retirement

[Scoundrl]

These tournaments are about trying to include everyone, no matter their skill level.
What you said Ken, is a load of bollocks.

You can use the safe place too. Our tournament system is by far the best and most fair so bollocks all you want. Everyone gets to play, everyone is encouraged to do well. Ringers on one or two games are irrelevant, you have to be overall good to make your scores count for the team, otherwise you are welcome to be a participant and welcome to play. If you want to matter though, you need to be good at the games, kind of the point of 'tournaments' isnt it?

[Barra]

These tournaments are about trying to include everyone, no matter their skill level.
What you said Ken, is a load of bollocks.

You can use the safe place too. Our tournament system is by far the best and most fair so bollocks all you want. Everyone gets to play, everyone is encouraged to do well. Ringers on one or two games are irrelevant, you have to be overall good to make your scores count for the team, otherwise you are welcome to be a participant and welcome to play. If you want to matter though, you need to be good at the games, kind of the point of 'tournaments' isnt it?

These tournaments weren't designed like BOTA to be super serious so we can all gloat how big our CAG-penis is. They were made to be fun and all-inclusive. Players would be discouraged if they have no chance at helping their team and I think we should be trying to avoid that.

[Scoundrl]

These tournaments weren't designed like BOTA to be super serious so we can all gloat how big our CAG-penis is. They were made to be fun and all-inclusive. Players would be discouraged if they have no chance at helping their team and I think we should be trying to avoid that.

As they should be in a tournament. Why even keep score, just give everyone a participant ribbon and call it good.

[timhett]

Team points based on lowest common number of team mates.  If Team A has 18 people and Team B has 22 people, top 18 scores count.  The vast majority of people would be able to contribute and it still makes it worthwhile for the lesser players to vie for the 20th rank or whatever to get that extra point for the team.  Some people wouldn't score team points, but not too many and they would have reason to get better I reckon.
A draft would make pretty even numbered teams probably.  If it's friend coming together and the teams are unbalanced, the above still give people reason to play and put up scores. 

[homerwannabee]

These tournaments weren't designed like BOTA to be super serious so we can all gloat how big our CAG-penis is. They were made to be fun and all-inclusive. Players would be discouraged if they have no chance at helping their team and I think we should be trying to avoid that.

As they should be in a tournament. Why even keep score, just give everyone a participant ribbon and call it good.

Because sports doesn't work your way for the most part.  We don't only take the top 3 scorers from each basketball team, and only count those points.  We count all the points.  We don't keep track of only the top 3 hitters, we keep track of ALL the hitters.  In every sport no matter if you are the best, or the worst.  If you score, than your score counts.  So stop trying to politicize this garbage.  If you are good enough to get points for a game it should count.  That's how sports work.

[Scoundrl]

The difference is a tard like you wouldnt be able to get on the team in MLB. Don't try and play those word games with me kid, I'm to smart and to old.

Think tryouts....

[Barra]

The difference is a tard like you wouldnt be able to get on the team in MLB. Don't try and play those word games with me kid, I'm to smart and to old.

Think tryouts....

This isn't MLB either.

[Scoundrl]

  We don't keep track of only the top 3 hitters, we keep track of ALL the hitters. 

The difference is a tard like you wouldnt be able to get on the team in MLB. Don't try and play those word games with me kid, I'm to smart and to old.

Think tryouts....

This isn't MLB either.

Ya, that was kind of my point... Derp...

Most us dorks wouldnt get picked on a grade school kick ball team much less have 'our hits count' in any sport. Fact is pretty much any level of sport have a process to weed out the shitty players before scoring happens so there is no fucking chance in the world someone like Georges points matter in any contest that doesnt involve a joystick. With our system tryouts happen during the tournament instead of before, promoting both participation and competition.

[homerwannabee]

  We don't keep track of only the top 3 hitters, we keep track of ALL the hitters. 

The difference is a tard like you wouldnt be able to get on the team in MLB. Don't try and play those word games with me kid, I'm to smart and to old.

Think tryouts....

This isn't MLB either.

Ya, that was kind of my point... Derp...

Most us dorks wouldnt get picked on a grade school kick ball team much less have 'our hits count' in any sport. Fact is pretty much any level of sport have a process to weed out the shitty players before scoring happens so there is no fucking chance in the world someone like Georges points matter in any contest that doesnt involve a joystick. With our system tryouts happen during the tournament instead of before, promoting both participation and competition.

