Millennium Series : Prizes for Novice teams please

[Baca Loco]

Cool, that makes life easier

Originally posted by TJ Lambini
So we're getting there...Four divisions sounding good to everyone, 25% splits?

peace

No. Four divisions yes but equal percentages, no. Please review earlier post--15, 25, 30, 30 for two reasons: A) bulk of teams will naturally fall in the 30 and 30 categories (talent-wise) and B) you want the absolute cream of the crop at the top. Should be progressively harder to reach higher.

PS--thought my avatar was scary. At least now I know what happened to Sasquatch.

 

[TJ Lambini]

50 team event, 150 team event

7 teams or so in Div one, 21....these are the sorta variables we're working with at tha Millennium at the moment, remember that.

Picture? moi? I have no idea what you're talking about dude....

peace

 

[Mark Toye-Nexus]

Agree with Baco Loco

15 25 30 30

If its gotta be percentages then thats the way!!

How do we take into account say a team like Lockout who might do just one event - space at the top??

And percentages of what???

At each event?? We go back to what we were trying to avoid. Remember - the nos attending events (and who) is very fluid.

Mark

 

[manike]

Cool, that makes life easier

Originally posted by TJ Lambini
So we're getting there...Four divisions sounding good to everyone, 25% splits?

peace

yes, that way people won't immediately credit 1st with pro, 2nd with am and 3rd with novice... they will understand a split and some pro's will recognise being in 2nd div isn't so bad since some pro's have to be there etc.

The other thing that's great about doing divisions this way is no team will know how many will enter the event and therefore CAN NOT (easily) rig cames to place differently in the next event. I like that

TJ If Dynasty get a 1st, 1st, and 3rd but only do 3 events, then someone else gets a 1st, 1st and 3rd and 5th, then they win due to having played more events. (even if only the top 3 scores count, the fact the other teams has attended more events is the tie breaker).

I think it should be as we have it now, and as Goose points out, the top 4 events are the ones that count for the series winners (but all count towards seading obviously). The points to win the series would NOT be the same as the seading points. The seading is an average which takes account of all events played etc. and equates all teams no matter how many events they have played (i.e. if they have played under 4 events). The winning is on the top four scores.

manike

 

[Mark Toye-Nexus]

Manike

Like it - like it alot

Bang on

Mark

 

[TJ Lambini]

The key to this if it is to happen is

Simplicity. Unless it is foolproof and easy to understand, tha organisers and some teams will fight it...we must all be missing something really obvious guys cos I refuse to accept that it is as complex as we appear to be making it. Let's work backwards: what do we see as core principles which must be kept to?

1 - Numerical divisions rather than categories
2 - Promotion and relegation (from event to event or year-to-year....which?)

Any more 100% core? Once we establish these, then we work out from base...

 

[manike]

Agree with Baco Loco

Originally posted by Mark T, Rushers
15 25 30 30

If its gotta be percentages then thats the way!!

How do we take into account say a team like Lockout who might do just one event - space at the top??

And percentages of what???

At each event?? We go back to what we were trying to avoid. Remember - the nos attending events (and who) is very fluid.

Mark

OK weighted percentages makes sense but is 15% enough for the top division? It may end up with them not having enough games? (depends on how we snake it). i think we need to try and equate it to percentages but actually have a fixed number, like if 15% equates to 6 teams then we have 9 in Div 1. if 15% equates to 13 then we still have 9 in Div 1, but if it equates to 15 then we move upto 18 in Div 1... not that hard to implement and keeps scheduling easier (also means more teams playing in Div 1 at bigger events... I think that may be a good thing?)

Mark, lockout would be assesed on previous attended events, or if they haven't attended any, then they are assessed and placed as fairly as possible depending on their success in other recent events against teams who are also playing.

manike

 

[Baca Loco]

50 team event, 150 team event

Originally posted by TJ Lambini
7 teams or so in Div one, 21....these are the sorta variables we're working with at tha Millennium at the moment, remember that.

Picture? moi? I have no idea what you're talking about dude....

peace

OK, but when was last Mil event with only 50 teams?

But hey, I can get behind the 25% thing. I'm flexible--compared to your average dstore window mannequin, anyway.

On that picture thing? I blinked and it was gone. Musta been seeing things. Note to self--never watch 'Harry and Hendersons' again.

 

[manike]

The key to this if it is to happen is

Originally posted by TJ Lambini
Simplicity. Unless it is foolproof and easy to understand, tha organisers and some teams will fight it...we must all be missing something really obvious guys cos I refuse to accept that it is as complex as we appear to be making it. Let's work backwards: what do we see as core principles which must be kept to?

1 - Numerical divisions rather than categories
2 - Promotion and relegation (from event to event or year-to-year....which?)

Any more 100% core? Once we establish these, then we work out from base...

TJ I think in reality the system will actually be very simple to implement and understand, it seems complicated here because we are hashing out finer points over a typing forum

I think the 'seading' (sounds better than promotion/relegation) has ot happen for every event and that's one of the core factors here.

We've worked out how to sead, now we just need to finalise how many in each division. Easy and simple huh?

I think Divisions should relate to % but fit a set number which makes scheduling easy. Like 9's or 11's (so each team plays 8 or 10 games). I think 11's is best actually bearing in mind the current format.

manike

 

[TJ Lambini]

And everyone seems to be pro playing within their own bracket only?