal for tiebreaks? Good old Strength-of Schedule followed by Strength of Victory. Win=3 points, Tie=1 point. Add up points of all opponents to tiebreak, followed by points of just victories. The "champion," in the case of a tie, defeated the "tougher" coaches.

My 2 cents.

skummy - May 05, 2006 - 02:28 PM
Post subject:

Uthrac wrote:

Exactly my problem with it. Casualties are their own reward, and make the game easier for your team when you get them. Taking casualties out of the tiebreaker eliminates players going nuts for cas on the last couple of meaningless game turns.

Metagame-wise, I know that a bashy team can lose or tie and still be in the final game in many tournaments, but an agility team has no such chance.

CyberHare - May 05, 2006 - 03:31 PM
Post subject:

Uthrac wrote:

The difference lies in just how badly the last place finisher was actually beaten in his games. He did not garner a single bonus point throughout the entire tournament including the game he won. He also did comparatively badly in sportsmanship. Actually he tied for the worst overall sportsmanship score now that I'm looking at it. That stretched a tight 10 point difference in standing results to a final score difference of 24 points.

Now I'm fully open to the fact that sportsmanship points are questionable and in 4 years I've yet to see a way to handle it that I'm completely satisfied with. That being the case he was still beaten in standard tourney points. What would be broken would be to allow someone who consistently has a less than stellar performance and one tight win finish better than someone who has several bonus point performances but no wins.

Uthrac wrote:

Certainly a team with a win and a tie should finish ahead of a team with 5 losses, but that wasn't the case.

All things being equal yes I agree. In a dice game where coach skill and tactical ability to make the best of a bad situation are part of the game, I have to disagree.

Uthrac wrote:

And yes, it's important to have fun, but if that's really the goal, then why keep score at all? Wink

For some people, the competition is the fun part of the game.

Which is why we keep score Wink

It's simply a matter of ensuring that the fun of competition isn't at the expense of creating a fun & pleasant social atmosphere.

Uthrac wrote:

I, for one, will not be playing in tournaments where a lost match can score more points than a tie. It just doesn't work for me.

I don't know of any events in North America off hand where a loss couldn't possibly be worth more than a tie. I'm not sure what the Ottawa tourney is using as a scoring system though as Garth runs a more league type event. Even in the 50-20-10 system a loss can still be worth more than a tie. Personally I believe it's one of those little Blood Bowl quirks that makes the game interesting. All wins and losses are not created equally Smile

KarlLagerbottom - May 05, 2006 - 07:00 PM
Post subject:

skummy wrote:

Taking casualties out of the tiebreaker eliminates players going nuts for cas on the last couple of meaningless game turns.

Sort of like finesse teams that run up the score for most TD's. Same difference I'd say...if not...why not stop scoring once your up by 2 or 3 TDs vs slow bashy teams?

-RobO

skummy wrote:

Metagame-wise, I know that a bashy team can lose or tie and still be in the final game in many tournaments, but an agility team has no such chance.

BTW...at last year's Phrakus...three of the top four in CAS were Skaven teams. I don't think we made any special accomodation to create that possibility...set up the blocks and the CAS should come.

Also...and I know I'm setting myself up here...but at the DC Cup my Lizards with 7 players of 4+ STR were out CASd by Halflings. Again...I know I am opening myself up here, but it is very improbable matehmatically for me to have been out CASd 4 to 0 with all that strength, while the opponent has AV 6 on 90% of the team...and a built-in +1 to the injury roll.

My point? Anything is possible if you throw the blocks. Finesse teams do not deserve to get bonus points just for playing their game, when the fruits of playing a Bashy team should be seen as "Their own reward"

Clan_Skaven - May 05, 2006 - 08:46 PM
Post subject:

Ok I'm a little offended here..............

I earlier posted an idea of a possible soloution to tie breaking rules (a fair way to equal the playing field between bashy & non bashy teams) but its been ignored! (Except Paul) But Paul's 0-0-5 record & not winning the Spoon started this whole debate (so what real credit to my idea is his opinion? Laughing

)

There is another idea I had for a tourney & I gotta go find the rulez for it but once I do I'll post em.