I was on my college chess team, but I don't that's what you were going for. LOL  Anyways, I think you yourself explained why your system is no bueno for IGBY, and Yolympics.  Because, like you said, only the top players are really on the team.  Everyone else would be just going through the motions.
If they were to use your system.  I suggest this.  Have the first week of the tourney be the qualifiers.  The top(let's say 50) that make it, then are able to go on, and form teams.
That way there are actual TRUE try outs.
Having said that, first, and foremost I think the Yolympics draft, and scoring system are fine the way they are.
IGBY to me is the problem.
Also, maybe here is a compromise for the number of players on a team.  Cap the teams at a certain amount, but let the captain of the team decide if it wants to be invite only or open team membership.

[aarontruitt]

As someone who WAS picked to play sports in school and performs very poorly in CAG events, I am far more likely to play in an event where I can 'play with my mates' than one where I am drafted to play with a bunch of dudes I don't know. Personally, I really don't care if my scores count or not - its more about playing games I wouldn't otherwise play. That being said, it would be cool to have a less formal tournament that was appealing to more players making CAG more appealing to the general public (even if that means "Nerfing" either IGBY or Yolympics, as I know that no one wants the responsibility of creating another CAG tourney).

[WCopeland]

Jry did a great job hosting the most recent Crap Tournament, and I'm glad to say he has accepted the responsibility on a tentative basis for running the next Yolympics event. It will again be near the end of Jan in 2017.

Whatever changes are decided to scoring/teams, if any, will be very easy to implement on the tourney site. It is designed to be as flexible/organic as possible with rules.

[Barra]

Jry <3

[TheSunshineFund]

Tentative?  Come off it.  Jry for Japanese Ambassador to everything.

[Verminator]

Sorry to hear that, Wolf... because I understand how much effort you put in to organizing the tournaments yet have had to endure a lot of criticism for no good reason. I know it can be frustrating.

[xelnia]

Tentative?  Come off it.  Jry for Japanese Ambassador to everything.

  I said "tentatively" because my first, gut reaction was "yes," before I had taken the time to think it through. If it is ok with everyone, I now stand firmly on "yes."

I see that a lot of discussion has already taken place regarding scoring and player inclusion. I think, in general, Yolympics is easier to deal with because the way the teams are formed. By its nature, teams are equal size and balanced in terms of skill. No one can predict if certain players will participate after they're drafted, but that's an obvious risk with the system. I'll hold off on giving my thoughts about IGBY, but here are some preliminary thoughts on the next Yolympics:

1) Expand scoring slots from 5 to 6-7

We tried using 8 slots with the last IGBY and pretty much all the teams struggled to fill those spots. Yes, there were more IGBY teams with players spread thinner than Yolympics, but IGBY 2016 had more overall participation than Yolympics 2016. Last year, there were 92 people signed up for Yolympics. 81 people submitted scores, and 70 people scored points for their teams (86.42%). Of the 11 people who submitted but didn't score points, 8 of them submitted on multiple games. Of those 8, one submitted on 12(!) games and one of them was Allen.

If we expanded to 6 scoring slots, then that 70 would jump to 75 (92.6%). If we expanded to 7, the 70 would jump to 79 (97.53%). All teams filled their 5 scoring slots in Yolympics. One team failed to submit 6 scores on all games (27 of 28), and two teams failed to submit 7 scores on all games (21 of 28 and 25 of 28). Those numbers might have been different if teams were required to submit 6 or 7 scores per game, but it gives you an idea of general participation.

So, I see this as good reason to try and balance the scoring between 5 and 8 slots. 5 is not enough, and 8 is too many (for now). 6 or 7 would give essentially everyone a chance to score points, without putting too much pressure on teams to fill slots.

2) Fewer games

28 games is just too many. I'm thinking 18-20.

3) Time-based scoring bonuses for teams and players

One thing I've seen in MARP tourneys that I really like is giving players a bonus for submitting scores early. I think RU has done in this in their yearlong tourneys as well. For a 5-week Yolympics we could do something like: Teams with a full set of scores after Week 1 get 10 points added to their overall score for EACH game that has a full set of scores. After Week 2, 5 points. After Week 3, 2 points, After Week 4, 1 point. I favor this kind of scoring bonus over the previous "1st and 2nd place players get a bonus" method. I think it encourages and rewards participation by all players. We could also use this as bonus, maybe with different values, in the individual rankings (while still keeping the 1st/2nd place bonus). So, the entire team benefits from getting a full set of scores early on, and then the individual players who actually submitted those scores get a bonus as well.