My understanding of the reason the points system is the way it is, is based on the premise that more importance is given to winning your last game. The reason is that the team that finishes 3rd is definitely better than that that finished 4th. The team that finishes 4th may not necessarily be better than the one that finishes 5th as they may not have played each other. Hopw often have you used the line "that deserved to be the final" or "we got screwed by the seeding". Hence, dividing the points in a manner to benefit the teams that win their last game should give a more accurate overall representation of the overall strength of a team throughout the Tour in relation to others rather than simply their position in each event may do.
Someone else may be able to explain more clearly or in more depth but that is the gist of it. Does it work? I'm told it did. Dave. Screwed by the seeding at Euros! :-) -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of peter robert Wright Sent: 17 August 2005 12:47 To: britdisc@near.me.uk Subject: [BD] Tour points system forwarded on behalf of joff - don't reply to him alone please.... -rodders ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------- 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 -- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users. It has removed 50713 spam emails to date. Paying users do not have this message in their emails. Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now! __________________________________________________ BritDisc mailing list BritDisc@near.me.uk http://zion.ranulf.net/mailman/listinfo/britdisc Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/informed.asp