Till then gimme more BEER!

Rod

Clan_Skaven - May 05, 2006 - 09:39 PM
Post subject:

Ok I'm not sure exactly where I got this from (I know it was a BB site on the net & it was Brittish, it says MBBL/MBBL2 not sure whom it is, but I love the system. Its sortan like the NAF CR system but easier)

Here is a word for word quote of the system I printed from them...

The league point system is a strength of scheadual system.

The League Point system that I'm using is used by the World Chess Organization & by Wizards of the Coast for the Magic.

It works really well for longer term BB leagues (like 10 games), but I believe it will work for a 5 game league season also.

Every team starts with 100 points, & your Leaugue point total can never go below zero.

At the beginning of every game you compare the league point difference between the two teams on the folowing chart:

Point Difference.....League Points
0-10..........................16/16
11-32.........................15/17
33-54..........................14/18
55-77..........................13/19
78-100........................12/20
101-124.......................11/21
125-149.......................10/22
150-176.......................9/23
177-205.......................8/24
206-237........................7/25
238-273........................6/26
274-314.........................5/27
315-364.........................4/28
365-428.........................3/29
429-523...........................2/30
524+...............................1/31

Okay, the first number in the points column is the points the winner gets and the loser loses if the higher league point team wins. The second number is the points the winner gets & losers lose if the lower league point team wins the match.

Example:
The "Chaos All-Stars" play the "Bluebun Crammers" (haflings). The All Stars have racked up 174 league points after 5 victories, the coach of the Bluebuns called him out & the All Stars accepted the league match.
The Halfling team has lost 5 straight games & now has a league points of 24. The differance is 150.
On the chart this indexes to 9/23.

This means that if the ALL Stars Win:
All Star League Points= 174+9=183
Bluebuns LP's=24-9=15

Should the Crammers pull off the upset win:
All Star League Points =174-23=151
Bluebuns LP's = 24+23=47

(& in case of a tie game both teams add/subtract zero points?)
Theres no rules for tie games.

But if this system were to be used I'd scrap the Swiss match up system each round & have a preset order every team plays before the teams register.....

(lets say theres 8 teams total at tourney)......

1vs8
2vs7
3vs6
4vs5

1vs7
8vs6
2vs5
3vs4

and so on & so on
(I'd have a predetermed scheadual drawn up for 4,6,8,10,12,14,16,18,20 (& every even number up to 40) so if 12 people show up I will just pull out the 12 team scheadual & then radomly draw the teams numbers (like: Paul#1,Twist#2,Spazzfist#3,Cyberhare#4 ect ect.) So although Paul lets say ends up with 6 easier opponents than Spazzfist, the points gained lost will reflect your matches based on the toughness of your opponents.)

Ok nowe that I took the time to research that system & type it lets see just how many people are going to ignore my efforts this time!

Rod Wink

Doubleskulls - May 06, 2006 - 01:03 AM
Post subject:

MBBL is Galak's PBEM league (so international, US based). You can get a similar effect by using the total of opponent's scores as your first tie break (strength of schedule) without compromising the games scores.

One thing I think really works well on a psychological point is including TDs/Cas into the primary scores. If you don't, people who are winning tend to concentrate on protecting their lead - rather than extending it - and people who are losing badly don't have anything to play for. Once you start giving token points for TD/Cas then people for remain much more focussed on getting that one TD back, or that extra casualty - making the games more fun for all involved. I don't know why, but even having TD/Cas as the first tie break doesn't have the same effect and most coaches seem to ignore it.

Clan_Skaven - May 06, 2006 - 10:57 AM
Post subject:

But would the MBBL system work for a 6 game tourney paired with a round robin (stop at 6 games) type tourney?

Rod.

Doubleskulls - May 06, 2006 - 06:32 PM
Post subject:

Maybe, but I'd not try it myself. TBH I think you'd get a lot of puzzled coaches and it doesn't address the TD/Cas issue I consider more important than strength of schedule scoring (which Swiss largely takes into account anyway).

