Archive Boards > APAT UK & European Team Championships
APAT UK Team Championship - January 2010
Jon MW:
--- Quote from: Paulie_D on November 02, 2009, 16:12:45 PM ---
--- Quote from: Jon MW on November 02, 2009, 13:29:52 PM ---
--- 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.
--- End quote ---
Define "less likely"...If a forum finishes 6th, does that mean they have a better chance of being picked that the team that finished 10th? And how do those rankings affect teams that haven"t played at all (as they couldn"t get in)?
..
--- End quote ---
lol - I hadn"t really thought it through that thoroughly, it could just provide a sound framework and underpinning of a methodology.
It wouldn"t be hard to establish a logical flow to decide on the likelihood of which teams would be entered - but ultimately I don"t think it would be a formula to decide which specific teams/forum were entered it would give a basis of teams that were definitely in the following year, teams that were likely to be in and teams which could be in. The final selection being down to APAT's judgement as to which is the best mixture.
Paulie_D:
--- Quote from: Jon MW on November 02, 2009, 18:27:43 PM ---
It wouldn"t be hard to establish a logical flow to decide on the likelihood of which teams would be entered - but ultimately I don"t think it would be a formula to decide which specific teams/forum were entered it would give a basis of teams that were definitely in the following year, teams that were likely to be in and teams which could be in. The final selection being down to APAT's judgement as to which is the best mixture.
--- End quote ---
My real issue is this sense of entitlement for non-1st place teams that seems to be prevailing over other teams who couldn"t get in previously and there is an argument that could be made that no team should be so entitled.
After all, does the WSOP ME winner get a guaranteed entry next year? Do the winners of the FA Cup get an automatic entry into the semi-finals? No, they have to start all over again. The last is a poor analogy as I know nothing about football.
In all honesty, I"d exclude the APAT team too and let them take their chances in a random draw for the remaining slots. A tad harsh perhaps (and nothing against the APAT personnel) but this seems to be the fairest way to choose from a wide selection where places are exceeded by teams wishing to participate.
I"m not wishing to put down B&SW or APAT, I"m just emphasising a point.
Jon MW:
--- Quote from: Paulie_D on November 02, 2009, 19:28:47 PM ---
--- Quote from: Jon MW on November 02, 2009, 18:27:43 PM ---
It wouldn"t be hard to establish a logical flow to decide on the likelihood of which teams would be entered - but ultimately I don"t think it would be a formula to decide which specific teams/forum were entered it would give a basis of teams that were definitely in the following year, teams that were likely to be in and teams which could be in. The final selection being down to APAT's judgement as to which is the best mixture.
--- End quote ---
My real issue is this sense of entitlement for non-1st place teams that seems to be prevailing over other teams who couldn"t get in previously and there is an argument that could be made that no team should be so entitled.
...
--- End quote ---
I would put something like the top 5 to help protect the smaller teams - if they are good (without necessarily being the best) they can come back year after year.
I don"t think a random ballot would be a good idea, not out of any sense of "fairness" simply because having larger forums in the team championship will generate more coverage and encourage more people to join the rest of the tour. Most things about APAT might be about what"s "good for the game", but some things at least should also be about what"s "good for APAT" and it"s future development.
Having said that, logically a larger pool of talent to draw from means you are more likely to be able to put forward a stronger team. As the nominal aim is to find the "best" team then excluding some forums because they missed out in a ballot would be unfair if they are likely to have been able to provide a strongly competitive team.
Glorious:
I"d recommend teams of 5. (I"ve run several live team events and teams of 5 worked well).
If required, use a "captain"s clickfest" to decide places, the same way APAT does any other event they know will be oversubscribed. Teams would have to be posted in advance to prevent every member of the team trying to click in.
Thoughts?
teamdobb:
teams of 5 players will reduce the value and prestige of the tournament imo.
It was always obvious that the next one of these competitions was going to be over subscribed and how the powers to be decide on selection is going to be just as difficult. I suppose that comes down to what APAT want from the tournament. We at Newcastle Poker Forum ran a similar event in late February which was a huge success and plan to run it again giving 1st option to teams that played in it last year. I think this tournament cant really be chosen along those conditions although Im sure that the decision makers within APAT once they decide the type of tournament they want will come to a fair and satisfactory conclusion.
The event is not too far away and to be fair to everyone a decision needs to be made to enable all concerned to begin making their plans. Picking a single team of 10 from our forum will be an absolute nightmare as so many members would love to play in it but to me this is what gives the tournament the appeal and prestige to play in and to be crowned the APAT UK Team Champions.
Good luck in how the decision is reached but one thing for sure is you will never be able to satisfy all applicants no matter what you do
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version