NAF World Headquarters

NAF World Cup - The NAF World Cup Touring System

Volstagg - Feb 01, 2012 - 10:58 AM
Post subject: The NAF World Cup Touring System
I already posted this idea sometime ago. I think everything would be easier if we would set a rotating World Cup Program, like for example:

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

So as this last year the WC was held in Amsterdam (yes, that's Europe boys) the next one should be in North America, and so on...

This way we would always know where the next WC is going to be played well in advance and we could foresee ( or at least have a better idea ) what the attendance would be.

This would help all of us, since in North America are already planning to run their Team Championship, and in Europe there's a lot of talking about a similar Team Tournament, which could possibly "steal" players from the WC.

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

I think it's more fair for all even if it means that some WC would have less attendance than others, or a less diversified one, and it gives more time to the possible organizers...

Just an idea.
txapo - Feb 01, 2012 - 11:53 AM
Post subject:
yes good idea,... but what if the japaneese korean and chinese sudenly star playing Bb buy milons:

better write Asia-Oceania instead of Australia

and if one year the Australians dont want to do it you can always do it in Turkey what is Asia and just over the border with europe!!! Twisted Evil
Jonny_P - Feb 01, 2012 - 11:55 AM
Post subject:
I don't like this idea. Running the World Cup shouldn't be forced on anyone/any country.

If a group of coaches has a great bid and is willing to take on the massive amount of work and stress it will entail.... they should be the ones to host it.
Darkson - Feb 01, 2012 - 01:21 PM
Post subject:
      Jonny_P wrote:
I don't like this idea. Running the World Cup shouldn't be forced on anyone/any country.

If a group of coaches has a great bid and is willing to take on the massive amount of work and stress it will entail.... they should be the ones to host it.


+1.

I'm all for the WC going out of Europe, but only if there's a worthwhile bid. I'd also have no issues with it doing US/Oz (or Oz/US) if they were the best bids.

So yes to the WC in Oz, Canada, US, Japan, South Africa, wherever.
No to fixed continents on a rota.
Volstagg - Feb 01, 2012 - 01:25 PM
Post subject:
      Jonny_P wrote:
I don't like this idea. Running the World Cup shouldn't be forced on anyone/any country.

If a group of coaches has a great bid and is willing to take on the massive amount of work and stress it will entail.... they should be the ones to host it.


It´s not about forcing anyone, but about trying to make the WC accessible to all.

We are not the Olympic Federation so if we can find a better/fairer system than to say "just the best bid wins", we should at least think about it.

What makes a bid better than the others, is also a nice question.
Doubleskulls - Feb 01, 2012 - 02:59 PM
Post subject:
      Jonny_P wrote:
If a group of coaches has a great bid and is willing to take on the massive amount of work and stress it will entail.... they should be the ones to host it.


Huge +1 from me. The worst scenario would be if a region knew they were getting it, but the "organisers" weren't really up for it and it fell flat on its face. I'd rather have it in Europe every time than risk a flop (and I'm one of those keenest to see it travel!).
Doubleskulls - Feb 01, 2012 - 03:05 PM
Post subject:
      Volstagg wrote:
What makes a bid better than the others, is also a nice question.


And I think this is the answer. One of the things people would do with a normal bidding/scoring process is set the criteria and then weight them. The judges then score each criteria and you end up with a sub-total of the weight times the score (or something similar). So its relatively easy to add a criteria in terms of recent WC hosting, so that we are more likely to pick a new region rather than just the one that is "best" if we didn't take that into account.

I think its pretty clear that another criteria would be expected attendance (the bigger the better) and obviously we'd need to think careful about the balance between these two so that a non-European bid for a tournament with x coaches doesn't always lose with a European bid with 2x coaches (or whatever ratio).
zootsuitjeff - Feb 01, 2012 - 03:07 PM
Post subject:
I agree with the principal that the World Cup should move around to different parts of the world and that should be a factor in the bidding process, but there shouldn't be a set rule for rotations.
Glamdryn - Feb 01, 2012 - 03:13 PM
Post subject:
      zootsuitjeff wrote:
I agree with the principal that the World Cup should move around to different parts of the world and that should be a factor in the bidding process, but there shouldn't be a set rule for rotations.


+1
Notorious_jtb - Feb 01, 2012 - 04:36 PM
Post subject:
      Glamdryn wrote:
      zootsuitjeff wrote:
I agree with the principal that the World Cup should move around to different parts of the world and that should be a factor in the bidding process, but there shouldn't be a set rule for rotations.


+1


Yeah +1.

Doubleskulls' point is very good too. If there are voting/weighting categories it is easy to add points for "new continent" but the merits of the overall bid have to be super high to win.
Notorious_jtb - Feb 01, 2012 - 04:38 PM
Post subject:
      Quote:

What makes a bid better than the others, is also a nice question.


this is a great point too as doubleskulls said. We are posting the NATC criteria in the next little while so that can be discussed on its merits.
blammaham - Feb 01, 2012 - 05:45 PM
Post subject:
I don't think the world cup should ever be held in North America...certainly not right now. I read in another thread that 100 NA coaches would come for sure. I don't think that is an absolute at all as between the two NA majors last year there was only 112 coaches. 100 may not be many in Europe but it is sort of a holy grail of numbers for us over here. Geography and coach density just doesn't justify having it here, or Ausrtalia to me. I'd rather go to a 500 coach event in Europe than a 200 coach event in NA. There is only one city in NA that could host it IMO , Las Vegas, and I've been there... Once, not really my kind of place. However, logistically it is the only realistic option that would attract 100+ NA coaches.

Keep the world cupin Europe, it will be better for it, at least until the community in NA could realistcly get a comparable experience. S.
zootsuitjeff - Feb 01, 2012 - 05:56 PM
Post subject:
      blammaham wrote:
I don't think the world cup should ever be held in North America...certainly not right now. I read in another thread that 100 NA coaches would come for sure. I don't think that is an absolute at all as between the two NA majors last year there was only 112 coaches. 100 may not be many in Europe but it is sort of a holy grail of numbers for us over here. Geography and coach density just doesn't justify having it here, or Ausrtalia to me. I'd rather go to a 500 coach event in Europe than a 200 coach event in NA. There is only one city in NA that could host it IMO , Las Vegas, and I've been there... Once, not really my kind of place. However, logistically it is the only realistic option that would attract 100+ NA coaches.

Keep the world cupin Europe, it will be better for it, at least until the community in NA could realistcly get a comparable experience. S.


I for one disagree with this sentiment. Numbers are not everything. Maybe we aren't there yet, but I believe we can get there, let's work on getting there, and not be so negative.
generaljason - Feb 01, 2012 - 06:15 PM
Post subject:
I don't think he's being negative Jeff, I think he's being realistic at this moment in time. If North American coaching concentration and number of NA travelling players should increase in the future then this conversation is moot. When it's that then we should talk about it hosting WC here.

      Jonny_P wrote:
I don't like this idea. Running the World Cup shouldn't be forced on anyone/any country.

If a group of coaches has a great bid and is willing to take on the massive amount of work and stress it will entail.... they should be the ones to host it.


Absolutely. Based on the coaching counts in NA vs. Europe affirmative action should still exist when selecting attending teams, but it should never be a consideration for choosing a host city or host continent. Best bid per year.
zootsuitjeff - Feb 01, 2012 - 06:36 PM
Post subject:
You can call it realistic. I call it thinking small. I belong to the "if you build it they will come" camp. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm just trying to make it clear that not everyone in NA has the same opinion you guys do.
daloonieshaman - Feb 01, 2012 - 07:51 PM
Post subject:
Just to chime in (using a megaphone in a tile bathroom)
The WC should have nothing to do with having 2 or 2000 people showing up.

If your sediment is that numbers count; than, I feel, you are against the spirit of the club.

Unless I totally misunderstand the ideal and goal of NAF and the WC it is to support and promote the sport bringing the better players together in one location.

That to me means that the location is the last factor of the equation. Yes it has a bearing. But if you want to be a part of the WC and think you have the ability to play at that level you will simply overcome the logistics. (other than work and direct family)
generaljason - Feb 01, 2012 - 09:08 PM
Post subject:
      zootsuitjeff wrote:
You can call it realistic. I call it thinking small. I belong to the "if you build it they will come" camp. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm just trying to make it clear that not everyone in NA has the same opinion you guys do.


Jeff you can put it in any font you like. I'm not going to engage in who's being half empty and who's being half full here.

This is all I'm looking at for the current demographics of having a World Cup in Europe vs. North America:

01. The majority of tournament players world wide reside there. This is what I'm looking at for population of NA tournaments vs. European tournaments in 2008. The European ones I posted are mostly the larger ones, threw in a couple under 20's, but for North America I listed all the ones that happened at all:

This is just 2008. I bolded the ones that got 20 participants or more:

NORTH AMERICA:
ArisiaBowl III - (Massachusetts USA) - 8 players
Capital City Kick OFF 2008 (Ottawa CDN) - 16 players
Frozzty Bowl 2008 (Indianapolis USA) - 18 players
NSB Orca-Cola Kickoff Classic (Indianapolis USA) - 10 players
NSB St. Valentines Day Massacre II (Indianapolis USA) - 8 players
da Grots Cup (Red Deer CDN) - 8 players
NSB Dandelion Bowl (Indianapolis USA) - 10 players
STUPOR BOWL I (Bloomingdale USA) - 34 Players
The Challenge of Q'ermitt (Mississauga CDN) - 26 Players
Whippet Bowl (Shelby USA) - 10 Players
NSB Nuffles Fiesta Bowl (Indianapolis USA) - 10 players
StemFest '08 (Michigan USA) - 14 Players
Dagger Bowl I (Ottawa CDN) - 6 Players
Bongo Bowl 2008 (Mississauga CDN) - 8 Players
FABBL MINI (Arcadia USA) - 6 Players
Zlurpee Bowl IV (Indianapolis USA) - 54 Players
Brew City Blood Bath (West Allis USA) - 16 Players
Lakeside Cup II (Cobourg CDN) - 12 Players
Spike! Magazine 2008 (Vancouver CDN) - 32 Players
Streetparty USA III (Indianapolis USA) - 10 Players
GenCon 2008 (Indianapolis USA) - 36 Players
Carnage Cup (Holland USA) - 8 Players
Lil' Zlurp 08 (Indianapolis USA) - 16 Players
NSBCS Rumble in the Jungle (Indianapolis USA) - 10 Players
NBBO Bowl 2 (Niagara Falls CDN) - 10 Players
Chaos Cup 2008 (Downer's Grove USA) - 50 Players
Deathbowl VI (Ottawa CDN) - 20 Players
NSBCS Monster Mash the Return (Indianapolis USA) - 8 Players
NSBCS Brickyard Bash (Indianapolis USA) - 6 Players
Underworld Cup '08 (Racine USA) - 26 Players

