| |
BGonline.org Forums
Tournament format+schedule -- proposal
Posted By: Chuck Bower In Response To: Tournament format+schedule -- proposal (Bob Koca)
Date: Sunday, 9 November 2008, at 5:59 p.m.
1) ...no door prizes...
Well, let's hear from others. You may be the first person I've met who likes the door prizes. :) They certainly could be left in but it's my feeling after attending ~50 Calcuttas that this door prize handout thing takes considerable time. Trying to fit the calcutta into one hour (my goal) seems like you gotta get rid of something. Do you actually bid in Calcuttas? I would think those who are going to bid will show up without the door-prize incentive. But that's just my impression; could easily be wrong.
2) refunding Calcutta money when a player fails to show
This is a detail that needs to be worked out. My thinking was that players in multiplayer fields would have pre-assigned value categories, like A,B,C,D ("A"s are the usual high seeded players) and based upon the makeup of the team, could be proportioned. I don't think this would be terribly difficult. Key would be to spell out ahead of time how the redistribution would be done, and of course all rankings would be on the Calcutta sheet so buyers would know. Ditto a list of players already present (or the compliment -- not yet arrived).
3) may players begin their matches before the scheduled starting times?
I think the answer should be 'yes', with restrictions. Those restrictions are that the tournament clock settings must be adhered to and that it is ABSOLUTELY AND COMPLETELY voluntary and phonecalls should be discouraged. If Stick wants to take a nap and show up at the predetermined start time, Ray shouldn't be calling him up 30 minutes ahead trying to talk him into starting early!
4) Adjusting LC start times -- I don't think this works. As long as players are being fed from above (either MAIN-->CONS or CONS-->LC) then the nominal schedule should be the same for all brackets. Otherwise you get part of the bracket completed 'early' and then people sitting around waiting for the drop-downs.
4 cont.) "How would you like to be told..." you get 9th? Sure, it's not ideal. But you get MORE than your (equal strength player field) payout (2.5% > 12%/9) and you had as much chance as anyone in the same boat as you. The 2.5% isn't magic. Maybe it should be 2%. I just wanted there to be some extra incentive else why would anyone volunteer.
4 cont.) "...sweetening..." I figured this wouldn't happen unless no one volunteered for the 9th place drawing. Then, to make sure things don't get out of hand, the director could ask (just once) if anyone wanted to put it some extra incentive. This (sweetening) probably is a bad idea, though. I just thought it might be worth considering. I suspect there would be a lot of opposition so probably we should just drop that minor option. Sorry, Mr. Neilaross. :)
4 cont.) Silent auction is a reasonable idea, as long as it doesn't get bogged down. There could be an issue about strategy of this auction, which will get proponents and opponents, I suspect. Maybe KISS breaks the tie but I think your proposal is worth more discussion+consideration.
4 or 7) ...ABT points for 9th-LC... I can't imagine this idea would fly with very many, particularly ABT brass. (I suppose you could say that about my whole proposal, though. Let's see.)
I appreciate your constructive comments. I emphasize that the goals I set out are pretty intertwined and too much variation (like non-standard starting times while there is still feed-down of players from higher brackets) probably kills the whole thing. There, to say the least, some novel things proposed here. But I believe it does what at least some players are requesting -- minimizing the "hurry up an wait... forever" situation that occasionally crops up in today's formats. It keeps the auction. It allows for longer matchlengths in the non-main, particularly in the LC. But there are certainly tradeoffs.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.