(Long numerical email) The only slight problem you get is that after a few places into the B tour, you have a differential of 0 or minus numbers which creates a bit of a bonus for lower teams. This is avoided in the current system which apportions an amount of points relative to a fixed figure, and the number of teams in the event.
The only other way I could think of doing it would be to have 0 for the winner, 1 (or 5 say) for 2nd place, 2 (or 10) for third place, and so on and have an overall lowest score takes the prize. It could be simpler to work out, and obviously teams that don't enter all four events could either be given a penalty score of 50, say, or a penalty equal to 1 point higher than the bottom team, or some other way to avoid them winning the tour/qualifying for Nationals by not turning up for the last event. I can't compare the total tour results at the moment due to a lack of B tour results from Colchester, but the top 16-20 has a few little differences. It would be as follows. If you use 50 points for a non-attendance, (like I have done below) then that obviously penalises teams not attending a smaller event. That is why Clapham 2 and Fire 2 have slipped down the rankings a bit. Maybe it is not that different, and also I guess it could as easily provide ties. I don't know enough statistics to go into it fully. Anyway, it would be easier to work out. That's enough from me. Andy UTB 1 FireOfLondon1 3 2 LeedsLeedsLeeds 6 3 ChevronActionFlash 8 4 Clapham1 9 5 Fusion1 20 6 Emo 27 7 BAF 28 8 PlasticFactory1 29 9 BrightonUltimate1 38 10 LtdRelease1 42 11 SheffieldSteal1 44 12 No-Lo 52 13 Discuits1 53 14 PlasticFactory2 59 15 FlyghtClub1 60 16 PaddyMurphy 60 17 TenaciousDevon1 62 18 CardiffUltimate1 81 19 UTB1 82 20 LuckyHuckers 99 21 Clapham2 110 22 MMJ 111 23 Abstract 115 24 FireOfLondon2 116 Traditional points: 1 FireOfLondon1 952 2 LeedsLeedsLeeds 912 3 ChevronActionFlash 884 4 Clapham1 884 5 Fusion1 768 6 Emo 695 7 BAF 680 8 PlasticFactory1 671 9 BrightonUltimate1 582 10 LtdRelease1 540 11 SheffieldSteal1 522 12 Discuits1 488 13 No-Lo 440 14 FlyghtClub1 399 15 PaddyMurphy 392 16 PlasticFactory2 387 17 Clapham2 380 18 TenaciousDevon1 359 19 FireOfLondon2 330 20 UTB1 278 21 CardiffUltimate1 266 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- What do people think about the points system at the moment? I think I may well be missing the point, but does anyone else think that the current points for each position in the tour seems a bit strange: 1 = 250 2 = 230 3 = 222 4 = 210 5 = 202 6 = 190 7 = 182 8 = 170 For some reason, the differential between each position (after first to second) alternates between 8 and 10 points. This means that there are a lot of combinations that lead to the same total (1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th = 912 = 1st, 2nd, 2nd and 5th) Now I realise that there is a gag involved in getting as many 2's in the system as possible and I'm sure that when Si Hill (?) came up with the system, this joke was extremely amusing. However, would it not be much more sensible to have a system (as most sports that involve multiple tournaments - golf, snooker, tennis etc. do) that has an ever decreasing differential. In other words the difference between 1st and 2nd is bigger than the difference between 2nd and 3rd, which in turn is bigger than the difference between 3rd and 4th etc. This reflects the more emphasis that players who are still in with a chance of winning put in compared to those who are playing for places (we've all seen the lower intensity that is often exhibited in 3 vs 4 play-offs). We seem to be going some way along this by having the 20 point gap between first and second, and then losing the plot after that. Why not go for something like: 1 = 250 2 = 230 (minus 20) 3 = 211 (minus 19) 4 = 193 (minus 18) 5 = 176 (minus 17) 6 = 160 (minus 16) 7 = 145 (minus 15) 8 = 131 (minus 14) Therefore: 1st, 2nd, 2nd and 5th beats 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th. Just a thought as it gets rid of a lot of the drawn positions. If people don't like funny numbers, then just have much bigger values and then go minus 100, minus 95, minus 90 etc etc. Cheers, Joff __________________________________________________ BritDisc mailing list BritDisc@near.me.uk http://zion.ranulf.net/mailman/listinfo/britdisc Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/informed.asp __________________________________________________ BritDisc mailing list BritDisc@near.me.uk http://zion.ranulf.net/mailman/listinfo/britdisc Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/informed.asp