Paul - May 06, 2006 - 07:33 PM
Post subject:

ok, heres a problem with it.

You have covered that it doesn't really work for a swiss tournamnet, because the point difference would be the same between each game. But, say this occured..

Player A has 180 points, Player B has 179 points, Player C has 174 points and Player 'Rod' has 102 points.

Now, the pairings come up that player A plays player 'Rod' and Player B plays Player C in the final round of a tournament.

Player A and Player B both win their games.

Player B earns 16 points for the win (since they are between 0-10 of their opponent) and finish the tournament with 195 points.

Player A earns only 12 points for the win (78 difference) and then finishes the tournament with 192 points.

Now player B wins the tournament because he/she has the most points, but he got a luckier draw in the random pairings that you did up. Player A won the game and lost the tournament because of a technicallity.

A swiss system would have ment that player A and player B played off for tournament. This is the best system to use in my opinion but the point system doesn't really work with the Swiss System because you'd most likly see all games being worth 16 points.

Also, what happens in the case of ties? You could play OT in the tourney, but as we all know, time is of an issue, so you can't always expect to finish games.

Just my 0.02 cents.

MightyQ - May 06, 2006 - 07:52 PM
Post subject:

Thanks Rob for your thought, I know this might have taken away from your drinking time, or maybe not Smile

Thanks Ulthrac for kind of seeing this in a way I do, maybe I just didnt word it well...

I thinking having fun should be high on the list, when you get 20+ Blood Bowlers in a room, how can't you have fun ???

I dont see how fun is taken out if you go by w/t/l records without the bonuses... And the Casualy bonus is a bit unfair because it also depends on the races you got stuck playing against...

Now I have only been in 3 naf tournaments... The first had 12 people, the 2nd had 6 and the World Cup 24...

The Phrakus was my first... In that tournament standings after round 4 of 5

the top 4 were
4-0-0 High Elf
2-2-0 Lizardmen
2-1-1 Skaven
2-1-1 Orc

The Skaven went to the championship due to bonus points and played the 4-0-0, his loss was already against the 4-0-0 High Elf... The Undefeated 2-2-0 didnt get into the championship...

I went back and looked at the teams and their opponents of our curiousity because I am trying to figure out why caualties, which favor certain races, are used and what so called bonus system can be fair...

2-2-0 Lizards (T Skaven, T Orc, W Skaven, W Orc) 8 Casualties
2-1-1 Skaven (T Lizard, W Orcs, W Chaos & L High Elf) 13 Casualties
2-1-1 Orc (L Orc, T Orc, W Chaos & W Ogre) Suprise only 4 Casualties

Unless the tournaments were based on certain races, like an all orc tournament or all elf tournament, using casualties is a bit unfair...

You dont have a choice who your opponent will be and you cant just go get casualties when you want them...

In the original blood Bowl Handbook, if a games was tied, you go into sudden death (not going to happen at tournaments due to time unless it was the championship maybe), if tied after that, each coach rolls a d6...

Just like hockey used to do a while back, maybe still does, a loss = 0 points but an overtime loss = points... So if a game is tied, roll off, then winner gets points for the tournament even though his naf record would be a tie...

Just throwing things out there because with my earlier example with a possibility of someone going 5-0-0 and not making the championship round is just wrong due to bonus point system that doesnt seem balance or fair to certain races and I think that would keep some players from player certain races and having fun...

Hoshi_Komi - May 06, 2006 - 10:44 PM
Post subject:

Personally I like tournies that let you play OT so there are less ties. As long as there's time they should let'em play I think.

MightyQ - May 06, 2006 - 11:23 PM
Post subject:

gken1 wrote:

Personally I like tournies that let you play OT so there are less ties. As long as there's time they should let'em play I think.

I agree, but because time is an issue other outcomes need to be worked out...

Doubleskulls - May 06, 2006 - 11:33 PM
Post subject:

gken1 wrote:

Personally I like tournies that let you play OT so there are less ties. As long as there's time they should let'em play I think.

