Selection process for EHBPC 2011 23-26.06.2011

I agree with all of this, but for this year, we need to focus on getting something sorted very shortly.

Having a range of selection round is immensely desirable - but not practical for 2011. The event is in just over 3 months, which doesn't leave a lot of time.

Time will of course be an increasing factor, however, if it was decided quickly that LDN had X spaces to fill and the RoE had Y spaces, then both regions could get on with solving their newly inherited issues.

Cambridge, as Manchester last year, demonstrated that the regions can pull together and 'get shit done' (TM Chan) at decent speed once the goal is clearly set.

Personally I'd think a LDN 6/RoUK 4 split is appropriate for 2011, with RoUK hosting a single w/e qualification tournament in April, with all non-LDN cities wishing to be considered for the Euros playing an active role in the hosting of that event. For example: Experienced organisers MCR and Cambridge would work with Sheffield, BHM, Newcastle and more to select the best available host city; pull together an acceptable date and infrastructure and format.

In so doing, involving the regional grass roots (through organisational participation, and a sideline or parallel tourney during the w/e), thus making them aware of the Euros/Worlds, feel part of it and, ultimately deliver a fair result that gets those 4 RoUK slots filled.

LDN are more than capable of getting a selection event completed in time, I'm sure... ;-)

Sounds great^ not sure how many spots we get yet though untill they are adjusted again.

Or you could just have one tournament, with all cities wishing to be considered for the Euros playing an active role in the hosting of that event. For example: Experienced organisers MCR, Cambridge and London would work with Sheffield, BHM, Newcastle and more to select the best available host city; pull together an acceptable date and infrastructure and format. etc, etc

I don't understrand the london - ROE separation, why not one tournament that decides all slots?

All these proposals are great but when are we deciding which proposal to go with, and by what method?

Personally I'd think a LDN 6/RoUK 4 split is appropriate for 2011, with RoUK hosting a single w/e qualification tournament in April, with all non-LDN cities wishing to be considered for the Euros playing an active role in the hosting of that event. For example: Experienced organisers MCR and Cambridge would work with Sheffield, BHM, Newcastle and more to select the best available host city; pull together an acceptable date and infrastructure and format.

This sounds perfect, once we know the new allocaion I think we should move forward with this. I really hope we can keep the 10 slots though, I mean Italy have 7 ffs..

All these proposals are great but when are we deciding which proposal to go with, and by what method?

gonna have to vote on here as soon as we hear from Ale on the new number.

gonna have to vote on here as soon as we hear from Ale on the new number.

Who gets to vote? All polo players, only polo players that plan to go or just anyone who can access lfgss.com & has a user name?

'get shit done' should not be TMed to Chan.

That was a BFFCOMM TM and always will be.

Don't worry, Snoops. I've informed the BFFComm's lawyers.

Nightmare!

I'm with MrKawasaki in favouring a London/Regional split, because it's nice to represent/encourage smaller scenes and not get totally dominated by London's hugeness. Having said that, if I was in London I'd be arguing the opposite. It's about arguing what's best for you...

One tournament would likely require some kind of seeding to organise effectively, which I think is dodgy for a qualifier.

I reckon April for a tournament(s) is going to be too late - we should aim for March so flights/trains can be booked cheaper.

The longer this goes on, the harder it gets for people to book time off work, arrange transport and accommodation, so in the unlikely event that Birmingham even qualifies, there's a chance some of us may have to pull out for logistical reasons.

One tournament would likely require some kind of seeding to organise effectively, which I think is dodgy for a qualifier.

No it wouldn't. Swiss Rounds (I hate to keep banging on about Swiss Rounds) doesn't need any seeding (although you can speed it up a bit if you seed the first round with strong vs weak teams).

Surly 1 big tourney just sends the best...bearing in mind this has implications for the worlds right?

E(po)LO rating? ;)

No it wouldn't. Swiss Rounds doesn't need any seeding

My only experience of Swiss Rounds was the London Open, where we played Cosmic first (fair enough - seeded I presume), but ended up playing DTGP. Isn't the principle that you end up playing teams closer to your ability?

My only experience of Swiss Rounds was the London Open, where we played Cosmic first (fair enough - seeded I presume), but ended up playing DTGP. Isn't the principle that you end up playing teams closer to your ability?

I don't know if they seeded the first round. I don't think they did. There is nothing in Swiss Rounds that says you should seed.

Anyway, it takes more than two rounds. If you lost your first game, and DTGP lost their first game, you may possibly come up against them. That's how it works. If you then lose that game as well, you will play teams that have also lost two games. Likely, those teams who have lost two games have had an easier run than you, and you will defeat them, and play teams that have two losses and one win. The more rounds, the more accurate it gets.

London Open was seeded for the first round, roughly.

Sorry to drag this off point, but to clarify, DTGP was our last game in the round, so should have been the most evenly-matched. They whooped us 5-0 in about 4 minutes I think.

It seems to me that swiss rounds is the least bad option in terms of fairness when you have a lot of teams to schedule, but round-robin is faultless. So more tournaments with fewer teams is fairer. What's a realistic number to do round-robin in one day, 8? 10?

Maybe 20 teams in the UK interested in going? 7-10 in London, maybe a bit more outside London? Could work.

It seems to me that swiss rounds is the least bad option in terms of fairness when you have a lot of teams to schedule, but round-robin is faultless. So more tournaments with fewer teams is fairer. What's a realistic number to do round-robin in one day, 8? 10?

Maybe 20 teams in the UK interested in going? 7-10 in London, maybe a bit more outside London? Could work.

With 10 teams, it is 9 + 8 + 7 + 6 + 5 + 4 + 3 + 2 + 1 = 45 games or 450 mins of game play, based on 10 mins / game, no golden goals.

much easier to do this bill: , you're right tho.

Sorry to drag this off point, but to clarify, DTGP was our last game in the round, so should have been the most evenly-matched. They whooped us 5-0 in about 4 minutes I think.

It seems to me that swiss rounds is the least bad option in terms of fairness when you have a lot of teams to schedule, but round-robin is faultless. So more tournaments with fewer teams is fairer. What's a realistic number to do round-robin in one day, 8? 10?

Maybe 20 teams in the UK interested in going? 7-10 in London, maybe a bit more outside London? Could work.

Yes, RR is faultless (when it comes to the maths). Everyone would prefer a RR tournament every time.

No, more tournaments with fewer teams is not fairer. The level of teams in different tournaments will not be equal.

Anyway, your experience with Swiss Rounds at the London Open is ultimately of no use in this debate. Unfortunately the software that day had a bug/design flaw which meant replays took place. There may have been other issues that day as well, I'm not sure. I wasn't that bothered at the time to be honest. It wasn't until the league considered using Swiss Rounds that I read up on it. I now believe (and am willing to say that I am right in believing it) that it is the fairest way, with the exception of one giant RR tournament, to rank teams in a tournament.

much easier to do this bill: , you're right tho.

I knew there was probably a formula for it!

I prefer (n² -n)/2, i find it easier to work out in my head, but it comes to the same thing.

No, more tournaments with fewer teams is not fairer. The level of teams in different tournaments will not be equal.

I totally take your point, but if it gets decided to do a London and ROUK tournament, then round robin may be the best way for those.

Swiss Rounds... the fairest way, with the exception of one giant RR tournament, to rank teams in a tournament.

If the rounds aren't seeded. If they are seeded, the shittest teams are guaranteed an almost impossibly hard game to start with, and middling teams get another middling team. This is my understanding of seeding, not sure if it's right.

yes, that's pretty accurate.