UK Champion for 2010

[Grumbledook]

if you want to drop spikey cause of the way it is run, carrott crunch is not the way to go

calling it southern is far from the case

there are already more tournaments more accessible to northern players than southern, carrot crunch would sway it even more in their favour from a travel point of view

carrot crunch is deffo midlands and not southern, poobowl and the blood bowl for "midlands" are in fact nearer the northern coaches than the southern already

what is the problem with spikey anyway? it is £20 for NAF members which isn't exactly expensive, as for prizes I've been going to NAF tournaments since 2002 and I've won nothing worth having, all i've got is a horrible dark elf runner and impact dice

I can't attend this year as it is on my mate's birthday, maybe someone could elaborate more on the problems?

agree that 3 different races should count though, but a fair spread of tournaments surely should be considered

for the record I've been to more "northern" tournaments than anything else in the past year, despite living on the south coast

[Darkson]

You do realise that from Winchester (the "centre" of Southern England), Loughborough is closer (and more accessible) than Sudbury?
Sudbury is more a midlands tourney (which would make 3 northern, 3 midlands and 2 southern), leaving a space for a 3rd southern (if you dropped Spiky).

The criteria for which tourneys are "scored" IMHO should either be:

A. Number of attendees, (Newquaybowl was awesome but only 16-18 coaches, not really a challenge for the uber coaches. Hell I even got coaching points!)

I disagree, though it does depend on who turns up. A 16-18 man tourney full of good players (like Newquay was the last time I attended) would be harder to win than a 30-man tourney only attended by a few "uber" players.

[Podfrey]

I think this year's competition has worked pretty well for the casual affair it is supposed to be, but some minor discussion points have come up:

1) How should we separate coaches on the same points? Or should we at all? Is 1,1,7 better than 3,3,3? Or should they share the crown?

Keep it as a tie. It maintains the light-heartedness. You don't want it getting competitive do you?

2) Should we keep the same scoring system? Alternatives include awarding points to people in the top 10 of any tournament by 10 for 1st, 9 for 2nd etc. Or weighting the points towards the higher placings, e.g. 1st = 20, 2nd = 16, 3rd = 12, 4th = 10, 5th = 8, 6th = 6, 7th = 4, 8th = 3, 9th = 2, 10th = 1.

Award points for the top XX%, e.g. the top 25%, top 20%, top 10% or whatever. In each case 1st is worth 100 points and the rest a proportion. E.g. 50 man tournament, using top 20%. First place worth 100, 2nd worth (*does maths quickly*) er, 90 (I think), 3rd worth 80.....10th worth 10. The maths might be tricky to do manually, but can be formularised in Excel and the numbers just plugged in.

Like many others, I think the overall Champ should be able to play with different races. So take the single highest score for each race they play, then add them together, and this will determine a coach's overall position.

3) Should scores for individual tournaments be weighted based upon tournament size? E.g. 20-35 coaches = points x 1, 36-49 coaches = points x 1.25, 50+ coaches = points x 1.5.

The above idea already incorporates this.

4) Should coaches be restricted in the races that can score for them? I.e. they can only use one score with each race.

The above idea already incorporates this. You could also take coaches total scores, regardless of race, and combine them to calculate a "hard mudderfkker" award, but they couldn't class themselves as UK Champion (in my mind)

5) Should the 8 tournaments used this year continue? Should new ones be introduced, either as replacements for or additions to the existing 8? Perhaps every tournament over a certain size should count?

The above idea has enough scope to open it up and allow all 2 day tournaments as it focuses on top % not an absolute number.

[Ironjaw]

Until next time, take care of yourselves - and each other...

This is the best thing i've read on these forums for a good 2 years...

[Pipey]

I say keep the rules as they are, but perhaps add one change:

You may not use the same race for all three of the tourneys which count towards your score.

i.e. Undead, Undead, Skaven or Dwarf, Dwarf, Wood Elf would be OK (but not Amazon, Amazon, Amazon)

(oh and the other obvious thing is to invert the scores so 1st is 10, 2nd 9 etc. – as others have said)

[mattwhile]

what is the problem with spikey anyway? it is £20 for NAF members which isn't exactly expensive, as for prizes I've been going to NAF tournaments since 2002 and I've won nothing worth having, all i've got is a horrible dark elf runner and impact dice

I can't attend this year as it is on my mate's birthday, maybe someone could elaborate more on the problems?

