Length of Gym Challenge

[old man]

I'm curious. Are you saying that you went to a tournament where there were at least 16 players in the 10-under age-group?

Yes I am saying that. I see now that it has been posted by the HJ there & the #'s are -
-10 = 18
11-14 = 14
15+ = 35

I'm guessing that since the 11-14 was at least 16 players they decided all 1 group. This could've easily been 3 separate age groups. We only played 5 rounds as it was for a 67 player tournament.

Everytime I go to this place there is something screwy or against PUSA policy about the way they do/run things, but yet they keep getting to have the tournaments.

 

[Gym Leader Blaine]

Hm...then what did SHPanda mean?

SHPanda might be confusing the Stadium Challenge tournaments with Worlds. All three of the Stadiums Challenges are planned for only one day. Which each Stadium will be a day filled with Pokemon.

 

[SteveP]

M45 has said that he'll be separating the age groups at the South Region Stadium. That will shorten the tournament for at least to 10-under group since their attendance will probably be lower than the older two groups (unless M45 has them play more than the minimum number of rounds).

 

[SteveP]

Yes I am saying that. I see now that it has been posted by the HJ there & the #'s are -
-10 = 18
11-14 = 14
15+ = 35

I'm guessing that since the 11-14 was at least 16 players they decided all 1 group. This could've easily been 3 separate age groups. We only played 5 rounds as it was for a 67 player tournament.

Everytime I go to this place there is something screwy or against PUSA policy about the way they do/run things, but yet they keep getting to have the tournaments.

Did your PTO do best-of-3 for the Swiss rounds?

With 35 players in the largest age group, the minimum number of rounds should've been 6 according to POP recommendations. But at least the two other age groups got to have a decent number of rounds.

With 67 players in the entire tournament (using age-modified), 7 rounds is the minimum. However, do remember that the Playoffs were age-separated. So, as long as the PTO ran the minimum number of rounds based on the largest age group, I'd say that's okay.

So, I'd say your PTO shorted your 15+ players by 1 Swiss round. But since 35 is so close to 32 (5-round minimum), I'd say there's no big crime here.

 

[bulbasnore]

How long did your Gym Challenge run?
...
Best 2 out of 3 really is the way to go, but the rules on it are vague and it makes the day run really long.
---Nicole
WeileMom

Great topic, Nicole.

As a player, I'm personally pretty OK with either game = match or best 2 of 3 games is a match win, but either way, there needs to be a time limit, right through to the final game.

Ties in swiss (if 2 of 3) need to be allowed. Ties in finals need to be resolved. POP needs to give us some guidance on that... I know our team is working on getting it.

See you in SD, I hope!

 

[bulbasnore]

Just thought I'd jump in again and say that CA has the largest GC attendance to date. This does skew the time, as it did with 107 at our State event.

Also, its a fact that exactly 0 events summarized in the attendance thread to date had enough 10- to meet the 16 minimum guidline for a separate event. This means each event would have been restricted to age modified under the guidelines and thus require MORE rounds for the overall event and each age group than age separated. This suggests 1) a possible need to adjust the structure and 2) need to market the TCG to younger children if they are to remain eligible for premiere events (which I support, having been through a ban myself).

 

[old man]

Did your PTO do best-of-3 for the Swiss rounds?

With 35 players in the largest age group, the minimum number of rounds should've been 6 according to POP recommendations. But at least the two other age groups got to have a decent number of rounds.

With 67 players in the entire tournament (using age-modified), 7 rounds is the minimum. However, do remember that the Playoffs were age-separated. So, as long as the PTO ran the minimum number of rounds based on the largest age group, I'd say that's okay.

So, I'd say your PTO shorted your 15+ players by 1 Swiss round. But since 35 is so close to 32 (5-round minimum), I'd say there's no big crime here.