EUROPE:
M'n'T League Open (Italy) - 30 Players
Poo Bowl 2 (England) - 28 Players
Dutch Open 2008 (Netherlands) - 92 Players
Ciococoppa II (Italy) - 22 Players
Waterbowl Weekender 2008 (England) - 44 Players
Bowl des Neiges V (France) - 42 players
Dream Team Cup '08 (Spain) - 106 Players
Dungeonbowl 2008 (Germany) - 64 Players
Royal Rumble 2008 (Italy) - 24 Players
Skull Cup'08 (Spain) - 54 Players
Flanders Chainsaw Massacre 2008 (Belgium) - 18 Players
Blitz! 2008 (Italy) - 22 Players
Euskal Turnover (France) - 30 Players
KlingenCon XXVI (Germany) - 16 Players
Brama Cup (Italy) - 32 Players
Fumbbles On Tour '08 (Spain) - 88 Players
Monkeybowl III (England) - 46 Players
Sunville Bowl (Belgium) - 14 Players
Leviathan (England) - 14 players
Pearly Kings and Queens 2008 (England) - 28 Players
MINIMOD BLOOD BOWL CUP (Italy) - 20 Players
Schnitzelbowl III (Austria) - 40 Players
Botz Bembel Bowl III (Germany) - 40 Players
Lutece Bowl 08 (France) - 72 Players
Tilean Team Cup 2008 (Italy) - 48 Players
Dirty Player Cup (Spain) - 36 Players
m@hobbit massacre (Netherlands) - 30 Players
The Blood Bowl 2008 (England) - 110 Players
Vinking Bowl (France) - 12 Players
BLOCK V (France) - 38 Players
Riot 2008 (Italy) - 22 Players
Massacre Day 2 (Belgium) - 16 Players
Colosseum 2008 (Italy) - 40 Players
Albabowl 2008 (England) - 40 Players
B7 2008 (Germany) - 64 Players
Dolphin's Shield IV 2008 (Italy) - 28 Players
BloodBowl des Vignes III (France) - 26 Players
CARROT CRUNCH II (England) - 12 Players
CartoonBowl 2008 (Spain) - 20 Players
Dadi & Sudore 2008 (Italy) - 22 Players
Rendez-vous Bloodbowl 6 (France) - 42 Players
SIDRABOWL 2008 (Spain) - 18 Players
Xufabowl´08 (Spain) - 18 Players
Reusrection'08 (Spain) - 20 Players
thrudbowl 2008 (England) - 34 Players
A'hof 24hrs of BB '08 (Netherlands) - 36 Players
Toy soldier 2008 (England) 20 Players
V Bilbali Cup (Spain) - 38 Players
Newquay Bowl 4 (England) - 18 Players
Oberonn Smack (Belgium) - 12 Players
Rugbowl 2008 (France) - 46 Players
Strongbowl III (England) - 18 Players
Barnabowl VI (Spain) - 56 Players
Karlsruher Pyramiden Cup (Germany) - 16 Players
Bowl Bec Cup 3 (France) - 12 Players
BUBBLE 2508 (Netherlands) - 30 Players
Go for Eat! 2008 (Italy) - 14 Players
II Odoloste Bowl (Spain) - 20 Players
HQ Bowl 2008 (Belgium) - 28 Players
ARBBL Open 2008 (England) - 14 Players
EMEN CUP II (Spain) - 32 Players
TRIPLE SKULL TEAM CUP 2008 (Italy) - 58 Players
Ghost Bowl 11 (Germany) - 28 Players
Valencia Master Bowl 08 (Spain) - 70 Players
Italian Open 2008 (Italy) - 32 Players
The Spiky Club Open 2008 (England) - 52 Players
NDC 2008 (Normandy Dragon's Cup) (France) - 38 Players
Tilean BloodBowl Pride I (Italy) - 14 Players
Eurobowl V (Spain) - 96 Players
Tritex Challenge 2008 (England) -24 Players
Ain Pact III (France) - 34 Players
Baden Basho 2008 (Germany) - 26 Players
GT - Tilean Cup 2008 (Italy) - 26 Players
Tabira Bowl 08 (Spain) - 38 Players
Catenaccio Bowl 08 (Spain) - 40 Players
Troll bowl 2008 (England) - 22 Players
KlingenCon XXVII (Germany) - 26 Players
Flame Bowl 2008 (England) - 36 Players
Nabot III (France) - 48 Players
Nikograus Bowl (Germany) - 12 Players
Brassbowl VI 2008 (Belgium) - 38 Players
Madbowl VI 2008 (Spain) - 78 Players


Wow that took a long time. Do I have to break down last year as well? Just look at the sheer number of tournaments alone in Europe vs. NA in 2008, but more importantly just look at the sheer concentration of tournament players there especially in the Majors, as well as France and Spain. Anyone of those 4 Blood Bowl nations can beat NA alone on numbers. And then of course they all happen to be right beside each other, with large communities in the Netherlands, Italy, Austria and Belgium as well.

02. This might just be me, but most of the places that I want to travel and possibly work a Blood Bowl trip around are in Europe. I'd travel to Vegas, I'd like to see New York, have relatives in Toronto, and would work Chicago into a St. Louis trip since I have relatives there too. I'd could probably be talked into Florida or Montreal as well, but for the most part it would be the European locations that would peak my interest in attending a future WC event.

The ones I don't have to be talked into are the local events like RCR in Seattle, and if ever Alberta or Oregon start hosting BB events.

03. I want World Cup to remain as big and as large as it can be. If that means keeping it in Europe for the time being then so be it. If North America could put in a bid for a 200+ coach event then I'm all for it, but North America as it stands right now cannot sustain this by itself whereas Europe does not need a single North American or Aussie coach to attend in order to make that happen. That's just the reality as I see it right now due to coaching concentration and geography. When those stats dramatically change I'll change my mind. Call me negative nancy or whatever but I'm just looking at the math above.

Gj.
Glamdryn - Feb 01, 2012 - 09:12 PM
Post subject:
Why did you look at 2008...?
generaljason - Feb 01, 2012 - 09:18 PM
Post subject:
      Glamdryn wrote:
Why did you look at 2008...?


Happened to be the first year we hosted the Spike! and got it back to over 30 players attending. I was going to do 2008-2011 but it was taking too long just to do the one year - God there are a lot of tournaments in Europe. Wink
zootsuitjeff - Feb 01, 2012 - 11:09 PM
Post subject:
I'll say it once again, I don't think sheer numbers should be the only consideration. If it is then you win, but I don't agree. I also tend to think that you would prefer to attend a WC in Europe rather than NA because you are from NA. Logically it stands to reason that the majority of European NAF members would ideally like to attend a WC outside of Europe. Since the majority of NAF members are from Europe, that would be an argument for holding it outside of Europe.
Grumbledook - Feb 01, 2012 - 11:20 PM
Post subject:
the tournament scene in the UK has changed a lot since 2008, there is only really one "big" tournament now due to the proliferation of a massive amount of smaller tournaments

of course your point still remains valid regarding the player density and it was interesting to look through the numbers anyway ;]

wherever it is held it won't be able to please all the people, there will be non europeans who want to travel to europe and euros who want it to stay in europe

there are also non euros who would like it hosted elsewhere and also euros who would travel to it elsewhere

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

this could be used as a factor to get a naf euro open running in the middle of wc years, I think it would be nice to have a world cup outside europe

then coaches who wish to see europe can go to the open one as well perhaps?

at the end of the day I'm not too fussed where it is cause I like to travel overseas
Darkson - Feb 02, 2012 - 12:55 AM
Post subject:
      daloonieshaman wrote:
Unless I totally misunderstand the ideal and goal of NAF and the WC it is to support and promote the sport bringing the better players together in one location.

"Better" doesn't come into it.
generaljason - Feb 02, 2012 - 01:40 AM
Post subject:
      Glamdryn wrote:
Why did you look at 2008...?


Here it goes:

This is just last year 2011. Jon's right that distribution has been spilt up a bit since 2008 in Europe into a lot of smaller tournaments but the big ones still kicking butt - especially in Spain.

