Domestic GRIDIRON / AMERICAN FOOTBALL Discussion Thread! OOC

by **Ko-oren** » Thu Jun 14, 2012 3:57 pm

Very interested!

So what's going on right now? The primary tournament is taken care of by Carmadin and the secondary one by Yesopalitha?

by **Yesopalitha** » Thu Jun 14, 2012 4:46 pm

Ko-oren wrote:Very interested!

So what's going on right now? The primary tournament is taken care of by Carmadin and the secondary one by Yesopalitha?

Carmadin hasn't stated anything for quite some time... and this is being lost in obscurity once more.

by **Civil Citizenry** » Thu Jun 14, 2012 4:52 pm

My personal suggestion is that two tournaments is excessive for a sport where the community has only gotten active in the last couple weeks. There is nothing wrong with starting with one tournament, and if, in a few months, it's gained traction and domestic american football becomes solid, then consider a second one. Two tournaments is just too much at once for a small, new section of the forum.

by **Yesopalitha** » Thu Jun 14, 2012 5:13 pm

Would anyone be against a tournament in which the top two teams from your league get entered in it, and I'll run it single-elimination style?

Also, which overtime rules should we implement?

by **Saugeais** » Thu Jun 14, 2012 5:19 pm

Yesopalitha wrote:Would anyone be against a tournament in which the top two teams from your league get entered in it, and I'll run it single-elimination style?

Also, which overtime rules should we implement?

Top two teams to start would be fine. As far as overtime rules, I'm personally in favor of college style, but I'm only one opinion.

by **Yesopalitha** » Thu Jun 14, 2012 5:23 pm

I personally like college as well over the pro rules.

by **Civil Citizenry** » Thu Jun 14, 2012 5:31 pm

Not understanding - there's going to be a tournament with the top four teams AND a tournament with the top two teams? I personally think it's too much, OOCly and ICly, and I would not enter both of them.

by **Yesopalitha** » Thu Jun 14, 2012 5:33 pm

Civil Citizenry wrote:Not understanding - there's going to be a tournament with the top four teams AND a tournament with the top two teams? I personally think it's too much, OOCly and ICly, and I would not enter both of them.

No, just one tournament with top two teams per domestic league. If there's enough interest we can broaden it later.

by **Civil Citizenry** » Thu Jun 14, 2012 5:38 pm

Yesopalitha wrote:
Civil Citizenry wrote:Not understanding - there's going to be a tournament with the top four teams AND a tournament with the top two teams? I personally think it's too much, OOCly and ICly, and I would not enter both of them.

No, just one tournament with top two teams per domestic league. If there's enough interest we can broaden it later.

Okay, that sounds fine, but I don't think you should just swoop in and usurp Carmadin. He first proposed the idea of a tournament and I think it's only fair to let him have an opportunity to host if he wants. You already host the IUBC, anyway, let someone else have a turn.

by **Yesopalitha** » Thu Jun 14, 2012 5:40 pm

Civil Citizenry wrote:
Yesopalitha wrote:No, just one tournament with top two teams per domestic league. If there's enough interest we can broaden it later.

Okay, that sounds fine, but I don't think you should just swoop in and usurp Carmadin. He first proposed the idea of a tournament and I think it's only fair to let him have an opportunity to host if he wants. You already host the IUBC, anyway, let someone else have a turn.

I TG'ed him.

by **Carmadin** » Thu Jun 14, 2012 5:49 pm

Yesopalitha wrote:
Civil Citizenry wrote:
Okay, that sounds fine, but I don't think you should just swoop in and usurp Carmadin. He first proposed the idea of a tournament and I think it's only fair to let him have an opportunity to host if he wants. You already host the IUBC, anyway, let someone else have a turn.

I TG'ed him.

