Topic: Rating System

[Will17]

I think that something significant needs to be done to change the rating system. This has been made apparent many times over the last few years when it seems someone is always complaining about it. In my opinion the rating system should be done by a group of people outside of the promoters and table manufacturers. Netfoos would be a very easy system to use for this and I think if someone actually put a little effort into this it could be done well.

I am not committed enough to do this, but some people out there might actually have the drive to do this but not have an idea, so I am posting this.

If one person was to round up enough support, via email, message boards, and talking to people at tournaments, they could create an outside rating system that could be used for nothing but speculation at first. If one made a netfoos account and then went to web pages/results pages and used all of the results from just the “open” events, you could probably load a solid 30-40 tournaments in not too much time. Then you could just use elo to calculate all the points, this is built right into the netfoos system. I think that at this point you could get enough people on board, maybe signing a letter of some sort, and then submit the letter to IFP, USTSA, etc, and make the rating system available for everything from local dyp’s to the world championships. I think the previously mentioned bodies could be convinced to use an outside rating system for all events if enough people agreed with it. All results could be entered by regional/state directors, and it would be possible to have a continueously updated rating system so that everyone knows there rank all the time, and if they win enough at any level they will move up.

any thoughts?

[foozkillah]

All of what you said is commendable.  But until enough players who are wrongly rated are willing to boycott or refuse any support to events, this will never happen just because of complaints.

By players, I  mean those of consequence to events, whether they are only a few in number, but highly touted, recognized, admired, and ones who are players who draw others in, or simply because enough numbers of players wiling to be noshows to affect gate receipts, package totals, and the bottom lines of promoters.

Sadly, foosball by nature is an addiction, and very intense for some.  Especially for those who do very well and consequently get highly ranked on tour.  Something about addiction to successful and heavily peer-reviewed eye-hand execution or something....  Complain complain complain.... blah blah blah... but the crack addict after any amount of whining will still try to pay the higher and higher charges for that fix.  And no matter what, there are enough other addicts who will.

The only thing that would lead to any successful transparent point rating system getting adopted is major sponsorship or other completely "outside" influence.  No human competition organization should ever be expected to ever be able to police itself.  And any dreamer that thinks so is absurd.  Yes, there already were too many pie-in-the-sky morons, for example, who believed the International Cycling Federation and different national Olympic Track committees would actually create altruistic honorable rules and procedures for each other, instead of being busted by the outside media and the public outcry.  And these are the same ones who trust international banking, flawed pseudo-private mortgage monstrosities and megamoney professional sports leagues.

All that the majority of players like us can do is, listen and yes, give lip-support to all these political organizational leaders of any of our foos federations or societies.  Because the majority of them actually believe all this egalitarian and fair is fair crap, anyway, and most of them are our friends.  But I would smile and still only look at what is actually good out there for one's own personal foos activities and tours, bringing our closest friends with us.  Because those that are good today aren't guaranteed to stay good.  So enjoy those while you can but be ready for the next thing coming down when change happens.

[EDGEER]

I might know as much about rating systems for foosball as anyone arround.  I have studied thousands of results from hundreds of players over the last months and I beleave the ratings from the USTSF ELO database are fair and accurate.  I have watched overrated players drop hundreds of points as well as spectacular players rise to new levels.  The system isn't perfect but it is fair and getting even more fair as time goes by.   It is so important that we convince Mary Moore and the IFP to allow us to rate their events.  The more matches added to the database the more accurate the results will be.

[foozkillah]

I might know as much about rating systems for foosball as anyone arround.  I have studied thousands of results from hundreds of players over the last months and I beleave the ratings from the USTSF ELO database are fair and accurate.  I have watched overrated players drop hundreds of points as well as spectacular players rise to new levels.  The system isn't perfect but it is fair and getting even more fair as time goes by.   It is so important that we convince Mary Moore and the IFP to allow us to rate their events.  The more matches added to the database the more accurate the results will be.

I could actually believe you, Ed!  But since you brought it up.....

And the principle behind the Elo DB seems workable enough.  As long as there is no stupid overseer committee or something to override it with their perceptions.  Another way would be to convince Mary and IFP to run a matching Elo DB, which won't congrue immediately for many tour players, but may be more acceptable in terms of trust.