But then all the tables who finish on time have to wait around for half an hour (or more since close games tend to take longer) twiddling their thumbs. So from an organisers POV I don't see how you'd get that to work and keep everyone happy.

Doubleskulls - May 06, 2006 - 11:43 PM
Post subject:

MightyQ wrote:

The Skaven went to the championship due to bonus points and played the 4-0-0, his loss was already against the 4-0-0 High Elf... The Undefeated 2-2-0 didnt get into the championship...

IMO the scoring system used is badly flawed. One thing you need to have is a degree of certainty that a player who wins all their games will win the tournament. IMO bonuses for TDs/Cas/"keeping it close" etc should be about placing people on similar records and increasing the involvement of the coaches in games once the result has been determined - they should not enable you to bridge a significant gap in your record.

I know some people disagree - and they like scoring systems which emphasise the margin of victory and keep the some overlap between marginal results. The one Babs uses in Australia is a bit like that. There are 7 points up for grabs and a win can be 6-1 or 4-3. Draws can be 4-3. So you can lose, get 3 points and win and get 6 (giving 9 in total) when someone with 2 wins might only have 8. What he likes about it is that he believes this means the competition is more open and its easier to rectify a bad game.

KarlLagerbottom - May 07, 2006 - 05:47 AM
Post subject:

MightyQ wrote:

Thanks Rob for your thought, I know this might have taken away from your drinking time, or maybe not Smile

Actually, ROD is the drinker...just to set the record straight...and if he make it to the Phrakus and drinks Guinness on Saturday Night. We're going to sit you next to him on Sunday. Smile

:hint: Bring Nose Plugs.

Quote:

The Phrakus was my first... In that tournament standings after round 4 of 5

the top 4 were
4-0-0 High Elf
2-2-0 Lizardmen
2-1-1 Skaven
2-1-1 Orc

The Skaven went to the championship due to bonus points and played the 4-0-0, his loss was already against the 4-0-0 High Elf... The Undefeated 2-2-0 didnt get into the championship...

I went back and looked at the teams and their opponents of our curiousity because I am trying to figure out why caualties, which favor certain races, are used and what so called bonus system can be fair...

2-2-0 Lizards (T Skaven, T Orc, W Skaven, W Orc) 8 Casualties
2-1-1 Skaven (T Lizard, W Orcs, W Chaos & L High Elf) 13 Casualties
2-1-1 Orc (L Orc, T Orc, W Chaos & W Ogre) Suprise only 4 Casualties

Unless the tournaments were based on certain races, like an all orc tournament or all elf tournament, using casualties is a bit unfair...

Knowing who played what at this tourney...I can tell you that Bampf was the Lizardman Coach, gken1 was the Skaven coach, and Skummy was the pro...I mean High Elf coach.

It is still kinda early here so I don't have the focus to fully digest the whole argument but a couple of counterpoints are as follows:

1. Lizards are more bashy than Skaven, so given that the CAS differential through 4 games was so signifigant, maybe that demonstrates that one coach is better than the other. (However slight the difference might be.) A 1 or 2 CAS difference over four games might be irrelevant...but 5?

2. gken1 played the eventual champion and the game resulted in his only loss through 4 rounds. Now the format as it is might not have absolutely bore this fruit...but again knowing Skummy, and his ability, Bampf not having to play him certainly had an impact on his tourney standings. As it was, bampf beat everyone that he faced...but that does not necessarily mean that his tourney ranking should have been higher.

I am still mostly asleep at this point so I am not sure if I am making my points here, so let me just leave off by saying...tourney rankings should not just be left to wins and losses alone. There are too many times where someone can play very well and lose strictly because of a kick off even or just dice in general. A person's play over a stretch of time and considering multiple facets when teams/coaches are being ranked.

Anyway...coffee time! Smile

Doubleskulls - May 07, 2006 - 06:34 AM
Post subject:

BTW NAF does not have a policy around scoring of tournaments. Just like rule sets we believe diversity is a source of strength

CyberHare - May 07, 2006 - 03:28 PM
Post subject:

Doubleskulls wrote:

gken1 wrote:

Personally I like tournies that let you play OT so there are less ties. As long as there's time they should let'em play I think.

