Suggestions for standard major league PB

[Wadidiz]

As I've said on this thread a few times already, I'm toying with some ideas. I'm not sure this is what I'd like to see right away as a replacement for the status quo. I just would like to see and play whatever seems to make the most sense of these proposals. Of course I know it would be different than the 7-player we have today.

I personally admire the ability to come up with a good game-plan and implement it. I'm really curious about what a little time-incentive would do in the development of meticulously-planned power plays.

By the way, the point system I just proposed would give a spread of 25 points between a full win and maximum bonus points. In today's NPPL and Millennium it is theoretically possible to have a win with a spread of 27 points between minimum and maximum. In other words, it is possible to have a team win 7 games with more points and beat a team (point-wise) that won 8 games (7 x 100 = 700 compared to 8 x 73 = 584), although such low scores for a win are almost never seen.

I agree that spectators looking at bonus charts would be kinda ridiculous. Maybe there would be a better, simpler system for time-bonus points. Maybe Nick's idea was better.

 

[Wadidiz]

Steve !

Originally posted by Nick Brockdorff
Your points spread is MUCH too great !

Getting 1 point for winning inside the last minute, compared to 25 for winning within the first 30 seconds will mean you (worst case) have to win 25 games, to achieve the same score as another team that just won 1 !

As Beaker pointed out, it would make too great a difference between one win and the next.

I firmly believe the spread between maximum points earned for a quick win, and the "worst" score you get for winning a game outright..... should be less than the points you actually get for "worst winning score".

I.e. - if worst winning score is 10 - the spread upto fastest win should be no more than 9 points...... or as I put in my suggestion 8 and 7 respectively.

Nick

I don't know. I'm trying to make time a significant but not overwhelming part of the mix and to make sure there is plenty of room for a diversity of scores so there won't be so many ties at the top.

And I want to eliminations out of the mix.

 

[woz]

Suggestion!

What if we only played 5 prelim games 20 mins long XBall style, most points after time out wins.

After playing XBall i really loved it, but i do understand the financial difficulties in organising Xball, so maybe this is a possible integration of both formats? what do you guys think.

1 problem maybe that this would mean all teams playing only there own divisions, although i am in favour of this i understand the excitement lower ranked (no disrespect) teams get from playing top pros, but there always has 2 be some sacrifices somewhere.

So what do ya think?


Woz

 

[raehl]

Ahem.

Hardly a mischaracterization.

50% of American college football scoring is based on the AP and Coaches POLLS. The onl science to that is what the people doing the polls think. Obviously it's very difficult to be #1 if other teams are undefeated and you're not, but there are plenty of cases where an 11-0 team is ranked #8 or lower in the polls while a 10-1 team is ranked #2 or #3.

The other "half" of the rankings is based on computer scores - there are 8 of them I believe, and the top 1 and bottom 1 for each team are dropped. They measure things like margin of victory, strength of teams played, offensive yardage, defensive yardege, and a whole host of other wierd things designed to take into account the QUALITY of wins. Not that it's quite common for a team that ranks #1 by one computer to rank #10 by another.

On top of that there are "quality win" and "loss" points - these are sort of bonuses thrown in to address some apparent inconsistencies in the system and rarely matter except for close rankings.


If you think all that matters in american college football are wins and losses 1 you'r very wrong and 2) you need to talk to BYU.


- Chris

 

[Baca Loco]

Ahem.

Originally posted by raehl
1--Hardly a mischaracterization.

2--50% of American college football scoring is based on the AP and Coaches POLLS.
The other "half" of the rankings is based on computer scores -

- Chris

1--in debating the relative merits of altering the SCORING system in paintball using the RANKING system in college football as validation is misleading. Pure and simple.
2--fundamentally teams must win games. The ranking issue only arises in football because for the most part teams don't and can't play each other except within their conferences. And you don't have conference results predicated on anything but who wins or loses.

 

[raehl]

Uhm...

How is comparing 125 teams who can only play 11 or so games against each other that much different than comparing 100 or so teams that only play 10 or so preliminary games against each other?

And only SOME conference champs are determined by win record only - some have playoffs - and the ones determined by win record only also frequently have 2, 3 and even 4 or 5-way ties for wins. Actually, I think ties for conference championships are actually more common than single teams winning.

The college ranking system is designed precisely to rank many teams competing in few games against each other. How is that NOT like the way paintball preliminaries work? Calling one a scoring system and one a ranking system is merely a hair-splitting excercise on your part - BOTH assign differing values to wins based on a set of criteria and BOTH are used to rank the teams when you're done.

The only big distinction is that college football advances only 2 teams instead of 8 or 16.


- Chris

 

[Beaker]

Uhm...

Originally posted by raehl
How is comparing 125 teams who can only play 11 or so games against each other that much different than comparing 100 or so teams that only play 10 or so preliminary games against each other?

While I'm all for learning a bit more about this college system I do think maybe you are not comparing the same thing by the sounds of it.

If this system is used to compare the total scores of 100 teams, what we are debating it what makes up those scores in the first place.

It's like if you gave 10pts for a TD (with a time bonus ) and 2 for a field goal compared to the 7/3 currently.

I can see the logic, but if this system is only used to compare the relative results of teams on (basically) equal win/loss records then I don't think it really enforces the arguement of having the initial scoring reflect this relative dominance.

Overall I could buy a simplistic system which used games times or players live as the breaker (I prefer player live) say

3pts = win
2 = transit
1 = draw, no flags touched
0 = loss

that and players live would be my vote.

 

[Robbo]

I reckon all you lot in this thread must have studied Sociology at uni, I mean, we just had God knows how many pages of rhetoric and nothing's been solved or anywhere near it !!!

Get some science / mathematics guys in here it to sort you wooly-minded thinkers out.

Yada, Yada, Yada..............