National Series 2011

Cambridge?

Birmingham were thinking about hosting an event too...

Cambridge are having a big meeting this weekend about our NS tourney. Will most likely announce something next week if it's happening!

Bit of a blast from the past, but this has been bugging me:

Been giving some thought to the 3/4 scores issue...

I ran a few models using weighted random data and found that on average ~20% of teams would finish in a different place. Neither is perfect but using 4 is more likely to give us accurate placings. It may also provide an incentive for people to play more tournaments or it may make them think there's no point. Not sure and I think it's close between the two. The consensus on here seems to be that 4 is fine (remember you can use a sub), so for this year I think it would be prudent to lean towards accurate final standings and stick with 4 scores.

Have a look at the differences in the scores with the two ways now?!

I notice one minor change!

Obviously it's not over yet...

So, what exactly is bugging you?

The standings are now colour coded.

Green: Qualified for a NS ranking!
Orange: Play the final event and get yourselves a ranking!
Red: No ranking achievable, points to be redistributed.

If a team cannot achieve a NS ranking, any points earned will be reallocated on a tournament by tournament basis. The difference between their tournament points and the points earned by the team[s] one points bracket below will be divided by the number of teams placing below. This value will then be added.

For example, La Schmoove placed =7th and earned 10 points in Brighton but cannot now achieve a NS ranking. The 4 teams that placed in =9th each scored 6 points. 4 points divided by 4 teams = 1 additional point each for the teams in =9th.

Let me know any questions.

Would Cosmic get all the points for 1st place in LO if CMDaddy and SSonic don't finish complete the NS?

Yup.

Supersonic scored 32
Call Me Daddy scored 28
Cosmic scored 23

Points difference is 9 points, divided by one team = additional 9 points to your 23 = 32 points.

The weighting's weird in my opinion: Spring Break's win and a third is worth less than Nice Touch's two seconds? That's like two draws being worth more than a win and a loss, no?

But never-the-less, everything to play for in the final event, exciting stuff, everyone loves a photo finish!

Spring Break will donate three beer hats into the prize pool, THREE BEER HATS!

Josh spent a lot of time working on how to weight specifically that. In the end we opted to reward consistency rather than an overall win, hence being in the final twice is worth more.

Surely winning should get the best reward

#don't know about these things just seems to make sense to me. sort of like how they do it in f1

Josh spent a lot of time working on how to weight specifically that. In the end we opted to reward consistency rather than an overall win, hence being in the final twice is worth more.

Yeah, we also took into account the fact that not every tournament would be guaranteed to have the same level of difficulty. At the beginning of the season we thought that there could be a tournament that had a dozen teams, and maybe none of them top-tier. That being a possibility, it again came down to rewarding consistency.

Surely winning should get the best reward

Winning does get the "best reward." It just so happens that second gets a reward that is "better" enough than third to make up for the difference.

Fair dos, ranking is a tricky beast. I suppose proportional ranking was abandoned as the events with a smaller number of teams wouldn't have been as attractive to the top teams?

Personally I'd have started at a "winner's score" of 100 (or whatever was above X number of teams) and then removed 1 point per place (multiple points for joint places) until the last placed team? The growing decrease in point allocation is arbitrary and makes for an inaccurate mid-table (could be wrong here)? Plus tournaments with a poor showing would be more attractive to teams (top teams too)? Basically it's proportional ranking flipped up-side-down to weight low-attendance tournaments as attractive and high-attendance tournaments as unattractive (makes sense if it's about participation/growing the UK scenes/etc).

All food for thought for next year and thanks for sorting it out in the first place Josh/Mark.

If anyone doesn't like it, suck it up and get involved for next year.

Winning does get the "best reward." It just so happens that second gets a reward that is "better" enough than third to make up for the difference.

Ah I get you!

Just looked at the standings, looks like Spring Break have got this.

Whoever wins the final event takes it I think?

Pretty much.

even us?

No if Spring Break make the final of the last event they win the NS.

Whoever wins the final event takes it I think?

You mean, if both SB & NT compete in the final event, whoever achieves a better placing will win, maybe?

If SB and NT are in the final together and NT win, then they will be joint 1st in NS.

If Cosmic win last event and SB come secone, SB win NS. If Cosmic win final event and NT come second, Cosmic take NS.

Now I'm confused.

I'm fairly certain it makes sense.