2015 Champions League Discussion

[Holz]

You probably have one of the toughest groups Purp.

Plus Bangladesh have Fyfe too

:-X



Obviously I'd love to win the Champions League, but barring that, I'll be rooting for a Worlds Team to bring it home.

*admin banter begins*

You know, just to prove that my comp is premium and the best ;)

I dont think any euro team will win. Our comp is too even so there aren't any stand out super teams.

my thinking in that is that the comps with over powered teams generally have weaker teams as well, so the multiplier should theoretically correct for that?

My other question (not that it affects me as I only play euros) is why weren't the vice captains factored into the multiplier? With the multiplier it's not as though they'd give a bonus as they would if we used like raw scores or w.e, but if  teams have structured for the VC multiplier to a degree doesn't that impact them?

the weaker teams help make the stronger teams even stronger with the muliplier. The weak teams bring down the average of the comp so if you put it simply.

2: 170 teams
10: 140 teams
2: 110 teams

average 140 with 2 170 powerhouses.

4: 160 teams
6: 140 teams
4: 120 teams

average 140 with 4 160 strong teams.

therefore the more uneven comp being comp 1 should beat comp 2.

[PowerBug]

my thinking in that is that the comps with over powered teams generally have weaker teams as well, so the multiplier should theoretically correct for that?

All the multipler does is correct the differences in the scoring systems, that is all it is designed to do not sure why such a big fuss is made over it. The stronger teams will still be the stronger teams

My other question (not that it affects me as I only play euros) is why weren't the vice captains factored into the multiplier? With the multiplier it's not as though they'd give a bonus as they would if we used like raw scores or w.e, but if  teams have structured for the VC multiplier to a degree doesn't that impact them?

I know last week my VC got me an extra 98 points (Picken scored 196). This is probably the highest people will get for VC changes for the year. I feel like it'll be a slight disadvantage but we will run with it. The competition will only improve in future years :)

[roo boys!]

Good idea ringo:

Key = Current Ladder Position, Team, Points Scored

1. Dublin Destroyers   2094
2. Paris Nice Lyon Reindeers   1923
7. Berlin Brewers   1898
4. Mexico City Suns   1891
5. Moscow Spetnaz   1855
3. Christchurch Saints   1843
6. New York Revolution   1839
10. Toronto Wolves   1781

(that's right, I'm bloody 7th)

Wolves are looking very threatening  8)

[Nige]

3rd for total points score in both BXVs and AXVs.

Gonna have to do better than that to take this out.

[Ziplock]

You probably have one of the toughest groups Purp.

Plus Bangladesh have Fyfe too

:-X



Obviously I'd love to win the Champions League, but barring that, I'll be rooting for a Worlds Team to bring it home.

*admin banter begins*

You know, just to prove that my comp is premium and the best ;)

I dont think any euro team will win. Our comp is too even so there aren't any stand out super teams.

my thinking in that is that the comps with over powered teams generally have weaker teams as well, so the multiplier should theoretically correct for that?

My other question (not that it affects me as I only play euros) is why weren't the vice captains factored into the multiplier? With the multiplier it's not as though they'd give a bonus as they would if we used like raw scores or w.e, but if  teams have structured for the VC multiplier to a degree doesn't that impact them?

the weaker teams help make the stronger teams even stronger with the muliplier. The weak teams bring down the average of the comp so if you put it simply.

2: 170 teams
10: 140 teams
2: 110 teams

average 140 with 2 170 powerhouses.

4: 160 teams
6: 140 teams
4: 120 teams

average 140 with 4 160 strong teams.

therefore the more uneven comp being comp 1 should beat comp 2.

duhhh. Complete fail by me.

So, why wasn't the average taken just from the top 8 of each comp, if they're the only ones that are competing?

[Holz]

You probably have one of the toughest groups Purp.

Plus Bangladesh have Fyfe too

:-X



Obviously I'd love to win the Champions League, but barring that, I'll be rooting for a Worlds Team to bring it home.

*admin banter begins*

You know, just to prove that my comp is premium and the best ;)

I dont think any euro team will win. Our comp is too even so there aren't any stand out super teams.

my thinking in that is that the comps with over powered teams generally have weaker teams as well, so the multiplier should theoretically correct for that?

My other question (not that it affects me as I only play euros) is why weren't the vice captains factored into the multiplier? With the multiplier it's not as though they'd give a bonus as they would if we used like raw scores or w.e, but if  teams have structured for the VC multiplier to a degree doesn't that impact them?

the weaker teams help make the stronger teams even stronger with the muliplier. The weak teams bring down the average of the comp so if you put it simply.

2: 170 teams
10: 140 teams
2: 110 teams

average 140 with 2 170 powerhouses.

4: 160 teams
6: 140 teams
4: 120 teams

average 140 with 4 160 strong teams.

therefore the more uneven comp being comp 1 should beat comp 2.

duhhh. Complete fail by me.

So, why wasn't the average taken just from the top 8 of each comp, if they're the only ones that are competing?

despite hurting my Dublin its probably better.