Again I bolded the ones that got 20 participants or more:

NORTH AMERICA:
Put a Ring On It (Glendale Heights USA) - 38 Players
West Coast Quake 2011 (Los Angelas USA) - 22 Players
Capital City Kick OFF 2008 (Ottawa CDN) - 18 players
Dagger Bowl IV (Ottawa CDN) - 10 Players
Brew City Blood Bath (Kenosha USA) - 26 Players
Rat City Rumble I (Everett USA) - 32 Players
Headbangers Ball I (Downers Grove USA) - 16 players
Canadian Open (Mississauga CDN) - 12 Players
Rotten Bowl '11 (Indianapolis USA) - 10 Players
STUPOR BOWL IV (Lombard USA) - 28 Players
4 Diamonds Cup 2011 (Oberlin USA) - 16 Players
Royal Rumble (Indianapolis USA) - 16 players
The Special K Cup (Battle Creek USA) - 12 Players
Chromatic Cup 2011 (Walbridge USA) - 12 Players
Tri State Challenge II (Carlstadt USA) - 6 Players
Orion Cup 2011 (Toronto CDN) - 10 Players
The Golden Sweetbun 2011 (Lasalle CDN) - 20 Players
Thunderkrunch II (Vancouver CDN) - 14 Players
Origins Cup (Columbus USA) - 6 Players
Krrunch Bowl 2011 (Columbus USA) - 10 Players
WCQ Aftershock (Burbank USA) - 10 Players
Zlurpee Bowl VII (Indianapolis USA) - 52 Players
Lakeside Cup V (Cobourg CDN) - 12 Players
Indiana Summer I (Bloomington USA) - 6 Players
Streetparty USA VI (Indianapolis USA) - 10 Players
GenCon 2011 (Indianapolis USA) - 36 Players
Bunker Brawl III (Downers Grove USA) - 10 Players
Celesticon Rumble (Redwood City USA) - 6 Players
Spike! Magazine 2011 (Surrey CDN) - 56 Players
Chaos Cup 2011 (Downer's Grove USA) - 56 Players
Warpstone Cup (Niagara Falls CDN) - 12 Players
Orctoberfest II (Franklin USA) - 16 Players
Pub Bowl 2011 (New York USA) - 8 Players
Deathbowl IX (Ottawa CDN) - 20 Players
Iron Mike's BBT 2011 (Spokane USA) - 8 Players
Ghouls Night Out II (Downers Grove USA) - 10 Players
2011 Orcland Slaughter & Block Challenge (Oakland USA) - 14 Players
Blingtoof's Gitbash (Toronto CDN) - 12 Players
Nuffle's Fault (Altadena USA) - 6 Players
Power of '1' / Bongo Bowl (Ottawa CDN) - 10 Players
Underworld 2011 (Kenosha USA) - 14 Players
Avatar Open (Las Vegas USA) - 10 Players


EUROPE:
3-Königs-Turnier (Germany) - 8 Players
Poo Bowl 5 (England) - 30 Players
Evolution I - Hell in a Cell (Italy) - 24 Players
Melting Bowl II (France) - 14 Players
Winterbowl'11 (Spain) - 30 Players
24 Hours Midwinter Madness II (Belgium) - 24 Players
Silex Bowl III (France) - 20 Players
White Star Cup 2011 (Germany) - 8 Players
III REVABowl v.LRG (Spain) - 52 Players
Ironmanj Shield II (England) - 22 Players
Magalasso Open (Italy) - 8 Players
3º Septimo Bowl (Spain) - 36 Players
Casnewyyd Cup II (England) - 32 Players
Dutch Open 2011 (Netherlands) - 30 Players
Bowl des Neiges VIII (France) - 64 players
Fulginium Bowl IV 2011 (Italy) - 28 Players
Waterbowl Weekender 2008 (England) - 34 Players
Siberia-Gasteiz Kup (Spain) - 32 Players
Crom-A-Gnons IV (France) - 44 Players
Dream Team Cup '11 (Spain) - 104 Players
Belgian Championship (Belgium) - 12 Players
Belgian Open (Belgium) - 8 Players
Trophée de la Licorne V (France) - 24 Players
VaultCon 2011 (England) - 24 Players
Dungeonbowl 2011 (Germany) - 84 Players
ARBBL Open 2011 (England) - 38 Players
warp bowl (R2 R4) (France) - 30 Players
F.O.T. VI 2011 (Spain) - 74 Players
Royal Rumble 2011 (Italy) - 30 Players
CheeseBowl II (Switzerland) - 8 Players
Irungobbowl '11 (Spain) - 20 Players
Jour de Plomb 8 (France) - 40 Players
Monkeybowl VI (England) - 28 Players
Goblin Slaughterfest 2511 (Belgium) - 18 players
Mermaid Masters (Denmark) - 10 players
SOAPBOWL 2011 (France) - 32 Players
Vesevus 2011 (Italy) - 26 Players
KlingenCon XXXII (Germany) - 30 Players
Pearly Kings and Queens 2011 (England) - 24 Players
Breizh Bowl III (France) - 36 Players
Lutece Bowl 08 (France) - 60 Players
RIOT VI ed. (Italy) - 10 Players
Tri Rhena Cup II (Switzerland) - 14 Players
L.A. BloodBowl Cup II (France) - 20 Players
The Blood Bowl 2011 (England) - 188 Players
Belgian Beer Bowl (Belgium) - 12 Players
SantaKOlisseum 2011 Spain) - 52 Players
Tilean Team Cup 2011 (Italy) - 72 Players
BLOCK VIII (France) - 26 Players
Royal Rumble 2011 (France) - 14 Players
Block Around The Clock (England) - 16 Players
Blood Bowl Colossevm A.D. MMXI (Italy) - 16 Players
Cake Bowl (England) - 20 Players
Carthago bowl III (Spain) - 28 Players
Schnitzelbowl VI (Austria) - 6 Players
Albabowl 2011 (Scotland) - 16 Players
AlsaBowl (France) - 24 Players
Massace day 5 (formaly known as massacre day (Belgium) - 12 Players
Danish Open 2011 (Denmark) - 20 Players
m@hobbit massacre (Netherlands) - 20 Players
COUPE VESUNNA IV (France) - 30 Players
Dolphin's Shield VII 2011 (Italy) - 28 Players
OPEN FEBL'11 (Spain) - 24 Players
Spiky Challenge Cup (England) - 26 players
B7 2011 (Germany) - 74 Players
White Isle Star Bowl (England) - 36 Players
California Bowl (France) - 8 Players
CARROT CRUNCH V (England) - 38 Players
Rendez-vous Bloodbowl 9 (France) - 42 Players
Bristol Gert Bowl (England) - 26 Players
xufabowl 2011 (Spain) - 16 Players
DOUBT 2011 (Sweden) - 8 Players
Santiagos 2011 (Spain) - 12 Players
HQ Summer Jam (Belgium) - 10 Players
Euskal 2011 (France) - 28 Players
Toy soldier 2011 (England) - 16 Players
VIII Bilbali Cup (Spain) - 20 Players
24 ORE di Bloodbowl (Italy) - 40 Players
Thrudbowl 2011 (England) - 38 Players
Amar Garden Bowl II (Denmark) - 6 Players
Strongbowl 2011 (England) - 14 Players
Rugbowl 2011 (France) - 96 Players
Ludi Flaminii (Italy) - 20 Players
The Albion Coast Cup VII (England) - 10 Players
BUBBLE 2511 (Netherlands) - 10 Players
GeordieBowl III (England) - 22 Players
Mojonbowl 2011 (Spain) - 26 Players
Exile 3:The Rise of the Cheerleaders (England) - 40 Players
IIº Unako Tournament 24 horas (Spain) - 30 Players
Blood-Bowl and Caux Challenge (France) - 24 Players
EM5N CUP (Spain) - 42 Players
HQ-bowl anniversary edition (Belgium) - 32 Players
Vaultbowl 2 (England) - 20 Players
BBOING! (England) - 16 Players
Ghost Bowl 14 (Germany) - 18 Players
HBL Breetlooks Bowl (Germany) - 12 Players
II Patatonia Cup- Naf Edition (Spain) - 12 Players
IV Cheesebowl (Spain) - 10 Players
Kurpfalz Cup III (Germany) - 10 Players
Mermaid Blood Bowl Cup 2011 (Denmark) - 10 Players
OctoBowl II (France) - 10 Players
STABB Cup (England) - 24 Players
Coupe Teflon (France) - 24 Players
Ironmanj Onedayer III - The Lottery (England) - 22 Players
La Coupe des Loups 2 (France) - 10 Players
The Spiky Club Open (England) - 22 Players
Italian Open 2011 (Italy) - 22 Players
Rocket Bowl III - The Third Stage (England) - 34 Players
Valencia Masterbowl 2011 (Spain) - 48 Players
Bunker Bowl II (England) - 30 Players
Von Drakenburgs Mitternachtsturnier (Germany) - 22 Players
NDC 2011 (Normandie Dragon's Cup) (France) - 38 Players
Desert Trophy III (Spain) - 28 Players
DragonBowl IV (France) - 8 Players
KlingenCon XXXIII (Germany) - 36 Players
Ambowl II (France) - 30 Players
Baden Basho 2011 (Germany) - 18 Players
The Autumn 1 dayer (England) - 8 Players
World Cup II (Netherlands) - 480 Players
Ain Pact VII (France) - 22 Players
Catenaccio Bowl (IX edition) (Spain) - 44 Players
SOAP night 2011 (France) - 24 Players
Cambridge Double Trouble (England) - 28 Players
Tilean Cup 2011 (Italy) - 20 Players
Txipiroi Bowl IV edition (Spain) - 16 Players
Brassbowl IX (Belgium) - 40 Players
Brewerz Bowl (England) - 16 Players
NABOT 2011 (France) - 30 Players
MadBowl '11 (Spain) - 62 Players


Europe still kicking butt!
Doubleskulls - Feb 02, 2012 - 01:49 AM
Post subject:
      zootsuitjeff wrote:
You can call it realistic. I call it thinking small. I belong to the "if you build it they will come" camp. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm just trying to make it clear that not everyone in NA has the same opinion you guys do.


I think you are right. A good bid from North America would probably get over 100 inter-continental coaches going. There are about 30 Aussies who would go for a starter (since it doesn't matter to them), and then you are only asking 20% of the Europeans who attended WC2 to fly. Given there are over 50 at both majors I'd hope a World Cup could double that number of locals - making 200 a realistic goal. I for one would think that's a very competitive position against a 500 person European WC.
Doubleskulls - Feb 02, 2012 - 01:58 AM
Post subject:
@generaljason - The WC in European attracted about three times as many coaches as the next largest tournament - which if repeated would give you 150-200 local coaches plus ~100 intercontinental travellers.

