Archive Boards > APAT UK & European Team Championships
APAT UK Team Championship - January 2010
Jon MW:
--- Quote from: Paulie_D on November 02, 2009, 12:51:10 PM ---
--- Quote from: Baldus New on November 02, 2009, 09:10:40 AM ---
If the venue can only accomodate 160 players why not consider reducing the players per team to up the number of teams and create a larger team / forum competition?
If this is the APAT Team Championship, surely it is worth considering having as many teams as possible represented?
--- End quote ---
I can see the logic in remaining in teams of 10, it"s just that I think that by doing so (given the venue size), it"s limiting the involvement of the numerous forums (fora?) that wish to take part. The number of players in the team is not necessarily representative of the number of forum members. Some forums have only a couple of dozen members, mine has nearly 1500. Are the 10 players in either team going to be a truly "representative" sample...I think not.
In fact it"s only 14 teams getting an opportunity as B&SWM and APAT get an automatic entry. I"m not begrudging either team automatic entry but now the number of possible slots gets even smaller. Then we get into the matter of who gets to say that one forum is more "worthy" of being selected than any other? Well, APAT of course, it"s their tournament after all...but what criteria are involved?
So, (IMHO) I think the APAT ethos would dictate getting as many forums as possible involved as can be achieved within the bounds of reasonableness...whether it"s 32 teams of 5 players or 20/8, 16/10 or whatever.
--- End quote ---
But it"s not a one off though - there"s always next year.
As suggested something like APAT, plus the top 5 finishers, plus 10 others (11 if APAT reach the top 5) which could rotate on an annual basis still gives different forums a chance.
Some larger and higher profile forums might then proportionately be picked more frequently than the smaller ones to reflect that difference - but the smaller ones only have to do well enough to get in the top 5 to get an automatic entry.
Looking at it as an ongoing series rather than just this year"s in isolation makes it a lot simpler.
Paulie_D:
But that doesn"t solve the basic problem, in fact, it makes it worse next year.
The problem isn"t getting in next time, it"s getting in...in the first place!
According to the scenario you posit for next time there are now only 10 team slots available for the numerous forums (I"ll go with that word) wishing to take part....and we"re back to the basic problem which is too many forums for the number of team slots.
Automatic entry for the outright winners (and APAT) doesn"t worry me as it seems only fair but selecting a forum who finished 2 - 5th (or whatever) when the team personnel (and thus no more representative than before) may not even be the same, doesn"t.
Reducing the players per team and thus increasing the number of forums seems the fairest way to go for the most number of forums.
Jon MW:
--- Quote from: Paulie_D on November 02, 2009, 13:11:14 PM ---
But that doesn"t solve the basic problem, in fact, it makes it worse next year.
The problem isn"t getting in next time, it"s getting in...in the first place!
...
--- End quote ---
???
10 teams who don"t finish in the top 5 this year are less likely to be picked next year.
Even if you include 2 or 3 large forum again that still leaves half the places available to teams who didn"t enter this year.
There might be a lot of teams who want to enter - but their isn"t an infinite supply.
Of course it means that individuals might have a long wait before they have a chance of representing their forum - but I"m primarily thinking of it in terms of a series of team tournaments.
karrde:
If you want to get maximum inclusiveness, how about a 3 day event with two "day 1s"
MAIR:
There is the option of reducing the number per team to 8 and therefore having 20 teams in. Still 16 tables of 10 and a bit of a headache for the APAT Team to organise the seating to ensure no 2 team members are on the same table, if thats possible.
It is another option to consider.
Oops just realised Karrde suggested similar above
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version