NPPL Scoring system flawed?

[Buns of steel]

Having spent the last couple of weeks looking @ the final placings for the NPPL, everytime hoping the list read Tigers then Nexus.
I've noticed that placing 8th in the finals only gets you one more point than placing 9th wereas placing 7th gets you 3. Now obviously it's too late to change anything this season, but surely playing in the finals should give you more than just 1 point over the first "Loser"
I see the way that they have broken down the points system but they could have a point break at 4th/5th, making it better for making the final 4, again worthy of the extra point.
So just for example a team like, just grabbing a team at randam, say the Tigers, their score would be 12,12,2,1,12 =39.
And if you took another team, for example, Nexus, then their score would be 14,4,7,6,6 =37
I'm not knocking Nexus, but the Tigers played 3 out of 5 final days, Nexus played 1 but placed above the Tigers because they beat them in a head-to-head (we were playing with 2 one-legged players & hampered by a couple of Chavs ) which they rightfully won.
I realise this would benefit us this season but surely all that extra paintball is worth something?

 

[Robbo]

Oh come on Steve retrospective point allotment (that somehow miraculously suits you guys) isn't really gonna hold much water when this point system has been around for long enough and yet only now you see a problem with it.

Nah, we all knew what systems we were playing under and for those people who bemoaned them before they fell the wrong side of them, then these are the ones to take serious otherwise it looks just like sour grapes.

The principle of what you say I actually agree with in that a greater differential should have been allocated to those teams who made the next round but if you are looking to create differentials to distinguish between Tigers and Nexus then the fact we only used Nexus players all year (you used some All Americans) would provide that differential, apart from the fact that the last time we played you in the NPPL (the actual criterion used), where we ended up beating you.

But hey, it is what it is Steve, we both knew the scoring systems going in this year, let's be grateful we are both in and both able to compete (hopefully) over there in the best league in the world in 2006.

Us Brits got two teams in there which is better than any other nation outside of the US, let's build on that rather than worrying about shaving point allocations for our own benefits after its all done and dusted.

Peace

 

[Buns of steel]

Robbo, the effort to determine "rightful" placement was meant to be either "Tongue in cheek" or "Ironic" but my premise for the post is a genuine feeling that the team placing 8th in the events should be better rewarded for the extra effort and cost.

I'll leave the comedic posts to the like's of Kyle and our mate Mr Brockdorf (Joke, Nick )

Not going to get into a "Who's the Daddie's?" with you or anyone. As I told your guys in Miami it was just good to be in the mix.

Peace and good luck next year


P.S Just to save me a phone call did you get that Disc of pics from Miami?

 

[Robbo]

Steve, all that 'who's the daddy' cr@p has long been put to bed at Campaign (thankfully) and as I said, I 100% agree with the principles of your point of point allocations (differentials) and the only reason I even bothered to respond was that Nexus and Tigers were quoted by yourself.
You knew I wasn't gonna let it go

I also 100% want both of us to represent the UK next year in the NPPL and if we can both hang onto that spot (no matter what placing we finished at) it's just gotta be good for Brit-ball.

It seems ludicrous to me that for a country with so many disadvantages when it comes to trying to compete at the top, we end up with two teams managing (against enormous odds) to get our asses in the frame for 2006 and then not making the most of it.
We owe it to ourselves as ballers and also at a more national level in flying the flag, that may sound a bit cheesy but it's not, I actually do feel proud as a Brit going over there and competing and hanging with them (to a point).
The Tigers did a great job in Miami and proved to all they don't need anybody guesting for them, it would be crazy not to have you guys playing alongside us next season...let's hope it works out for everybody concerned in 2006.And yeh, I got the CD thanks.
Coooool.
Peace

 

[Baca Loco]

Luke, I am your father

Perhaps you two would like to meet at a local pub after work? Who knows, play your cards right and you might get, er, lucky.

Otherwise, as noted, the fundamental point is obviously correct but while we're at could somebody explain what posted MS scores mean these days?

 

[manike]

I agree that a points differential is a great idea.

When I was a kid I used to sail competitively (yes there is such a thing) the points were allocated such that 1st place always had an advantage when it came to the cumulative points for the end of the season.

The points were scored a little differently, 1st place got 0.75 points, second got 2, third got 3 etc... It meant that a first and a third was better than two seconds. Which I agree with.

Making the finals or Sunday club should be rewarded slightly. Allocating the points to reflect this, is a great idea.

 

[Chicago]

Why should making the finals be awarded differentl? It's an arbitrary cutoff. How is the jump from, say, 9 to 8 much different than 8 to 7? Mathematically, it's the same. If you wanted to get complex about it, you could bell-curve the scores: if there were 100 teams, 49, 50 and 51 would receive nearly identical scores, while the gap between 1 and 2 and 99 and 100 wuld be larger.

Or maybe a variation of the PSP system: final score is based on points earned at the event. If 14th got 209 and 13th got 210 and 12th got 290, 13th and 14th have the same season score while 12th gets quite a bump.

 

[tiger jedi]

Originally posted by Buns of steel
Having spent the last couple of weeks looking @ the final placings for the NPPL, everytime hoping the list read Tigers then Nexus.
I've noticed that placing 8th in the finals only gets you one more point than placing 9th wereas placing 7th gets you 3. Now obviously it's too late to change anything this season, but surely playing in the finals should give you more than just 1 point over the first "Loser"
I see the way that they have broken down the points system but they could have a point break at 4th/5th, making it better for making the final 4, again worthy of the extra point.
So just for example a team like, just grabbing a team at randam, say the Tigers, their score would be 12,12,2,1,12 =39.
And if you took another team, for example, Nexus, then their score would be 14,4,7,6,6 =37
I'm not knocking Nexus, but the Tigers played 3 out of 5 final days, Nexus played 1 but placed above the Tigers because they beat them in a head-to-head (we were playing with 2 one-legged players & hampered by a couple of Chavs ) which they rightfully won.
I realise this would benefit us this season but surely all that extra paintball is worth something?

Hey Steve,

Yes Chuck came to all the teams & presented the scoring system at Huntington Beach. I checked it & didnt see a problem. As you have all said there probably should be a 2 point difference between 8th & 9th, but to be fair if we didn't play so bad in San Diago & Denver (the two i didn't play by the way ) then the scoring wouldn't seem quite so unbiased towards us.

Peace Love
NPPL Brit Army 06 (I hope)

 

[Ronnie Hollington]

Yea Warren its all your fault, i just don’t know how we manage to ever play a competiton with out you. In fact sometimes at work Tom says to me " Ronnie i don’t know if i can carry on working today cause Warrens not here" to which i reply "i know what you mean Tom i am missing him so much its hurting"

Seriously its all in the past but logically think if you are going to have point breaks then qualifying is an achievement should be one and making the finals certainly deserves one.