Given the difficultly of travelling long distances to play I suspect you'd get an even bigger multiplier an more of those who don't normally attend tournaments going too.
Darkson - Feb 02, 2012 - 02:00 AM
Post subject:
Just to point out the touney numbers only include NAF coaches that played another NAF coch. Not sure it makes any difference, but just for completion. Wink
generaljason - Feb 02, 2012 - 02:06 AM
Post subject:
      Darkson wrote:
Just to point out the touney numbers only include NAF coaches that played another NAF coch. Not sure it makes any difference, but just for completion. Wink


Oh I know - I had to look at some later rounds just to see if there were odd numbers so I could guess-ti-mate the total number. Smile

      zootsuitjeff wrote:
I'll say it once again, I don't think sheer numbers should be the only consideration. If it is then you win, but I don't agree. I also tend to think that you would prefer to attend a WC in Europe rather than NA because you are from NA. Logically it stands to reason that the majority of European NAF members would ideally like to attend a WC outside of Europe. Since the majority of NAF members are from Europe, that would be an argument for holding it outside of Europe.


Except like everybody else they would rather play tournaments in their own backyard - especially since everyone in Europe is close and flights are cheap. I couldn't even get Greyhound in North America as cheap as the distance they would be able to fly in Europe. Like I said, they have at least 8 strong Blood Bowl Nations over there that are tightly nit together, whereas we have about 4-5 hotspots on opposite ends of the continent. Now if they were all beside each other and the central part of the continent did not exist we'd be in better shape. Also if West and East did more cross travelling to our own existing singles competitions rather than about 98% within driving distance I'd take total numbers from North America more seriously.

As for my travelling preferences to Europe: I'm European, have a lot of relatives there, and I'm a history major, meaning Europe is a lot more interesting to me then let's say Winnipeg or Delaware - and that would go for European residents as well I think.

Look man all I'm just saying is that until we catch up in numbers, and our current large tournaments actually start getting some serious cross travelling within North America I don't think we're ready to host the World Cup yet.
Darkson - Feb 02, 2012 - 03:47 AM
Post subject:
As aBrit, I've always wanted to go to Oz and the US. :p Wink
generaljason - Feb 02, 2012 - 03:49 AM
Post subject:
Yeah and I've always wanted to go to the moon Simon. Wink
Glamdryn - Feb 02, 2012 - 07:29 AM
Post subject:
This is a dumb argument. There will be bids from the states along with bids from Europe and most likely Australia. Let's just let the bids speak for themselves.

I am confident a World Cup in any country will break the 200 participant barrier and that is all that participation should factor into it.
generaljason - Feb 02, 2012 - 01:38 PM
Post subject:
      Glamdryn wrote:
This is a dumb argument. There will be bids from the states along with bids from Europe and most likely Australia. Let's just let the bids speak for themselves.

I am confident a World Cup in any country will break the 200 participant barrier and that is all that participation should factor into it.


You can't be that dismissive to a discussion when the question of the thread was - whether we should automatically move the World Cup every 8 years out of Europe just so we placate North America? No. Stupid argument? This is a stupid thread.

And why, because unlike many of the dismissive and diluted I'm not ignoring the math. At this moment in time Europe will always put on a bigger and better event. So even if I back up that point I'm not allowed to make it? Just close the friggen thread then.

<deep breath> No North American tournament has ever broken the 70-player mark. That's because even the big ones, namely the Spike!, Chaos Cup, Zlurpee Bowl and Gencon get over 90% of their participants within driving distance. Yet once we put those numbers into some fanciful World Cup Equation then bada bing bada boom we suddenly have 150-200 locals suddenly willing to travel and participate. Sorry dude but I'm just not getting there - you'll have to break down the formula for me.

Also. How is North America suppose to have 150-200 participants all on it's own anyway when the maximum number of teams per country even last year for France was 8? Canada and US had 4 each max last year, and even if you increased that to 8 each and instead of 8 total, that's still only 96 eligible players - nowhere near 150-200 coaches.

Again guys don't hate me - all I'm doing is the extrapolations and not subscribing to the "I think I can I think I can" camp. I'd be the first to want to see a World Cup here on North American soil provided we had some solid proven numbers to make it a success.

Anybody who has broken even the 50-coach mark at an NA tournament please feel free to post. If we can supposedly attract 150-200 coaches within NA very easily then I guess North America doesn't have one TO that apparently knows what he's doing. By the way I don't believe that so let's not go off on a tangent about that.

Look - in order to get a 200+ event in North America something would have to happen that has never happened in the history of tournament play before. Scores of people would have to travel transcontinentally and transatlantically to attend a Blood Bowl tournament. Even in the last 2 years of hosting World Cup this happened 3 times in 2007 right (AU,AU,USA), and just 5 times in 2011 (USA, CDN, AU, AU, AU)?. Last year that's 30 people. You expect Europe to triple or quintiple that then you are asking them to do something that most North Americans aren't even willing to do themselves (I did try). Such a turn of events would be dramatic, and so it should not be casually brushed over like it was the norm.

When North America uses ALL their World Cup tickets in 2015, sends 4 teams from Canada and 4 teams from the USA and we're still chomping at the bit for more than we might be getting some where.

but yeah, silly thread. Big no imho (for now). Like you said I also have no problems with any club from anywhere trying to put in a bid to host the World Cup, as long as that bid is based on tangibles and not sentiment. All I'm doing is arguing against the idea to make it an automatic process (title of the thread) that it must move no matter what.

Anyway some of you guys are taking this way too much to heart, like I just enlightened you to the truth about Santa Claus. I don't mean to be the harbinger, nor do I want to be, but just trying to present the facts before some people start getting carried away.

Respectfully,
Gj.
Glamdryn - Feb 02, 2012 - 01:49 PM
Post subject:
North American tournaments have not broken the 100 player mark, truth.

The World Cup in North America would break the 200 player mark because (wild speculation) it is the World Cup.

I won't fly out to the West Coast for Spike, but I would fly out to the West Coast for the World Cup and I think a lot of other coaches in North America feel the same way. I think that is the "If You Build It, They Will Come" logic.

Bid trumps wild speculation.
generaljason - Feb 02, 2012 - 01:54 PM
Post subject:
      Glamdryn wrote:
North American tournaments have not broken the 100 player mark, truth.

The World Cup in North America would break the 200 player mark because (wild speculation) it is the World Cup.

I won't fly out to the West Coast for Spike, but I would fly out to the West Coast for the World Cup and I think a lot of other coaches in North America feel the same way. I think that is the "If You Build It, They Will Come" logic.

Bid trumps wild speculation.


then why don't they go to Europe? East to West is nearly the same price as East to Europe? Problem is "if you build it, most will watch it from their tv."

And you won't fly out to Spike!? Your just proving my point. If British Columbia, Washington State, Oregon and LA were right beside Chicago, Ontario, Quebec, Indiana and New York, just like the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, Italy, France, Switzerland, Spain, Sweden, Belgium, Austria and the UK were you probably would. Like me you'd probably hit every local tournament if North America was hooked up like that. But were not.
Glamdryn - Feb 02, 2012 - 02:35 PM
Post subject:
      generaljason wrote:
      Glamdryn wrote:
North American tournaments have not broken the 100 player mark, truth.

The World Cup in North America would break the 200 player mark because (wild speculation) it is the World Cup.

I won't fly out to the West Coast for Spike, but I would fly out to the West Coast for the World Cup and I think a lot of other coaches in North America feel the same way. I think that is the "If You Build It, They Will Come" logic.

Bid trumps wild speculation.


then why don't they go to Europe? East to West is nearly the same price as East to Europe? Problem is "if you build it, most will watch it from their tv."

And you won't fly out to Spike!? Your just proving my point. If British Columbia, Washington State, Oregon and LA were right beside Chicago, Ontario, Quebec, Indiana and New York, just like the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, Italy, France, Switzerland, Spain, Sweden, Belgium, Austria and the UK were you probably would. Like me you'd probably hit every local tournament if North America was hooked up like that. But were not.


I will be disappointed if a superior bid/venue loses out to a weaker bid/venue simply because of it (the superior bid/venue) being located in North America, which is what you are pushing.
generaljason - Feb 02, 2012 - 04:09 PM
Post subject:
If the superior/bid venue loses out to a weaker/bid venue I will be disappointed.

Suggesting that if any World Cup is ever held on North American soil, regardless of whether it also happened to be the superior/bid venue that year would disappoint me is retarded.

Right now North America is not the superior/bid venue, and not by the longest shot. When it is, and only when it is, should the WC move to North America for a year.

I think my position is pretty clear so you don't need to put words in my mouth.
Phil78 - Feb 02, 2012 - 04:09 PM
Post subject:
Totally off topic but "Albabowl 2011 (England)"

Hoomin will be raging Very Happy
Sebco - Feb 02, 2012 - 04:25 PM
Post subject:
A bit off topic too, but you wrote "Bowl des Neiges VIII (France) - 38 players" for 2011. It surprised me as we were 64 players and most of them were NAF. I looked on the NAF results website and it is said we were 49 NAF players. It seems to me that it is really nearer from the truth. Wink

[and yes, I know, it doesn't really change your demonstration, but I saw that by accident and couldn't resist to intervene in this topic]
generaljason - Feb 02, 2012 - 04:58 PM
Post subject:
      Sebco wrote:
A bit off topic too, but you wrote "Bowl des Neiges VIII (France) - 38 players" for 2011. It surprised me as we were 64 players and most of them were NAF. I looked on the NAF results website and it is said we were 49 NAF players. It seems to me that it is really nearer from the truth. Wink

[and yes, I know, it doesn't really change your demonstration, but I saw that by accident and couldn't resist to intervene in this topic]


weird, but looking at so many and doing a lot of copying and pasting I most have mistyped. Fixed. Done. Thanks for the update. Very Happy

      Phil78 wrote:
Totally off topic but "Albabowl 2011 (England)"

Hoomin will be raging Very Happy


It's in there man, right after Schnitzelbowl 2011. Albabowl 2011 (England) - 16 players. Hoomin will be fine. Wink
daloonieshaman - Feb 02, 2012 - 05:14 PM
Post subject:
NA WC 2015 those of us really willing to run it do not see it to be logical.
2019 there is no reason why NA will not win the bid.

point 1. in NA there will be no restriction on the number of players from any country.

point 2. we will have 2+ NATC under our belt

point 3. with the current growth of the tournament scene we will be able to field over 100 in 7 years

point 4. GJ stop being an arse, you spoke your peace.

point 5. In 7 years regular big event attendance should average 120, if we do what we are suppose to.

point 6. NA NAF membership is currently at an all time high, figure the current growth compared to the next 7 years
zootsuitjeff - Feb 02, 2012 - 05:29 PM
Post subject:
      generaljason wrote:


Right now North America is not the superior/bid venue, and not by the longest shot. When it is, and only when it is, should the WC move to North America for a year.

