Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2009 IAAF Fantasy Games

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 2009 IAAF Fantasy Games

    Hi Everyone

    Just a quick message to let you know that the IAAF has approved that we run some fantasy games again in 2009. This year we will have both the season game and the special game for the world champs.

    After each game last yar I asked for feedback so will try to take that into account for this years games - but if you have any further advise or requests I am always happy to listen...but not always able to comply!

    here is the plan (very draft). The games will stay similar to last years as it is cheaper than designing whole new games, and on the whole they worked well.

    Remember - the aim for the IAAF in running these games which cost us money - yet are free to enter are to increase interest in the sport, as well as increase use and access of the IAAF website. Create something fun for the people who are already fans of the sport. They are meant to provide a challenge for those that want it - but not so much to drive away the casual fan who doesn't want to spend hours pouring over the statistics for their selections.

    2009 Season Game

    http://game.fantasyathletics.iaaf.org (2008 Game)

    * I would guess pretty much the same rules as last season (pick 5 athletes for each meet, can't pick the same athlete more than once)

    * Will probably have the same number of events (all the Golden league and the Super Grand Prix..except for Doha. And possible add one USA based event)

    * There was some discussion it was too many events last time - but it does have the advantage for the IAAF of increasing interest and traffic during these times.

    * Will probably ditch the idea of picking captains in advance - and give you the option to pick one captain for each meet who will get double points. That should take a litte bit of the random nature of the captains away.

    * Any other suggestions for the season?

    2009 World Champs Game

    * Looking back at the feedback from 2007 it seemed apart from a few scoring issues - that the format worked very well and everyone liked it so we will keep it the same. (sorry I don't have a link for the people that didn't play last year and it is a bit long to explain here). I think the format was good becuase it allowed people to make changes so even if you made a few mistakes or bad predictions - you still had a chance to catch up and win

    * Hopefully will add more prizes this year with IAAF sponsors, but again I dont' think they are greatly important. I will try and get signed merchandise again as that is better in my opinion. Furthermore - the more prizes we have, the harder and more expensive it is to post them to the winners.

    * The game will have a full German version - so I anticipate a lot more participants this year with some direct marking to the German audience

    * We will make the rules and function about transfering athletes a lot clearer and more simple this year so everyone understands, and that there is a countdown timer to show how long you have left to make a trade.

    * For both games - at sign on, we will ask you to agree that if you are in the top 10 (or whatever) at the end of the game - that your team will be made public so everyone can see who the winners picked.

    * Again - any suggestions are welcome as I now work on getting the games completed with the company we are using to help us.

    Regards,

    Chris
    IAAF

  • #2
    If you chose an athlete last year and he pulled out of the meet due to injury or other reasons, you were penalized twice. Not only did he or she not score any points, the athlete also became unavailable for the rest of the season. I think that is a bit unfair considering that only fielding a roster of 4 for that meet is already a punishment itself.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: 2009 IAAF Fantasy Games

      Originally posted by ChrisIAAF
      * Any other suggestions for the season?
      Like the idea of the game. It's execution, however, was rendered problematic by late additions or withdrawals. Perhaps the 'roster' should be frozen 36 hours prior, so that we don't have to keep checking whether our pick is still entered or a better choice suddenly materialized.

      Comment


      • #4
        Or maybe we could pick two "back up" choices for each meet in case any of the chosen ones withdraw?

        Comment


        • #5
          Another good reason why our sport falls out of disfavor with the general public: the high level of uncertainty as to whom is ever going to actually show up at an invitational meet. I'm guessing a far higher default rate than any other sport.

          Comment


          • #6
            thanks for the replies so far...all on the same/similar topic, so sounds important to try and fix

            I will try to address a solution for that. I don't know, but I guess from a programming point of view it might be difficult for them to have reserves.

            As background - the scores are inputed by the company designing the game - a simple process of going through the results and converting them into points and attributing to the athlete. If we ask them (or anyone) to try to study which of the hundreds of athletes available for selection did not actually compete - and then make them available again for selection in future weeks - I just can't practically see how this would work.

