| Author |
Message |
Clan_Skaven |
|
Post subject: DEATH-BOWL 2006....
 Posted: Feb 22, 2006 - 02:11 PM
|
|
Joined: Aug 19, 2003
Niagara Falls ON, Canada
Posts: 2604
Location: Niagara Falls ON, Canada
Status: Offline
|
|
Will the 2006 Death-Bowl be counted as a major tourney as far as Coach rankings go?
Rod?
(I know this is a while away, but I'm just curious if the "05 Death-Bowl" is just a one time deal or the start of a new major) |
_________________
"2006 SPIKE Champion!"
"Death-Bowl IV & V, Most Casualties!, Death-Bowl VI Best Team!"
"2008 Dagger Bowl Champion"
Host of the Warpstone Cup, Q'ermitt Bowl & the Hope Bowl
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
AnthonyTBBF |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 22, 2006 - 02:31 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
Toronto, ON
Posts: 1313
Location: Toronto, ON
Status: Offline
|
|
I think this is a slippery slope. Death Bowl is a great tourney for sure, but the Canadian Open has been around much longer in one form or another with similar turnouts and it isn't a major.
(BTW: this isn't meant to start a pissing contest - just pointing out the fact there is not real precedent for determining what is a major over here). |
_________________
Anthony - Ex Presidente
www.xtbbf.org
Orion Cup - June 8, 2013
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Paul |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 22, 2006 - 02:52 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 18, 2005
Canada
Posts: 422
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
|
|
| Why not alternate between the Canadain Open and the Deathbowl each year? |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Spazzfist |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 22, 2006 - 05:57 PM
|
|
Joined: Aug 16, 2004
Canada
Posts: 3953
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
|
|
AnthonyTBBF wrote: (BTW: this isn't meant to start a pissing contest - just pointing out the fact there is not real precedent for determining what is a major over here).
So is there a precedent for determining majors on the other side of the pond?
What about attendance? Would that be a valid determiner? That way the larger tourneys can claim major status? |
_________________
#1 Nurgle coach in Canada (formerly the world!)
#1 Snotling coach in Canada
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 22, 2006 - 06:06 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 12, 2003
Posts: 1146
|
|
AnthonyTBBF wrote: this isn't meant to start a pissing contest
Bahh I bet I can piss further than you can 
Obviously I'm a little biased and would like the Death Bowl to be a major. I think the thing that gives the Death Bowl that leg up is the fact that it is unique. There's no other event like it. Now I don't think that makes an event an automatic major or "better" than another event. Qermit is also unique in it's own way. But it's one factor that makes the Death Bowl stand out from the crowd. |
_________________
Brian St.James
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Spazzfist |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 22, 2006 - 06:25 PM
|
|
Joined: Aug 16, 2004
Canada
Posts: 3953
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
|
|
CyberHare wrote: AnthonyTBBF wrote: this isn't meant to start a pissing contest
Bahh I bet I can piss further than you can
I think he goes for volume, not distance!
As for the major discussion, I think the point that Anthony is making is that you cannot have every "original" tournament claiming major status. Far be it for me to claim that Q'ermitt should have major status at this point. While Q'ermitt certainly is a unique tournament, it lacks the established reputation of the DeathBowl and I lack the experience that you have. Having attended DBIII I also was in absolute awe of the professionalism of the organization of the tournament!
That is why I suggested attendance, a "major" should be a big deal. But then how do you know beforehand how many people will show? for some people the fact that it is a major will be enough of a draw to get them to make the effort to come.
For the poll I voted for the attendance, as this provides a simple determiner for major status. However, if it came to a vote, I would say let the DB remain a major, you certainly have made it into a major event in my opinion. |
_________________
#1 Nurgle coach in Canada (formerly the world!)
#1 Snotling coach in Canada
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
twist |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 22, 2006 - 06:27 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
Canada
Posts: 228
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
|
|
Voted yes. Its a damn good tourney, and a helluva lotta fun to attend. So is the Can Opener... erm Canadian Open.
