National MF Champ...

[artlax]

it is simple - why not use what other individual sports use to determine their top performers - a ranking system based on performance in tournament play!

We know that every year there are a certain number of tournaments - many in different styles - but that is ok.

We simply come up with a points system based on coaches finish in each tournament. Hey - if a coach wants to be considered the best in the country then he works at all the styles and makes it to the tournaments.

Not everyone has to take part -only those who want to just like the MFCAL system. Guys can still have their league play, etc...And this just might encourage more participation in the tournaments.

[Geno H]

I agree 100%. Tom Rusink used to do this. Lets get the ball rollin. I will offer my help.


Geno H

[RooMorgans]

I wonder wherever we could find a system that would figure out such things.

I just can't think of one ...

Roo(PI)

[artlax]

Mine was just a random thought - from the comments seems like a plan is out there - please share what has been suggested and sounds like not supported.

[WEIRDWOLF]

I've got some thoughts, but want to see where people are at with this.
Question 1: How does the MFCAL not meet what you are suggesting? I'm not asking to be rude....I just want input so that we can make it better and fitting to the membership. From my perspective it already does exactly what you mentioned, but that is not to say that it couldn't use some tweaking. Any full game (league or tourney) between two MFCA coaches up to 8 games for the year can be counted. Now if you want to include those that are not members, there may be some way to do this, where they could be awarded points, but there would be no awards given at the end of the year. I would love to hear more ideas on how to improve the current system?!
Question1: What tournaments still exist? I'll start the list and fill in what I miss. Bama Blast, Beltsville Bash, Miggle?, Buzzfest?, Mid America Melee, Dixie League (tourney or league) Open Run, Texas Shootout?, any others??

[RooMorgans]

Originally Posted by artlax

Mine was just a random thought - from the comments seems like a plan is out there - please share what has been suggested and sounds like not supported.

Many years ago, I had the intention of designing a Tournament of Champions at the end of the year, where the champs of each tourney would meet, and then the idea was also added to include league champions. Coaches would get points for wins, as well as who they beat, and who those coaches beat, etc. That would determine seedings, and the invitation of any wild cards.

MFCAL basically meets that standard. I designed a set of rankings based on my ideas way back when, which was nicknamed the RooPI rankings. Something simliar to this, if not this, may have been used on Tom Ruesink's web site at some point, though I think it went through some changes along the way (as it should have). I know my Rules for Solitaire Electric Football were there at some point, as well.

The rankings as I originally intended them not only took into account who won tournaments, but who coaches beat along the way, based on points for previous league/tourney finishes/games through a 12-month calendar period. It meant having the result of every game that was played in a tournament or league, and I found after a while that gathering such information just wasn't practical.

I think the MFCAL rankings are a more basic version of what I had envisioned and put to paper way back when.

I don't see any need to re-invent the wheel.

Ed

[artlax]

reinvent the wheel - just throwing a thought out there.

MFCAL is fine - just thinking that something like what I mentioned may build more interest in Tournaments and encourage more participation as are done in table hockey, subbuteo, etc...

[WEIRDWOLF]

We actually voted 2 years ago to start the tournament ranking system. The tournament ranking never got off the ground because no one was willing to pick up the ball and run with it. If you and Roo want to form a committee and get this going and administrate it, it would have the MFCA support and I could provide you with any technical needs to display on the website and to track the events. Tom Ruesink would provide info on his system that he used and it could be compared to Roo's to reach the best possible system.The BOD would not be opposed to this...it just takes someone who really wants to see it happen take charge of it.

What happens most times is great suggestions come down the pipe, but there are not enough bodies to follow up on it or after a short while the projects get left in the dust.

So who wants to head this up?

[RooMorgans]

I think the problem way back when was that there just wasn't enough ability to coordinate all the results that would have been required. And while the rankings were a curiousity, I don't think that many people cared about them, to be honest. That still may be the case. Perhaps my system was a little too complex, but I made it that way on purpose because I wanted the rankings to be viable - especially if they were in some way going to decide who was invited to participate in a tournament.

It could be done in a more simple fashion and that's fine, but it's going to require the following:

1) MFCA support.

This is more than just folks coming on the thread and saying, "hey that looks good, let's go with it." It means having all tournaments be a part of it, and keeping good records so we can say that Coach AERGWQER finished 5th in Alabama, not 9th (or tied for 5th as a quarterfinal loser, as it were).

2) Non-rules specific.

You can't do these rankings if you are only going to include certain rules sets, certain styles of play, etc. The thought of the rankings is that coaches can coach, whether they are playing Shootout style, MEFA style, or Harrisburg style. Doesn't matter. No group gets more points or less points because of their style. So chances are, if you are the King of one style, and you don't go to the other tournaments, you aren't going to be ranked as high as someone who has fair success by going to all of them.

3) Someone or people to put it all together.

I'm perfectly willing to do this, but I think it's more than a 1-person effort to keep track of everything. At least as it resides in my head. In actual practice, maybe it won't. Can't answer that yet.

4) Tournament Calendar.

The list of tournaments which the rankings will consider needs to be out there in advance so people can plan their travel. While there is no bias toward any region of the country, if one region has 7 tournaments and another has 1, certain folks are going to have the opportunity to play more tournaments. We don't want 4 people getting together in Boo Radley's basement and calling it a tournament, when no one else was given notice. Tournaments would need to be planned in advance, and those running the MFCA Rankings would need to be advised of them WELL in advance. In turn, those on the Rankings Committee will also do their part to help promote said tournaments.

I ramble. I'm a rambler. I rambled.

Ed

[RooMorgans]

It would be pretty cool to have an MFCA Super Cup at the end of whatever 12-month period we use, where the MFCAL Champ plays the MFCA Tourney Rankings Champ.

The winner gets a free silly band or something.

Ed