See it's when you make declarations like this, I am bothered by it. I think I understand your position and you are entitled to it, but I think a lot of the criteria for what is the "best" venue is subjective and based on what factors you are considering. You seem to argue that past attendance numbers should be the only factor in determining what is best, I think other factors should be included, including a factor for considering that the WC should ideally move around the world. I can agree to disagree with you on what criteria we should be using to determine what the best venue is. But please don't make these declarative statements presuming that we have to use the criteria that you prefer to use.

Hopefully a NATC event next year can be successful and the numbers we are talking about will be somewhat different.
Phil78 - Feb 02, 2012 - 05:52 PM
Post subject:
generaljason, i know it's in the list. But trust me, it's not in England.
generaljason - Feb 02, 2012 - 06:39 PM
Post subject:
      Phil78 wrote:
generaljason, i know it's in the list. But trust me, it's not in England.


Opps. Didn't see Edinburgh. Damn picky Scots. Wink Fixed. Very Happy

      daloonieshaman wrote:


point 4. GJ stop being an arse, you spoke your peace.


Dennis I don't characterize any of your posts with this kind of bs so I'd appreciate if you did the same. It's a character assassination - read me posts: none of them attack the reader but attack the point. Please try to do the same in future.

As for 'speaking my peace', the way the internet works is if you keep talking to me I'm going to keep responding. Best way to get anybody to go away is to stop talking to them. If your super bid for 1,000 players+ in a NA WC pans out what do you care if I present math to you?

      zootsuitjeff wrote:

See it's when you make declarations like this, I am bothered by it. I think I understand your position and you are entitled to it, but I think a lot of the criteria for what is the "best" venue is subjective and based on what criteria you are using. You seem to argue that past attendance numbers should be the only factor in determining what is best, I think other factors should be included, including a factor for considering that the WC should ideally move around the world. I can agree to disagree with you on what criteria we should be using to determine what the best venue is. But please don't make these declarative statements presuming that we have to use the criteria that you prefer to use.

Hopefully a NATC event next year can be successful and the numbers we are talking about will be somewhat different.


What I'm bothered about is how some guys on here can gloss over, so casually, what getting 150-200 coaches really means in North America. Especially when many of the guys presenting the arguments have not broken the 30-coach mark in North America at their own tournaments. And that's not a knock but unfortunately another reality. So yeah if it sounds to me like some of the guys are talking out their ass then I'm going to call them on it.

"Declarative statements presuming that we have to use the criteria I prefer you to use." ??? Where does that come from? I stated my opinion as a BB TO who happens to reside in NA - I don't speak for North America so why would you take my posts as declarations of any kind?

As for it's the World Cup so it's gotta move around - this is a fluff based declaration that one only uses as a catch-all when reality and math cannot save it. People from around the world participate in it every 4 years so it's already lived up to it's namesake and fluff imho.

And no - I don't think numbers should be the only factor, but again it's the main factor and again should not be easily panned over for fluff based reasons but for a solid bid. 200+ in my honest opinion is a solid bid - anything less is charity for WC, and no it doesn't have to always be 480 coaches in my mind. When solid bids that are not based on affirmative action and fluff can be presented to bring the WC to North America then I'll agree with you.

Can guys stop talking about how fricking easy it'll be please? It's like you're planning on building an epicentre where all you've done before is houses with popsicle sticks. It's the cocky attitude with nothing to back it up that bothers me, and it'll compel a response out of me every time. Until somebody in North America runs a truly stratospheric event then treat 150-200 coaches with the respect it deserves.
zootsuitjeff - Feb 02, 2012 - 07:03 PM
Post subject:
Im not saying it will be easy. But that doesn't mean I'm not going to try. I'm done with this thread.
daloonieshaman - Feb 02, 2012 - 07:20 PM
Post subject:
      zootsuitjeff wrote:
Im not saying it will be easy. But that doesn't mean I'm not going to try. I'm done with this thread.

+1
generaljason - Feb 02, 2012 - 07:30 PM
Post subject:
      zootsuitjeff wrote:
Im not saying it will be easy. But that doesn't mean I'm not going to try. I'm done with this thread.


I never said you said that it would be easy. While I was talking to you the comment wasn't directed at you.

As for trying, go for it, nobody is stopping you least of all me. Very Happy
Jonny_P - Feb 02, 2012 - 07:58 PM
Post subject:
Earlier, GJ asked for opinion of TOs who have gotten 50+. That's me.

My heart would love to see the World Cup in North America.

My brain (albeit lacking a lot of cells) tells me it will be VERY difficult to pull off successfully. Not impossible however.

A North American WC2015 bid is not something I'm interested in at all, but I encourage others in NA with the drive to try and put something together.

I get what GJ is saying.... and I share much of those opinions. But I also wouldn't mind if someone proved it wrong either.

My job is to keep kicking ass on the Chaos Cup and hit 75+ this year.

GJ's job is to keep kicking ass on the Spike and hit 75+ this year.

Let the World Cup committee decide whose job it is to kick ass with the World Cup in three years.

And yea... three years. Shaman, are we really talking 2019 right now? Hoverboards man. Hoverboards.
SolarFlare - Feb 03, 2012 - 07:55 AM
Post subject:
Here's my 2 cents.

The bidding is a problem. Uncertainty over who will be able to attend is a problem. Calling it a "World Cup" is a problem.

I think this process does nothing but split the community.

If you want to host a tournament, then host it. If you want to call it a World Cup, then whatever. If I am able to attend, I'll be happy to play some games and have a few drinks afterward.

But the bidding and the uncertainty leads to fussing. Which, to me, is not fun.
blammaham - Feb 03, 2012 - 08:35 AM
Post subject:
@ Jeff and Dennis,

Your right that numbers aren't the only measure of success but I think they are a part of it, I'm speaking to the overall experience of the event where numbers, games, socializing, and all the other aspects are a success too.

It is critically important to know what you are in this world, and our tournament scene is IMO in it's infancy. Maybe, as you say Dennis, in the time that the WC is to come to NA our situation will have changed and grown to the point where we will know that it will be a success, not just think that it wil be.

I say let's get a couple of NATC's under our belts over here to see if we can get NA coaches to be more willing to travel to events, especially ones on the opposite coast from where they are located. To me that is what we will have to happen before we can have a successful WC on our shores.

Jeff your work with the WC grand prix is a fantastic tool to start, when I was looking at it though I did notice that most people have not been traveling to tournaments and we need to see if coaches will do that at some point.

I'm certainly not trying to rain on anyone's parade rather to issue my personal reservations on having an event of this magnitude and profile before we are ready. S.
Warpstone - Feb 03, 2012 - 01:55 PM
Post subject:
Not being a TO, it's interesting to see this from the outside. I don't actually think Craig, Jeff and Dennis are actually that far apart except for timing.

JP actually sums it up nicely for me: the infrastructure for our domestic Blood Bowl scene still needs a fair amount of work.

Really guys, even FIFA doesn't just expect the World Cup to be a success in a vacuum. Before a country gets the World Cup nod, it hosts a few smaller events and eventually the Confederations Cup as a "proof of concept" before taking on the big show.

That should be the key to an eventual World Cup held in North America. The vetting process should also be an infrastructure building process. In this sense, it's a win-win scenario as even if we don't win a WC bid we at least get to have a much stronger domestic environment. North American Championship? Great idea, and certainly a stepping stone to eventually hosting a WC.

All I'm saying is that getting to a World Cup is a process, and that the NA TOs have to plug away at a fair amount things (league engagement, NAF registration, regular tournament attendance) to overcome our significant geographic challenges.

P.S. pledges of attendance are basically meaningless until people start putting nonrefundable money down to pre-reg. I desperately want to go to Quake and Chaos Cup, but until I actually do, my 2 cents about my commitment to travel for anything is worth exactly that to Dennis or JP regarding their tournies.
daloonieshaman - Feb 03, 2012 - 03:00 PM
Post subject:
      Warpstone wrote:

P.S. pledges of attendance are basically meaningless until people start putting nonrefundable money down to pre-reg. I desperately want to go to Quake and Chaos Cup, but until I actually do, my 2 cents about my commitment to travel for anything is worth exactly that to Dennis or JP regarding their tournies.

lol
If half the people came to events that say they are or they will then heck we would have numbers close to 100 at them.
millandson - Feb 03, 2012 - 03:44 PM
Post subject:
Just to point out, those figures for 2011 are missing out a couple of tourneys, including the NAF Championship, which, to my knowledge, had around 200 people attending, and you had to sign up to NAF as part of going (from what I remember).

If Europe can pull off tourneys like that every yea, but the US can't do even one that big... that's sort of a negative against the US being able to pull off something of that size even if it is called the World Cup.

If the US can prove it can pull off events of that size, then they'll be in a strong position to bid for the World Cup. Until then, Europe is the better bet by far for the quality of the event, and the quantity of coaches attending.
generaljason - Feb 03, 2012 - 03:54 PM
Post subject:
      millandson wrote:
Just to point out, those figures for 2011 are missing out a couple of tourneys, including the NAF Championship, which, to my knowledge, had around 200 people attending, and you had to sign up to NAF as part of going (from what I remember).


