UltiTalk.Com

Regional => Australasia => Topic started by: Dens on April 28, 2009, 02:29:37 AM



Title: Changing the Nationals Draw
Post by: Dens on April 28, 2009, 02:29:37 AM
I think now that we no longer have the really dominant four club teams that competed at World Clubs, that it is time to use the UPA club draw.  The exisiting draw favours competitive play amongst similarly seeded teams which is fine however this really limits team development and often pigeon holes teams.  Additionally we are seeing significant changes in the strength of regions and the validity of seedings year to year which throws this system out of place and creates so called pools of death where two first day losses end your tournament.   

By moving to the UPA draw it ensures that
 - two losses on day one does not end your finals chances,
 - cross overs occur before the playoff stage and provide the incentive of a finals position to play for,
 - at minimum all teams get to play a top four seeded team during the tournament,
 - top two teams after pool play have to play quarterfinals and the same number of games as other semifinalists. 



Title: Re: Changing the Nationals Draw
Post by: simmo on April 28, 2009, 03:30:04 AM
Agreed, however we have needed 16 teams in both divisions for that to happen. Definitely should be in place for next year.

The current draw definitely favours the top four seeds, but with the top 8 seeds next year containing all four regions (S,E,S,E,N,W,E,S) it should be a more even comp among the top 8.


Title: Re: Changing the Nationals Draw
Post by: BJ on April 28, 2009, 10:20:48 PM
Im just wondering why a team that loses two games on the first day deserves to have a chance at finals?

As a Karma player, I was so disappointed to see our hard work on the first two days, winning vital games to progress, being undone by a draw that didn't punish teams for losing those games. Yes Firestorm were far better than us second time around, and we didnt deserve to beat Fakulti for 7th, no question. But a team that doesnt win the crucial games shouldnt be allowed to come back to finals, ESPECIALLY IN A 14 TEAM TOURNAMENT!


Title: Re: Changing the Nationals Draw
Post by: woodie13 on April 29, 2009, 02:03:08 AM
Hi All - We have had numerous discussions for several years re the draw and we feel that the current draw is the best model currently.

a) it rewards the regions that finish Top 4 the previous year by giving them the (easier) Initial pool. (Thus making your Finishing position at regionals important)

b) the  next 8 teams fighting out for the critical additional Top 4 spots know from Day 1 what they need to do if they are to have a shot at the title.

c) Sure if you blow your chance day 1 then you can still finish as high as 5th (which firestorm did)

d) The placement games matter because this gives you the opportunity to move pools the following year.

I would like to see this structure set in stone for the next 4 years - that way once Regionals are completed, you will know what the draw is and you can plan straight away for day 1.

We would also like to adopt the same draw for the ladies from 2010 on as we believe there will be 14-16 teams competing. However, the indications we have had fron the ladies is that they would prefer the non-cusp pool structure.

1    2    3    4
8    7    6    5
9    10   11   12
16   15   14   13





Title: Re: Changing the Nationals Draw
Post by: JdR on April 29, 2009, 06:15:14 PM
A few thoughts:
- Its important that Regionals be valued.  If anything, Nationals should be "Regionals day 3,4,5,6".
- Nationals is a four day endurance test (within the realms of safe play), and the draw should reflect that.


Title: Re: Changing the Nationals Draw
Post by: Skippy on April 29, 2009, 08:06:10 PM
The ladies would also prefer not to be playing a repeat of Regionals on day 1.


Title: Re: Changing the Nationals Draw
Post by: woodie13 on April 29, 2009, 09:15:52 PM
Skippy, Agreed.

With the 4 pool set up this will almost certainly be avoided.


Title: Re: Changing the Nationals Draw
Post by: JMc on April 29, 2009, 09:50:28 PM
Woodie, when was the last draw discussion? I can't recall having seen one since last Nationals or so - there hasn't been anything in the larger forum for at least the last 6 months (not sure if there was AFDA-only talk perhaps). I also seem to recall that last time it was discussed, several people were unhappy with the idea of having a biased draw in conjunction with potentially inappropriate seedings, feeling that it should be one or the other, but not both.
How have the ladies indicated that they prefer the non-cusp structure (as in, how should the men go about pushing for this, if others are in agreement)?

In response to some comments thus far:

a) Are the top 4 seeds not rewarded enough by being top seed in their pool? I don't really feel like it would tax the #1 seed more to play 8/9/16 (two medium games, one easy) than to play 4/13/16 (one hard game, two easy), and so on and so forth.

b) Do the other teams having a crack at the top 8 not know what they have to do in other draws? I feel like these teams get screwed, and the top 4 have too much advantage.

c) I'm OK with a team that loses 2 games on day one being unable to win the tourney. It was a crap feeling, but the rules are simple - if you want to win the tourney, win games.
I actually support BJ's perspective here - a team that drops down after the first day is then in a great position to have a run at 5th, which is pretty rough on their opponents. Firestorm essentially had 4 "training" games on Fri/Sat morn, before coming out against a Fakulti that had been slogging away with the big guns, a Karma that had been running their top players for 3 days to create upset wins, and a Sublime that don't know how to back up. We were fresh, we'd had the chance to try things and refine our tactics, and we were on a roll (hadn't lost since day 1).

d) Why do placement games matter more in the cusp pool structure? You have the opportunity to move between pools either way.


