Forums Home / Tournaments and Challenges / more info on the AHPA - continued (
View Older Thread |
View Newer Thread)
First |
1 |
Last
| tableman
- 04 Apr 2015
Total Posts: 690
|
I don't recall Brian making a motion to remove Don or anyone else from the USAA board.
Who "owns" the ratings? Goran came up with the system. He allowed the USAA to vote on and make tweaks to the system. Travis posted them on AHW and called them the AHW ratings. So Goran, how can those ratings be proprietary in some way to AHW, when USAA is involved in voting on and adjusting those ratings? Will AHW/AHPA pledge to follow USAA rulings?
Which brings me to the AHPA tournament. Most likely it will follow USAA rules, etc., enough to be considered a sanctioned tournament (but not sanctioned as an official USAA Worlds, for reasons that have been discussed elsewhere). As such, it should receive the full ratings weight due a Regional or State event, but not the weight given a USAA Nationals/Worlds. If USAA gives full weight to any non-sanctioned event that calls itself "Worlds", then where does it end? This is something the USAA will determine for itself, in its usual democratic way, via vote of board members.
Chris, my position on AHPA is clear - I support efforts to grow AH but wish you guys would have worked in harmony with USAA rather than in conflict with - and I haven't been bashing and trash-talking AHPA on these forums. But Brian just bought AHW and threads are already being locked willy-nilly. If you think that's what your customers (players) want, then continue on.
|
|
|
| goran
- 04 Apr 2015
Total Posts: 428
|
| The Mitic ratings were given to Travis, he accepted them and called them ahw ratings with my blessing. Then after many years, the usaa voted to use them for seeding and tweaked them via a committee. Ahw recognized these tweaks. No one owns ratings, and everyone can own their own ratings. They can be copied and tweaked by anyone. It appears that ahw will continue the tradition of using the ahw ratings for seeding and classification. It makes sense to count the AHPA event as a world championship for the ahw ratings. USAA does not own the ahw ratings, AHPA owns airhockey world.com and all its content including the ahw ratings. I support any organization to use a rating system to seed players and track skill level. USAA should probably adopt the ratings that have used to seed the last few nationals and continue to vote on changes as they see fit. It's no secrete that USAA and AHPA don't see eye to eye on many things. One thing both organizations want is to see air hockey grow. Ratings are a great tool to help accomplish that.
|
|
|
|
| tableman
- 04 Apr 2015
Total Posts: 690
|
goran said: | AHPA owns airhockey world.com and all its content including the ahw ratings. |
Goran, I disagree with the above in a legal sense. The USAA has allowed ahw to post its rules, constitution, and Rankings on ahw. That doesn't mean ahw owns the USAA content. If someone posts a photo or article on ahw, that doesn't transfer ownership of that photo or article to ahw.
Sure it would be a legal tangle to try to identify any ONE owner of the ratings. You would probably be the likely winner but since you don't mind others using your ratings, it probably doesn't matter.
We disagree on how to treat the AHPA tournament for Ratings purposes, and as far as the USAA is concerned, I'm sure it will debate that privately. But I'm curious as to your reasoning in treating an AHPA Worlds equivalent to a USAA Worlds.
Let's say one of our players somewhere, organizes essentially a local tournament and calls it a Worlds. Or someone else we don't even know. Let's say they use sanctioned tables, and use most USAA rules/procedures, maybe not all. Let's say their net payout (net of entry fees) is no different than the AHPA tournament (in other words, a payout probably less than entry fee total). Maybe they even form their own association as AHPA has.
In those circumstances, would you consider them a legitimate Worlds for Ratings purposes? If so, why? If not, why not? What precedent would the USAA be setting by recognizing a non-USAA "Worlds" as equivalent to a USAA Worlds for Rating purposes?
|
|
|
|
| goran
- 04 Apr 2015
Total Posts: 428
|
Were not talking about the usaa ratings, they don't egsist. We are talking about the air hockey world ratings. My system was borrowed from elo, I gave it to the air hockey world (air hockey world.com, USAA, Spain, Russia) Again anyone can use a rating system. No one owns rating system or rules. If AHPA uses the same rules as usaa, they will not lose a law suit to change their rules. I'm sure they will modify and clarify as they see fit anyway. Same thing applies to a rating system. I'm sure USAA will debate "owning" a USAA rating system, it would probably be identical to the AHW rating system as we know it now. Moving forward, each group will change it as they see fit, including which events get which k values.
If another organization runs a tournament and calls it a world, it might not get a worlds k value from USAA or AHPA. Maybe it will. Like the USAA procedures, the AHW ratings has some set written procedures, and some unwritten ones as well. For example, if a former pro comes to a tournament, we don't seed them as a beginner with a 1000 rating. The tournament commitee votes on a starting point based on a skills assessment. Although this rule is not written, it has been done on more then 1 occasion.
|
|
|
| carolina phil
- 04 Apr 2015
Total Posts: 1084
|
So, from the perspective of USAA, the accurate Mitic Ratings that USAA recognizes will be found posted on USAA official sites.
Ratings posted on non USAA sites may or may not be the true Ratings, as USAA would recognize them.
So, for realiability and accuracy we would point all AH players worldwide to view the authentic Ratings and Rankings to be posted on offical USAA sites.
Phil
|
|
|
| andyy
- 05 Apr 2015
Total Posts: 14
|
Good discussion topics here. i thought I might have a little to add that might clear a few things up.
(And I apologize if I make a few mistakes here, but I have been out of the loop).
