Ultimate Babe 2013 Provisional Announcement

The most popular babe will still be found with the match ups. The highest scoring babes from the nominations round will progress to the knockout stages. Is that not an indication of who are the most popular babes, just by getting to the next stage?

Sorry but I don't think it can be called a tournament if people are just submitting a list. It eliminates all chances to vote, to make a choice, and there's no chance to see a winner and loser. I would have thought that was the idea of a tournament.

And if you have seeded knockout rounds you risk people being influenced, psychologically and maybe even sub-consciously, to vote for a seeded girl, even though the unseeded girl may be more popular with many forum members? I can't see what the big deal is with an open draw. It's used for all our football competitions and in my view promotes more fun. Seeding in this for me just creates more limitations. I'm trying to suggest things to make it as fun as possible, that's all. If it gets too limited, it becomes less fun, and people may not want to get involved.

I am carefully considering all views expressed and will inform everyone of the format I intend to use in a few days time.
Scotsman has still not returned to the forum so it seems ever more likely I will be running both the day and night competitions.

For me seeded knockout rounds are the best way and as Regenerated says more fun, which is why I use this forum.

Edit I meant to say Non-seeded rounds! and on reflection I am sure whatever option chosen will be fun. Thanks to Snookered147 for arranging.

There are no plans to change the round one phase of voting i.e everyone nominates their top ten in ranking order and each babe accumulates points on the basis of their finishing position within each top ten submitted going from 10 points for first down to one point for tenth.
The top 16 point scoring babes would then qualify for the knockout phase.

The issue I am mulling over is the seeding system and whether to abandon it or keep it and possibly amend it.
This was always going to be the issue that gave me much food for thought. I am going through all the arguments I know of on both sides in my head over and over again in an attempt to come to a fair decision.
I will announce the proposed outline of the format on Saturday along with my reasons assuming that Scotsman does not return to the forum before then.

(27-11-2013 00:25 )mr williams Wrote:  But surely the object is to find the most popular babe?

If you have unseeded knockout rounds you risk having girls with twice as many 1st round votes going out whilst those from the bottom end of the list could go through if the draw favoured them.

but a unseeded knockout contest is how most contests are set up for the reason that this gives interest through out the contest and not just in the late rounds, it way the fa cup has been going for so long, it's the prospect of man u getting man city in the 3rd round that makes it the fun that it is, also in a contest like this seeding can lead to tactical voting which i think has happened in the past

(28-11-2013 12:07 )winsaw Wrote:  

(27-11-2013 00:25 )mr williams Wrote:  But surely the object is to find the most popular babe?

If you have unseeded knockout rounds you risk having girls with twice as many 1st round votes going out whilst those from the bottom end of the list could go through if the draw favoured them.

but a unseeded knockout contest is how most contests are set up for the reason that this gives interest through out the contest and not just in the late rounds, it way the fa cup has been going for so long, it's the prospect of man u getting man city in the 3rd round that makes it the fun that it is, also in a contest like this seeding can lead to tactical voting which i think has happened in the past

wot he said

My format explanation is getting longer and longer by the hour .
I seriously need to trim it down. Anyway thanks for all opinions expressed.
I think I have come to a decision.
It may not be universally popular but no format ever is.
I am going to sleep on it tonight and tomorrow night just to be sure in my mind what I want to do is fair.

(27-11-2013 00:25 )mr williams Wrote:  But surely the object is to find the most popular babe?

If thats the case then shouldn't the first round point system be removed? Lets say theirs two girls, A and B. 5 members vote for Girl A and they all put her at the top of their list for a total of 50 points. Whereas 49 people vote for Girl B but they all put her at the bottom of their list. Girl A would win just because a small percentage thought she was better than the rest. But is she the most popular?

Or we could remember this is just for fun and let snookered do his thing

(28-11-2013 22:47 )oklahoma001 Wrote:  If thats the case then shouldn't the first round point system be removed? Lets say theirs two girls, A and B. 5 members vote for Girl A and they all put her at the top of their list for a total of 50 points. Whereas 49 people vote for Girl B but they all put her at the bottom of their list. Girl A would win just because a small percentage thought she was better than the rest. But is she the most popular?

Or we could remember this is just for fun and let snookered do his thing

Ooh you stirrer you .
I thought Girl C was best anyway.
Honestly its such a fix .