[Ziplock]

So I just did the averages using these numbers and the multipliers

British   worlds   asians   euros
2285   2094   3015   1348
2249   1923   2944   1347
2196   1898   2749   1271
2167   1891   2746   1208
2164   1855   2722   1288
2149   1843   2710   1234
2148   1839   2684   1195
2129   1781   2796   1204

so the raw averages (for points scored this season) are
British: 2185
Worlds: 1891
Asians: 2795
Euros: 1261

So with the mulipliers
British: 2169
Worlds: 1891
Asians: 2151
Euros: 1279

I think (asians?) are skewed because they play during the byes and nobody else does, so their number (I'm estimating) should be around 1840. The euros numbers are only taken from the from 9 euros rounds, rather than 10 (which I think is the number everyone else played?), so their actual average should be around 1400.

That's still a pretty chronically skewed competition... is british that uneven?

[LF]

BXV also plays through the byes tho

[Ringo]

Can take your point though Zip. The bottom 2 in British scores are 1725 and 1734 so you can see a difference of some 400 points to 8th place.

So Maybe to make the comp fair we should use the scores from the Top 8 to work out multipliers. Realise it will disadvantage British if we went that way.

Yes British scores are after 15 rounds as we play through byes. Scores may be skewed by the way we calculate that as well due to the fact that we had to uses average scores for Adelaide Geelong match and then Adelaide scores were doubled up as well due to our method of calculating scores during byes.

No matter what system we use or how to work it out there will always be anomalies due to the subtle differences between the competitions.  Levi has done a good job in working ou a multiplier so lets see how the comp pans out and keep tweaking as necessary each year.

[Ziplock]

BXV also plays through the byes tho

that makes sense, it'd put the scores around like 1860 or something then?

so it's really just euros that's significantly lower than everyone else?

[Memphistopheles]

There's a different amount of teams in each competition which makes this pretty hard.

Euros have 14 teams. British and Asians have 16 teams. Worlds have 18 teams.

Just by the amount of good player to go around the Euros comp should be stronger than the others.

I think if we're going to take the Champions League seriously/do it properly in the future all the leagues should have the same amount of teams in.

Only then can you work out a proper multiplier.

Which probably means increasing the Euros league by four teams and introducing two new ones in our British and Asian conferences. Also no offence Holz but a more active admin in the British league could really give it a boost as well.

[Ringo]

There's a different amount of teams in each competition which makes this pretty hard.

Euros have 14 teams. British and Asians have 16 teams. Worlds have 18 teams.

Just by the amount of good player to go around the Euros comp should be stronger than the others.

I think if we're going to take the Champions League seriously/do it properly in the future all the leagues should have the same amount of teams in.

Only then can you work out a proper multiplier.

Which probably means increasing the Euros league by four teams and introducing two new ones in our British and Asian conferences. Also no offence Holz but a more active admin in the British league could really give it a boost as well.

Do you want to take over  ;)

Looking at the debate and going forward my thoughts are:
At the conclusion of the Home and away rounds for each competition the Top 8 from each competition go into champs league and play over 4 weeks knock out based.
Average of the 8 teams total points to be ascertained and multipliers calculated using Worlds as base.
This may get rid of the uneveness of the competition.
Really though no system will be perfect and we work within the parameters ser.

[Memphistopheles]

There's a different amount of teams in each competition which makes this pretty hard.

Euros have 14 teams. British and Asians have 16 teams. Worlds have 18 teams.

Just by the amount of good player to go around the Euros comp should be stronger than the others.

I think if we're going to take the Champions League seriously/do it properly in the future all the leagues should have the same amount of teams in.

Only then can you work out a proper multiplier.

Which probably means increasing the Euros league by four teams and introducing two new ones in our British and Asian conferences. Also no offence Holz but a more active admin in the British league could really give it a boost as well.

Do you want to take over  ;)

Looking at the debate and going forward my thoughts are:
At the conclusion of the Home and away rounds for each competition the Top 8 from each competition go into champs league and play over 4 weeks knock out based.
Average of the 8 teams total points to be ascertained and multipliers calculated using Worlds as base.
This may get rid of the uneveness of the competition.
Really though no system will be perfect and we work within the parameters ser.

Sorry I meant Euros league Ringo.

You do a great job.

[Ziplock]

There's a different amount of teams in each competition which makes this pretty hard.

Euros have 14 teams. British and Asians have 16 teams. Worlds have 18 teams.

Just by the amount of good player to go around the Euros comp should be stronger than the others.

I think if we're going to take the Champions League seriously/do it properly in the future all the leagues should have the same amount of teams in.

Only then can you work out a proper multiplier.

Which probably means increasing the Euros league by four teams and introducing two new ones in our British and Asian conferences. Also no offence Holz but a more active admin in the British league could really give it a boost as well.

The multiplier takes into account the different strengths of the teams in league size.... While our teams will be stronger, the multiplier accounts for that through an equalising ratio, the same way it corrects for the other competition's higher scoring system.

[PowerBug]

What Ziplock said, it's all accounted for :)

Let's just look forward to the first round of games this weekend :)