Grid-Iron american football game language selector
Language
ČeštinaDanskDeutsch
EnglishEspañolEspañol (Latinoamérica)
FrançaisItalianoMagyar
NederlandsPolskiPortuguês (Brasil)
RomânăSlovenčinaSlovenščina
SrpskiSuomiБългарски
РусскийУкраїнська 
Register
Login
Hall of Fame
Forum index >> Grid-Iron discussions >> Hall of Fame Goto page : 1, 2, 3 ... 15, 16, 17 ... 22, 23, 24
 
David Ortiz
Posts: 3148
Posted on 2015-08-19 19:56:01
Gatr22 wrote:

hosh13 wrote:

My latest thoughts -

IB winner - 5pts
IB r/u - 2pts
TD or Cup Champ - 1pt
WC winner - 4pts
WC r/u - 3pts
WC semi finalist - 2pts
WC qtr finalist - 1pt

Qualification -
1 IB appearance + 1 TD + 1 Cup

or

2 IB appearances

or

1 IB appearance + WC finalist

Too much work to do though, and info on past WCs probably not available.



I like the IB winner getting 5 pts and the runner up getting 2, but I don't like the TD pts or the cup pts and I don't think WC managers should get any points. It's a product of what you have available for players for the most part. So back to the real matches, I would suggest the IB pts as above and then 1-2 pt for TD champs and 2-3 pts for cup champs. Cup champs are harder to come by then TD, in my opinion. Even though I only have one TD championship. I do have about 7 or 8 2nds and 3rds. But to win the cup, you have to win 10 or 11 straight games. Maybe I have been lucky in those matches, but I have won quite a few and those are much harder without a doubt. I've been dumped as early as round 3 in the cup over the years, yet never been below 3rd in TD standings. So I'm basically in the running every season in TD, not so in the cup.



I agree with Gatr on the WC points (as per my post above).

Under this specific system, the managers of a group of 3-4 countries are about 90% certain to get as many points as they would by winning TD or the cup. You could lead the UK or Italy to the quarterfinals, somehow get trounced by Brazil or Mexico, and that would be worth as much under this system as a TD victory.

I'm also skeptical of points systems in general-if not for the IB qualifier, we'd end up letting the Jerusalem Knights, with their 6 TD titles (in a 5-bot TD), 5 cup victories (in that same region), into the HOF. And while their AFLC performance hasn't been a series of 0-8 seasons, so it's not like they're a third-string squad, their high-water mark is a 3-5 record in season 14. They've averaged 2 wins a season against their so-called peers from other regions. I don't think that's the sort of record that should qualify you for the HOF.

In the meantime, if Jean Marc had finished a game shy of the IB every year in the last few seasons, we might be leaving him on the outside looking in.
  
Gatr22GI Supporter
Posts: 14540
Joined: 2009-09-29
I.1
Offline
Posted on 2015-08-19 20:09:09
I think Mr Ortiz has a valid point. In the pts that I suggested:

IB win:5
IB runner up: 2
TD champ: 1-2 pts
Cup champ: 2-3 pts

Then you would tier the regions, based on perceived difficulty level and assign a multiplier based on strength. This would only apply to the cup and TD points any team would have. The IB points should stand alone, as they are even strength for all that make it to the coveted IB finals. So I would suggest 3 levels of difficulty for regions, such as Level 1 would be a multiplier of 1. Level 2 would be a multiplier of .5 (meaning that in those regions, teams would have to win twice as many cups and TD trophies to be considered. Level 3 would be a multiplier of .25 (meaning they would have to win 4 trophies to equal 1 of the top level). This is just a suggestion, but it would reward teams of great longevity in those regions, but they would have to be here a really long time to accomplish that.
  
Owner of the Orlando Gators FC
Member GIAC
League 383-173 (TD Champs S17,S21,S22)
Regional Cup 223-25 (Cup Champs S14,S15,S17,S19,S20,S21)
AFLC 45-14 (Iron Bowl Champs S18,S22,S23)

It's Great To Be A Florida Gator
hosh13
Posts: 2985
Posted on 2015-08-20 2:24:08
@ Gtr - interesting that you undervalue TD yet have 3 Cups and 1 TD title!

Also, I think a lot of the comments on what I have suggested forget that at least 1 IB appearance is required irrespective of all else.

Any manager that makes it to the WC finals is pretty handy imo. If a manager had made the final of both an IB and WC, would that not be HOF worthy? Don't forget, the qualification I set was WC "finalist", not just WC finals.
  
hosh13
Posts: 2985
Posted on 2015-08-20 2:36:46
Gatr22 wrote:

I think Mr Ortiz has a valid point. In the pts that I suggested:

IB win:5
IB runner up: 2
TD champ: 1-2 pts
Cup champ: 2-3 pts

Then you would tier the regions, based on perceived difficulty level and assign a multiplier based on strength. This would only apply to the cup and TD points any team would have. The IB points should stand alone, as they are even strength for all that make it to the coveted IB finals. So I would suggest 3 levels of difficulty for regions, such as Level 1 would be a multiplier of 1. Level 2 would be a multiplier of .5 (meaning that in those regions, teams would have to win twice as many cups and TD trophies to be considered. Level 3 would be a multiplier of .25 (meaning they would have to win 4 trophies to equal 1 of the top level). This is just a suggestion, but it would reward teams of great longevity in those regions, but they would have to be here a really long time to accomplish that.