He TG'd back

So, anyhows, after reading these posts, I've got myself a new idea (if you just went 'oh god, it's another lightbulb', you're right

)
A secondary tournament may be a bit much. I proposed it simply because Gridiron leagues tend to be larger than other sports, so more teams qualifying internationally makes sense, at least to me.
That sais, perhaps we should just go with the tried-and-true four-teams-per-nation. Four is a nice workable number, not to high, not too low, yeah *looks back and notices that was a very weak argument

*

Anyway, as I still would very much like to host something, how would you feel if I hosted a --insert snazzy name here-- invitational, with the Bowl or Champion's game winners and a few other clubs invited (like the Aeropag Invitational and Cygnus Cup had a distorted baby)
Wow, that was a bad analogy...

*ends ramble*

by **Civil Citizenry** » Thu Jun 14, 2012 5:57 pm

Four teams is fine, yeah.

Carmadin, I would say if you want to host the main tournament, you should do it. It's your prerogative, not Yeso's, so don't feel limited to having to do some extra side thing when you have the right to do what you want. Yeso has no right to take the tournament from you if you would like to host it yourself.

by **Yesopalitha** » Thu Jun 14, 2012 5:59 pm

Civil Citizenry wrote:Four teams is fine, yeah.

Carmadin, I would say if you want to host the main tournament, you should do it. It's your prerogative, not Yeso's, so don't feel limited to having to do some extra side thing when you have the right to do what you want. Yeso has no right to take the tournament from you if you would like to host it yourself.

I second this... was only offering my services if Carmadin couldnt.

by **Free South Califas** » Thu Jun 14, 2012 11:03 pm

I'm still into 4 teams and I can happily abide any amount of two-leg or double-elimination process. 4 teams is a very good number to pit the leagues' best against each other in a fresh international context IMHO.

That being said, there's no reason someone couldn't host a club invitational for teams outside of the top 4s, and it seems like it could be fun. Dunno how much further than that is wise, but whatever people are willing to participate in, works for me.

by **Carmadin** » Fri Jun 15, 2012 10:36 am

Civil Citizenry wrote:Four teams is fine, yeah.

Carmadin, I would say if you want to host the main tournament, you should do it. It's your prerogative, not Yeso's, so don't feel limited to having to do some extra side thing when you have the right to do what you want. Yeso has no right to take the tournament from you if you would like to host it yourself.

I would still like to, but as I told Yeso, my NS time is very limited, and these days I'm very busy (I've become bogged down ever since I volunteered to run it).
tbh, I may not be as reliable as Yeso, and so I have no issue with him doing it

by **Yesopalitha** » Sun Jul 08, 2012 6:53 pm

I'd like for someone to step up and take charge of a Champions' League type tournament... And to be realistic I don't have the time to run it since I run the IUBC. Anybody interested? This keeps dying down.

by **Filopines** » Sun Jul 08, 2012 7:07 pm

I don't have the time to do it. SOMEBODY PLEASE DO IT!

by **Free South Califas** » Mon Jul 09, 2012 1:36 am

I'd love to do it, I'm just not totally confident I understand how to combine team and nation rankings. "Coefficient" seems to imply that you multiply them, but I'm not sure. Can anyone fill me in on this?

by **Osarius** » Mon Jul 09, 2012 1:53 am

Free South Califas wrote:I'd love to do it, I'm just not totally confident I understand how to combine team and nation rankings. "Coefficient" seems to imply that you multiply them, but I'm not sure. Can anyone fill me in on this?

There wouldn't be any team rankings yet, would there? So it'd basically be up to you how to devise a ranking system, I guess.

When I was talking about it before though, I was thinking something like this...

For the initial tournament, you could give each team a ranking of say (World Bowl nation rank/5) + (modifier based on domestic finish).
In future, team rankings are calculated from previous tournaments, and national rankings for this competition can be devised by adding together ranking points for each team from that nation over the last three cycles (for example). Then, when a team which has never entered the competition enters, they are given a fraction of their nation's rank (a fifth, for example) as a starting point.

...I think that's roughly how it works with UEFA coefficients, anyway.

So... example...
The Osarian champions start with a rank of (25.83/5) + 4 = 9.166
The Yesopalithan runners-up start with a rank of (12.24/5) + 3 = 7.08
...and so on.