No it was a single game per round all the way through. I asked just begore the first round started if the playoffs were going to be 2 of 3 & he said no, we'd be playing till tomorrow.
The tournament was scheduled to start at noon. 1st round was at 12:30. Not too bad.
The tournament then ended about 6/ Around the same time the mall closes.
This PTO only schedules Pokemon on Sunday and it always gives us a shorter time.

 

[meganium45]

You do what needs to be done to keep things moving.

I will have my efficiency shoes on this Saturday, with Registration starting at 11:00 (store open), and the store closing at 7:00 p.m.

I am confident we will get through it, but we will need to keep moving all day.

I am considering holding lunch during registration, so we do not have to take a break.

Talk with you all soon.

M45

 

[Chrisbo]

I have noticed that in many of the larger venues, one age group is sometimes significantly larger than the others. For example, the LA Gym Challenge had 67 total players, broken down as follows: (10 & Under=8,11-14=20,15&up=39).

What about the idea of combining the two lesser-attended age groups and running two separate tourneys? In the example above, the 10 & under plus the 11-14 could be a tournament of 31 players, and the 15+ would be a separate tourney of 39 players. Looks a lot more balanced this way, plus you can eliminate at least 30min by reducing the recommended minimum number of rounds.

I realize that there are probably no provisions for this in the PTO Guidelines, but as long as we're talking potential options I feel that it's one worth discussing.

Just a thought,
- CHRISBO

 

[Big Daddy Snorlax]

What about the idea of combining the two smaller age groups and running two separate tourneys. In the example above, the 10 & under plus the 11-14 would be a tournament of 31 players, and the 15+ would be a separate tourney of 39 players. Looks a lot more balanced this way, huh?

Interesting, we must be on the same wavelength because I sent an e-mail to PUI earlier today asking if I could do exactly what you described. I'll let everyone know what they say.

BDS

 

[Sensei]

For example, the LA Gym Challenge had 67 total players, broken down as follows: (10 & Under=8,11-14=20,15&up=39).

What about the idea of combining the two lesser-attended age groups and running two separate tourneys? In the example above, the 10 & under plus the 11-14 could be a tournament of 31

WOW! 8+20=31! You should be a Math Teacher Chris!!!

Seriously though, I did this for my States. It worked great.

`Sensei

 

[DaytonGymLeader]

We've done this since POP said you could run Age Pods. The players LOVE it. Plus it makes for a shorter day believe it or not.

 

[SteveP]

Interesting, we must be on the same wavelength because I sent an e-mail to PUI earlier today asking if I could do exactly what you described. I'll let everyone know what they say.

If this is in regards to your West Stadium, I'd say to separate the age groups regardless of the attendance. I believe that's what M45 is planning on doing at the South Stadium. As long as there are at least 8 players (minimum sanction-able tournament), I'd say you could separate the age groups regardless whether there's 16 in each age group. JMO.

And, if you feel compelled to strictly follow POP's guidelines, you could have GLBlaine sanction 3 separate tournaments for the West Stadium, one for each age group. That way, you can separate the age groups with a minimum of 8 players instead of 16.

 

[SteveP]

For example, the LA Gym Challenge had 67 total players, broken down as follows: (10 & Under=8,11-14=20,15&up=39).

What about the idea of combining the two lesser-attended age groups and running two separate tourneys? In the example above, the 10 & under plus the 11-14 could be a tournament of 31

WOW! 8+20=31! You should be a Math Teacher Chris!!!

Seriously though, I did this for my States. It worked great.

Not something I would've done (combine the 10-under with the 11-14), but it's certainly better than age-modified, IMO. But then again, if you only had 5-6 players in the 10-under, I can understand why you did it. With at least 8 players, I would've separated them all. JMO.

 

[Chrisbo]

WOW! 8+20=31! You should be a Math Teacher Chris!!!

Well let's see, 11 minus 14 equals negative 3, so 20+8-(11-14)=31, right? Um yeah, that's how I got the number...

Hmm, maybe that explains my daughters' math grades in school. >_<,

Ha ha,
- CHRISBO