Then again, shouldn't a major be all about pure BB? Many tournaments have various 'differences' in gameplay (ie. 7s & 4 player games, wacky boards, etc) that makes me wonder if it should be ranked (not that my rank is stellar or anything, its due to crash again soon).
Food for thought. What defines a Major Tournament, other than numbers of participants? |
_________________
Twist.
NAF Member 106
Tournament History
HammerBowl. http://bkbbl.com/
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Spazzfist |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 22, 2006 - 06:38 PM
|
|
Joined: Aug 16, 2004
Canada
Posts: 3953
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
|
|
twist wrote: Food for thought. What defines a Major Tournament, other than numbers of participants?
The calibre of the people who attend!  |
_________________
#1 Nurgle coach in Canada (formerly the world!)
#1 Snotling coach in Canada
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Xtreme |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 22, 2006 - 08:46 PM
|
|
Da Boss
Joined: Mar 12, 2003
United States of America
Posts: 1096
Location: United States of America
Status: Offline
|
|
So what about the Spike? Is it not counting as a major? I think its dangerous ground to start talking about giving other tournaments the 'Major' status, where do you stop.
I thought the orginal idea behind the major point tournaments was to help out the North Americans. If we start giving all big tournaments the status then they will have majors once a month on the other side of the pond. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 23, 2006 - 03:24 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 12, 2003
Posts: 1146
|
|
Spazzfist wrote: That is why I suggested attendance, a "major" should be a big deal. But then how do you know beforehand how many people will show? for some people the fact that it is a major will be enough of a draw to get them to make the effort to come.
It would be pretty hard to base it on projected attendance for the current year. The previous years attendance perhaps and the ability to maintain the numbers.
Quote: So what about the Spike? Is it not counting as a major?
Though not a popular opinion I've said from the beginning that a tournament having "fluff major" status shouldn't be enough to make it an official major. It's one of those ties that keep is dragging behind GW. The BB has proven itself as a major event as well has the dungeon bowl. The Chaos Cup is getting there with Tom's help. The Spike got out of the gate great with Anthony at the wheel but it's since crashed and burned. Do we continue to give major status to a badly run event?
It's a difficult discussion with a lot of emotion involved. |
_________________
Brian St.James
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Spazzfist |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 23, 2006 - 06:15 AM
|
|
Joined: Aug 16, 2004
Canada
Posts: 3953
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
|
|
CyberHare wrote: Though not a popular opinion I've said from the beginning that a tournament having "fluff major" status shouldn't be enough to make it an official major. It's one of those ties that keep is dragging behind GW. The BB has proven itself as a major event as well has the dungeon bowl. The Chaos Cup is getting there with Tom's help. The Spike got out of the gate great with Anthony at the wheel but it's since crashed and burned. Do we continue to give major status to a badly run event?
I agree with you on this one. This is not to slag Bikerbob who ran it last November, or the MOBB who are running it in May. What it comes down to is that GW does not care about Blood Bowl, but for some reason refuse to take their filthy claws out of the Spike! tourney. I mean look at it this year, the tournament is going to be held on a Friday during the day so only those fortunate enough to be able to get the day off (and the unemployed) will be able to attend. The reason for this boneheaded idea is so that GW can hold the finals round of the Spike! at their own Games Day on that Saturday.
Until GW lets NAF run the Spike! properly, there is no point in allowing it to maintain it's major status. There are tournaments far more worthy. I for one, nominate the Deathbowl. |
_________________
#1 Nurgle coach in Canada (formerly the world!)