You cannot really argue against any apprehension by a successful and viable operation like Mary's IFP, in giving up control of a rating system that directly affects its tournament fees and package plans.  Especially to any organization whose leadership can be the poster-children for "Conflict of Interest".  By this I mean what you already know all too well.  An organization that cannot physically say "No" to the international organization that it has hitched its wagon to.  Even to the detriment of US domestic play and their players.  It cannot say "No" without endangering its plans for an inside track to recording and broadcasting international play with US players.  US players in international play would of course be the main "hook" or draw for domestic media sales.  And even more potential for monetary loss for any delay in their participation in acceptance to Olympic play WITH US players.  Those monies can be enormous, enough for several livelihoods, of course, and any delays will of course damage the earnings potential with DVDs, streaming media, etc...  So no delays can really be acceptable to your organization, no matter the harm it may do to US domestic play and their players.

To sum it up, Ed, what guarantees to Mary do you have that giving up any control of IFP points will not result in her clients not getting jacked by foreign interests?  What guarantees will there be that Mary's and Brendan's bigmoney tourneys will not SUDDENLY have a flood of Rookie, Amateur or SemiPro eligible players from outside the domestic US?  Or from Tornado regions, for that matter?  That would probably be great for world international foos, and non US domestic players would of course benefit AND profit from easier entry barriers.  But that can certainly jack and screw your fellow US foosers!  You know that those differences in ranking level DIRECTLY affect annual planning, personal vacations, entries and packages!  You have to show some real incentive, prolly backed with some real money guarantees, to Mary before she lets ANY of you drive her giant yellow schoolbus.

Mary has a well-deserved reputation and is widely admired for saying "Screw You" back, in response to what was the only major distributor for US domestic tables.  Whatever US domestic players, weaned and indoctrinated on Tornado for over 2 decades, think of the IFP Warrior table, they must generally respect her stance and risk-taking with major "foosballs."  And perhaps in comparison you'll get a clearer picture of how many US domestic foosers regard your org's leadership and how it bent over and allowed overnight changes that may have just taken that "edge" needed by valiant US players.  Farid is far from stupid, and he couldn't really have afforded to have the US and other countries pullout, with all the fanfare and media coverage.  So WTF happened?  Sure, the boys won the Cup, but nothing you and your organization's excuse makers say will ever remove the suspicion that having even 24 hours warning before playing on alienated US tables cost Tony or Ryan the World Championship. And I'm sure your countrymen are happy that awesome good guys Rob and Joe, being from the Tornado fold, won the doubles, but they also wonder if this organization that supposedly sooooooooo represents (as Dave Radack seems so bent on blustering about) the US might have done a JUST JUST JUST little bit more to get Spredey, Ryan, AND YES EVEN Billy and Terry and others to contend better, there for that Doubles World Championship.  The US is just blessed to have such good players, as honest Joe from the UK has been stressing, willing to represent and scrap for their country no matter the obstacles, but your "supporting" organization seems a bit off.  Just a tad, if you know what I mean?  Now all your organization's leadership that actually played and had to suffer the same conditions, like Tom et al are beyond reproach, of course..  but the others in the negotiation mix?  Can some of them spell B-E-T-R-A-Y-A-L--F-O-R--T-H-E--M-E-D-I-A--R-I-G-H-T-S

[EDGEER]

WHAT IS YOUR POINT?

CAN YOU MAKE A SINGLE POINT IN 25 WORDS OF LESS?

[foozkillah]

WHAT IS YOUR POINT? 
CAN YOU MAKE A SINGLE POINT IN 25 WORDS OF LESS?

I'm not attacking you, ED.  I actually believe you're a good member and as solid as anyone, especially with what you do.  Same admiration goes for Pat and Tom and several others... but the others.... major reservations.

Just saying... what does it profit Mary to consolidate USTSF points with IFP, besides relieving some complaints?  Why should she trust the USTSF?  What collateral is there for her risk in giving up control that can directly affect her organization's income?  The way things have panned out, it seems you need her and her players more than she needs you.

[Will17]

Ed, thanks for responding, I was hoping you would read this thread when I started it. You are not only very knowledgeable but also influential. I understand that Elo is probably the best system for rating large player bases and multiple events where not all participants are taking part in each event. Also I know that it is very important to have the most results possible entered into the database. Along those lines, I have a couple other questions.

