FargoRate for BCA Nationals?

[Corvette Alan]

What he's saying is just list the strongest players as the core, even though it's all the same team, if I'm reading it right. I suppose then it would just make sense to say that the highest five players can't break the limit.

Thanks Banks. Makes Sense. Just lookin' to make sure that we could sub up if necessary.
I'll still wait for the CSI response as to why they are forcing players off of my team.

 

[fastone371]

Who has the time to enter in all the data from all the players and nights into a system for someone else's use? Does that person get paid to update your system? Seems every league has a different ratings system. Would it be easier to find a middle ground or take all the systems and say if your this in this league than it equals this. Seems Fargo is doing it backwards. I know I wouldn't want to spend hours a week updating someone else's system that may never apply to me.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Really?? If you are not the one doing the work why complain? The Fargo rating system is great, we have been using a system based on Fargo in our state for at least 3 years now. I suppose the only people who really dont like Fargo or similar systems are people that duck state tournaments and other big tournaments to avoid skill level bumps.

 

[fastone371]

This makes sense and is so easy, and the fact they're not wording it this way makes me wonder if something is amiss.

Word it: "Teams are allowed 8 players, the highest rated 5 players can't break the point total."

Why are there "core players". Do they have to play a majority or certain number of games? Matches?

They could probably make it easier by just saying that any combination of 5 people you play cannot add up to more than 3000. Lets say you have 4 580 players and 1 670 player as your core. You would think it would be OK to have 2 570 subs and 1 660 sub as long as the 670 and 660 never played together in the same match. Otherwise you would be using a 570 to sub for a 670 player.

 

[mikepage]

This makes sense and is so easy, and the fact they're not wording it this way makes me wonder if something is amiss.

Word it: "Teams are allowed 8 players, the highest rated 5 players can't break the point total."

Why are there "core players". Do they have to play a majority or certain number of games? Matches?

I can't speak for CSI on this. But I believe your quoted statement is unnecessarily restrictive.

For instance suppose you have 8 players, rated

1 700
2 650
3 600
4 600
5 525
6 525
7 525
8 525

Here the top 5 don't fit, but any group that doesn't have both players 1 and 2 playing in the same round fits. But if you make as your core players 1,3,4,5,6, then 2 can sub for 1 and 7 and 8 can substitute for anybody (assuming any other other restrictions, like number from the same league team, etc are met).

 

[jojopiff]

I can't speak for CSI on this. But I believe your quoted statement is unnecessarily restrictive.

For instance suppose you have 8 players, rated

1 700
2 650
3 600
4 600
5 525
6 525
7 525
8 525

Here the top 5 don't fit, but any group that doesn't have both players 1 and 2 playing in the same round fits. But if you make as your core players 1,3,4,5,6, then 2 can sub for 1 and 7 and 8 can substitute for anybody (assuming any other other restrictions, like number from the same league team, etc are met).

I agree. Obviously they'd need the FargoRate scores on scoresheets though. If they don't, then this way wouldn't work. My statement is going off the way I read CSI stating you need to have your "core players" be the higher ranked. If what you write here is correct, then what's the difference who's listed as core player?

I hope you're correct and this is, in fact, the way it's done.

Edit. It appears I misread. And what you have here is correct. I'm still confused as to why "core players" but if there's no difference then it's simply a wording I don't like and it's irrelevant.

 

[Banks]

I can't speak for CSI on this. But I believe your quoted statement is unnecessarily restrictive.

For instance suppose you have 8 players, rated

1 700
2 650
3 600
4 600
5 525
6 525
7 525
8 525

Here the top 5 don't fit, but any group that doesn't have both players 1 and 2 playing in the same round fits. But if you make as your core players 1,3,4,5,6, then 2 can sub for 1 and 7 and 8 can substitute for anybody (assuming any other other restrictions, like number from the same league team, etc are met).

Why not just say you can't break 3000 in a match?

 

[CSI Media]

I agree. Obviously they'd need the FargoRate scores on scoresheets though. If they don't, then this way wouldn't work. My statement is going off the way I read CSI stating you need to have your "core players" be the higher ranked. If what you write here is correct, then what's the difference who's listed as core player?

I hope you're correct and this is, in fact, the way it's done.

Edit. It appears I misread. And what you have here is correct. I'm still confused as to why "core players" but if there's no difference then it's simply a wording I don't like and it's irrelevant.

Core players establish the combined team rating. Substitutes cannot make the team exceed that team rating (i.e. a substitute cannot be rated higher than the person being replaced). What Mike Page posted is correct. It is not necessarily the case that the highest 5 players will be the core players and that is why it's not worded that way. Thank you!

 

[CSI Media]

Could he then re-sub the 570 player back in for the 560 player if some unforseen circumstance happened?

Yes, because the 570 is listed as a core player, he/she can come back in any round.

 

[Banks]

Core players establish the combined team rating. Substitutes cannot make the team exceed that team rating (i.e. a substitute cannot be rated higher than the person being replaced). What Mike Page posted is correct. It is not necessarily the case that the highest 5 players will be the core players and that is why it's not worded that way. Thank you!

If i understand this correctly..

The tournament will be seeded according to core team number?

It wouldn't make sense otherwise to word it as it has been.

It's like apa, but different.

Edit: except for the idea of accepting all entries and then creating the divisions afterwards, then, yeah, the rating thing makes sense. Ugh, good luck with the tournament.. don't envy you guys at all. Of course, then it wouldn't make sense to have a cap.

 

[jojopiff]

Core players establish the combined team rating. Substitutes cannot make the team exceed that team rating (i.e. a substitute cannot be rated higher than the person being replaced). What Mike Page posted is correct. It is not necessarily the case that the highest 5 players will be the core players and that is why it's not worded that way. Thank you!