What I usually do is schedule 2 hours for each round and 1 hour for a break. Most games finish up just past the two hour mark and those who play long into their break simply don't get a break. After 3 hours even the slowest of players have no excuses left why their games havn't yet been completed.

For team events it's a little different. The scoring system gives a value and meaning to a tied score. Indigo and I tossed the idea back and forth about allowing OT for team events but in the end we decided that since there was a value in a tie result that we wouldn't allow overtime.

MightyQ - May 07, 2006 - 09:05 PM
Post subject:

KarlLagerbottom wrote:

1. Lizards are more bashy than Skaven, so given that the CAS differential through 4 games was so signifigant, maybe that demonstrates that one coach is better than the other. (However slight the difference might be.) A 1 or 2 CAS difference over four games might be irrelevant...but 5?

Lizards maybe more bashy but it's casualties are based on the opponent you face, Lizards had to face to av9 teams while the skaven played more av7's & av8's... he will most likely get more casualties as his rolls dont have to be so high...

I think thats what really hurt the Orc team, has to play against 3 av9 teams and 1 av8..

KarlLagerbottom wrote:

I am still mostly asleep at this point so I am not sure if I am making my points here, so let me just leave off by saying...tourney rankings should not just be left to wins and losses alone. There are too many times where someone can play very well and lose strictly because of a kick off even or just dice in general. A person's play over a stretch of time and considering multiple facets when teams/coaches are being ranked.

It is a game of dice and the events you listed are part of the game... That's why I was a bit upset games weren't allowed to be completed as it comes down to the last turn of the game sometimes...

Each game is individual... Looking at the results seeing a team won 3-2, some might say, anyone can win by one... But knowing the game where the person was down 0-2 or 1-2 and won on turn 8 3-2 is totally different...

I have watched hundreds of game and seen some amzing things where you would have thought one team definitely lost and some how wins...

I had a game with my amazons where I was losing 0-2 at half and kicking to my opponent, figuring as things were going, I was going to be down 0-3, but show how my Amazons scored quickly on a failed pickup and on turn 8 someone got the ball dodging through numberous tacklezones and picking the ball up in 2 tacklezones, dodging away and scoring with 2 gfi's... You do some amazing desperate things when you are losing... I coach each game different depending on my opponent, race, score, etc... And as far as I know, you cant coach casualties... I apologized to my Amazons for losing faith in them Smile

Paul - May 07, 2006 - 11:00 PM
Post subject:

[quote="MightyQ"]

KarlLagerbottom wrote:

Actually, you're wrong there. If you go up against AV 7 Elfs you would think you get a good shot at most cas, and you probably should, but your opponents will be dodging away that you will only get 1 hit a turn. If you go up against other bashy teams, they'll be more likly to stand there and fight. With my Dwarfs, I know that I've gotten more Cas bonuses for the games against other Dwarfs, Orcs and Choas.

Quote:

It is a game of dice and the events you listed are part of the game... That's why I was a bit upset games weren't allowed to be completed as it comes down to the last turn of the game sometimes...

Well, its a tournament, you all know that you have a time limit going in, and not being able to finish the game should be the penalty you pay for not playing fast enough. If its close finish out the turn. Hell, I'd even give an opponent a win if it was clear he was going to score and I couldn't stop him.

MightyQ - May 07, 2006 - 11:26 PM
Post subject:

Paul wrote:

Well speed of play is based on both opponents and the failure of a turn helps speed things up... There were circumstances that changed the game play on day 2 from day 1 where games were finished in breaks... But how do you try to move your opponent along faster without sounding like a pain ??? I am not the fastest person and some turns you really have to think things out, especially with my 4 frenzy guys, trying to figue out where they will or have to go incase they dont knock the opponent over on the first block and might end up getting 2 db their choice...