The NAF Championship is in there for European tournaments I listed for 2011. It actually had 188 coaches last year. Friggen huge. But yeah it must be my accent or something, over here we pronounce it as the Blood Bowl. Wink

As for other missing tournaments to that 2011 list, I noticed that quite a few European tournaments did not have NAF games entered compared to the 2008 list that I did so I didn't count them as I had now idea who attended.
Darkson - Feb 03, 2012 - 11:49 PM
Post subject:
(Off-topic, PM is fine!)
      Warpstone wrote:
Really guys, even FIFA doesn't just expect the World Cup to be a success in a vacuum. Before a country gets the World Cup nod, it hosts a few smaller events and eventually the Confederations Cup as a "proof of concept" before taking on the big show.

Just because I'm interested (stupid things like this set me inquiring Embarassed ) what did the US hold before the '94 World Cup? My Google- and Wiki- fu are letting me down.
Warpstone - Feb 04, 2012 - 01:56 AM
Post subject:
      Darkson wrote:
(Off-topic, PM is fine!)
      Warpstone wrote:
Really guys, even FIFA doesn't just expect the World Cup to be a success in a vacuum. Before a country gets the World Cup nod, it hosts a few smaller events and eventually the Confederations Cup as a "proof of concept" before taking on the big show.

Just because I'm interested (stupid things like this set me inquiring Embarassed ) what did the US hold before the '94 World Cup? My Google- and Wiki- fu are letting me down.


PM sent.

BTW, the fact that FIFA abandoned this method for the World Cup in Qatar is exactly why that bid is considered so ridiculous. Rolling Eyes
Joemanji - Feb 04, 2012 - 11:21 AM
Post subject:
It makes no sense to hold it outside of Europe. That is where the vast majority of tournament going coaches are, and it is geographically compact enough that they can all reach wherever it is held. The USA is not on a comparable scale to Europe. A WC in America would not be in America, it would be in Chicago or Las Vegas ... for all intents and purposes still a plane ride away for most Americans. Whereas the French/German/Spanish/English can drive or get a train to anywhere in Europe.

It would also halve the turnout at least, although there would likely still be more Europeans there than non-Europeans.
Darkson - Feb 04, 2012 - 11:52 AM
Post subject:
      Joemanji wrote:
It would also halve the turnout at least, although there would likely still be more Europeans there than non-Europeans.

And where is it written that numbers are the be all and end all?
Hardly a "World" Cup if it's never going to leave Europe.
Deathwing - Feb 04, 2012 - 12:35 PM
Post subject:
I think what is quite a pertinent question is what a WC with 200+ coaches would do for the tournament scene in NA? Would there be any long term benefits to the NA tourney scene by getting more NA coaches together in one place than ever before in terms of creating and strengthening bonds?

Very open to debate, but it's a factor worth consideration and discussion IMO.
daloonieshaman - Feb 04, 2012 - 12:47 PM
Post subject:
Make it simple
Since prominent people feel that big numbers are important, and that currently most of the concentration of the numbers are in Europe lets get rid of false advertising.
As Some do not want it to be a WC change it to the Euro Union Bowl.
Also while they are talking numbers lets make the minimum 800 players because 400ish is not enough. 400 is just as petty a number as 200
phish why even have it at all , it is nothing but an unimportant game.

some of you guys have no clue
Deathwing - Feb 04, 2012 - 12:47 PM
Post subject:
      generaljason wrote:

then why don't they go to Europe? East to West is nearly the same price as East to Europe?


How does West to Europe compare?

Just for discussion, do you think this has any relevance?

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-02-04/travel/americans.travel.domestically_1_western-hemisphere-travel-initiative-passports-tourism-industries?_s=PM:TRAVEL
daloonieshaman - Feb 04, 2012 - 12:58 PM
Post subject:
      Deathwing wrote:
      generaljason wrote:

then why don't they go to Europe? East to West is nearly the same price as East to Europe?


How does West to Europe compare?

Just for discussion, do you think this has any relevance?

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-02-04/travel/americans.travel.domestically_1_western-hemisphere-travel-initiative-passports-tourism-industries?_s=PM:TRAVEL


Not that I understand your question but
a lot of Americans do not travel for several reasons
They tend to live where they enjoy the surroundings
there is a shitload of stuff to see and do within a short ride
(Los Angeles in a single day you can, Surf, Ski, Dirt Bike, Go to a theme park, catch a professional sports game)
Most Americans feel that travel outside america is special and do it very few times in their life.
Others are quite content with the area they are in and do not need to travel.

BUT>>>>

We will travel to hell and back for our personal interest. (Take traveling across the country for a freaking football game) (various trade/hobby shows) (you know what % of Californians were at Comic con Last Year? 42.7% and by all means most of those were from more that 100 miles away.
daloonieshaman - Feb 04, 2012 - 01:06 PM
Post subject:
      Deathwing wrote:
I think what is quite a pertinent question is what a WC with 200+ coaches would do for the tournament scene in NA? Would there be any long term benefits to the NA tourney scene by getting more NA coaches together in one place than ever before in terms of creating and strengthening bonds?

Very open to debate, but it's a factor worth consideration and discussion IMO.


No DW that is not the question.
The question is: "How do we make the WC the best BB event for those attending regardless of location or attendance."

Best form of advertising is word of mouth.

I have not heard more than "It was cool, Had a good time, Italians a freaking nuts, Amsterdam was nice, Tom cussed like a sailor.
I am sure some people put up cool pictures. but I would have to search high and low to dig some up.

so far where is?:
The pre-event advertising (some little thread in an obscure forum)
The live advertising (web sites, podcast? ....)
Post advertising? (obscure web forum, maybe a lost post about someone putting up pictures?

you tell me
Jonny_P - Feb 04, 2012 - 02:07 PM
Post subject:
Great article Deathwing... lots of good points in there.

I myself have only been to Canada and Mexico, and some islands that I think the US owns but don't remember much except lots of drinks and beaches.

I really do want to go to Europe one day. If I can swing a two week vacation there with my wife, and have it occur during a World Cup there, it would be truly amazing.

As a US NAF coach since 2003 and Tournament Organizer since 2006, I can honestly say I would prefer if the World Cup was not in America in 2015. I don't think we are ready to take on such an endeavor.

To me, the term "Blood Bowl World Cup" doesn't mean the location has to travel the world. It means crazy fanatical coaches from all over the world will flock to this event and have an unbelievable time!

I should stop there. But...

To all the North American coaches out there who want a World Cup here, you really need to ask yourself if it's for selfish reasons or not.

If the reason is, "I'll never go to Europe to play Blood Bowl, so let's just have it here so I can attend a World Cup", then I'm glad you are not involved in the World Cup decision making process.

It's not about being selfish. It's about having the best possible experience for this global Blood Bowl organization.

Think about others for a change.

And all this coming from the egotistical Main Guy! Wink
Doubleskulls - Feb 04, 2012 - 02:11 PM
Post subject:
      millandson wrote:
Just to point out, those figures for 2011 are missing out a couple of tourneys, including the NAF Championship, which, to my knowledge, had around 200 people attending, and you had to sign up to NAF as part of going (from what I remember).

If Europe can pull off tourneys like that every yea, but the US can't do even one that big... that's sort of a negative against the US being able to pull off something of that size even if it is called the World Cup.

If the US can prove it can pull off events of that size, then they'll be in a strong position to bid for the World Cup. Until then, Europe is the better bet by far for the quality of the event, and the quantity of coaches attending.


Europe's got nearly four times as many coaches in a small fraction of the space. Getting big regular tournaments is about density. The world cup got about 3 times as many as next largest tournament, which would give the US/Canada about 150 coaches.
daloonieshaman - Feb 04, 2012 - 04:06 PM
Post subject:
how many where in attendance in 2007(I think it was 7)? Wink

So by your reckoning because it is about quantity (and % wise quality) that Spike and Chaos Cup do not hold muster and thus should not be held in NA?

and by no means do I think US should bid for the WC in 2015 we are still working some bugs out for our own NA event. But for 2019 we should kick ass in a bid despite the fact of a smaller attendance. Besides, it would not be a "local" tournament as the WC is today.
poundfist - Feb 04, 2012 - 05:05 PM
Post subject:
Dalooniehaman:

      Quote:
"you know what % of Californians were at Comic con Last Year? 42.7% and by all means most of those were from more that 100 miles away."


This is not true. Comic-Con has an annual attendance these days of about 125 Thousand. California has a population of about 35 Million. If everyone who attended Comic Con were from California, then less than 1/3 of 1 percent of Californians attended Comic Con.

If what you meant to say was "42.7 percent of Comic Con attendants were from California," in order to point out that 57.3 percent of the event's attendants traveled to be there, then there are some details missing from your report:

1) how many of the 57.3% came from Utah, Oregon, Nevada, and other local areas?;
2) what percentage (this is the most relevant) of these attendants came from Europe and Australia?;

and finally

3) to what extent did 40 years of international media coverage affect these numbers?

      Quote:
So by your reckoning because it is about quantity (and % wise quality) that Spike and Chaos Cup do not hold muster and thus should not be held in NA?


This does not follow. In fact I can't even make any sense of it. Is it a joke?

The World Cup argument goes like this:

1. There is a quota system regarding coach attendance at the World Cup. This year, there was a maximum allowance of 48 Coaches from North America (Ultimately, 12 made the trip). If we take it for granted that a North American event will attract 48 North American coaches, then the success of any North American event is irrelevant. Of course a North American event will attract that many coaches, and turn away many others. Therefore the World Cup could be held in Vancouver, it could be held in Chicago, it could be held in Indianapolis, and based on past numbers it would draw the quota of North American coaches.

2. The average flight from a European city to a North American destination is about $1000. The average flight from a European city to a European destination is about $150. This year there was much debate in the NAF World Cup thread as to whether the event ticket was overpriced at 111 Euros.

