KCBS ToY Bonus Points Change

[DawgPhan]

many problems with changing the scoring after the fact.

KCBS rules do not allow for ties. There are no ties in KCBS. So for ToY points a team was awarded points they did not earn. Regardless of how the organizer decided to distribute the prize money.

 

[CBQ]

So for ToY points a team was awarded points they did not earn.

So if our team name was "A ZBQ" we would have "earned" it? I prefer to be recognized for what we cooked, not what a former teammate decided to name the team.

(Per the contest reps the finish was an alphabetical ranking - not even a coin flip.)

op2:

 

[DawgPhan]

So if our team name was "A ZBQ" we would have "earned" it? I prefer to be recognized for what we cooked, not what a former teammate decided to name the team.

(Per the contest reps the finish was an alphabetical ranking - not even a coin flip.)

op2:

How ties are broken has always been an issue for KCBS. They dont allow ties, never have. People have been complaining about the alphabetical tie breaking since before I started cooking competitions.

Lots of people have lost out on lots of money because of ties. KCBS decided to break their own rules in your case, but doesnt seem too concerned with the dozens of other ties that happen every weekend that cost people money.

KCBS probably shouldnt have adjusted the rules for this particular case, but took a look at how they want to handle all ties in the future and updated the rules to reflect that.

 

[Slamdunkpro]

How ties are broken has always been an issue for KCBS. They dont allow ties, never have. People have been complaining about the alphabetical tie breaking since before I started cooking competitions.

Lots of people have lost out on lots of money because of ties. KCBS decided to break their own rules in your case, but doesnt seem too concerned with the dozens of other ties that happen every weekend that cost people money.

KCBS probably shouldnt have adjusted the rules for this particular case, but took a look at how they want to handle all ties in the future and updated the rules to reflect that.

Perhaps one of our new board members will "represent the cooks" and fix this issue instead of creating more situations (reducung the ToY bonus to 35 pts) that will result in ties.

 

[CBQ]

KCBS probably shouldnt have adjusted the rules for this particular case, but took a look at how they want to handle all ties in the future and updated the rules to reflect that.

I was pretty surprised it was retroactive myself. I was under the impression from the reps that a perfect perfect tie was pretty rare and perhaps hadn't happened since KCBScore was implemented.

 

[djqualls]

Perhaps one of our new board members will "represent the cooks" and fix this issue instead of creating more situations (reducung the ToY bonus to 35 pts) that will result in ties.

It would be nice to see it create many ties. I would like to see it have to calculate it as deep as 15-20 contests to break TOY ties to determine consistent pitmastering when more than one team has equal points after 10.

 

[Slamdunkpro]

It would be nice to see it create many ties. I would like to see it have to calculate it as deep as 15-20 contests to break TOY ties to determine consistent pitmastering when more than one team has equal points after 10.

A) What's the current tie breaking procedure?
B) Won't this discourage the teams that cook well but only cook 10-15 contests?

 

[Vince RnQ]

So if our team name was "A ZBQ" we would have "earned" it? I prefer to be recognized for what we cooked, not what a former teammate decided to name the team.

(Per the contest reps the finish was an alphabetical ranking - not even a coin flip.)

op2:

Chris, I think the contest reps were in error and that it was just simple chance that the teams were listed alphabetically. The final determination in a tie has always been a computer generated "coin toss". Now, how this was done with a three way tie is probably similar to an "odd man out" process but only the programmers would be able to tell us that for sure.

For those unfamiliar with "odd man out", the computer would toss three coins, one representing each team. The coin that didn't match would be the odd man out and would be assigned 3rd place. Then a single coin would be tossed with each side representing the remaining teams and the winner of that toss would be 1st place and the loser 2nd place.

Again, I seriously doubt that alphabetical order was ever programmed into the logic of tie breaking and that was just the order in which it happened to come out.

I really liked that the three teams were all given the opportunity to equally split the prize money. That was an excellent move by all parties involved.

 

[djqualls]

A) What's the current tie breaking procedure?

As I understand it, they go to the 11th-12th and so on

B) Won't this discourage the teams that cook well but only cook 10-15 contests?

If they are cooking well in 30-40 team contests, then they probably will be in the hunt to hang in for a top 25 ranking or even make the decision to cook a couple more to hedge or catch the field.

 

[gettinbasted]

While not impossible, I don't think a team that only cooks 10-15 contests could realistically be in contention for team of the year. I agree with David on counting more competitions. I think this change should be accompanied by an increase in the number of contests counted to 15 or 20. Reward wins and consistency.