Online I am down to an hour a game, stunty games are like 30-50 mintues... Things are much easier to see online...

There are so many things in real life games that adds extra time and causes them to go a bit slower... Cracked dice, no matter where you roll, somehow they find the only spot to end up cracked... Moving your players and turning them one way, then turning them back either at the end of your turn or begining of your next turn... Kickoff results, Blitz, a whole extra turn... If the 4 mintue rule isnt in affect and without bringing a chess clock of some sort, you shouldnt be penalized for not completing a turned based game in a shorter amount (2 hours) of time then it would if the 4 minute time limit was in effect (2 hours 8 minutes)...

And I am asking because I am not sure, does the 4 minute time limit count setting for up kickoffs ???

SolarFlare - May 08, 2006 - 07:17 AM
Post subject:

Doubleskulls wrote:

One thing you need to have is a degree of certainty that a player who wins all their games will win the tournament.

I agree with this. As a solution, several tournaments (e.g., GenConBowl, Chaos Cup, and ZlurpeeBowl) have switched to having the final table be a "first place match."

Outside of that, though, I really don't see what the fuss is about. It really does not make a difference to me if I finish in 10th or 11th place at a tournament because somebody may have had way more scores or casualties and his record is 2-0-3 and mine is 3-0-2. I guess 3rd or 4th could make a difference in "prizes." That's usually a blister pack or maybe something like that. I guess that's a risk I'm willing to take...

For the wooden spoon, hopefully the tournament director will recognize the all-loss record and reward accordingly. Again, though, I'm not going to get upset if I don't get a wooden spoon that I "deserve." (Unless, of course, the TO is a friend, and I just feel like giving him grief for my own amusement.)

Jonny_P - May 08, 2006 - 08:29 AM
Post subject:

In my rules for the Underworld Cup, I have a clause added that if you go undefeated and no one else does, you are declared the Champion regardless of tournament points.

Also I do agree that Ties should be brought down in points. A tie is not even close to a Win, even just 1-0 win (Which is what Chaos and Dwarves and the like are known for). "Playing for the tie" should not be heavily rewarded, IMO. TD and Casualty bonus is a nice however to have another variable in the mix for tourney points. As long as you know that going in, you can play games with those bonuses in mind.

Uthrac - May 08, 2006 - 09:43 AM
Post subject:

A few more thoughts . . .

(1) In real sports, there is a bit of luck too. Sure, they don't roll dice, but dice in Bloodbowl are used to simulate probabilities. Even the greatest sports team can lose a "close call" by the ref. or just be inches away from a catch/first down/great play. There's a Nike commercial out now: "If things happened they way they were supposed to [if the "better player/coach" always won], there would be no need to play the game." Well, the best coach in the room doesn't always win. Smile

And the "best coach" doesn't have the right to win . . . Wink

That's why we play. The best/luckiest team, in any sport, on that particular day, takes home the win.
(This is why I don't support the "Recover from one bad game" argument. Everyone has a bad game once in a while, that's the nature of any competition!)

(2) As far as the Lizardmen team goes, they have stuntly players as well, a little easier (with bad luck) to give up some casualties. Generally speaking, as previously noted, it's difficult to "coach" casualties. [Someone noted that elves will dodge away, so it's the elf team that starts his first dodge away with double 1's who will give up casualties to that particular opponent.] Also, the ability to inflict casualties, as previously noted, depends more on the luck of the draw for opponents faced than on "coaching ability." Personal opionion: Casualties are their own reward, and should not be part of the scoring.

(3) For the time discussion, I've run tournaments where, after the first hour, I've put a clock on games not through the first half. This speeds up the slower players - - and knowing that the clock is coming if the game is too slow is a motivator to keep things moving! (This is Bloodbowl, and not chess, after all!)

(4) Finally, the final standings (other than the top) matter little, but at the end of the day, I still believe that W/L percentage, followed by "strength of schedule" is the best measure of the "daily champion." Side prizes/certificates for Most Casualties, Most Deaths, Most TDs, Most Double Skulls/Ones rolled, Painting, Sportsmanship, etc. are fine, but in the end of the day, the best record should win. Smile

IMO, in the case of a tied record, head-to-head, margin of victory, games against common opponents, and strength of schedule are better measures than casualties caused.