1. USAA policy on media and broadcasting: From listening to complaints about this I was under the impression that there was some new legislation that was treading on the feet of the promoter.
What is there is the same legislation we have always had, and it is not for that purpose at all. The reason the language is in there (and I remember this from back in the day) was so that players entering a USAA sanctioned tournament could not refuse to be filmed or photographed. It was written so that you knew going in that there might be cameras (whether from the USAA or the promoter or other players or whetever) filming or taking your picture. It was never intended that the USAA would use this terminology to try to say that their cameras were the "official" cameras and could bully other individuals out of the prime space. This would usually be a promoter function anyway... having control over camera placement and such. It was simply in the rules so that we could guarantee that all players in the events may be filmed... by pretty much anybody. I don't think the promoters in this case and the USAA disagree on filming by all, so it should be a non-issue.
A valid concern for the promoter here would be the USAA saying that they have the rights to choose the prime camera locations over the promoter. From reading the rule, it would be quite a stretch to interpret this as such, and if certain USAA higher ups tried to do this and the promoter objected it certainly would be reasonable for the promoter to object.
2. Choosing a head ref/ tournament committee as a sanctioning requirement:
Nowhere in the USAA rules does it say that this must be done by the USAA and that the promoter can't have a say in who he gets to work with. Tradition is one thing, and we have actually done it differently in different events from my experience.
My personal belief is that the promoter should be able to choose who he works with, and get his own refs and committe who will support his best interests in their rules interpretations on the grey areas. He shouldn't be forces to work with people he doesn't trust or doesn't feel comfortable with on any level... tradition or not. A tradition is not a rule, and I disagree with Mark Robbins on this.
The USAA has a right after the fact to non-sanction the event even if they already voted to conditionally sanction it. That way, if the promoter's people do anything whacky that hurts the integrity of the tournament, they have that recourse. But other than that they should give the promoter (who in this case they have a lot of experience with and who has shown that he puts on a credible national level tournament) the benefit of the doubt.
(continued on next post)
|
|
|
|
| andyy
- 05 Apr 2015
Total Posts: 14
|
(continued)
Brian and Chris in this case are comfortable working woith certain members of the USAA who they feel they can trust, and not others who they don't, then I don;t see what this is unreasonable.
To the contrary it is unreasonable to force them to have to work with people who might not have their best interests at heart and with whom they might have fundamental disagreements with on many rules/situational interpretations. The buck stops with them, so let it be theirs to execute.
I am fairly certain that what they give you will be what you would expect at a national level event.
3. Sanctioning fee: This is a rule, and could certainly be grounds for non-sanctioning if the promoter doesn't pay it. I think it's a bad rule, but that doesn't matter. However, there is nothing that says this money can't be donated by a player, or tacked on to the entry fees or whatever. This shouldn't be a hard obstacle to get around.
4..In future dealings, the USAA should draw a line for itself so as it knows what it is supposed to do and not do. The way things stand the USAA can make a rule about anything and doesn't even require full participation of the board to get these things passed. So in the view of the promoter, a clique centering around certain members of USAA leadership could use the USAA as a device to further a personal agenda against someone they don't like (perhaps by a rival promoter who has a position of power or influence). The USAA would have more credibility if it limited itself to on the table rules and rankings. If the USAA does not have a written procedure in place about something, it should not hold promoters accountable to do something or not do something because it is "understood" and deny sanctioning on that basis.
5. Adversarial approach vs. Cooperative/helpful approach: I see both sides as being guilty here. Brian is a very proud person and is very confident in his abilities and proud of his accomplishments (with good reason), That being said, I have seen times where in order to prove a point he sometimes has a way of coming on very strong (as I have been gulity of in the past as well). That seems to be the case here. I think Brian and Chris have some valid concerns and they probably would have had better results with a little better strategic approach on the presentation.
On the other hand, there are certain people on the other side who cling with a death grip to certain elements of control and blow out of proportion the ramifications of giving a little slack to the promoters. I think these individuals should lossen their grip a bit and have a little more faith in people. That would go a long way towards them having more trust in you and the USAA.
(continued)
|
|
|
|
| andyy
- 05 Apr 2015
Total Posts: 14
|
6. Ratings and Rankings ownership and management:
Nobody owns publishing rights to Ratings and Rankings, the way it looks to me is that the USAA and AHPA could certainly publish each other's rankings so long as each are accurate to each respective entity,
The Ring magazine publishes 4 sets of rankings for each boxing weight division, one for each sanctioning body (the WBC, WBA, IBF, and WBO) in addition to their own opinion based rankings.
So personally I don't see a problem if the USAA wants to use results of an AHPA tournament in their own formula to determine their own rankings or ratings or seedings for one of their own tournaments, That is the USAA rankings and their business and they can do what they want with it. Thiose rankings will be presented as the "USAA rankings" or in whatever manner the USAA decides.
The AHPA can also do the same thing with a USAA event, so I don't see where this is an issue. Would it be nice to have one set of rankings we all agree on? Sure.
But we can't always get what we want.
Anyway, some food for thought. I would urge the USAA to revisit the sanctioning of this event, and also would urge Brian and Chris to revisit their main issues of concern with the USAA, and would urge both sides to see things from the perspective of the other and facilitate some positive discussions and possible solutions that everyone can live with.
Happy Easter everyone.
Andy Yevish
(former player and promoter)
|
First |
1 |
Last
Forums Home / Tournaments and Challenges / more info on the AHPA - continued
|
|