At the end of the tournament, points are awarded for wins, etc etc like in most other tournament ranking systems.
Those are used when calculating rankings for that cycle. Then the team's overall ranking is calculated by adding together points from the last three cycles (for example) to get the team's overall rank.

For example...

Team		 Nat	00	01	Rank
Utica Bears 	(OSR)	8.166	12.50	20.666
Random Team	(YSP)	7.080	15.00	22.080
...etc etc

* Where Rank is the total points over three seasons, and thus the team's rank

Nation		Pts	00	01	New
Osarius		60.964	19.632	41.332	12.193
...etc etc

** Where Pts is the total points over three seasons, and thus the national rank (could be used to decide which nations' teams get byes to further rounds etc) and New is the base ranking given to new teams from that nation (20% of the nation's ranking points)

Kinda long-winded though. Might be easier to not use ranks.

I'd offer to run this but I don't like the long, group stage format that was discussed before, personally. I'd rather have a straight knockout tournament, but people seem to prefer a champions' league style format *shrug*

by **Free South Califas** » Mon Jul 09, 2012 10:49 am

International Gridiron Champions' League:

I was considering a ranking system like the one Osarius proposed, using 1/5 of each participating nation's WB ranking, plus a differential bonus for placing higher in their respective domestic leagues. However, only five participating nations have WB rankings, so I think that would be a little unfair for this particular field, especially when you consider how spread apart their ranks are:
34.09 Alamunnic States
25.83 Osarius
12.24 Yesopalitha
5.92 Michael VII
5.58 Carmadin

So, not wanting to institutionalize an unfair hierarchy from the get-go, I figure I'll just give teams 4, 3, 2 and 1 skill points plus RP bonus (of up to 1?). I've never run a champions' league before and there seems to be little or no precedent in gridiron, so please TG me if you have any input, questions, comments, criticisms, ransom demands etc.

For now I'm thinking a play-in round of 3rd and 4th place teams to whittle the field down to 36 (there's no fair way to make it 32), then a double-round-robin group stage of 6 or 8 games to qualify 16.

I'll give a couple hours for people to send any objections and/or suggestions, since this seems to be a situation that calls for the hare and not the tortoise. Beyond that, if there are any objections, someone can incorporate them into IGCL 2, with some rankings to play with.

by **Osarius** » Mon Jul 09, 2012 11:31 am

Free South Califas wrote:So, not wanting to institutionalize an unfair hierarchy from the get-go, I figure I'll just give teams 4, 3, 2 and 1 skill points plus RP bonus (of up to 1?). I've never run a champions' league before and there seems to be little or no precedent in gridiron, so please TG me if you have any input, questions, comments, criticisms, ransom demands etc.

This is why I suggested having no ranks for the first run through. I thought it might be a little unfair... though at the moment, like I said before, World Bowl rankings are the only indicator of gridiron strength in NSSports soo.... *shrug* If you do go with that system, and you want to distinguish between champions and runners up etc etc, then there's nothing wrong with using arbitrary numbers.

For RP bonus, I'd suggest having it so that a well RP'd league's fourth placed team would be slight favourites over a minimally RP'd league's champions, but that's just how I see it. That's entirely host prerogative and it depends how much RP input you're expecting. Is it gonna be scorinated matchday by matchday like the World Bowl (in which case a lower RP bonus might be best) or is it gonna be done entirely over 2-3 days like UICA competitions (which I'm basing my suggestion on)?

Honestly, if you're gonna do it, maybe its best to try a system. If the first run goes badly, we learn from it. Do you.

by **Yesopalitha** » Mon Jul 09, 2012 11:38 am

I vote for no ranks at all the first time around, except a little for being first seeded domestically, like this:
Say I have teams A, B, C, and D entered into this league. For the first season, let A have 4, B 3, C 2, and D 1 point, then have the max points be like twenty so that there can be plenty of upsets.
Get ranks from the first season, and move on from there.
It's how I ran the first season of the IUBC.

by **Free South Califas** » Mon Jul 09, 2012 2:46 pm

Very well, then. With much useful info received, and Homelands our notified as to their right to submit teams, I will cut off entries when I wake up tomorrow, unless it is before 7 AM. It is currently 3 PM here in California, and I am likely to wake up sometime after 9 AM, so you have at least 16 hours and probably 18 hours or more from whatever time this post says for you.

