2012 BPA Survey Results—Team Tournament
Jan. 12, 2013

The Team Tournament was never meant to be anything more than a fun exercise in trash talking between local game groups. Those who take it too seriously want it to morph into something else.

What You’d Like to See… What You Want Not to Change How I See It…
Better Test of Skill 5: It seems to me that the method of picking one event makes things awfully anti-climactic, with most teams being out of the race well before Sunday, rather than being able to hope for a miracle win in a game they don’t play much on Sunday morning. I understand that that advantages eurogamers over wargamers, since eurogamers play more events and therefore have a greater chance of winning one. So I suggest that team tournament scoring be changed from based on attendance only, like it is now, to attendance multiplied by event length, like it is for laurels. In fact, you could simply use the laurel system directly—add up the highest number of laurels each player on the team earned in a single event.  

Many people over the years have critiqued the Team Tournament—uually with the goal of making it more inclusive of multiple events—and thus more complicated. These schemes tend towards rewarding skill and giving players more control over their scoring chances rather than making them predict how they will do in one event. I too have suggested improvements to the Team Tournament and have introduced numerous changes that have not gained the Board’s approval. However, my changes would take it in the opposite direction and make the possibility of upsets even greater.

Originally, the Team Tournament was conceived as an esprit de corps building attempt to bond members of local gaming groups in a fun, trash ’talkin’ kind of way. Over the years, it has become more and more of an exercise in Ringer recruitment. Consequently, I favor maintaining the chaos of the luck element as opposed to making it easier for the sharks to dominate. And simpler is always better.

More Timely Results 4: It would also be significantly more awesome if team tournament standings could be posted in near-real time.   Yep, and I’d like to get GM reports that fast too, but we’ve had years to prove that isn’t going to happen. Aside from my need to have something to headline those monthly email newsletters to make them relevant year ’round, there is a practical reason why realtime Team Tournament scoring isn’t going to happen—even in the information technology age. I have yet to have a year when all GMs actually submitted a correct Winner’s List—not an event report, but a Winner’s List—by the end of the convention. Usually, I’m chasing down missing results for weeks after the con. Or accepting corrected results. Imagine, the anguish if we announced another title for the Nest of Spies at the con only to issue a “sorry—upon further review, we’ve decided you didn’t win after all." Instant replay has not yet made it to boardgaming officialdom.
2-Man Teams 1   Wow; that would more than double the number of teams. While I sympathize with those who lack enough pals at the con to form a team, that would destroy the tradition of the 4-man teams, defeat the purpose, relevance and current scoring of the event. More importantly, it would increase my work load so you can figure he odds of that happening are slim and none.
Previous   Next
Boardgame Players Association Last updated 1/12/13 by kae.
© Copyright 2013 by the Boardgame Players Association.
Trademarks are property of their respective holders.