3. The suspicion is not that a North American event will not draw enough North American participants. It is that it will not draw enough European participants.

By your point cited above, if you can show that of the more than half of Comic Con participants that came from outside California, if even 1% of those came from Europe, and they came only for Comic-Con, you will have made the argument that Comic Con does not draw a significant number of International participants and that it cannot be considered a successful INTERNATIONAL event. This does not prove that it is not a successful EVENT.

Therefore, The Chaos Cup and the Spike, while successful events, are not successful international events. I would not hold them up in comparison with the Amsterdam NAF World Cup.

Everything you say about advertising and promotion is spot-on, of course, except that I have to disagree with you regarding the importance of attendance numbers. Of course numbers matter, and this is why every large event boasts of its numbers. I can tell you that Comic Con had 125000 this year because it's right there on the Comic-Con home page. This recent World Cup had 480 coaches. If you held the swankest and best advertised World Cup in the history of Blood Bowl, and people were talking about it for weeks afterward, and it had 90 coaches, and 60 of them were from the United States, that event would be a failure. You can say that numbers are not everything, but you can't argue that numbers don't matter at all.
daloonieshaman - Feb 04, 2012 - 07:41 PM
Post subject:
Ironically:
It is a world cup because people from all over the world may come. Screw that logic people form around the world can go to 99.5% of the events currently held

It is the world cup because it gets lots of people. Funny thing is it got less than 2x the '07 numbers and slightly more than twice the up coming Blood Bowl (ohh he said a dirty word) *which is limited by finite space.

The Chaos Cup (I am not sure about Spike) Received more Travelers than the WCII % wise. (So where is the pull there)

All the distention about making the WC more than a local event (granted a large one) is bunk.

Other events get more travelers by %.

It barely grew in numbers compared to overall registration from WC to WCII.
It barely has moved around Europe and relatively will not travel far for such a "important" event.

Why would more that a few % want to even go to the WC in Europe when it is indicated that only a few % want to travel out
Jonny_P - Feb 04, 2012 - 09:30 PM
Post subject:
      daloonieshaman wrote:
by no means do I think US should bid for the WC in 2015

Hey Dennis, just curious.... if I read your above statement correctly, what exactly is the point you are arguing for in this thread?

Are you arguing in your spare time? Wink


Xtreme - Feb 04, 2012 - 10:46 PM
Post subject:
      daloonieshaman wrote:
      zootsuitjeff wrote:
I'm done with this thread.

+1

Liar.
daloonieshaman - Feb 04, 2012 - 11:56 PM
Post subject:
      Xtreme wrote:
      daloonieshaman wrote:
      zootsuitjeff wrote:
I'm done with this thread.

+1

Liar.

pants on fire
Jonny, no idea. I haven't taken my meds the last 2-3 days
magictobe - Feb 05, 2012 - 12:51 AM
Post subject:
Just an idea.

First my 2cents.
Do numbers count. I think it does. A world cup with over 400 coaches is more a WC then a WC with 200 coaches.

Is it fair that travelling coaches has to carry all costs to travel to the world cup? No. The costs are and will always be for the same coaches.


IDEA
Let's charge an extra 10-15 euro for the european coaches to be devided under the non european coaches to compensate for travelling costs.

I don't know what the amount of non european coaches was compared to the european but I can expect a ratio of 10-1. So a non european coach could get to 100 (150) euro. It will not carry all costs but it would show some solidarity and also European coaches would still have to pay for their own travelling cost)

I would be willing to pay that extra fee because I know that I am lucky that world cup is in Europe. Do I want to pay the extra to make it easier for the travelling coaches? HELL YEAH. I am willing to pay the extra amount to play an american coach then again against the average European coach

In this case the travelling expenses will be cheapest for the total of the WC and they are (more then before) devided amongst all coaches.

It will be more expensive to get +350 coaches to the states then +50 (or even 100) coaches from the states to Europe.

Travelling cost is such an issue in comparison to FIFA WC because their travelling cost is carried by country communities. We, bloodbowl players, are individuals who have to carry their own travelling costs (spoilled soccer players )

Everybody is talking about only 400 places but if venue was bigger then there would have been more participants. Maybe we could have gone to 600 (ask Pako Rolling Eyes Wink ) Would there still be a comparison to a 200 coaches WC in the US?
poundfist - Feb 05, 2012 - 01:30 AM
Post subject:
It is a "world cup" because international attendance is managed with a quota system. Coaches from around the world are invited, yes, but not all may come. For instance, some European teams this year were turned away because the quotas were met for their countries.

North America has two countries with active Blood Bowl participation. For the event to be successful, it would require travelers from numerous European destinations. Europe has dozens of countries. For the event to be considered a success, it would also require travelers from these various countries. This travel is cheap, and the countries are numerous, so getting these numbers is relatively easy. It would create a story if a significant number of coaches arrived from North America, New Zealand and Australia, but even if those countries had no representation, the event would still have enough teams to be considered a success.

If Europeans did not attend a North American event (2 countries), then the quota system would need to be removed, or there would be sporadic attendance. For an Australian/New Zealand event (2 countries) to be a success, again more people would need to spend money to travel. I would love to go to a World Cup at a North American destination, and I have faith that dozens of North American coaches would love to attend. But for the thing to be any good, it would need more than 200 European coaches to attend (that would be 30-or-so teams). I would like to hear from 200+ European coaches who would make the trip before I started trying to compare the Amsterdam World Cup with the Chaos Cup or the Spike.
Doubleskulls - Feb 06, 2012 - 12:53 AM
Post subject:
The quota system is only in place to allocate spaces in the event the World Cup is oversubscribed. You don't need it otherwise.
Deathwing - Feb 06, 2012 - 11:28 AM
Post subject:
      daloonieshaman wrote:
      Deathwing wrote:
I think what is quite a pertinent question is what a WC with 200+ coaches would do for the tournament scene in NA? Would there be any long term benefits to the NA tourney scene by getting more NA coaches together in one place than ever before in terms of creating and strengthening bonds?

Very open to debate, but it's a factor worth consideration and discussion IMO.


No DW that is not the question.


No, it's not "the question". I said "quite a pertinent" question, "open to debate" and "a factor worth consideration/discussion IMO".

What on earth has your reply got to do with anything I wrote? Why would you bother to quote it and then rant on about something unrelated to my post?

Let's try again. Points for discussion, not any kind of argument or even my own points of view, other than that I think they are factors worth considering.
If there was to be a WC in NA, would that be a positive catalyst to the NA tourney scene with lasting benefits to the NA NAF community?
Going further, could a greater mix of European/NA coaches than has ever been achieved before bring any benefits to the worldwide NAF community and do some good towards breaking down what some may see as grand isolationism?

I don't know (hence asking for discussions/opinions), but if there's positive answers to either of the above questions, then I think it becomes a relevant factor. If the answer(s) are no, it would be simply be a one-off event and afterwards everything would revert to how it was before, then it's obviously not a factor at all.

There are other imponderable questions outside of pure strength of bid and biggest numbers. Simply trying to throw one into the discussion mix.
Deathwing - Feb 06, 2012 - 04:39 PM
Post subject:
Just touching on the numbers a little:
I'm not certain we can assume an ever increasing line on the graph based on 2 WCs. I've said this before, but the deciding factor for my vote for the WCII location was accessibility and strong international (and relatively cheap) transport links. Although there were (a relatively small amount after the organisers extra efforts) coaches who couldn't be squeezed in, I don't believe the other bids would have drawn as much interest purely because of location.
(Perhaps, with the benefit of hindsight, it would have been better to have had perhaps 400 to 450? (pure conjecture on my part) in a less accessible location with everybody who wanted to attend being able to.) Amsterdam was a double edged sword in some ways...there's an inherent danger in extrapolating numbers for WCIII based on WCI and II...

Apologies...I got waaay off-topic there...I guess the point was that if we had, say 420, demand satisfied and everybody accommodated in 2011 (which I think is entirely plausible if another bid had won), then perhaps the conjecture for 600 next time wouldn't be bandied around so much. That would put a different light on things.

My gut feelings? If WCIII was held in NA in an accessible inter-continental location you would still have more Europeans travelling to it than you have had NA coaches together to date. With the right promotion 200-250 would be possible I think. That would huge for NA and I personally would that see as a great success. But I can see that 2015 may be perceived as too soon by some.

In principle, I would love to see the WC travel. A NA WC with perhaps a 45% NA : 45% Euro : 10% OZ/NZ ratio I think could be seen as a greater success than a Euro WC with an 80% Euro : 10% NA : 10% OZ/NZ even if the actual number of attendees was significantly lower.
generaljason - Feb 07, 2012 - 11:30 PM
Post subject:
      Deathwing wrote:
      generaljason wrote:

then why don't they go to Europe? East to West is nearly the same price as East to Europe?


How does West to Europe compare?

Just for discussion, do you think this has any relevance?

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-02-04/travel/americans.travel.domestically_1_western-hemisphere-travel-initiative-passports-tourism-industries?_s=PM:TRAVEL


Great article James. Very apropos. And yeah, West to Europe is just as lousy I'm afraid.
SierraKiloBravo - Feb 08, 2012 - 08:25 AM
Post subject:
Very interesting thread. My 2 cents ...

First, I think attendance numbers are EVERYTHING. My understanding of the bid for the NATC in Vegas was based in very large part on the attraction of Vegas and it's relatively central location within the continent. These two elements were designed to attract coaches from around North America by trying to mitigate the travel time/expense for North American participants. Trying to say that attendance isn't the most important factor is, in my opinion, unnecessarily myopic. Simply put, if the WC moved to North America for a year and the tournament drew anything less than 200 participants, I think the general NAF community would view it as an unmitigated disaster.

Second, the ease of travel within the US and within Europe is drastically different. This has been brought up by others, but it isn't something that should be easily dismissed. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the whole of Europe has, what? Two time zones? Aren't the UK and Portugal in one time zone and the rest of Europe in a second? In the US, we have a four time zone difference between the East and West Coasts. Realistically, that means an entire day is generally spent on travel between the coasts, when considering flight time and the time zone shift.