Personally, I'd be pretty unhappy to see this structure locked in place for any length of time... both from the perspective that I dislike this draw, and also considering how dynamic our sport is (look back to where we were 4 years ago... fair bit's changed).

The ladies would also prefer not to be playing a repeat of Regionals on day 1.

Sweet pipe.


Title: Re: Changing the Nationals Draw
Post by: Dens on April 30, 2009, 03:00:06 AM
Im just wondering why a team that loses two games on the first day deserves to have a chance at finals?

Well with the significant changes in team strengths from year to year the draw and seedings are flawed and therefore it is highly realistic that a Pool could have 3 of the top eight teams or a draw like in 07 where Sublime, Firestorm and Fakulti S or 06 where Hot Chilly, Buggers and Sublime all had one win each.  Doesn't necessarily have to be two losses.   Cross overs prior to Finals verify that performances weren't a one off and that the actual strongest 8 teams are competing in the knock out phase. 

Anyway I can appreciate that crossovers in Australia mightn't be viable while there is such discrepenacy amongst the top ten and bottom six or four teams.   


Title: Re: Changing the Nationals Draw
Post by: woodie13 on April 30, 2009, 08:16:18 AM
I am quite happy to discuss/create new draws.

I am leaning towards a draw committee to have a look at various options and put it to a vote??

My ideal set up would be 2 pools of 8 (7 games)
Quarters,Semis,Finals. (or pre semis, Final - Reward for finishing top of your pool)

Everyone plays 10 games?? Make the top 4 in your pool have a shot at the Finals.

I am sure then the call would be  "TOO MANY GAMES!!!!"

My response would be "Have a bigger squad and blood a few more Intermediate players in the "easier" games"

Anyhow, If you would be keen to look at various variations drop me an email.



Title: Re: Changing the Nationals Draw
Post by: Tiger on April 30, 2009, 11:04:40 AM
Ten games a day over a four day tournament? How is that so unreasonable?

Fakulti Y this year played eight. Some teams (and I think Fakulti X was one of them) played nine.

Teams are taking bigger rosters to Nationals these days, and Nationals itself is becoming more expensive.

Ten games is really just value for money.

Having said all this, I have absolutely no talent, understanding or comprehension of how draws should work, other than that I'm always on the team that ends up on the wrong end of one.


Title: Re: Changing the Nationals Draw
Post by: wetnose on April 30, 2009, 11:44:49 PM
Ten games over a four day tournament isn't unreasonable. Firestorm played 10 games this year so it wouldn't be anything different.


Title: Re: Changing the Nationals Draw
Post by: simmo on May 01, 2009, 12:34:19 AM
I am quite happy to discuss/create new draws.

I am leaning towards a draw committee to have a look at various options and put it to a vote??

My ideal set up would be 2 pools of 8 (7 games)
Quarters,Semis,Finals. (or pre semis, Final - Reward for finishing top of your pool)

Everyone plays 10 games?? Make the top 4 in your pool have a shot at the Finals.

I am sure then the call would be  "TOO MANY GAMES!!!!"

My response would be "Have a bigger squad and blood a few more Intermediate players in the "easier" games"

Anyhow, If you would be keen to look at various variations drop me an email.


There was a draw similar to this used at AUG in 2007, but with 20 teams and dodgy seeding. I remember some incredibly vocal opponents to that draw.


Title: Re: Changing the Nationals Draw
Post by: Meegs on May 01, 2009, 02:07:59 AM
The women played 10 games this year. The only reason it sucked was when the guys kept going on about how they didn't have to play as many games as us!


Title: Re: Changing the Nationals Draw
Post by: carlie on May 01, 2009, 02:44:18 AM
However, ten was rather unreasonable. 

I think that until women's ultimate grows and therefore, number of members on a team grows, ten is too many games. Especially since very few games finished before time cap because most of the ladies games didn't get to 17 and then you have to add the two points to highest score.  This resulted in seriously long days.  One solution then would be to play slightly shorter games or to a lower points cap.

I also think the women's draw was a bit sucky because every result had the potential to count but not all the results did.  Given the average seedings, it meant that you may have carried through a loss to a team that went into your crossover pool but didn't get a benefit of a win you had against a team that went to a different cross over pool.  There was clearly four top teams at nats but for those battling for 5-11, it was a bit of a mess. 


Title: Re: Changing the Nationals Draw
Post by: Tanty on May 01, 2009, 02:57:10 AM
Having said all this, I have absolutely no talent, understanding or comprehension of how draws should work, other than that I'm always on the team that ends up on the wrong end of one.

