UltiTalk.Com
Welcome to the ULTIMATE Ultimate Frisbee forum. March 31, 2020, 08:50:43 AM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

The ultimate forum for talking about Ultimate Frisbee. Aimed at bringing new life to the world of Ultimate Frisbee discussions, UltiTalk.Com (UT) combines both regional and international topics in one friendly place. So say hello to UT: The International Ultimate Frisbee forum.

Register your FREE UltiTalk.Com account to reveal the members-only Shout Box, Chatroom, and more!
Tweak it out. Customize the look and feel of UltiTalk by changing your Theme Settings.
 
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Members Links Gallery Login Register  
Visit UltiTalk.Com on TwitterVisit UltiTalk.Com on Facebook

Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
Del.icio.us Digg FURL FaceBook Stumble Upon Reddit SlashDot Google Bookmarks Ma.gnolia MSN Live Squidoo Yahoo My Web     Bookmark  |  Print  
Author Topic: Changing the Nationals Draw  (Read 19995 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Dens
Newbie
*

Karma: +1/-2
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 15



View Profile
« 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. 

Logged
simmo
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +45/-21
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 884



View Profile
« Reply #1 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.
Logged

Time to waste? Visit the Ballarat Ultimate blog!
BJ
Newbie
*

Karma: +1/-0
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 32



View Profile
« Reply #2 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!
Logged
woodie13
Newbie
*

Karma: +1/-0
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 19



View Profile
« Reply #3 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



Logged
JdR
Full Member
***

Karma: +11/-3
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 217



View Profile
« Reply #4 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.
Logged

Skippy
Newbie
*

Karma: +1/-1
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 15



View Profile
« Reply #5 on: April 29, 2009, 08:06:10 PM »

The ladies would also prefer not to be playing a repeat of Regionals on day 1.
Logged
woodie13
Newbie
*

Karma: +1/-0
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 19



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: April 29, 2009, 09:15:52 PM »

Skippy, Agreed.

With the 4 pool set up this will almost certainly be avoided.
Logged
JMc
Guest
« Reply #7 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.
Logged
Dens
Newbie
*

Karma: +1/-2
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 15



View Profile
« Reply #8 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.   
« Last Edit: April 30, 2009, 04:09:13 AM by Dens » Logged
woodie13
Newbie
*

Karma: +1/-0
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 19



View Profile
« Reply #9 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.

Logged
Tiger
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +22/-10
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 304



View Profile
« Reply #10 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.
Logged

thoughts and stuff - sifultimate.blogspot.com
wetnose
Jr. Member
**

Karma: +3/-3
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 57



View Profile
« Reply #11 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.
Logged
simmo
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +45/-21
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 884



View Profile
« Reply #12 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.
Logged

Time to waste? Visit the Ballarat Ultimate blog!
Meegs
Newbie
*

Karma: +4/-1
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 24



View Profile
« Reply #13 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!
Logged
carlie
Newbie
*

Karma: +1/-1
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 35



View Profile
« Reply #14 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. 
« Last Edit: May 01, 2009, 02:47:24 AM by carlie » Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
Del.icio.us Digg FURL FaceBook Stumble Upon Reddit SlashDot Google Bookmarks Ma.gnolia MSN Live Squidoo Yahoo My Web     Bookmark  |  Print  
 
Facebook Comments

Jump to:  






Advertise on UT!



Register your FREE UltiTalk.Com account to remove these ads!
Change language to English Change language to Brazilian Change language to Chinese-Simplified Change language to Danish Change language to Dutch Change language to English Change language to Finnish Change language to French Change language to German Change language to Greek Change language to Hebrew Change language to Hungarian Change language to Indonesian Change language to Italian Change language to Japanese Change language to Norwegian Change language to Polish Change language to Portuguese Change language to Romanian Change language to Russian Change language to Spanish Change language to Swedish Change language to Thai Change language to Turkish Change language to Ukranian Change language to Vietnamese

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines | Sitemap Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
UltiTalk.Com is the #1 forum and bulletin board for talking about, chatting about and discussing Ultimate Frisbee.
Please help spread the word to promote an international community of Ultimate Frisbee players, coaches and teachers.


Site Design By MWM Consulting, Inc. MWM Consulting, Inc.



Google last visited this page March 07, 2020, 11:09:55 AM
SimplePortal 2.1.1