#1 Snotling coach in Canada
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
AnthonyTBBF |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 23, 2006 - 07:27 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
Toronto, ON
Posts: 1313
Location: Toronto, ON
Status: Offline
|
|
| I think the best way is to use a sliding scale based on previous attendance, that way the tournies with big draws will tend to get better CR considerations. Besides, that's all a major does anyway. |
_________________
Anthony - Ex Presidente
www.xtbbf.org
Orion Cup - June 8, 2013
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Paul |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 23, 2006 - 10:21 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 18, 2005
Canada
Posts: 422
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
|
|
Quote:
New postPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 8:15 am Reply with quote Back to top
CyberHare wrote:
Though not a popular opinion I've said from the beginning that a tournament having "fluff major" status shouldn't be enough to make it an official major. It's one of those ties that keep is dragging behind GW. The BB has proven itself as a major event as well has the dungeon bowl. The Chaos Cup is getting there with Tom's help. The Spike got out of the gate great with Anthony at the wheel but it's since crashed and burned. Do we continue to give major status to a badly run event?
I agree with you on this one. This is not to slag Bikerbob who ran it last November, or the MOBB who are running it in May. What it comes down to is that GW does not care about Blood Bowl, but for some reason refuse to take their filthy claws out of the Spike! tourney. I mean look at it this year, the tournament is going to be held on a Friday during the day so only those fortunate enough to be able to get the day off (and the unemployed) will be able to attend. The reason for this boneheaded idea is so that GW can hold the finals round of the Spike! at their own Games Day on that Saturday.
Ben actually ran it, he stepped in, Bikerbob just made alot of noise about it.
Your exactly right. GW-Canada does not care about Blood Bowl at all I don't think that we should give their tournament, that they throw together at the last minute any credit at all. Let it be a regular NAF tournament thats it. Lets make another tournament, just 1 tournament, a major for Canada. The two biggest are the Deathbowl and the Canadian Open, so they should be the obvious choices. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 23, 2006 - 03:39 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 12, 2003
Posts: 1146
|
|
AnthonyTBBF wrote: I think the best way is to use a sliding scale based on previous attendance, that way the tournies with big draws will tend to get better CR considerations. Besides, that's all a major does anyway.
We had the sliding scale before and we were getting nowhere in the rankings. Not that we're getting anywhere now but it's a little better. Europe simply has the fortune to have a big player base to draw from and we have a lot of catching up to do in that respect. It is still a sliding scale now up to thirty coaches so in North America most events are still on the scale.
Also there's the little problem that any change to the ranking system will need to be programed into it.
What it comes down to is sooner or later the community as a group is going to have to decide what represents a major. Is it simply attendance? Is it something unique or different? Is it the elusive "it' factor? The package as a whole? Who's to say. |
_________________
Brian St.James
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Paul |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 23, 2006 - 08:24 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 18, 2005
Canada
Posts: 422
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
|
|
I think what represents a major is all of those things. Attendance has to be a factor, you can't have a major tournament where you and your brother attend. It also needs an "it" factor. Something with history too it. The Blood Bowl has its fluff history, while something like the Canadian Open or the Deathbowl that have been going on for a few years have that as well from real history.
As for the uniqueness of an event, that has to be considered too. It can't be a standard we'll play 6 rounds of a tournament, its gotta have something to attract people. Think about the fluff, the Dungeonbowl is tournament played underground, and while in real life they don't use these rules, in the BB world this would be part of the attraction (in addition to the large ammounts of prize money) The Deathbowl has this (with its Deathbowl round) as does the Canadian Open with its alternate team selection rules which makes every team you play different from others. Your Dwarf team will be different from my dwarf team, while in a standard 1 skill a round we are more likly to end up with the same roster by the end of it.
I really think that we should alternate between the two events as a major. Starting this year with the Deathbowl since it might be too short notice for people who want to travel just for a major, then next year (2007) the Canadian Major Tournament will the the Deathbowl. I think this works because the two major BB markets in Canada are Toronto and Montreal. This would allow people in both cities a chance to play in a major every so often without having to shell out a couple hundred bucks for a trip.
Those are my thoughts, anyone have any other opinions on this. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