Each team will have a skill base of 1, 2, 3 or 4 according to their finish within their respective domestic league. (Sorry if "their" sounds awkward; it is an Americanism, I think.) Each league will also receive a static RP bonus from 0 to 4, per Osarius' suggestion modified as such: the distance between the best #4 team and the worst #1 team is the same as the distance between first and second place in your own league, and in the same direction. Combined with Yesopalitha's suggestion to set maximum skill at 20, this should lead to some exciting upsets, but hopefully some agreeable measure of predictability too.

Format: SQIS with IFAF (college-style) overtime. Third-seeded teams will host fourth-seeded teams in a play-in round (one game). The winners of this game will move into Pot 3, while all #1 seeds will go into Pot 1 and all #2 seeds will go into Pot 2. Four groups of 9 teams each will be drawn; each group will have three teams from each pot, entirely at random. Single round robin will ensue, with no overtime (don't want to beat them up too bad or saddle defensive teams with a disadvantage; and, teams that can't beat each other should be reflected as equal in the group stage anyway). Then Octofinals: A4@B1, A3@B2, B4@A1, B3@A2/C4@D1, C3@D2, D4@C1, D3@C2. Single elimination will proceed thusly with home-field advantage determined by group-stage finish. There will be a third place game and a grand final, the Solidarity Bowl, at the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum.

by **Yesopalitha** » Mon Jul 09, 2012 5:15 pm

How many nations per user? (Usually limit is two)
Is your format manageable with lesser/more nations?
I like the #3 vs #4 idea, and the three pots idea. But what if there's more than thirty-six teams total? Less? For future's sake, your format needs to be malleable, because when more users learn that there is a UICA type tournament for Gridiron, it's more likely that users will scorinate their domestic leagues more.

For example, I had about ten users debut in the first IUBC, but now, there's about sixteen or so per edition. I've finally settled on a set format after four editions, so there is nothing wrong with mixing it up, playing around with the format until you find what you like.

Looking at how PIS runs Seasogs, how Darmen runs the CHL, how Saugeais runs the BCCC, and how CH runs the UICA might be good too. They helped me.

by **Free South Califas** » Mon Jul 09, 2012 5:46 pm

Thanks. I actually changed the format over in the IC thread because Homeland Our is sending their four teams, and it looks like I'll be changing it again (and possibly pushing back the start date by a few hours).

I didn't actually know a limit on nations per player was customary, but I like it. Let's go ahead and say 2. I don't think any players have multiples entered except Yesopalitha. (I would appreciate any corrections from the field.) Yeso, would you prefer to cut one of your leagues out or combine two or more of them into a league that gets 6 seeds? I wouldn't ask you to rescorinate them; I think I pulled the top four out of each one's playoff system myself, anyway. That will change the entry number back to 48 or up to 54, so I'll come up with a new format.

I'm not necessarily intending to take this tournament on permanently, or even indefinitely. I've been on bed rest for a couple of months and I'm finally getting the results of my CT scan soon, so honestly, I hope to have much less time for NationStates after the current round of tournaments. No offense, you all are a fun lot

If I do run the next edition & etc, I'll probably be devising an experimental format each time on a case-by-case basis until the community can unite around something solid. I think it would be better for the community to derive opinions based on experiments and hash something out over the long term, than for me to impose something from my own limited experience right out of the gate. At least, I'll hope to collect critical input moving forward.

Domestic GRIDIRON / AMERICAN FOOTBALL Discussion Thread! OOC

Cross-posted from the domestic leagues thread

Who is online