Completely disagree with putting either a TD of Cup title at or above an IB r/u. The IB r/u has basically won a 1 round Super TD title!

Probably the best way to grade the regions would be using the results of a given regions teams in the following AFLC. You could maybe use the 2 teams avg win % as a multiplier for the previous season's Cup and TD titles?
  
hosh13
Posts: 2985
Posted on 2015-08-20 2:56:50
e.g.

This season's AFLC -

Steelers 5-3
Grizzlys 6-2

ASE - 11-5 = 0.69

I would set the default to 0.5 which means if a Region's teams went 0.5 in the AFLC then their Cup and TD titles from the preceding season would be worth 1 each.

So Rocky would have gotten 1.38pts for his CUP title from S18 if he was in the HOF and JM would get the same for his TD title from S18.
  
LucaFGI Supporter
Posts: 733
Joined: 2014-01-10
I.1
Offline
Posted on 2015-08-20 3:48:25
hosh13 wrote:

e.g.

This season's AFLC -

Steelers 5-3
Grizzlys 6-2

ASE - 11-5 = 0.69

I would set the default to 0.5 which means if a Region's teams went 0.5 in the AFLC then their Cup and TD titles from the preceding season would be worth 1 each.

So Rocky would have gotten 1.38pts for his CUP title from S18 if he was in the HOF and JM would get the same for his TD title from S18.



I think it's unfair to measure the strenght of a region using only two teams
  
IRON BOWL Winner S37
x2 Central Europe League Champion (S26 & S33)
x3 Central Europe Regional Cup Winner (S31, S34 & S36)
Norway NT - WC 30 Champion
hosh13
Posts: 2985
Posted on 2015-08-20 5:00:02
LucaF wrote:

I think it's unfair to measure the strenght of a region using only two teams



Well, the point is really to work out how good the teams are and what their respective titles are worth. That's the point of the "strength of region" idea.

It's just as unfair to penalise a good team in a poor region as it is to unfairly reward a poor team in a poor region.

If they do well in AFLC then this is surely far more important than how good the other teams in their region are. It's also some sort of reward for doing well in AFLC even without an IB appearance.
  
cflames3412
Posts: 7366
Posted on 2015-08-20 5:23:29
mrcasado wrote:

I agree with mr ortiz, a bum like me can win the world cup with the uk, but im not deserving of a spot in the hall, not yet anyway



Any bum can win wc with the uk team they by far have the largest community
  
hosh13
Posts: 2985
Posted on 2015-08-20 5:49:21
cflames3412 wrote:

Any bum can win wc with the uk team they by far have the largest community





I just played the US team with an entire offence that was 5* from go to whoa!
  
LucaFGI Supporter
Posts: 733
Joined: 2014-01-10
I.1
Offline
Posted on 2015-08-20 11:25:36
A few months ago I tried to implement something similar to some proposals..with a few tweaks and updates here is the result:
I used this arbitrary ranking system:
Ironbowl win: 5 pts
Ironbowl rr: 2 pts
League/Cup: 1 pts with multipliers: 2x (CE, ASE, NAm); 1x (CSAm, E-B, Oc, EE); 0.5x (Asia,Af&Ar)

RANKING (top 20):
1 Guanacos 30
2 Grizzlys de St Laurent 27
3 Sparta Nijkerk 26
t4 Wilhelmshaven Seawolves 24
Badgers 24
t6 Hakers 17
San Diego Blitzkrieg 17
t8 Rotterdam Bashers 15
Mordland Colders 15
Orlando Gators 15
t11 New York Midgets 12
WKS Slask Wroclaw 12
t13 Slumbering Skink 11
Zarnovica Terminators 11
Monsters of Midway 11
16 Reservoir Docs 10
17 Weasels 9
18 Kentucky Thoroughbreds 8
19 Bat Yam Raiders 7,5
t20 Westside Wildcats 7
Kasztelan Poznan 7
Ostankino Emo Duck-Bills 7
Green Bay Blazers 7

It's nice to have a point system, but in my opinion it isn't essential since there is no way to determine the strenght of a region and simply being in a HoF is an impressive achievement!
btw, the current top15 in the HoF is pretty much spot on the only change is Kasztelan Poznan out, Monsters of Midway in..Against MoM is that they never won a league title (but they faced 2/3 hall of famer every season), while Poznan consistency (cup in s.2,12,14, title in s.13,15) could be rewarded. I can see Abcat point in including K.Poznan, but it could mean 2-3 teams with similar achievements should be considered


  
IRON BOWL Winner S37
x2 Central Europe League Champion (S26 & S33)
x3 Central Europe Regional Cup Winner (S31, S34 & S36)
Norway NT - WC 30 Champion
 
Forum index >> Grid-Iron discussions >> Hall of Fame Goto page : 1, 2, 3 ... 15, 16, 17 ... 22, 23, 24