So, let's say team total with core players is 2950 & the player u want to sub out is 600 and the player you want to sub in is 645. You're saying you can't do that even though they'd still be under the 3000 point mark?

 

[robsnotes4u]

I guess it's new. Just seems like someone designing the first commercial airplanes but asking other to fly it. Notice you didn't quote or respond to data input. Just seem like a lot of extra work so everyone can have a number instead of a ranking. Like I said. New things some times have their benefits or downfalls.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

I would say that something that has been used for at least 5 years, wouldn't be considered new, would you?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Lonestar_jim]

i agree. Obviously they'd need the fargorate scores on scoresheets though. If they don't, then this way wouldn't work. My statement is going off the way i read csi stating you need to have your "core players" be the higher ranked. If what you write here is correct, then what's the difference who's listed as core player?

I hope you're correct and this is, in fact, the way it's done.

Edit. It appears i misread. And what you have here is correct. I'm still confused as to why "core players" but if there's no difference then it's simply a wording i don't like and it's irrelevant.

bcapa.....

 

[Lonestar_jim]

Thanks Banks. Makes Sense. Just lookin' to make sure that we could sub up if necessary.
I'll still wait for the CSI response as to why they are forcing players off of my team.

From what I see on the playbca website, you are not guaranteed to be able to field a team in Vegas as has always been the case based on skill level. Perhaps your players can give everyone weight. If this is the case you need to add weaker players fast to come in under 3,250 Fargo points. Have a shortstop with no Fargo rating join up and then have him throw his league matches in order to have a low rating for Vegas. The more unknown the better. However when they see how he runs out at Vegas, all the 550-600 something players might start chirping.

Anyway I expect some form of sandbagging may keep some teams preoccupied, but I think Mr. Page can detect that, not sure.

I don't know if people were warned early or not about the 3,250. I know it has not been discussed in our league.

Anyway what kind of weight can I get from your guys in 9-ball ? I am a C player.

 

[Masseyman]

What about the 3 original team member rule?

Take Mike's example;
For instance suppose you have 8 players, rated

1 700
2 650
3 600
4 600
5 525
6 525
7 525
8 525

What if players 3, 7, and 8 are the Three original. Do they HAVE to be listed in the core lineup? Or, can you design your core how you want and just list the Three original as "on the team"?

 

[cardiac kid]

From what I see on the playbca website, you are not guaranteed to be able to field a team in Vegas as has always been the case based on skill level. Perhaps your players can give everyone weight. If this is the case you need to add weaker players fast to come in under 3,250 Fargo points. Have a shortstop with no Fargo rating join up and then have him throw his league matches in order to have a low rating for Vegas. The more unknown the better. However when they see how he runs out at Vegas, all the 550-600 something players might start chirping.

Anyway I expect some form of sandbagging may keep some teams preoccupied, but I think Mr. Page can detect that, not sure.

I don't know if people were warned early or not about the 3,250. I know it has not been discussed in our league.

Anyway what kind of weight can I get from your guys in 9-ball ? I am a C player.

Jim,

I keep looking at the BCAPL website. Where are you and the others seeing this 3250 number for the Gold team event? Are you basing it on the Wisconsin event?

The only events I see that interest me are the Senior Platinum 8 Ball and the Platinum Singles 9 Ball. Wonder what the cutoff will be for them? My days of playing the 9 Ball Challenge are over for sure. Same with the 8 Ball and 10 Ball Challenges. If BCAPL limits the amateur events to real amateurs not the professional (oops, I mean Grand Master) players, I might be convinced to spend the $1000 to attend. What's your feeling?

Lyn

 

[watchez]

Jim,

I keep looking at the BCAPL website. Where are you and the others seeing this 3250 number for the Gold team event? Are you basing it on the Wisconsin event?

The only events I see that interest me are the Senior Platinum 8 Ball and the Platinum Singles 9 Ball. Wonder what the cutoff will be for them? My days of playing the 9 Ball Challenge are over for sure. Same with the 8 Ball and 10 Ball Challenges. If BCAPL limits the amateur events to real amateurs not the professional (oops, I mean Grand Master) players, I might be convinced to spend the $1000 to attend. What's your feeling?

Lyn

http://www.playcsipool.com/2016-bcapl-national-championships.html

Scroll all the way to the bottom and look in the Rating Limit column

......and yes, the CSI website is one of the most incoherent, unorganized websites and has been for years. Don't feel bad.

 

[cardiac kid]

http://www.playcsipool.com/2016-bcapl-national-championships.html

Scroll all the way to the bottom and look in the Rating Limit column

......and yes, the CSI website is one of the most incoherent, unorganized websites and has been for years. Don't feel bad.

Steve,

When I tell you folks I'm getting old, I really mean it. Thank you so much for pointing me in the correct direction.

Lyn

 

[Lonestar_jim]

Thanks Watchez,
Lyn platinum sounds a bit patronizing. At least there is no point limit.
Of course that means you'll draw Varner, Sigel, et.al

 

[cardiac kid]

Thanks Watchez,
Lyn platinum sounds a bit patronizing. At least there is no point limit.
Of course that means you'll draw Varner, Sigel, et.al

Gee Jim, I'm not sure whether to thank you or shoot you !

Lyn

 

[Masseyman]

What about the 3 original team member rule?

Take Mike's example;
For instance suppose you have 8 players, rated

1 700
2 650
3 600
4 600
5 525
6 525
7 525
8 525

What if players 3, 7, and 8 are the Three original. Do they HAVE to be listed in the core lineup? Or, can you design your core how you want and just list the Three original as "on the team"?

My apologies! I really need to read further before asking a question.

On the entry form, on page 2, it states;
"2. At least 2 players from the same league team must play in each round"
Question answered.