UK Champion for 2009

Joemanji · Post by **Joemanji** » Fri Jun 26, 2009 9:38 am

Good idea. 30 sounds good too.

rodders · Post by **rodders** » Fri Jun 26, 2009 9:40 am

carrot crunch this year is currently 42

Joemanji · Post by **Joemanji** » Fri Jun 26, 2009 9:54 am

Awesome, so next year you'd be in.

SillySod · Post by **SillySod** » Fri Jun 26, 2009 2:36 pm

Joemanji wrote:Awesome, so next year you'd be in.

No, next year enough people will know not to come

Darkson · Post by **Darkson** » Fri Jun 26, 2009 3:04 pm

Damn - that means I only need to find 8 newbs.. I mean, new NAF members, and the ARBBL can count (or 7 if Martin bothers to show

).

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Fri Jun 26, 2009 3:16 pm

there was a reason a selection of tournaments across the UK were chosen rather than x players

Leipziger · Post by **Leipziger** » Fri Jun 26, 2009 3:23 pm

Wasn't the idea that it was 3 from the South, 3 from the Midlands-ish, 3 from the north of england + scotland.

Pipey · Post by **Pipey** » Thu Jul 02, 2009 9:10 am

Ironjaw wrote:Perhaps Lycos could update the first post with the current standings?

I'm sure he's very busy but that would be a nice idea.

I know the idea was to have an even geographical spread but it just seems harsh that, for example, the Crunch this weekend doesn't count (40+ coaches) but Albabowl (30 coaches) did.

I think any UK tourney which has a sizeable field should count, it's fairer that way. And simpler

Rab · Post by **Rab** » Thu Jul 02, 2009 9:32 am

I like the idea of tournaments with a certain number of coaches counting for this (I'm off to Carrot this weekend, for example), but I don't think that should be the only criterion. Untried tournaments and ones with unusual skill-sets or house rules should probably be carefully considered before being allowed.

That said, this is all meant to be a bit of fun, right? And as I'm not going to be challenging for the top spots any time soon (ever?), I guess as long as it's easy to follow the rules it will be fine for most of those who, like me, go along because we enjoy the games and atmosphere and might get the occasional good result.

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Thu Jul 02, 2009 10:28 am

Pippy wrote:
Ironjaw wrote:it's fairer that way.

fairer on the tourny organisers perhaps but not on the spread of coaches surely

Podfrey · Post by **Podfrey** » Thu Jul 02, 2009 8:13 pm

Grumbledook wrote:
Pippy wrote:it's fairer that way.
fairer on the tourny organisers perhaps but not on the spread of coaches surely

True, but you have to remember that you're dealing with an egotistical maniac who can't be bothered with the 2 hour trip north but is happy to do the 6 hour trip south and so it's the tournaments that HE is attending that should count....

Joemanji · Post by **Joemanji** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:43 am

Would it be easier next time (for administration) to award points only for placings within the top 10 of those tournaments that count (by whichever criteria)? Especially if we adopt the proposed 'tourneys with 30+ players" idea which will lead to more data to input. We can see from this year's scores that 11th is not going to be worth much.

This has the benefit of:

a) Meaning the score counter only has to enter 10 results per tourney.
b) The scores could be inverted (i.e. 10 points for 1st, 9 for 2nd etc) which would make for simpler calculations within a spreadsheet.

I guess we also need to specify in advance a tie-breaker: i.e. most wins or median result? For example, would someone with 1, 2, 6 finish higher or lower than someone with 3, 3, 3?

Pipey · Post by **Pipey** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 1:13 pm

Porritt? Mr God Complex himself? Making accusations of egotism? You need a peer review mate

Don't have any objections with the geographical split idea. It makes sense, I agree. I just think it's nice to give other tourneys the chance to be part of UKC. Maybe change the 9 next year e.g. Geordiebowl instead of Monkeybowl, Carrot Crunch instead of Spiky, Rocket Bowl instead of Poo Bowl...?

Though I reckon a fixed minimum number would be best. Number of coaches shouldn't be the only criteria for inclusion e.g. I don't think the WPS Club Challenge would be appropriate since club mates can't play each other.

I used a system like the one Manjina suggests to determine the Watermonkey winner. Worked well.

Joemanji · Post by **Joemanji** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 1:52 pm

Pippy wrote:Don't have any objections with the geographical split idea. It makes sense, I agree. I just think it's nice to give other tourneys the chance to be part of UKC. Maybe change the 9 next year e.g. Geordiebowl instead of Monkeybowl, Carrot Crunch instead of Spiky, Rocket Bowl instead of Poo Bowl...? Though I reckon a fixed minimum number would be best.

Maybe we should see what would have qualified this year, and see where those tourneys were placed geographically. I think it will probably work out quite reasonably. If not, we could draw in a slightly smaller tournament to compensate. I don't know, I was attracted to the idea of a tournament qualifying if it had (say) 30 coaches. That way you wouldn't know beforehand whether a tourney was UKC or not, and so this would retain more of the fun element that was its original intent. Maybe make it 30 NAF players to make it harder to set up a chump tournament.

Pippy wrote:Number of coaches shouldn't be the only criteria for inclusion e.g. I don't think the WPS Club Challenge would be appropriate since club mates can't play each other.

Good point. A list of criteria should be drawn up, including open to all, proper swiss etc. Anything else? Particular rules? I know there was a bit of discussion about the wackiness of Albabowl. I don't mind it, but I guess the lesson we have learned is to specify as much as possible in advance.

I'm only talking about the most basic things. For example, LRB 5 or 6 and resurrection style. It would be undesirable to meddle in what tournament organisers wanted any more than that. Even if some points systems are slightly counter intuitive *cough*pearlies

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Sun Jul 26, 2009 5:51 pm

Joemanji wrote:And a small sample of some of the runners and riders:

Joemanji = 7 (1, 3, 3)
Pippy = 13 (6, 5, 2)
Lucifer = 15 (1, 6, 8 )
Jimany = 20 (11, 9, 1)
Stick = 27 (21, 2, 4)
Valen = 37 (27, 3, 7)
Lycos = 45 (2, 10, 33)
Don Vito = 64 (12, 15, 37)

Let the craptalking commence ....

Lycos came first at thrudball and stick second so:

Joemanji = 7 (1, 3, 3)
Stick = 8 (2, 2, 4)
Lycos = 13 (2, 10, 1)
Pippy = 13 (6, 5, 2)
Lucifer = 15 (1, 6, 8 )
Jimany = 20 (11, 9, 1)
Valen = 37 (27, 3, 7)
Don Vito = 64 (12, 15, 37)