You are reading a single comment by @danwentskiing and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
London Fixed Gear and Single-Speed is a community of predominantly fixed gear and single-speed cyclists in and around London, UK.
This site is supported almost exclusively by donations. Please consider donating a small amount regularly.
@danwentskiing
Need clarification how this would work. As it stands now, everyone 'feeds into' Stabbath, then B Team and then a theoretical third team. It means that the best/most committed/most long-serving players (remember seeding isn't just about ability, it's about turnout) get first dibs on going to tournaments. Obviously this suits me, Fin and Andy down to the ground, as we always have first 'dibs'. It is okay for middling people, and pretty poor for newcomers/unseeded people (Neil), although how much of a problem that is, is unclear (Neil has mentioned to me he's not that interested in going to tournaments at the moment).
If we change the way this works, according to Matt's system, what would Andy have been able to do about Cambridge? Can he still call on people from lower teams to join him in Stabbath? Do they have the right to say no? If they *don't *then I don't see any point using Matt's method; if they do then we may as well have the free-for-all/pick your own teams/play qualifier games and/or find subs when necessary.
People are trying to modify the seeding system to make more 'fixed'/reliable teams, when that is exactly what seeding was intended to prevent! For me, seeding as a way of making tournament line-ups/order of right-of-refusal has to work the way we do it now, or not at all. We could still run seeding alongside a free-for-all system, if people want to see how they're thought of by others, but not use it to decide those things.
Sorry, wordy response, but I can't explain any more concisely. It's suprisingly complicated!
(The poll actually stands 5:4 in favour of seeding - randoms are spoiling the vote!)