World Cup

[Hawka]

We actually won :.)

lol i just realised the team i beat is the minnow of the world cup haha

[Holz]

We actually won :.)

lol i just realised the team i beat is the minnow of the world cup haha

yep, you got the lucky winner of the week with the 6th lowest score but pulled out a win.

you have the 9th seed Bangladesh Bears next round so your going to have to pull out a personal best to take them out.

[Colliwobblers]

Nearly claimed a seeded team in the Warewolves, good game Winchester!

Oh well, maybe next year.

was a close game, tough week for us i played a spud for cover and gibbs was shocking. wrong captain too.

British is a funny comp there can be huge scores but there can just as easily be very low scores.

[Colliwobblers]

11 Asians teams through :)

superb.

[nostradamus]

l can't believe the Crabs won, we're performing way better than we have any right to with such an incredibly young team.

Happy with the Roulettes too  8)

The Crabs willl struggle to last very long in this comp, but with a bit of luck the Roulettes should get close to the pointy end

[Justin Bieber]

Is there a OP edit? Or....

[Holz]

Watch out Hedgehogs, the Eagles are coming

[Ringo]

For next year though I reckon we use finishing positions from this year as the qualif1ers with the Top 16 sides from each comp qualifying for the Cup.  Top 4 from each the automatic Top 4 seeds and we use the % weighting from the season to Determine rank within the 16. (Ranking Teams against each other rather than average score).

% weighting was the only option available for this year and the % are calculated well.,  British were disadvantaged by 2 relative high scoring rounds which inflated the average. For those in British will know the rounds where we had teams score in excess of 2000 points.

thing is though ringo if you had those high scoring rounds before, whats to stop that happening again and you guys knocking out a bunch of seeds.

the major issue with your idea is teams can change alot with DPP and trades. Look at the eagles last year they were cripled with injuries. than the post season came, alot of players overcame injruies e.g. lecras. Got some very handy DPP e.g. Gibbs and traded very very hard getting rid of all my depth and youth.

Would have been unseeded could have drawn a big seed and kncoked them out.

Can understand Holz but I am trying to work out a fairer way for seeds. Speaking from the British, but not sure whether the same in other competitions, seedings fell this way for British team and I will put in Brackets position on British Ladder when competition commenced.
7. Bradford Badgers (6)
10. Nottingham Hoods (2)
14. Winchester Werewolves (1)
15. Swansea Breakers (3)
16, Birmingham Bombers (4)
No disrespect to Lez as he had 3 high scoring rounds but should he go into Worlds as Top seed from British. Do not know the answer though just pointing out the anomalies this year.
Maybe in working out seeds use net for and against or % as it would be a common denominator across all comps.

[Holz]

For next year though I reckon we use finishing positions from this year as the qualif1ers with the Top 16 sides from each comp qualifying for the Cup.  Top 4 from each the automatic Top 4 seeds and we use the % weighting from the season to Determine rank within the 16. (Ranking Teams against each other rather than average score).

% weighting was the only option available for this year and the % are calculated well.,  British were disadvantaged by 2 relative high scoring rounds which inflated the average. For those in British will know the rounds where we had teams score in excess of 2000 points.

thing is though ringo if you had those high scoring rounds before, whats to stop that happening again and you guys knocking out a bunch of seeds.

the major issue with your idea is teams can change alot with DPP and trades. Look at the eagles last year they were cripled with injuries. than the post season came, alot of players overcame injruies e.g. lecras. Got some very handy DPP e.g. Gibbs and traded very very hard getting rid of all my depth and youth.

Would have been unseeded could have drawn a big seed and kncoked them out.

Can understand Holz but I am trying to work out a fairer way for seeds. Speaking from the British, but not sure whether the same in other competitions, seedings fell this way for British team and I will put in Brackets position on British Ladder when competition commenced.
7. Bradford Badgers (6)
10. Nottingham Hoods (2)
14. Winchester Werewolves (1)
15. Swansea Breakers (3)
16, Birmingham Bombers (4)
No disrespect to Lez as he had 3 high scoring rounds but should he go into Worlds as Top seed from British. Do not know the answer though just pointing out the anomalies this year.
Maybe in working out seeds use net for and against or % as it would be a common denominator across all comps.

not sure about that system, could mean teams that are lucky and have played alot of weak teams in the first half of the year are advantaged.

I dont think who you played should come into it or where you are on the ladder.

Elxam DT is a great example of this. My team had scored top 10 points but is sitting 36th as I have had the most points score on my easy. A seeding of 36 for me woudl be abit ridicolous given the number 1 seed lez would have scored less points than me.

With the pure scroing it doesnt have the bias of who you have played and while lez obviously doesnt consitently go big, the fact he has done it 3 times this year and has scored the most points makes him a big threat.

the champs league is al about ladder postion.

[Toga]

Yeah IMO it should be based on scoring (as Holz has done for this year).

For example, my Asians team the Lambs are top seeded Asian team because we are leading the comp for total points FOR - followed by the Folders who are like five hundred points behind us... But the Dolphins are on top of the ladder, despite them being the fourth-highest-scoring team!

If we did ladder positions IMO it would be a lot based on luck (and the last year's draw), rather than strength of your team...

[ossie85]

Yeah, I like the highest scoring seeds for sure.

Maybe though - and it has flaws - that 4 seeds from each comp?

[Holz]

Yeah, I like the highest scoring seeds for sure.

Maybe though - and it has flaws - that 4 seeds from each comp?

are you sugesting it so just each team had 4 seeds or

say top 4 seeds are the highest from each comp, than 5-8 next highest etc..

as with 4 4 3 5 the seeding was pretty even this year. British had the most seeds but their seeds werent as high as say the worlds.

[Ringo]

Just going back to the for and against calculations iy would be as follows for British.

Badgers + 126
Hoods +230
Werewolves + 252
Breakers +191
Bombers +87

So if using for and against it takes into consideration any advantage by possibly playing weaker teams early.  IMO it is a more realistic seeding method reflecting the competition coming out of. Just putting it out there as an alternative for those teams that have yet to play the weaker teams when we rate for the World Cup. Still not the ideal situation but maybe closer to true rankings.

[Ziplock]

the seeds are spread out the way they are due to discrepancies in scoring between teams in their individual competitions. British is  a more evenly distributed competition compared to worlds, so subsequently had more seeds.

I just did the standard deviations for each competition:

Euros: 12.39
Worlds: 14.2
Asia: 8.32
British: 8.63

When all the scores are multiplied by their multipliers however to even them out

Euros: 12.75
Worlds: 14.2
Asia: 6.41
British: 7.48

so these standard deviations and discrepancies in the competitions would show why the seedings are a bit odd

probably messes with the multipliers as well tbh.

[LaHug]

HOLZ! You didn't change "Bisons" to "Bison" when you update the draw >:(