UK Champion for 2010

[Joemanji]

Hey guys,

I thought it might be best to start discussing the procedure for determining next year's UK Champion now, before we know who has won this time. At least that won't cloud the issue too much. This year's competition seems wide open, with any one of 4 coaches quite capable of winning.

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?

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.

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.

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

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?

Let me know if there any others...

[Joemanji]

I'd set up a poll but it could be voted on by non-Brits.

My thoughts:

1) If we keep the current scoring system, then I think it is necessary to have a tie-breaker. I think in the case of equal total scores, the coach with the best individual score should "win". If their best individual scores are the same then compare their second best individual scores. If all their scores are indentical then call it a genuine draw. So, for example:

(1,1,7) beats (3,3,3).
(1,2,4) beats (2,2,3).
(2,3,6) beats (2,4,5).

2) I think at the very least we should adopt a scoring system awarding points for only the top ten placings in a tournament. We can see from this year's standings that the eventually winner will finish on between 4 and 7 points, so getting an 11th place somewhere isn't going to do anyone much good. I tried at one point to keep track of the standings this year, and it has been difficult and time consuming because of having to record 30-50 entries rather than 10.

I'm happy enough with the linear scoring (10 for 1st, 9 for 2nd etc).

3) Not a fan of this if we retain the 8 chosen tournaments of this year. All have been chosen for their competitiveness and size. I don't think there is any need to differentiate between them.

4) Firmly against this.

5) I'm happy to either continue with a chosen 8, or open up to any tournament over a certain size.

If we go the latter, then I think 30 should be the cut off point, since that is the significant number when calculating NAF ranking points. There should also be a set of "qualifying" criteria IMO (including not-for-profit, swiss, resurrection style...)

If we keep the 8, I think we should seriously consider dropping Spiky for another worthy tournament. Although it has nostalgia value as the first UK tournament, I think the way it is run leaves a bad taste in the mouth. The organisers freely admit they run it on a for-profit basis solely to fill their club coffers for the year ahead. They don't even offer nominal prizes (a £10 GW voucher might be a start). I have addressed these concerns directly with the organisers for the last 2 years, so it is not as if they are unawares. Spiky also lacks the friendly out of hours atmosphere of other tournaments, with the locals all going home and not organising a pub and curry for the visiting coaches. By all accounts Carrot Crunch was a rousing success this year, so perhaps that is a candidate.

[mattwhile]

If we keep the 8, I think we should seriously consider dropping Spiky for another worthy tournament. Although it has nostalgia value as the first UK tournament, I think the way it is run leaves a bad taste in the mouth. The organisers freely admit they run it on a for-profit basis solely to fill their club coffers for the year ahead. They don't even offer nominal prizes (a £10 GW voucher might be a start). I have addressed these concerns directly with the organisers for the last 2 years, so it is not as if they are unawares. Spiky also lacks the friendly out of hours atmosphere of other tournaments, with the locals all going home and not organising a pub and curry for the visiting coaches. By all accounts Carrot Crunch was a rousing success this year, so perhaps that is a candidate.

100% agree. Carrot Crunch should replace Spikey. Rodders and Magic Dave ran an awesome tourney this year and deserve this change, if you stick to 8 tourneys. (Last years was also good but alot more mellow).

[mattwhile]

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

Definately one score per race. Being able to place highly with different races deserves the (light-hearted) title of UK champion.

[Hangus]

Could you have a set number of points per tourney for a top ten finish. Include every UK tourney but have a multipler for the size of the tourney. Therefore no one is excluded. (pippys idea)

[Cracol]

I agree with Matt on both of the above points (Carrot Crunch instead of Spiky and different races to score). The reasons are:

1. I've decided not to return to Spiky in it's current format for the reasons you've already mentioned (don't get me started) and think Carrot Crunch was an awsome tournament and more than deserving.

2. I think the title of UK champion deserves to go to someone who can demonstrate their superior prowess over the rest of us with a variety of different races i.e. a true 'Blood Bowl' UK champion and not the best elf/orc/amazon (or whatever) player in the country.

[Pipey]

May be harsh on Spiky, but I think Carrot Crunch is a more community-spirited tournament and is more deserving of UKC support. Agree with MW.

I have lots of ideas which would make the UKC a 'fairer' but more complicated set up. But I liked the simplicity of last years rules and I'm not sure it needs to be radically changed.

[SillySod]

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

Definately one score per race. Being able to place highly with different races deserves the (light-hearted) title of UK champion.

Yep, playing something other than undead, undead, undead shouldnt be pushing the boat out too far for a "champion"

[Darkson]

I'm against removing Spiky, but only for the reason that (as things currently stand) I've a more realistic chance of attending Spiky every year.

Other than that, couldn't care less, as the chances of me "winning" the UK championshp are about as high as Gazza beating me.

However, I think a "one-score-per-race" is probably the correct way to go, but I assume you mean "the best single score with a race"?

Could you have a set number of points per tourney for a top ten finish. Include every UK tourney but have a multipler for the size of the tourney. Therefore no one is excluded. (pippys idea)

However, I think this is the better idea, rather than having an "exclusive" list of tourrneys.

[Joemanji]

I'm against removing Spiky, but only for the reason that (as things currently stand) I've a more realistic chance of attending Spiky every year.

Other than that, couldn't care less, as the chances of me "winning" the UK championshp are about as high as Gazza beating me.

If you don't think you can win it, why does it matter which tourneys are UKC? You can go anyway.

Yep, playing something other than undead, undead, undead shouldnt be pushing the boat out too far for a "champion"

I like to play one team for several tourneys in a row, not because its cheesy but because I want to learn how to play them properly. I played Orcs most of last year and did poorly. My best result came under LRB6 anyway, where Undead have been screwed.

[Glowworm]

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!)

B. Dont wish to make this difficult for those organising it however, Geographical location must be considered, by that I mean its okay for me to attend Spiky/Newquay/Thrud as I live in the south west, However Geordiebowl/Monkeybowl are more of a problem...You could end up with "I live near the "Scored" tourneys so can attend" V "Im a good player but cannot afford to travel" They should be spaced evenly North/Midlands/ south England

Or a combination of both, just my thoughts as someone who wont be in contention ever

[Joemanji]

They should be spaced evenly North/Midlands/ south England

This was exactly what Lycos had in mind when he selected the current 8.

Albabowl (Scotland), Waterbowl (Manchester) & Monkeybowl (Hartlepool) for the North.

The Blood Bowl (Nottingham) and Poo Bowl (Loughborough) for the Midlands

Pearlies (London), Spiky (Reading), Thrudball (Bognor) for the South.

Incidentally ... the two closest tournaments there are Spiky and Pearlies. So if a greater spread is desired, there's another reason for Spiky to go.

[mattwhile]

....there's another reason for Spiky to go.

Why do we need more reasons? Drop Spikey.

[mattwhile]

I like to play one team for several tourneys in a row, not because its cheesy but because I want to learn how to play them properly.

What happened with the skaven then?

[Joemanji]

I caved to all the bitching about me using nothing but Undead. I'm gonna use Dwarfs next year and bore the &$£% out of you all. You'll be begging me to go back to Undead.