destroyer_dabes
Joined: Jan 27, 2006
|
 Posted:
Nov 28, 2006 - 17:54 |
 
|
I have a new idea for a tournament of sorts, and would like some input...
All Americans should be familiar with the college Bowl Championship Series. For those that are not, all the college teams in the nation are ranked through a complex math formula involving wins, strength of victory, and strength of schedule, and the points total is then combined with a national coaches and sports writers poll to determine the national rankings. The rankings determine what bowl, if any, a team goes to, one of which is considered the college championship game.
For Fumbbl, there would be a group page for teams to apply to the Blood Bowl Championship Series with any ranked team. Available would be 10 major bowl games (1 being the championship) and any number of open bowls, each sponsored by a Fumbbl coach. The sponsor of the championship game would select any two teams from the group page to play in their bowl, and then the rest of the 9 remaining bowls would select their matchups in order. After all 10 major bowls had been filled, the open bowls would invite teams to play in their games with the invited teams deciding which bowl they wish to attend.
I think the benefit of this system would be the ease of use, as one game is easy to schedule, while still retaining some level of competativeness. Selection for each bowl would be entierely up to the sponsor, allowing for truly great matchups to be created. The major bowls would need to be selected based on team strength and record to maintaine competativeness. The open bowls could use creative selection measures, making an elf bowl, TR below 150 bowl, stunty bowl, low CR bowl; the possibilities are only limited by the ammount of sponsors willing to create bowls and the teams willing to play in them. Of course there would need to be a cap on open bowls at some point, but there could be enough to justify a broad range of applicants to the BBCS.
This tourney could be run on a regular (bi monthly possibly) basis. There would be a one week selection period where applicants may no longer play games with their applied teams, and then a two week bowl period where the teams would schedule their games and play. The two week play period would allow for ease of scheduling and a chance for spectators to catch more than a few bowls. Trophies designed by the sponsors would be the reward, adding some prestige to bowl winners.
So, any thoughts? Give em to me, flames and all. |
|
|
Walks_in_the_Sun
Joined: Apr 16, 2006
|
| Posted:
Nov 28, 2006 - 18:31 |
|
Put it in Unranked and give all the applied teams a schedule to play. Possibly a TR over/under cap. Otherwise you could have the equivalent of an NFL team picking lots of games against high school teams to beef up its record. Or were you planning on offering the bowl games without any sort of season? I suppose that would be fine after all. If you did have aseason, you could have different tiers just like in real life. Whoo! Go Middling State! |
|
|
Meech
Joined: Sep 15, 2005
|
| Posted:
Nov 28, 2006 - 18:44 |
|
Strength of Schedule plays a very large part in the BCS standings. |
_________________
Putting the FU in fumbbl since 9/2005 |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Nov 28, 2006 - 18:52 |
|
I say keep it [R] but use polls to decide who should go to the bowls.
Set an end date for the regular season. Voters should consider the teams last x games (10?) when voting.
The top few bowls should be ranked in order of importance.
Teams can cherrypick opponents if they wish but who would vote for them!
Would probably need more than one poll though. How many names can you fit on each one?
That should keep the forums going for a while.  |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed |
|
Meech
Joined: Sep 15, 2005
|
| Posted:
Nov 28, 2006 - 18:59 |
|
I don't think it would work in ranked but in unranked it would work fine. You would need a large pool of teams though to join a group. Then after x(I will use 10 as a nice round number)games teams with a record with only 1 loss and at least 8 wins would be bowl eligible. Then you could do a bowl commitee or a general poll listing the teams that are "bowl eligible".
I would love to see a ranked version of this but I only think it would work in unranked. |
_________________
Putting the FU in fumbbl since 9/2005 |
|
lemf
Joined: Jul 17, 2005
|
| Posted:
Nov 28, 2006 - 19:01 |
|
DUH !!!!!!  |
|
|
destroyer_dabes
Joined: Jan 27, 2006
|
| Posted:
Nov 28, 2006 - 22:24 |
|
I guess I was thinking of this for ranked, as our open system isn't that far from the college football schedule. Look at Notre Dame being independant, they set their own schedule and even the number of games each school plays is different. As for voting and whatnot, it would be very cool, but I actually was thinking that the bowl sponsor would be solely responsible for picking the matchup. The sponsor could decide how much they relied on team makeup, record, or strength of schedule in their selection.
I guess its just a way to spice up ranked, as there are plenty of tourneys in unranked and the ranked majors are simply to intimidating for a lot of people. Gaining an open bowl victory would be really cool to put on a team page and give a little fluff to some teams. |
|
|
Synn
Joined: Dec 13, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 28, 2006 - 22:29 |
|
This is very possible for Ranked as long as everyone understands a few things:
1.) This is not a tourney. This is a one off game.
2.) As such.... there is no reward other than total bragging rights.
3.) Coaches can say no (thats the schtick about Ranked).
I think closer to New Year's we could see some coaches sponsoring such matches. It will only work as far as coaches are ballsy enough to accept them.
__Synn |
|
|
destroyer_dabes
Joined: Jan 27, 2006
|
| Posted:
Nov 29, 2006 - 02:44 |
|
I totally agree, but would a coach really turn down a match in a competative bowl scene? I mean, if the applications for bowl appearances pile up and a coach drops out of a major bowl game, how could they live with themselves? |
|
|
Spearhead
Joined: Nov 18, 2006
|
| Posted:
Nov 29, 2006 - 03:29 |
|
The BCS system used in college is complete...well...it's not that good. The only thing it does is make us debate endlessly who will be #2 to play Ohio State (go buckeyes). A playoff system is much better.
The problem is that "sponsors" are only going to look at certain players they know. If they happen to look at other coaches, it is still impossible to get a hold of every single coach who deserves a shot at a "bowl game". |
|
|
Spearhead
Joined: Nov 18, 2006
|
| Posted:
Nov 29, 2006 - 03:34 |
|
| Meech wrote: | | Strength of Schedule plays a very large part in the BCS standings. |
Strength of Schedule isn't very fair more often than not. Some teams (big east) are stuck with the "tag" of being in a bad conference, while others (big 12) are looked apon as automaticaly "better" (no team in the big 12 has only 1 loss, and only 3 have 2 losses).
The SEC makes it almost impossible for one of its teams to go undefeated (aside from 04 auburn team, which still brings up stories today). Many people think that SEC teams are automaticaly better b/c of their conference. Is this true? Who knows. But a few weeks back people were willing to put Florida at #2 simply due to their conference, despite barely winning several games.
Still, playing all 8-2 teams rather than 4-6 teams makes you look better. |
|
|
destroyer_dabes
Joined: Jan 27, 2006
|
| Posted:
Nov 29, 2006 - 04:28 |
|
well, teams would have to apply to the group with a team, so we wouldn't be sifting through each and every coach and each and every team they have. Sponsors would have it in their best interests to schedule the toughest opponents, as their bowl game will never have any sort of prestige without it. |
|
|
Walks_in_the_Sun
Joined: Apr 16, 2006
|
| Posted:
Nov 29, 2006 - 04:51 |
|
But still, it comes down to a single match between two opponents selected by a third party, doesn't it? I mean, you could do it, but it would sort of just be like any other game, wouldn't it? Now, if you could get a game arranged between, say, the FC winner and the GLT winner, that WOULD be prestigious... but it would still technically be like any normal game between these two teams. Or am I missing something? |
|
|
|
|
Gnome Roster - how a...
Search
