Regional Points

[tumblet]

I just wanted to ask if people think the current points system for the regional events is fair, especially with there being a different amount in each regional comp.

IMO I think the points should be awarded as per 10% payout rounded up as per the seats, i.e 70 in the field then 7th should get 1 pt, with first getting 7 pts, and if there is a field of 40 then 4th would get 1 pt, 1st 4 pts...

This IMO would make it fairer for the ones who have had to play in a larger field..

Any views?

[Shogun112]

I agree..!!!

[RioRodent]

Do you mean that the winner should get less points for beating fewer people?

If so, then I disagree.

So long as the winner & respective "paid" places get the same points at each venue then I would agree.

[Ken Jude]

My view is that if you did that I think you might run the risk of people who finished in 3rd and 4th in Plymouth, for example, thinking it wasn"t worth their effort to return. They got no money, no seat and now you want to deny them points as well?

So I disagree. I don"t think it would be sensible to do anything to dis-incentivise people to turn up at the next of the lesser-populated events because that might jeopardise their future for those that want to play in those locations. And hopefully this will be less of an issue as the word is spread.

I don"t think you should change the points system after everyone has started. If people want to change their venue based on attendance patterns that"s up to them.

[Jon MW]

I don"t think we can really make a judgment purely based on the first event. Once the regionals are advertised then you would expect numbers to go up (and for people who can choose between more than one venue they should help balance the numbers out).

I"d say that this will clear the problems of some places being easier than others to acquire points. Once it gets to nearer capacity for example, I don"t think it"s that much harder to beat a field of 70 than a field of 80 for instance.

[tumblet]

Great reply"s, that why its allways worth asking the question, and to be honest now i see some other sides to the argument I can agree with them also.
Its not something that will affect me im sure, but it was something that was said to me on the day, and I felt like I needed another opinion on it, i.e from APAT members who have been here a while.

I also agree that this problem will probably go away from Reg 2 onwards, and the main problem will then become how the tournament is advertised. i.e as a normall £20 freezout or APAT £20 freezeout? hopefully the latter as this may clear up the confusion that came over from the NON APAT people who were playing, and will stop the need for APAT to issue refunds to people who do not want to attend the Nationals, not going into that gripe though..