Millennium playing schedules

[egiii]

I would like to know the system used to make the playing schedules for the millennium series events. I don't want to accuse anyone nor am I saying there has been anything wrong with the schedules so far but I do not feel that it is fair that the Millennium Series rules do not state anything about making the schedule. It just pop ups the day before the tournament from who knows where and thats it.

The system used to make the schedule in Portugal was _not_ the system Jerry posted few months ago to this board.

Personally I think that the rules should have instructions clear enough that every team can check that the schedule has been created as stated in the rule book.

Regards

EGi / Team cyclone
egi@iki.fi
www.team-cyclone.net

 

[NIALL]

????????????

It is the same system as used by Jerry. We do it thats all. We wait until the last minute for obvious reasons.. Things change.

Do you have a particular query?

Niall

 

[Beard]

Egiii,
I have been doing the draw and schedules for millennium events since Campaign Cup. The system that I use is based on the system that Jerry explained a while ago but it is adapted for every event depending on the ratio of pro/am/novice teams entered in that event.

The reason that the system is not clearly documented in the official rules is that it would take a lot of time and many pages trying to thoroughly explain the system.

I hope this helps

Adam

 

[Beaker]

Beard,

We discussed this in Portugal.

While I completely agree that the system for working out who plays who might be complicated. Without any kind of transparency (however longthe explaination) it will be open to "questioning"

Now when we talked you said the system for working out who plays who is relatively easy, the hard part is what order the games are in.

Now I don't really care what order I play my games, more that I know I am playing the right people. So perhaps an explaination on that bit might be possible?

 

[markh]

Somebody should take the time and write down this system. If our sport is to be accepted as a true sport, we need all the rules, regulations and procedures written down and in the public domain so anybody can follow them. Other sports do it.

 

[NIALL]

OK as soon as we find someone that has the time to do this we shall. We aint hiding nothing!

Niall

PS Its going to take a while though.

 

[canpap]

it is good to see that the organizers are working and keeping cristall clear of everything. keep up the good work!!

as for the scheduling, I think waiting for last minute is the better idea s,nce our sport is very tender to wheather and sometimes teams dont show up etc. We are not as serious as soccer at this point therefore this is the better way.

however I agree with Nick, everything should be out open where all questions are automatically answered.

 

[egiii]

I want to bring this subject up again. This has nothing to do with Amsterdam except the fact that my team had such a bizarre "division" (teams you play against) that I would really like to know:

HOW do you decide WHICH teams play WHICH teams. I don't need to know how you make the schedule, how you decide which fields etc just the most important thing considering fairness between different teams. WHO PLAYS WHO.

Again, I am not complaing/insulting/saying somebody is cheating or anything like that, I just feel that teams really should be able to check that the schedule they are getting is done right and fair.

Thanks

EGi / Cyclone
egi@iki.fi

 

[Robbo]

I would like to bring something up that came to light in Amsterdam.
In our (Backlash) qualifying group we had Strange, SC Ironmen, GZ and Avalanche.
Now if the tournament was seeded properly, then one could hardly expect to play against the top four teams at the tournament to try and gain qualification thru to the next round.
Teams like Ton Ton and Shockwave however played no Yank teams in their group to my knowledge and still didn't qualify.
Needless to say, we progressed no further in the tournament.
However, this is not the problem, the whole idea of 'seeding' is to create a fair and equal groups for all teams playing.
It is obvious that the system fails miserably and the reason it does ?
Well, it's all to do with judging.
If a team judges then they are allocated 300 points, 100 points more than if you win an event.
This extra 100 points is offered up as part of an inducement to get teams to judge otherwise teams would be reluctant to do so.
But what it creates is an artificial league position for those teams who have judged.
In fact giving most teams just 200 points would guarantee erroneous positions because no way would they win an event anyway and these judging points are used as part of the seeding criteria for the next tournament.
I mean, I think prior to Amsterdam, Enemy were second seeded with Bob Long's Ironmen sitting at 11th or 12th I think, obviously ludicrous positioning.
Now when the program that Beard refers to gets a hold of this erroneous positioning, it handles them as though they were correct positioning in terms of ability when we all know their position holds no true relation to actual results.
Basically an old computer saying comes into mind, 'Garbage in, garbage out'
You put faulty data in a program, you could hardly expect it to produce a schedule that would have to effectively bypass its own data input.

Now I had a talk with Niall about this and I came up with an alternate to this system and it was to ignore the judging points as the season progresses but to add them into the system after the season had ended thereby still keeping the incentive (for ranking position) but negating their erroneous effects from tournament to tournament.
Teams who judged, would for the purposes of the ongoing ranking be allocated an average of their scores thus far and thereby not allowing them to enter the rankings in an artificially high position and thereby facking up the group allocations for future tournaments.

We'll see what happens !
Robbo

 

[egiii]

Not giving any points for marshalling gives a problem also. For example (this is just an example, not reality)

Dynasty wins the first round and marshals the second one. For the third round they will still be seeded very low since the teams that have played two rounds will get more point even if they haven't played that well.

I think a good system would be to give 200points for the marshalling when it's done and a 100point bonus at the end of the season. This would make sure everybody would marshall but not mix up the seedings during the year.

Of course in the perfect world we would have professional marshals and this problem (one of many caused by teams marshalling) would be solved.

--Egi / Cyclone
egi@iki.fi