Millennium Series : Prizes for Novice teams please

[Beaker]

Manike - like it

the touch, great. 100/x is easy to explain. And as most Mills have 100ish team now that's easy

Only thing on having teams go up/down for each event is you can't really then give them a series standing based on a division.

Hang on... are the prizes discussion on a per event basis and then series standing just a straight 1 to 235 (or whatever).

What's the majority verdict on the who plays who. I can see merits for both "old" and "true sport" systems.

 

[manike]

Series standings are again easy enough. You can take their individual corrected seedings from each event and factor in the number of events attended up until they get to the required minimum of events to qualify. At that point it's a factor of their top 4 seedings. Problem solved.

The series standings is based on all teams attending then, not just the divisions. Isn't that best?

Everyone pays the same entry fee.

Prizes are for each event (obviously some teams that get moved up a division may not win prizes in that event, but I see no real problem with that other than complaints from those that used to be sandbaggers). It may mean the prizes get shared around more, which must be good for all, no?

I think to simplify it all and aid scheduling people should play within their divisions.

There will still be scope with teams attending several events to play other teams of significantly better (and thus worse) ability.

For teams that just want to screw up the pro's we will need other events such as cup events which work with scrambled divisions. Maybe this is something which other events will want to hold on their own, such as Camp Masters or Portugal AO.

I see the Millennium series being the foundation and driving behind taking our sport to the next level. The ability for a novice team to screw over a pro may be something we need to sacrifice. I know many will want this and many will not. Let's face it, in how many serious sports do a new novice team get a chance to screw over (and potentially ruin) a tournament and series for a top team? NONE, that I know of! that is saved for Cups etc. which we would hopefully still have.

manike

 

[manike]

Originally posted by manike
The series standings is based on all teams attending then, not just the divisions. Isn't that best?

p.s. on this point, teams can win divisions at an individual event and get prizes but the series winners would be the overall winners, not for each division.

So there would just be 3 (or whatever, maybe down further?) winners of the full series, Ist, 2nd and 3rd. Maybe that would save some prizes and finances to help with the division prices for the rest of the year?

manike

 

[Baca Loco]

Manike

the numbers are lovely and the system seems to work but there are a couple of what seem to me significant problems:
the division distinctions can fluctuate hugely from event to event and consequently mean almost nothing to any but those at the very top. You are more likely to change divisions by virtue of scale of event than by numeric placement and the variance in relative position is much larger in the lower half than the upper.
Also, the only "first" that matters is actual first, not arbitrary "firsts" in however a particular division shakes out.
The other thing is placement of non-scoring or previously seeded teams becomes very important--you almost have to undervalue them and make them prove their worth because the closer to the top they get placed the harder it becomes to surplant them. Last place in Division One will always score better than first in Division Two.

 

[manike]

You see problems... I see benefits

Originally posted by Baca Loco
the numbers are lovely and the system seems to work but there are a couple of what seem to me significant problems:
the division distinctions can fluctuate hugely from event to event and consequently mean almost nothing to any but those at the very top. You are more likely to change divisions by virtue of scale of event than by numeric placement and the variance in relative position is much larger in the lower half than the upper.

Exactly! That's intentional. It means you can't have sandbaggers and people will get to play in different divisions if they are close to being able to move up and therefore get a mix of experience. That is exactly what I was looking for when I had the idea.

The bigger picture is that teams in each division play to win that division and get the prizes for what in effect to them would be an event with their peers but also are working for points in the series in the back ground and a chance to move up the whole table. Sometimes you play at the top of Div2 and are in the running for prizes but the competition is in theory lower than yourself, and then next time you play harder teams so you learn and get experience and more series points but aren't as likely get to win prizes. All of that is intentional.

Originally posted by Baca Loco
Also, the only "first" that matters is actual first, not arbitrary "firsts" in however a particular division shakes out.

Again Exactly! see above and then read through your words again. I think that's exactly what we want.

Originally posted by Baca Loco
The other thing is placement of non-scoring or previously seeded teams becomes very important--you almost have to undervalue them and make them prove their worth because the closer to the top they get placed the harder it becomes to surplant them.

Agreed. This is a bit of an issue. I like what you say though.

Originally posted by Baca Loco
Last place in Division One will always score better than first in Division Two.

Yes! again exactly why receeding each event, and events of different sizes with different teams playing works so well. It allows the guys at top of Div2 chance to play in bottom of Div1 and get those extra points... It allows that intermix!

That's the beauty of it!

If a team enters a small event then they are in Div 2 and get to fight for some prizes and points. They then enter a big event and are in Div1 and get a chance to move up and fight for the title!

The more I think about this the more I like it

manike

 

[NIALL]

Manike,

Its very easy to say all entries the same, but what is the sum of the entries? The tournament must
1/ Pay the expenses involved in putting on the event
2/ Build up a prize purse
3/ Reward the tournament organisation for its efforts (if its lucky!!)