If someone that is not in any way affiliated with any tour promoter or manufacturer was to collect results, would it be easier to obtain results from tournaments? I ask this because if Mary (IFP) is to give you results she is helping direct competition. Obviously it can be argued - and I believe this also - that because it is generally good for foosball, it should be beneficial to her tour as well. Either way it is her decision on that and I feel she may be less reluctant to send her brackets and results to an independent person.

Secondly, if someone was to obtain all of the results for every major and state tournament, then use elo to rate the players, do you think that it would be easy enough to convince tournament promoters to use the independent ratings for tournaments they are running? I ask this because I feel that it would actually make a promoters job much easier, whether it be Tornado worlds or an IFP event, or just a random tournament that a local player decides to run. They wouldn't have to deal with telling players which events they can and can't play in.

Finally, if there was a database like this, it could be possible to start incorporating league play results from events everywhere. This is a little ways out right now, but if you think about it, this would be an amazing step for foosball. Lets say only 4 or 5 players from a city actually tour. They would be going out and either gaining or losing points at these major's in other cities. Then players in there own city would be able to be rated in the same database even if they don't tour.

If a strong pro on tour is losing to an up and coming player in his home town, the up and coming player would be able to gain points without even playing a major. Then if that player went to a tour event, he wouldn't be able to clean up the beginner bracket because he would be rated higher.

Also it would give people something to play for at a local event, because people would - in my opinion - actually care about points in a system like that. It would be cool to say that you have the most points in your state, or city, or that you were ranked top 100 in the world, or anything like that.

[foozkillah]

Wil,

After I CC'd my post onto FoosballBoard, Ed promptly clarified that the USTSF "Arpad Elo" database was simply a repository for results, and not a ranking system, which is up to each promoter.  He also argued that noone was asking that Mary be asked to give up control of anything, they just wanted her brackets.  Of course left out is the fact that Mary's tournaments, after the breakup with Tornado, would seriously affect Tornado event players, if they were inserted in any way.  Although that might help improve the accuracy and placement of players in USTSF/ITSF/Tornado events,  any advantages would only be for Tornado and any other USTSF/ITSF sanctioned events.  She has no problem with her own ranking or points system and owes nothing to them, or any players taking prize money or making the investment in going to those "affiliated" and "sanctioned" events.  How would she help herself or IFP by going to the trouble and adding more experience and results records (from her brackets) and improving the other tournaments which may or may not be in direct competition with her?

Obviously there are issues with lack of a unified points system from event results, but that is, IMO, the USTSF's and the promoters of Tornado events' problem, not hers.  And more historical results data would always be better, because that directly translates to any prospective entrant in terms of the rank at that event, the money and prizes potential.  And getting Mary's brackets would certainly help, no question, and Ed also clarified that the USTSF and Tornado are not attached, although Tornado supports them.  Of course, if Warrior were to be certified by the USTSF/ITSF, that would all change then, because Mary would naturally wish to conform and have ratings following their points systems.  Then and only then would there be any incentive.

So a player that had played in only her Warrior/IFP events, went through whatever initial stage he or she entered at, patronizing several IFP events, and is doing well, would have no fear that those results would be used to jack their rating in a Tornado or Bonzini event, even if it was the first time they'd played, or hadn't played in years.  Why would Mary have any incentive to do something like this to her faithful players, especially those who put their time, support and money towards her events?  In gratitude to the USTSF?  The same org that didn't have the backbone to prevent even a 10day delay in enforcing a new, alien table as the US table last January?  Even though Farid would have had one hell of a time explaining a boycott to all those world media he had showing off his vision to the world?  Perhaps, and this is just conjecture, but perhaps worth a few points, even one or two, with valid practice and no abrupt table change, to Tony and her own son?  Perhaps a World Championship?  Note that even a few days familiarity with those framp Tornado's stopped being an effect AND AN ABSOLUTE HELP TO NON-TORNADO PLAYERS in the World Cup, AFTER the World Championships, too late for Tony and Ryan.  I'm sure Mary's personally sending those brackets, and cash contribution, and lobsters, as we speak, to the USTSF.  Que es que se, Bon Apetit?

[Will17]

Ed I am interested in a response still if you are up for it. Fooskillah, I have read your posts and understand the view but I think we have covered all the points that you brought up, we disagree on a few points but for the most part what we are talking about is similar.

[Will17]

bump