Final thought - - My team is up 3-0 late in the second half, and I have the ball in position to score. Under the tournament scoring system, I really don't want to score, b/c then I must set up for a kickoff and give my oppenent 3 casulaty shots against my team! 8O

Also, any thoughts on a shut-out bonus? (Not that it works in my system, but in the current system, if you're handing out bonuses, why not "perfect defense?")

~Uthrac

PS: Glad to see everyone supporting a constructive discussion on this topic! Smile

Doubleskulls - May 08, 2006 - 08:23 PM
Post subject:

CyberHare wrote:

I guess you are playing at bigger conventions? if you are then you don't need to worry as much about entertaining those who've already finished. At standalone BB tournaments an hour break between every round is really excessive IMO.

Paul - May 08, 2006 - 08:24 PM
Post subject:

Doubleskulls wrote:

CyberHare wrote:

Not when there is a bar next door to the tournament Smile

Clan_Skaven - May 08, 2006 - 08:30 PM
Post subject:

Paul wrote:

Doubleskulls wrote:

CyberHare wrote:

Not when there is a bar next door to the tournament Smile

Wow Paul & I agree? Well thats one thing I knew Paul was good at & that was swillin beer ......

GO BEER (ps getting drunk again)

Rod

MightyQ - May 08, 2006 - 08:34 PM
Post subject:

Well if you two have to play against each other, see if they will let you set up in the bar !!!

Doubleskulls - May 09, 2006 - 03:55 AM
Post subject:

Paul wrote:

Not when there is a bar next door to the tournament Smile

Better yet, a tournament in a pub! Then you don't need to break at all Wink

CyberHare - May 09, 2006 - 04:22 AM
Post subject:

Doubleskulls wrote:

Better yet, a tournament in a pub! Then you don't need to break at all Wink

Ahh the holy grail of Blood Bowl. Someday I'll find a pub over here that'll allow a bunch of geeks to take over the place for the weekend. No such luck to date though Crying or Very sad

Bevan - May 09, 2006 - 04:30 AM
Post subject:

There was an interesting result at Leviathan (15 coaches, 6 rounds) where the 3rd placed team won only 2 matches. The scoring was the same as at Cancon mentioned previously with bonuses for +2TD wins and for winning casualties.
(Win = 4, draw = 3, loss = 2, +1 for a 2TD win, -1 for a 2TD loss and 1 for the casualty winner, 0.5 each if drawn)

The top 8 teams were

Pts W D L Race
27.0 4 2 0 Dwarf
26.0 4 0 1 Dark Elf
25.0 2 3 1 Ogre
24.5 3 2 1 Wood Elf
23.0 4 1 1 Human
22.0 4 0 2 Lizardmen
21.5 3 2 1 High Elf
21.5 3 0 3 Wood Elf

The Ogres (3rd) picked up a casualty bonus in every round and had 3 draws, finishing ahead of several teams with better Win+Draw results. The high scoring Wood Elves in 4th place (3 wins + 2 Draws) were well ahead of two teams with 4 wins.

Doubleskulls had the same number of points as me. We both had 3 wins but his 2 draws and a loss should have beaten my 3 losses, except that all my wins were by 2TDs or more. Rolling Eyes

MightyQ - May 09, 2006 - 08:26 AM
Post subject:

6 Rounds, why do teams have different amount of games played, 4 ,5 & 6...

Uthrac - May 09, 2006 - 09:08 AM
Post subject:

CyberHare wrote:

He also did comparatively badly in sportsmanship. Actually he tied for the worst overall sportsmanship score now that I'm looking at it.

I'm not sure it's very sporting of you to post that in a public forum . . . Wink

MightyQ - May 09, 2006 - 09:11 AM
Post subject:

Bevan wrote:

(Win = 4, draw = 3, loss = 2, +1 for a 2TD win, -1 for a 2TD loss and 1 for the casualty winner, 0.5 each if drawn)

Personally I dont like how close the points are for wins, draws & loses... But like the idea that there are say certain amount of points like the +1 for winning casualties and it is 0.5 if they tie...

