5 Comments

1. 

   Wolfgang Maehr

   January 28, 2016

   MUO 2014 triggered similar thoughts like yours, Jared, and my conclusions are rather similar:

   1. For a developmental tournament (as MUO was supposed to be as far as I understand, that might have changed by now), I think it’s best to have only one pool. Gives most exposure to all teams and has the advantages you mention.
   2. For a competitive tournament (e.g. Manila Spirits) I agree that letting teams place themselves into 2–3 pools without cross-over might be best. Spirits 2015 however did not let teams choose and in such case cross-overs are needed.

   On a side-note I have to admit that I found Spirits 2015 too big and more importantly I found there being too many local teams. Not a nice thing to say as such, but we played 1 (max. 2) games against non-local teams which meant little variety in play style and hardly meeting and playing against international friends.
   This might also be something to be considered at some point, depending on intent.

   Reply
2. 

   Jared

   January 29, 2016

   Thanks Wolf.

   Manila has issues and a major one is its size. This was felt in the rec pools and the competitive ones as well.

   I was walking by one of the Elite pool games when one player who I respect as a player and a person asked me “Why do people come to this tournament?” He was asking seriously. He complained about game timing and other issues related to tourney size.

   There have been times that I have considering cutting Manila out of my schedule as well…

   I think it can be fixed. We’ll see if that happens.

   Reply
3. 

   Louis

   January 31, 2016

   Good read, Jared. Our 2014 format had the goal you mentioned, but unfortunately was not to everyone’s liking. The other issue is seeding a 32 team tournament which you may not have covered.

   We did let captains choose which pool they wanted to play in for 2015, which helped lots, but maybe for this year we’ll also ask about whether they want to keep it two separate divisions before the tournament begins. Good call.

   Reply
4. 

   Piet Funk

   February 5, 2016

   Very interesting article Jared.

   Looking at the UK model of ‘tour’, there are divisions A through C (and probably D by now). The first tournament of the year is a two-location seeding tournament with teams evenly split in North/South locations.

   Everyone is thrown into the same pot and the results determine the seeding of the first proper tournament. Seeding for the seeding tournament is based on the final results of the previous year’s season with new teams having to start at the bottom.

   The three tournaments that follow are each divided into divisions of 16 teams. These are effectively separate tournaments within a tournament and there is no crossover.

   However, crossover (promotion/relegation) happens between the tournaments. Finish 1st or 2nd in ‘B Tour’? You’re promoted to ‘A tour’ for the next tournament.

   I think this system works best because:
   – young teams get to play tough competition once a season in the seeding tournament
   – young teams at subsequent tournaments get to see the top-level competition around them even though they are playing in a bottom division
   – top teams aren’t stuck playing wasted games against teams they will never lose against
   – it’s more fun to play competitive games than blowouts

   Can Asia do the same? I’m a long way from even wanting to play in a competitive tournament, but why not get a ‘Grand Slam of Asia’ together with tournaments scattered around the region and top teams committing to play in each? Younger teams could still play in the ‘B pool’ in their local tournament. In the UK model, teams earn points depending on their finish. Could this points system help with seeding at subsequent tournaments?

   Of course, the downside is that distances are much greater making it harder for teams to make multiple tournaments. Implementing such a plan would be difficult. Still – can we learn something from the way the UK does it?

   Reply
   • 

     Jared

     February 6, 2016

     I think this kind of system would be awesome, but would be very difficult to implement here. Teams don’t travel much. Since and including Sing Open, there have been 4 significant international tourneys. 29 teams have placed in the top 8 of at least one tourney. Only 3 teams placed in 2 of the tourneys. We’ll see what the asianultimate.com club rankings look like when the season ends (Malaysia open), but I think we’ll see that… teams don’t travel much.

     Then there’s also the problem that no one in Asia communicates with each other about tournaments (See MUO, Zone, Sing Open Scheduling)…

     Reply