From: tom@soda.berkeley.edu (Tom Holub)
Newsgroups: rec.games.netrek
Subject: Re: New INL scheduling proposal:(long..please read this, however)
Date: 23 Nov 1992 08:30:46 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu
Keywords: READ THIS READ THIS READ THIS READ THIS

In article <By5sCC.4M.2@cs.cmu.edu> hill@norman.vi.ri.cmu.edu writes:
)
)Hello.  I thought this thread would be the ideal place to discuss my idea  
)for INL scheduling.  
)
)The Problems:
)
)1)  The current INL scheduling provides a random chance of good teams  
)always playing bad teams.  Not only does this screw up playoff rankings,  
)but this causes much less fun games for all concerned.  Why did FLEE (a  
)first time INL team, with no member having tournament experience) play 3  
)of the top teams as its INL scheduled games?  Why did TWNN (a number 1-4  
)INL pick) play 4 teams that they genocided?

Note that the fall season had only 4 games.  With 6-8, as we plan for
the spring, this will be less of a problem; random number generators
even out.

)2)  It is sometimes very difficult for some randomly scheduled games to be  
)played.  Some teams can only play on weekends, while other teams can never  
)play on weekends.  Some school teams can only play late at night, while  
)people with "real jobs" can't play that late.

Which is why I supported splitting divisions by convenient time, rather
than by the arbitrary designation of 'East' and 'West'.

)3)  INL playoffs are completely broken.  Why isn't xgolems and gb in the  
)playoffs?  Simple...they were hurt by a bad schedule(ie..they both played  
)my team...:-) *smile*

Again, this is at least partly because the fall season was too short.

)4)  Competitive teams WANT to play competitive games.  However, by playing  
)these games, they reduce their chances of making the playoffs.  This is  
)bad form...no team should be penalized because they had good, high-quality  
)games.

Competitive teams can also want to play not-so-competitive games.  I
always enjoy our games with Lagg U, for one, and have enjoyed watching
their progress as an INL team.

)5)  Teams can't enter the INL after the scheduling date.  If teams leave  
)during the season, the rest of the teams that they are supposed to play  
)don't get that game played.

There are solutions to this that should be worked out in council, not
on the net.

Before I go on with this post, let me say that I think it's really 
stupid to take a proposal that's before the INL council, and to which a 
number of INL council members have provided objections, and posting
it to the net as if it's a brand new thing, and failing to attach
any of our arguments.  Public discussion is fine, but self-serving
propaganda is not what the INL needs.

)The proposal: a tennis-style ladder.
)
)It would go something like this:
)
)At the beginning of the season, the INL council ranks all teams (kindof  
)like the ENPN poll).  

I, for one, do not want to do this, in any way, shape, or form.  Teams
change drastically from season to season, and most people know little
about other people's playing ability other than what they read here.
Would anyone have chosen the Golden Bears as a top 4 team before the
season?  Would anyone have chosen Lagg U as top 10?  Would anyone
have ranked Off The Top Rope nearly as low as they deserve?

Teams with a low profile (read: teams not from CMU or Cal) will get screwed
in any ranking scheme.

)Then teams challenge other teams...when a lower  
)ranked team beats a higher ranked team, the two teams swap positions in  
)the ladder.  Any team can disband at any time, and any team can join at  
)any time...joining teams are put at the bottom of the ladder.  

So if a CMU team disbands and a new one forms, they get put at the
bottom of the ladder.  Let's say the top 5 teams are the teams they
are interested in playing.  According to your rules (below) they
will probably have to play at least 4 or 5 games before they are
in a position to play a quality game again.  Note that this is
nearly a full INL season.

)Upon  
)playoff time, whoever is in the top 6 slots goes to the playoffs.  Teams  
)can play as many games as they want, and have no maximum or minimum number  
)of games to play.

Teams have no maximum number now.  Any above 4 were called 'scrimmages'.
They're fun, too.

The minimum was 4 for the fall and will probably be 6 for the spring.
I don't think that's unreasonable.

)Teams that are challenged must play the challenger within 3 weeks(inl  
)extensions available if reasonable) if the challenger is within 5 ladder  
)positions of the challenged unless the challenger has been challenged by  
)the team before.  Challengers get home-server advantage.  If a team has  
)been challenged by another team, the challenged team must play the team  
)who is closest to him on the ladder, unless he has been challenged by
)that team before.

So I'm the #2 team.  I challange the #1 team and win.  The #1 team
drops to #2 and now has no chance of getting to #1 again, because
he will always be bumped off by teams that haven't played me yet
(certainly, every team in the top 5 will be wanting to challange the
#1 team)

Or, right after I win, I get a challange which I agree to play 3 weeks later.  
Then I get another challange which I agree to play 3 weeks later.  I win
both and hey, it's time for the playoffs!

Or, I get challanged by the #5 team and accept, and then the #5 team loses
to a team below them.  Do they still have the right to challange?

Or, I get challanged by the #5 team and accept, and then get challanged
by the #2 team.  Can the #2 team preempt the #5 team's challange?

Or, I get challanged by the #2 team and accept, and then get challanged
by the #5, #3, and #4 teams, in that order.  Do I have to keep a
'challange queue' so I know who challanged me and in what order so
I can work out who my next opponent is?  

Or, I'm the #5 team, and I've challanged the #1, #2, and #3 teams,
and have games scheduled with them for the next 3 weekends, and
then I get challanged by a team below me.  Do I have to play
two games in one night?

There are a *lot* of problems involved in a ladder system; the ones
listed above are just off the top of my head.  And team captains note,
this proposal will create more work for you, and more work for the
INL Council as well.

)The team that plays the most total games gets an automatic bid to the  
)playoffs.  The team that has played the most other teams gets an automatic  
)bid to the playoffs.

This will almost certainly go to CMU, since it is much easier for CMU
teams to schedule games with each other than it is for any other
school.

)Advantages:
)1)  entering/leaving team provision

This can be done anyway.

)2)  true validity of playoffs

No more than under the current system.

)3)  more fun games for all teams

I disagree.  If I get challanged by a team I'm not interested in playing,
I have to play them, just as if I had a team on my schedule that I
wasn't interested in playing, I would have to play them.  If I 
challange a team that doesn't want to play me, they have to play me.

)Comments?

Don't post anything like this again.
 -Tom