For the Bonus system, how about there be certain amount of points that can be earned like for :

winning by touchdowns
+2 win = 8 pts
+1 win = 6 pts
Tie = 4 points
-1 win = 2 pts
-2 loss = 0 pts

maybe the same for casualties... It's kind of odd if someone wins 1-0 in casualties in some tournaments they get +10 points, but if another game was 6-6 in casualties, they get nothing...

Casualties
1+ = 2
tie = 1
1- = 0

me personally dont think casualties should get as much credit as touchdowns

Also Maybe something for wins, draws loses

Win 40
Tie 20
lose 0

Win = 40, win by 2+ = 8, Cas + = 2 = total of 50 points that can earned each game...

Might not even need the extra w/l/t points as people are already getting points in how much they win by...

Whatcha think ???

Doubleskulls - May 09, 2006 - 08:29 PM
Post subject:

CyberHare wrote:

Doubleskulls wrote:

Better yet, a tournament in a pub! Then you don't need to break at all Wink

Ahh the holy grail of Blood Bowl. Someday I'll find a pub over here that'll allow a bunch of geeks to take over the place for the weekend. No such luck to date though Crying or Very sad

In London the PK&Q is in a pub (as is Carnage). Some pubs are really quite at weekends (normally those in the CBD where they are servicing the lunchtime & after work trade) - so are often quite or even closed. The extra business from a tournament is often welcome trade to them.

Doubleskulls - May 09, 2006 - 08:36 PM
Post subject:

Bevan wrote:

Doubleskulls had the same number of points as me. We both had 3 wins but his 2 draws and a loss should have beaten my 3 losses, except that all my wins were by 2TDs or more. Rolling Eyes

Yep. I know this is a point of disagreement between us. I don't like how important the margin of victory is in your scoring system and I'd like to see an extra point for winning (so there is no overlap between wins & draws, and draws & losses). That would also slightly reduce the influence of margin of victory.

Anyway, this isn't an area for absolutes and I don't think you are giving an advantage to a specific race so I'm more than happy to compete under the rules as they stand.

Bevan - May 10, 2006 - 03:37 AM
Post subject:

Doubleskulls wrote:

Bevan wrote:

Doubleskulls had the same number of points as me. We both had 3 wins but his 2 draws and a loss should have beaten my 3 losses, except that all my wins were by 2TDs or more. Rolling Eyes

Hey, this isn't my scoring system. Embarassed

My program was sorting out the matches but the program can use any scoring system the tournament organiser wants. Since the scoring is used at CanCon I assume Babs made it up and Freckles uses it as well established system.

It does have the advantage, that Babs mentioned previously, that it keeps interest in a game that has been clearly won, by making it worth trying to close a 2 TD gap back to 1 TD. I am less happy about the effect of coaches checking the casualty count and desperately fouling to get ahead there, since injuries carry forward to the next games.

Bevan - May 10, 2006 - 03:45 AM
Post subject:

MightyQ wrote:

6 Rounds, why do teams have different amount of games played, 4 ,5 & 6...

There were 15 coaches so there was 1 bye in each round (counted as a draw but not shown as a draw in the rankings). The "4" was due to my carelessly giving myself only 1 loss instead of 3 Embarassed

I've corrected that now.

Usually the lower ranking teams were given the byes so most of the top group played 6 games.

Uthrac - May 11, 2006 - 01:09 PM
Post subject:

Quote:

I am less happy about the effect of coaches checking the casualty count and desperately fouling to get ahead there, since injuries carry forward to the next games.

Fouls don't count for casulaties . . . Wink

Doubleskulls - May 11, 2006 - 09:22 PM
Post subject:

They do under that scoring system...

Also the majority of Australian tournaments are run using normal league rules, so encouraging last turn fouling is much less palatable than it is in resurrection style tournaments.