Points system

+2 votes
asked Mar 24, 2012 by Chad B Ironkubb ✭ (3,130 points)
edited Mar 25, 2012 by thingles

I was playing around with some point systems for scoring people/teams for the tournaments in the midwest.  Just trying to get some ideas.  We could keep individual points as well as team points.

Point system.

  • Any person who enters a tournament would get .5 point.
  • Any person who reaches the top 64 would get 1 point.
  • Any person who reaches the top 32 would get 2 points
  • Any person who reaches the top 16 would get 4 points
  • Any person who reaches the top 8 would get 6 points
  • Any person who reaches the top 4 would get 8 points
  • Any person who reaches the top 2 would get 10 points
  • Any person who wins a tournament would get 15 points

Points would travel with the person.  For example:

Matt and Rick play together as a team and finish in the top 16.  Each player would get 4 points.  Their team would get 8 points.

Andrew and Chance play in the same tournament and get eliminated in the first round of 32.  They would each get  2 points.  Their team would get 4 points.

The next tournament Matt (4pts) plays with Andrew (2pts).  Let' say the finish in the top 8.  They each would get 6 pts.  

Matt = 10pts   

Andrew = 8 pts.   Team = 12pts.

Just brainstorming everyones input would be great.  Could we make something like this work.  Do we want to go with something like this and keep tournament points for everyone???? idea thoughts??

commented Mar 26, 2012 by THansenite Ironkubb ✭ (2,660 points)
The only problem I see with that is that it it is easier to get more points at smaller tournaments.  If one tournament has 64 teams and the next has 16, losing in the first round would have different implecations as well as making it easier to get first place since there is less competition.

I would suggest points based on the number of participants.  If there are 64 teams, first place overall gets 64 points.  If there are 32 points, first place gets 32.  Then, each "step down" gets half the points.  In a 64 team tournament, the second place team will get 32, third and fourth get 16, etc.  That way, the more people at a tournement (making it theoretically harder), the more points you get.  

Just throwing in my .02
commented Mar 26, 2012 by ChrisHodges Kubblic ❚ (7,300 points)
Then the problem becomes "Are the larger tournaments weighted too much?" On the one hand it's intuitive to say the larger tournaments mean more, but if the winner of Nationals gets 96 points do the rest of the tournaments even matter?

I think the way to approach this is to have a minimum qualifying tournament size (I'm thinking 24 to 32 teams), and have fixed points for 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, quarter-finalists, and participants.  This emphasizes attendance at the medium sized events rather than putting all of the available points in one or two really big ones.

Full disclosure - I am on the planning committee for a medium sized tournament, so would lean towards a system that favors them. But still, wouldn't the 24-48 team tournaments be the backbone of a "circuit", and therefore be the target events we would want to bias towards?
commented Mar 26, 2012 by Chad B Ironkubb ✭ (3,130 points)
A minimum qualifying tournament is a good idea Chris.  I agree on having a fixed points system.
commented Mar 27, 2012 by THansenite Ironkubb ✭ (2,660 points)
Good call Chris.  I like having a "minimum number of teams" requirement.  And it is true that it could cause nationals to be too heavily weighted if done my way.
commented Mar 27, 2012 by ChrisHodges Kubblic ❚ (7,300 points)
If the bigger tournaments are worth more points, and the BIGGEST happens right in the middle of the summer, then it is very likely that everything occuring afterwards would be irrelevant as far as the points chase is concerned (*cough* FALL Klassic *cough*).

I guess it would depend on what the goal of such a thing would be. Is it to drive participation and interest in more tournaments, or is it to crown the "Best Player/Team of the Year"? I would argue that the best of the year is already handled - they are called the National Champions. To give them the lions share of any "season points" issued as well only increases the relative gap between the tournaments, whereas a flat-rate system would be more of a rising tide that lifts all boats.

If the Cinco De Mayo tourney gets the 64 teams they are hoping for, then someone living in EC would theoretically be able to win the two largest events in the western hemisphere without ever getting on the highway. Would such a person/team be deserving of the "Best of the Year" title? Probably, but it's not much of a "circuit" though, is it?
commented Mar 27, 2012 by Eric A. Kubblic ❚ (7,810 points)
Chris, your option 1 is obviously that you move to Eau Claire.

There are so many variables to this. My instinct tells me that we are still a year or two away before we could actually do something like this. For your scenario that it takes 24+ teams, how many tournaments in 2011 had 24+ teams? Did DM get 24? If so, then we had three. At this time, this would be a real small circuit. On the other end, if we did not include all tournaments, would some people not be as likely to enter smaller tournaments, or tournaments that have been smaller in the past? Then, I guess it would put more pressure on organizers to get more local teams and interest as well, which is not all bad.

Do you think that if you win the National Championship, you should get the same points as the team that wins Rockford or Minneapolis, or DM?

Racers get the same number of points for winning the Daytona 500. I think tennis players get more points for majors. Not sure how dartball works.