Noone remembers when the draw works for them... only when it doesn't


Title: Re: Changing the Nationals Draw
Post by: Meegs on May 01, 2009, 06:09:34 PM
However, ten was rather unreasonable. 

I think that until women's ultimate grows and therefore, number of members on a team grows, ten is too many games. Especially since very few games finished before time cap because most of the ladies games didn't get to 17 and then you have to add the two points to highest score.  This resulted in seriously long days.  One solution then would be to play slightly shorter games or to a lower points cap.

I also think the women's draw was a bit sucky because every result had the potential to count but not all the results did.  Given the average seedings, it meant that you may have carried through a loss to a team that went into your crossover pool but didn't get a benefit of a win you had against a team that went to a different cross over pool.  There was clearly four top teams at nats but for those battling for 5-11, it was a bit of a mess. 

I think ten seems reasonable now because the tournament's over and I don't have to play those games again! But now that you mention it, we did have some ridiculous games...We went 20 minutes over time in our KAOS game on the first day and then immediately had to play Sultry, which also went 20 min over time, which basically equalled 4 hours straight playing. Somehow I'd managed to block that out!

I don't think all the women's teams had too few players though. We certainly did, but most teams seemed to have 16-18, which is enough for ten games I think.


Title: Re: Changing the Nationals Draw
Post by: Skippy on May 02, 2009, 03:26:46 AM
And not all teams had ten games.


Title: Re: Changing the Nationals Draw
Post by: JdR on May 04, 2009, 06:05:15 PM
If you have enough fields to have only a few timeslots (like say 8.30am, 11.30am and 3pm), then 10 games is fine, because the breaks are large and consistent.  But for something like that you need 16 fields.

If you only have 8-9 fields, then you're looking at 4-5 timeslots meaning less breaks (no matter how hard you try to balance byes), so there probably needs to be slightly less games.


Title: Re: Changing the Nationals Draw
Post by: Jangles on May 04, 2009, 10:31:09 PM
I am quite happy to discuss/create new draws.

I am leaning towards a draw committee to have a look at various options and put it to a vote??

My ideal set up would be 2 pools of 8 (7 games)
Quarters,Semis,Finals. (or pre semis, Final - Reward for finishing top of your pool)

Everyone plays 10 games?? Make the top 4 in your pool have a shot at the Finals.

I am sure then the call would be  "TOO MANY GAMES!!!!"

My response would be "Have a bigger squad and blood a few more Intermediate players in the "easier" games"

Anyhow, If you would be keen to look at various variations drop me an email.


There was a draw similar to this used at AUG in 2007, but with 20 teams and dodgy seeding. I remember some incredibly vocal opponents to that draw.

The main problem was the fact that 7 of the top 10 teams were in one pool. when you are unlucky and loose tight games and then come to your cross over and win 15-1 it kinda suxs.

Having said all this, I have absolutely no talent, understanding or comprehension of how draws should work, other than that I'm always on the team that ends up on the wrong end of one.

Noone remembers when the draw works for them... only when it doesn't
I agree But i don't remember a draw ever working for me (Other than AUG '06 where we got the last day off out of sympathy). Buggers '06, and then firestorm '07 '08 Dens mentioned them all.


Title: Re: Changing the Nationals Draw
Post by: littletom on May 09, 2009, 01:00:10 AM
What would you consider a draw that works for you Jangles?

As some one that has been on 1st, 4th, 5th (?), 11th seeded teams for the past four nationals, I have been happy with the draws since 2006.

-I don't think the top seeds have unfair advantages
-I think the cusp pool system gives the greatest opportunity for different regions to prove their ability
-I think that the trend towards putting more games in a tournament will result in a high turnover, slug-fest, lower skill and less-professional looking game at the tournaments end.
-Any two pool draw runs the risk of lopsided pools, a la AUGs 2007, Women's nats 2009. Thus I am totally against them.

I argue for the status-quo


Title: Re: Changing the Nationals Draw
Post by: Jangles on May 11, 2009, 08:58:58 PM
Quote
What would you consider a draw that works for you Jangles?

Any draw that doesn't end your hopes on the first day. Next year should hopefully better for firestorm as we have a decent seed now.


Title: Re: Changing the Nationals Draw
Post by: Twig on May 12, 2009, 07:55:53 AM
hey Jangles but is it really fair that a team that drops out on the first day gets to play 'easier' teams for two days to then play teams that have fought it out for the top.  I know Sublime had bigger problems than just tiredness but after we lost our pre-semi it is safe to say that we were too [email protected]#ked to care...


Title: Re: Changing the Nationals Draw
Post by: simmo on May 12, 2009, 09:51:21 AM
If you can't win all your games on day one, why should you be national champions?


Title: Re: Changing the Nationals Draw
Post by: rodes on May 13, 2009, 02:39:41 AM
If you can't win all your games on day one, why should you be national champions?

Hear hear!


SimplePortal 2.1.1