Let's discuss some alternative possibilities to the open format.
Championship Format has been adopted by the NSC and NCCS as the tournament format we will employ in future tournaments. What does that mean? Very simply, it means that we use our regional tournament structure to determine our national tournament field. That definition provides us quite a bit of flexibility to "shape" the national tournament.
Why do we need to "shape" the tournament? Primarily because we have to control costs for these tournaments. Determining the number of qualifying teams allows us to set our expenditures, and therefore, our target revenue for that event.
Here are some options.
1) Regional Champions Only are invited to the National Championship.
2) Regional Champions are invited, along with a select number of invited teams who have participated in an NCCS regional tournament. This could be additional teams from larger tournaments, it could be historically strong IM teams that didn't win their tournament, or it could be other criteria to draw good teams from our national pool.
3) Establish a number of teams in each Championship Tournament (this keeps cost predictable), plus a collegiate open division for teams that did not qualify.
- 16 Men's Championship + 16 Men's Open
- 12 Women's Championship + 12 Women's Open
- 12 Co-rec Championship + 12 Co-Rec Open
In a recent survey of NIRSA professionals, the Championship with Concurrent Open Format was the most popular of these tournament formats, followed closely by the second option -- a weighted invitational tournament.
I like these concepts, but how do we account for the additional financial burden these teams place on the tournament (i.e. more staff hotel rooms, meals, apparel -- more player awards, etc.)?
If we can answer this question, we are much closer to implementation than one might think. Please feel free to provide input on your format of choice and an suggestions on financial structure.
3 comments:
I like the concept of requiring regional participation, with one potential tweek. If a team has NOT participated in a regional, then their entry fees become substantially higher. (By substantial, maybe $450-$500, or $50 per player on a ten-person roster.)
Another variation may be that if a region does not meet a minimum participation requirements with their tournament, then any teams from that region that register in the open division of the NCCS are subjected to the signiificantly higher entry fee.
Now- I'm assuming that these proposals will get a lot of criticism. However, I think this can help the regionals by emphasizing their value. This proposal certainly has its weaknesses.
Lastly, I also like the first option of restricting slots and the "regional champions only" provision.
"Now- I'm assuming that these proposals will get a lot of criticism."
-It will. I do not think we should change the format for this year. Our format hasn't hurt the national tournament. I like the higher participation (if you want to charge more for teams that did not win their state tournament or region, FINE). There are times when you can't make these regional tournaments (for one reason or another).
While I truly understand the need to manage costs - especially in this economy - I didn't really get "the love" for the game until I attended the Nationals. We were lousy, and we were summarily destroyed by a formidable foe, but it was nonetheless a life-changing event.
If you require regional participation, those like myself coould possibly miss out on the kind of experience that keeps you coming back for more. Additionally, some teams may not be able to muster up the loot to make it to a both a regional and the Nationals, and (given the choice) would likely choose the later rather than the former.
Truthfully, I have no dog in this fight. In fact, I personally think that you NEED a regional under you belt (even if it’s an unaffiliated one...) in order to get a measure of where you are as a team. But... Perhaps you could allow teams to apply for a small number (eight or less…) of “at-large bids” to participate. That way, you can kill two birds (open participation and predictable costs) with one stone.
What I'd really like to see, however, is a "dual bracket" format where winners and runner-ups in pools advance to the "championship bracket" for all of the marbles while the teams that would normally be eliminated would participate in a "consolation bracket". You'd basically crown an NCAA and an NIT champion of a sort. This would only make sense for divisions where you had 16 or more teams. People would stay longer, dumping more funding into the local economy. It would also enrich the experience for the borderline teams, giving them more impetus to return the following year.
Post a Comment