Also, I don't think the team that wins the U.S. Championship is automatically the best player/team of the year. They are the U.S. Champions, and I would take that over winning three other tournaments over the year, but there are so many other tournaments.
commented Mar 28, 2012 by Dobbie Kubblic ❚ (6,450 points)
Perhaps US Nationals isn't on the circuit? I mean, ALL teams will be going to Nationals regardless of getting points.
commented Jul 30, 2016 by asHaupdya391
commented Jul 31, 2016 by asHaup9ov82u

3 Answers

+2 votes
answered Mar 27, 2012 by Eric A. Kubblic ❚ (7,810 points)

I played around with this idea a couple years ago while attending a not very interesting conference. The idea I had back then is that there would be categories of tournaments, as I think all tournaments should be included. If they are not, perhaps they will still struggle in getting teams, etc. We should be promoting inclusiveness. (Now, I think we have grown really quick and I am curious to see how this year pans out, but that is a topic for another thread.) Plus, who am or any of us to decide that a small little tournament in SW MN should be in and a small little tournament in Southern IL should not be. I do think that a tournament would have to meet some sort of qualifications and play by official rules, etc, and that it needs to be open for all to enter, and perhaps maybe even require that it has some people that have traveled. I am sure I have the scrap paper somewhere in one of my kubb idea drawers, but the idea was that tournaments under a certain size (say 16) would have points given to teams that finish in the top four. Tournaments between something like 32 and 17 would have points given to teams that finish in the top eight, with the top teams getting more points than the under 16 tournaments. Tournaments between 48 and 33 would have points given to teams that finish in the top 16, again with more points to the top teams that finished high than the smaller tournaments. The U.S. Championship would still go to the top 16 (or maybe real small number to T-17), but the points would be weighted a little more, as I do believe one should be given more points for a U.S. Championship than say a Rockford Championship. (Full-disclosure like Chris here...U.S., Rockford, Dallas). One issue is, and perhaps it will go away if we do a points system, is that people are not playing with the same players and/or change team names. Myself, as a tournament organizer, I don't have much interest in taking even more information from teams if they want to enter as a "registered team", so I do like the idea of some independent site doing that. I think our Swiss friends are doing this already with teams and individuals, actually.

I will also add this. I would recommend that for those of us that are interested in this, go back and look at the results from 2010 and 2011, or even farther back, if you want. Decide who were the top 5-10 teams/players (depending if you want to do it with teams or players), rank them, and try to create a system where those teams/players were as close to the order that you envisioned them finishing with appropriate distance between them as well. Also, we would all have to decide on # of tournaments vs. where people finish vs. where they don't finish. Often, I look at teams as a whole when I mentally rank them over a year and/or current place in the U.S., as I have my own opinions who the top players/teams are. For example, there are some teams that are not as consistent as others and/or players that will not line up with an equal level player for a tournament. Perhaps they play a lot and get high in 66%-75% of the tournaments, but the other 25%-33% they do not get far (don't play well or perhaps are not playing to "win"). Also, teams of two playing on three-person teams. For example, would two-person team A be given points if their two players played on the three-person?

+1 vote
answered Mar 25, 2012 by thingles Kubblic ❚ (6,110 points)
Would this work out with teams having variable players from 2 to 6? I think you hit a big item, how to attribute points to teams and players at the same time. It might prove to be overly complicated doing both.

An idea I would throw out is to have this only based on teams, and be an opt-in. You need to "register" your team as a "points team". This could be done on the Team page on the wiki. Once registered, your team would get points in only named tournaments (the circuit) and only the team can get points. If you are on more than one team, both teams play in the same tournament in the circuit, you can only be in one.

I think specifying 4 to 6 events that are in the circuit is key so that people can't just decide to drive a lot to get more points than others. I would also suggest having that end with the Minnesota event (even though it starts the year, have it end the season).
commented Mar 25, 2012 by Dobbie Kubblic ❚ (6,450 points)
The question becomes, which tournaments, how are they chosen, and how do we make it inclusive? As a tournament coordinator, I would really want to be part of the circuit. But why should I get picked over another tournament? How do you choose, and how do you do it without making the tournaments not selected feel saddened?
commented Mar 25, 2012 by Chad B Ironkubb ✭ (3,130 points)
It would be easy to keep track of individuals as well as teams.  That is if the person gets the info from the tournament coordinators to update the spreadsheet with the points.  I think it should be open for all tournaments across the board.  

I would think Dallas would be the last tournament of the year right now.  MN would be the first.
commented Mar 26, 2012 by ChrisHodges Kubblic ❚ (7,300 points)
I like MN to start the year and Dallas to cap it.
commented Mar 28, 2012 by Dobbie Kubblic ❚ (6,450 points)
Perhaps we have one tournament in each state, and it can vary year to year. Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Illinois are represented. For inclusion purposes, we can switch it around year after year.

MN tournament - winter
IL tournament - spring
WI tournament - summer
IA tournament - fall

4 tournaments for each state, all representing each season.

Start with 4, we can always scale, but pilot it in 2013 for a 2014 inagural circuit season.

Agree with Eric on checking with 2010 and 2011 teams, apply points, and see if the team with the most points IS the best circuit team. If not, modify points system.

Thoughts thoughts thoughts?
+1 vote
answered Mar 27, 2012 by THansenite Ironkubb ✭ (2,660 points)
Just another little tidbit is that, in my mind, points would have to go to each player and not the team as a whole.  I will be playing with my normal teammate(s) at nationals and Rockford, but will likely be with different teams for other tourneys.  Does this take me out of contention just because my teammate doesn't want to go to as many tournaments?  I am still at the tourneys getting points, just registered with different teams.  Something to think about.