Next is the physical means of travel. Due to the general distances between major cities in the US, travel is either by car or by plane. Trains just aren't as practical here due to the distance. Often, when you have Americans traveling by train, the train traveling itself is part of the fun of the trip, to the point where the traveler is often sacrificing speed of travel for the event of traveling by train. My understanding of European train travel is that it is very common due to the relative proximity of major cities to one another.

This all boils down to ease of travel, which often only exists in North America for travel within one time zone, and I think it's going to be the primary thing that impacts attendance.

For me personally, ease of travel alone has generally been the biggest factor in dissuading me from traveling to tourneys because I'm going to be someone who is generally going to attend an out-of-the-area tourney only if I can fly in to the locale the morning of a 2 day tourney and only have to get a hotel for one night.

In the end, does it make more sense to let Europe have the World Cup and then let North America have its own World Cup analog? There's basically no chance in Hell that I would ever attend the World Cup in Europe due to the travel. Someone might respond to this by saying, "Well come for a longer time and make a vacation out of it." This might work for those of us that aren't married, but I would feel really shitty about traveling to Europe with my wife and then effectively telling her to take care of herself for 3 days while I got my geek on.
Doubleskulls - Feb 08, 2012 - 08:53 AM
Post subject:
      SierraKiloBravo wrote:
First, I think attendance numbers are EVERYTHING. ... Trying to say that attendance isn't the most important factor is, in my opinion, unnecessarily myopic.


Its quite clear attendance isn't the only factor though. A 1000 person tournament in a cold venue, without a bar or catering, organisers who show up late and are so disorganised the tournament only plays half its games would clearly be a failure compared to a 500 person tournament where none of those problems arose.
Glamdryn - Feb 08, 2012 - 09:06 AM
Post subject:
Despite this thread, I'd still like to see someone from NA throw in a bid for 2015 at a really cool venue.

Id also like to see diversity of attendance be a big factor in deciding where 2015 will be held.
SierraKiloBravo - Feb 08, 2012 - 09:19 AM
Post subject:
      Doubleskulls wrote:
      SierraKiloBravo wrote:
First, I think attendance numbers are EVERYTHING. ... Trying to say that attendance isn't the most important factor is, in my opinion, unnecessarily myopic.


Its quite clear attendance isn't the only factor though. A 1000 person tournament in a cold venue, without a bar or catering, organisers who show up late and are so disorganised the tournament only plays half its games would clearly be a failure compared to a 500 person tournament where none of those problems arose.


This is somewhat true, but I'm guessing that a NATC isn't going to be run by organizers without any NAF tournament organizing experience. I would think that prior experience would tend to mitigate the sorts of problems to which you refer.

Again, attendance isn't the only factor. It's one of many, but still the most important. If people make an effort to travel to a poorly attended tourney, I think that tourney is going to die on the vine. If I made the effort to travel to, say the Chaos Cup (which is about a 4 hour flight for me and basically a day's travel one way), and there were only 15 people there, I'd be pissed.
Jonny_P - Feb 08, 2012 - 10:06 AM
Post subject:
      SierraKiloBravo wrote:
If I made the effort to travel to, say the Chaos Cup (which is about a 4 hour flight for me and basically a day's travel one way), and there were only 15 people there, I'd be pissed.


If you come this year, I will match you up with G-Dub round one. Promise. Cool
SierraKiloBravo - Feb 08, 2012 - 10:11 AM
Post subject:
      Jonny_P wrote:
      SierraKiloBravo wrote:
If I made the effort to travel to, say the Chaos Cup (which is about a 4 hour flight for me and basically a day's travel one way), and there were only 15 people there, I'd be pissed.


If you come this year, I will match you up with G-Dub round one. Promise. Cool


Love to, but I can't do it. I'm going to GenCon this year and the proverbial stork is scheduled to visit our home in late September.
Jonny_P - Feb 08, 2012 - 10:31 AM
Post subject:
SKBjr! Congrats man!
Deathwing - Feb 08, 2012 - 01:43 PM
Post subject:
      SierraKiloBravo wrote:
Very interesting thread. My 2 cents ...


Second, the ease of travel within the US and within Europe is drastically different. This has been brought up by others, but it isn't something that should be easily dismissed. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the whole of Europe has, what? Two time zones? Aren't the UK and Portugal in one time zone and the rest of Europe in a second? In the US, we have a four time zone difference between the East and West Coasts. Realistically, that means an entire day is generally spent on travel between the coasts, when considering flight time and the time zone shift.

Next is the physical means of travel. Due to the general distances between major cities in the US, travel is either by car or by plane. Trains just aren't as practical here due to the distance. Often, when you have Americans traveling by train, the train traveling itself is part of the fun of the trip, to the point where the traveler is often sacrificing speed of travel for the event of traveling by train. My understanding of European train travel is that it is very common due to the relative proximity of major cities to one another.

This all boils down to ease of travel, which often only exists in North America for travel within one time zone, and I think it's going to be the primary thing that impacts attendance.

For me personally, ease of travel alone has generally been the biggest factor in dissuading me from traveling to tourneys because I'm going to be someone who is generally going to attend an out-of-the-area tourney only if I can fly in to the locale the morning of a 2 day tourney and only have to get a hotel for one night.



Ease of travel within Europe is not as simple has you would imagine for those of us in the UK or for mainland Europeans coming to the UK. We are an island and still not as integrated as most of Europe. That means passports, customs checks, currency changes. It generally means flights or ferries. London to Paris can be done direct by train, but that's an exception.

Let's take some examples:

Amsterdam. I'm lucky in that I live about 45mins from Gatwick airport. On a good run on our hugely congested roads. So allowing for the fact that you need to check-in an hour in advance of a flight, I need to leave 2.5 hours in advance, about an hour's flight, clear customs the other end and get on a train into the city..probably about 4.5 hours travel on a good day.

Ostend, Belgium. The closest European tourney to me. Typically you're looking at 6-7 hours by the quickest route..that way you can do it and still work Monday and Friday... it's much longer by the cheaper route (which necessitates both the Friday and Monday off work). Both ways involve cross channel car ferries.

I'd like to hear a similar breakdown from one of our members from Spain about what a trip to Nottingham typically entails... but I know it's quite lengthy and is far from straightforward, let alone cheap.

On top of that the average UK price for a gallon of petrol/gas is currently just under £6 GBP, so roughly $9.40 USD. Per gallon!

So even staying in-country, the drive to Nottingham will take me close to 3hrs each way and cost over $110 USD in fuel alone.

I suppose I'm just trying to counter the perception that euro travel is quick, cheap or easy. That's simply not the case. I guess it goes back to my point about the accessibility of Amsterdam. Getting to Italy from Denmark (for example) would be far from straightforward or cheap.

So while some may indeed sometimes struggle to understand the sheer distances of the NA continent, we do have our own logistical issues over here.. ..it's not a case of Trek style transporters... Smile
zootsuitjeff - Feb 08, 2012 - 11:05 PM
Post subject:
Personally, I think the average N American BB'er is just kind of soft as far as travel goes, especially when compared to those Aussies.. I'm doing what I can to change that...
blammaham - Feb 08, 2012 - 11:38 PM
Post subject:
      zootsuitjeff wrote:
Personally, I think the average N American BB'er is just kind of soft as far as travel goes, especially when compared to those Aussies.. I'm doing what I can to change that...


Jeff not recognizing the distance and cost of moving around our continent is akin to the ol' hiding your head in the sand strategy. S.
Doubleskulls - Feb 09, 2012 - 03:28 AM
Post subject:
      zootsuitjeff wrote:
Personally, I think the average N American BB'er is just kind of soft as far as travel goes, especially when compared to those Aussies.. I'm doing what I can to change that...


Move to Australia Wink
Pako - Feb 09, 2012 - 04:52 AM
Post subject:
      Quote:
I'd like to hear a similar breakdown from one of our members from Spain about what a trip to Nottingham typically entails... but I know it's quite lengthy and is far from straightforward, let alone cheap.


FYI.

I was in the fisrt World Cup. Coming from Bacelona (direct flight now) you should save friday and monday off work because there is only one plane per day.

This is the easiest way.

There are also planes directly from Valencia, which is the best chance for the people living in Madrid (3,5h car Madrid-Valencia and fly away another 2,5h to East Midlands).
Lycos - Feb 09, 2012 - 06:07 AM
Post subject:
      Glamdryn wrote:
Despite this thread, I'd still like to see someone from NA throw in a bid for 2015 at a really cool venue.


Absolutely agree.

I have not commented much on these threads about the next world cup but after 2007 we had a very similar reaction as we have here....lots of people keen, lots of ideas.

But when it came to the crunch for 2011 (well 2009 for entrants), no bid was forthcoming from North America. If it is to be there 2015, someone has to put a strong bid together.
daloonieshaman - Feb 09, 2012 - 09:55 AM
Post subject:
      Lycos wrote:
      Glamdryn wrote:
Despite this thread, I'd still like to see someone from NA throw in a bid for 2015 at a really cool venue.


Absolutely agree.

I have not commented much on these threads about the next world cup but after 2007 we had a very similar reaction as we have here....lots of people keen, lots of ideas.

But when it came to the crunch for 2011 (well 2009 for entrants), no bid was forthcoming from North America. If it is to be there 2015, someone has to put a strong bid together.


Actually Dave some of us might just be able to do that. Let me talk to the guys.
daloonieshaman - Feb 09, 2012 - 10:52 AM
Post subject:
El Presidente`
What weekend are you talking in 2015
Grumbledook - Feb 10, 2012 - 04:25 AM
Post subject:
I see no reason why it couldn't be moved, perhaps that's a whole other thread though ;]
All times are
Powered by PNphpBB2 © 2003-2009 The Zafenio Team
Credits