I don't think a tourney should be run for that much profit. Last year approx. 50 coaches, £20 a head = £1000. We got a roll and a mars bar for lunch each day and the hall was probably not a lot as they make money from the drink. Therefore we're supporting them running 40K and warhammer tourneys throughout the year.

I don't think people would mind them pocketing some money to help with their financial commitments, but look after the people who have attended the tourney first, (i.e. feed me more than a f#cking roll and mars bar ).

Rant over.

[Pipey]

Spiky is obviously run for a profit.

£25/30 IIRC entry

No prizes
No trophies (pieces of paper only)

And the same old (dodgy) scoring system is trotted out each year – despite the feedback…

From a long way up north, the geographical difference between Carrot and Spiky seems minimal. And there’s no way Sudbury is in the midlands. In the United Kingdom (this includes Scotland), the approximate midpoint is Derbyshire I believe, which makes Nottingham a little south of centre.

Btw I appreciate when we talk about value for money then the whole issue of the GT is raised. But is that different…?

[Joemanji]

Here is a MAP OF THE UKC TOURNAMENTS

Spiky is run for profit, but I wouldn't mind if they threw us a bone and listened to the punters. If they want to run it like a business fine, but then you have to have a product. As Pippy says, the ruleset is dumb and they could easily provide a few prizes and still pocket hundreds of £s in profit.

I say keep the rules as they are, but perhaps add one change:

You may not use the same race for all three of the tourneys which count towards your score.

i.e. Undead, Undead, Skaven or Dwarf, Dwarf, Wood Elf would be OK (but not Amazon, Amazon, Amazon)

(oh and the other obvious thing is to invert the scores so 1st is 10, 2nd 9 etc. – as others have said)

Yeah that sounds good to me.

[firebreather]

I think you can do what you like with rules, after all there cant be more than a dozen or so people remotely interested in "UK Champion", i find the whole thing quite laughable, some people have complained about how the NAF creates an elitism with the ranking system, i think all this does is back this up.

When i 1st saw the threads on this last year it looked like a bit of harmless fun, but some seem to be taking it to seriuosly.

PS. Yes spiky is shit, but since when was East Anglia in the south

[Pipey]

spiky is shit

A bit harsh

I agree let's not go over board and make it to too complex, and lose the fun. It worked (is working) well for 2009 so I'm sure it'll be fine again for 2010, maybe with a few tiny tweaks.

[Ironjaw]

I think you can do what you like with rules, after all there cant be more than a dozen or so people remotely interested in "UK Champion"

A bit conservative there. I think a lot of coaches are very interested in it, they're just not good enough to win it.

Why would anyone have a problem with rankings? It means that every tournament game you play, even if you're not in with a chance of winning the tournament, rankings make EVERY match important to you no matter how bad a time you've had.

If I'd had 5 awful games with regards to dice, I'd still give my all in the final game so I can stop a complete rankings male chicken up.

some people have complained about how the NAF creates an elitism with the ranking system

How the hell can it create an "elitism"? You get no favours or special treatment or perks for being a top ranked coach, so that statement makes no sense at all...

[mattwhile]

How the hell can it create an "elitism"? You get no favours or special treatment or perks for being a top ranked coach, so that statement makes no sense at all...

Eurobowl participation?

[Ironjaw]

There are plenty of top ranked coaches in the UK not in the Eurobowl team so that's bull shit...

[SillySod]

...and there we were being told this didnt get serious

For what its worth: the whole competition seems pretty pointless. Whoever wins it will be someone that everybody already knew was good. To be honest it feels way too artificial to care about than the titles that they won in the process. The positions are going to be way less relevent than the NAF rankings and those are a bit of a giggle even at their most accurate

It doesnt exactly do any harm though.

[mattwhile]

There are plenty of top ranked coaches in the UK not in the Eurobowl team so that's bull shit...

The top 20 ranked coaches in the Uk are made up of 14 coaches.

One is Scottish.
Eight have played, or will play this year, for Team England.
That leaves five who haven't played, although one was offered and declined for travelling reasons.

That's not really plenty..........