            A more simple solution would be to pick 6 athletes - only the best 5 score - which helps if one pulls out. The only problem would be again that you would not be able to use ANY of the 6 in the following weeks, because again it would be a huge work for someone to go through and work out who did and did not compete (remember zero poitns doesn't actually mean that the athlete did not compete so it would have to be done manually)

            What do people think of the "pick 6, only 5 score" option? It goes some way to solving the problem of having to constantly check for who has withdrawn.

            other suggestions that don't involves days of manual labour are welcome

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by gh
              Another good reason why our sport falls out of disfavor with the general public: the high level of uncertainty as to whom is ever going to actually show up at an invitational meet. I'm guessing a far higher default rate than any other sport.
              not to mention not actually knowing who is turning up int he first place until a few hours before in many cases

              Comment


              • #8
                I think we need to also look at A and B races. A races have the "better" athletes, yet, given the nature of pace a B runner can get a win, simply on time. I suggest we go with A racers only. It's not fair to, let's say, pick Borzakovsky who ambles to a 1.46 win in race A, while in race B, one of the legion of lesser known Kenyans pulls out a 1.44, followed by a host of "not yet ready for prime time" racers in his wake at sub 1.46. It is an impossibility to pick out which of two races will have a faster time, so let's pick the race we'll focus on.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by ChrisIAAF
                  What do people think of the "pick 6, only 5 score" option? It goes some way to solving the problem of having to constantly check for who has withdrawn.

                  other suggestions that don't involves days of manual labour are welcome
                  I prefer it to the current method.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by jeremyp
                    I think we need to also look at A and B races. A races have the "better" athletes, yet, given the nature of pace a B runner can get a win, simply on time. I suggest we go with A racers only. It's not fair to, let's say, pick Borzakovsky who ambles to a 1.46 win in race A, while in race B, one of the legion of lesser known Kenyans pulls out a 1.44, followed by a host of "not yet ready for prime time" racers in his wake at sub 1.46. It is an impossibility to pick out which of two races will have a faster time, so let's pick the race we'll focus on.
                    Absolutely agree.

                    It has to be just the A race that scores whatever the time.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by jeremyp
                      Originally posted by ChrisIAAF
                      What do people think of the "pick 6, only 5 score" option?
                      I prefer it to the current method.
                      Second. I like the Pick 6.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Flumpy
                        Originally posted by jeremyp
                        I think we need to also look at A and B races. A races have the "better" athletes, yet, given the nature of pace a B runner can get a win, simply on time. I suggest we go with A racers only. It's not fair to, let's say, pick Borzakovsky who ambles to a 1.46 win in race A, while in race B, one of the legion of lesser known Kenyans pulls out a 1.44, followed by a host of "not yet ready for prime time" racers in his wake at sub 1.46. It is an impossibility to pick out which of two races will have a faster time, so let's pick the race we'll focus on.
                        Absolutely agree.

                        It has to be just the A race that scores whatever the time.
                        how do you choose the A-race? I'm pretty sure Z├╝rich's policy has frequently been to evenly divide the two sections, rather than trying to make one notably better than the other, no?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Echo most of the comments above. You have to be online near 24/7 to have a chance of finding out who's actually competing.

                          In the game, I also found the selection of athletes to be very cumbersome. Though I guess this increases website hits/traffic...

                          As a result of these factors and the length of the game, I dropped out probably half way through last season. From what I recall - so did many many others. It's a shame that a contest designed to increase interest in the sport highlights so many of the negatives of the IAAF circuit.

                          Still, good to see one rule changing. Last year once your captain got injured/ill/vanished into thin air, you were gone and the game was down to blind luck rather than good tipping.

                          I still think anyone with any sense would stack heavily in the first meet and try and win a weekly prize cos winning the whole thing seems as unlikely as setting a women's 100m world record...

                          Despite my negatives, thanks Chris.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X