Should those who are only gaining experience Lowly divisionals pay the same as those at the top of the tree who take all the reward. I don't think so.

Its a very interesting concept, but has to work in every department. We'll talk in Toulouse.

Niall

 

[TJ 2]

Just packing my kit at home but

had to check...

S'looking good, Manike is running with tha ball nicely. Niall's entry fee problem I guess we all anticipated but I think that finding a median between Pro and Nov entry is eminently do-able to get a middle ground some all teams will pay.

Looking forward to Tues to see where it's at...

Good weekend all - think of me at 2am saturday when you're all in the bar and I've still got 12 hours riding to do...

peace

 

[manike]

Originally posted by NIALL
Manike,

Its very easy to say all entries the same, but what is the sum of the entries? The tournament must
1/ Pay the expenses involved in putting on the event
2/ Build up a prize purse
3/ Reward the tournament organisation for its efforts (if its lucky!!)

Should those who are only gaining experience Lowly divisionals pay the same as those at the top of the tree who take all the reward. I don't think so.

Its a very interesting concept, but has to work in every department. We'll talk in Toulouse.

Niall

Niall agreed 100% on points 1-3.

The only other way I could think of was to have entrys refunded once a team knew what division they were in and I don't think that is such a good idea? Teams need to know what they are paying before turning up (not least so you guys get the money in advance!)

If you look at how many teams would be Div1 (and probably thus old pro's probably paying a lot less) and how many would be Div 2, 3 and 4 (with 2-3 being Am and paying a similar amount) and 3-4 being novice and paying a little more) I hope that the overall funds to the organisers would be the same.

I actually think such a format would encourage more teams to attend more events and might help you all get more teams and make more money! It would certainly give more teams a chance of prizes! Which may make the lower level teams happier about paying a little more. Teams ought to be getting rewarded fairly at ALL levels...

The way you might be able to help teams out in the lower divs is with returns against paint or something, so they pay the same entry but get a small amount off per case of paint...? Wouldn't that help everyone and allow the sponsors to put themselves about? We need to work on that point maybe.

 

[Baca Loco]

Guess we're gonna disagree, Manike,

which is fine since ultimate decisions aren't being made by me anyway--more's the pity.
Regardless of your fluctuating "divisions" teams are going to tend to see this arrangment as one really big division with breaks constructed for purposes of setting specific event schedules and for all those teams in the bottom two/thirds I think they're gonna have a hard time coming to terms with that reality.
More clearly defined divisions that are in less flux provide more readily apparent goals for teams to play for.
Ah, well. No point really in hashing at it anymore I suppose.

Posted by Niall--"Should those who are only gaining experience Lowly divisionals pay the same as those at the top of the tree who take all the reward. I don't think so."

IF that was all they were doing then it would be a fair concern and one of the reasons I don't think Manike's solution will work--the ultimate goal is too far removed for too many teams. However, distinct and separate annual division assignments mean all competitiors in a division have a near term goal to shoot for-- the season's prizes for their division and advancement to the next level.
Under such a system it would also be far more palatable for teams to recognize and concur with standardized fee and returns based on merit. Each team receives from an event the same basic services while what they can earn is dependant on their ability. A beginning team which now gets, as far as I can tell, more or less nothing, would actually be playing for the season's prizes in their division. They would also recognize that as they improved they would not be limited by their ability to pay and their improvement would be rewarded by an improved level of prizes as they move up.
I don't think it would be a hard sell really.

 

[manike]

I've been out on the beers...

Originally posted by NIALL
Should those who are only gaining experience Lowly divisionals pay the same as those at the top of the tree who take all the reward. I don't think so.

Eureka! I've been drinking and it's amazing how a few guinness can solve the worlds problems even if they lose me the ability to spell and type...

I have the answer Niall All teams pay the same entry to start with, but depending on what division they end up in during each event they get a voucher for a certain amount off the next Millenium event that they enter.

For instance, every team pays 1000 Euros to enter an event if it's the first Millennium that they have attended. Then if you get seaded in Div 2 you get a voucher for 100 Euro's off the next event that you enter. If you are seeded div 3 you get 200 Euro's off the next event and if you are seeded div 4 you get 300 Euro's off the next event.

This means people in the lower divisions will end up paying less for a full seasons play. It also means that teams have a huge incentive to play more and more Millennium events, since as soon as they play the first they are getting discounts for subsequent events (if they aren't div 1 that is ) (Niall if the takings go up I want my cut ) and futher events for teams that aren't Div 1 are subsidised.

Only 1 voucher can be redeamed by a team per event.

I think those numbers should work out. Taking into account that the costs at the moment are:-

Pro: 1 250 €
Am: 1000 €
Nov: 700 €

Ok so now I need to pass out from alchohol abuse. I'll read Baco Loco's comments tomorrow when I am a little more sober

manike