Ok. After an awful lot of thought I have come to a decision regarding the seeding system.
I appreciate that my decision may not be popular in certain quarters but I have done what I believe to be right and fair.
I have endeavoured to answer every argument raised in this thread to show I have recognised all opinion expressed.
My decision is to maintain a fully seeded knockout phase.
My reasoning is purely based on fairness. Post 22 of this thread is partially duplicated below to explain what I mean but I will further elaborate in some amendments to that post.
The top 16 qualifiers will have earnt their seeding position within that top 16 by virtue of how many points and therefore level of popularity they obtain within that first phase of voting.
The overall level of popularity in the opening phase is not something that I feel can just be dismissed out of hand.
For me the possibility of the top qualifiers getting drawn against each other early on in an open draw would feel like penalising them for achieving high popularity in such an open first phase by playing them off against each other too early. I feel this would run the risk of a lot of the top qualifiers getting knocked out early and mass complaints of a false result in the end.
To have allegations of a false result is not something I am willing to accept. I am concerned about creating the most transparent draw possible. With the top 16 seeding system operated stringently with the full draw detailing the potential match ups at every stage full transparency is achieved.
I agree the comp should be fun. But for me all the fun is taken out of it when the complaining, bitching and whining of years gone by rears its ugly head.
These comps have seen quite enough of that down the years and this only brings into sharper focus the need for a system that does its best to be transparent and fair.
As far as any suggestion that the seeding numbers influence people to vote a certain way in the knockout rounds, I have to say I am not convinced by that.
Nobody is compelled to name the top ten they think might go down well with other forum members so to suggest they may be swayed by a seed number created by that top ten vote is not something I see happening. People will make their own minds up on the basis of personal preference I would like to think.
As far as tactical voting is concerned I have to say I think there is potential for that in matches generated by both an open draw and by a seeded draw. People might vote against Babe G to give Babe A more chance of winning overall.
There is not a whole lot I can do about tactical voting unfortunately.
The example of the FA Cup has been noted in terms of its open draw format. However there is a key difference with the Ultimate Babe competitions. The first round of voting is entirely open and democratic to establish levels of personal preference. This whole competition is based on public opinion rather than merit or skill in the early rounds.
Football results are not decided by public opinion, they are decided by performances of two teams on a football pitch.
An open draw imo defeats the object of people constructing a top ten and more importantly renders the overall popularity of each babe reflected in that top 10 phase virtually meaningless.
This, for me is fundamentally unfair on both the top qualifying babes and those voters that give them high seeding positions in the first place. Who am I to completely disregard the results of all top ten preferences submitted?
To those that say "Why should the top seeds be protected?".
I say "Why should they be penalised by the threat of playing another top seed early on when they have earned their seeding position in a democratic top ten vote?"
I also note the point about interest in the tournament being maintained.
My answer to this is thus.
If the top qualifiers end up getting drawn against each other early on then two negative consequences could manifest themselves.
1. Matches that might be perceived as landslide wins for one babe or another may merely go from being an early round match to being a semi final or final match.
2. By virtue of top qualifiers being drawn against each other early on those voters who contributed to giving those top qualifiers a lot more points than a lot of others will possibly sit there and say "What was the point in loads of us giving Babe C loads of points if all that happens is they get knocked out early due to being up against another top qualifier?". Interest may wane as a result of frustration at such an outcome. Neither of these things are desirable imo.
It is not guaranteed that seeds one and two get to the final. In the dayshow comp last year neither of the top two seeds made it to the final.
I agree that open draws are used in football and cup competitions in other sports, most notably team sports.
However seeding systems are also widely used in the major championship sporting arena and have never been seen to be so flawed as to create a mass desire to get rid of them.
Tennis, snooker, darts, squash and badminton are examples I can think of straight off.

These competitions will always be a bit of fun anyway. If they were not fun then nobody would ever vote in them at all. Of course everyone has their favourites and some will always be unhappy if their favourite fails to win. But that is democracy for you .

Apologies for the length of the post but I wanted to give a full explanation of my reasons.
I accept that some people may find my reasoning flawed or maybe even unfair.
However I have taken the view that fairness and transparency must not be compromised by the format. So to that end it is my intention to keep a fully seeded knockout phase in the dayshow comp and to implement it in the nightshow comp assuming Scotsman fails to return to this forum before I start the nightshow comp on December 4th 2013.

The dayshow comp will start tomorrow at 1pm.