Suggestion for change to qualifier rules/status

Izaak wrote:

I would define a normal tournament as fetching 10-15 players.

See and here is a problem. I consider a 10-14 player tournament a failure and if I travelled any significant amount of time to get there, a bit of a waste of my time.

That's a luxury the average American play group cannot afford.

Izaak wrote:

I would define a normal tournament as fetching 10-15 players.

See and here is a problem. I consider a 10-14 player tournament a failure and if I travelled any significant amount of time to get there, a bit of a waste of my time.

The normal non qualifier or championship events have fetched around these numbers quite consistently even in in Europe. A quick look at the TWDA will give you the following attendance numbers (not including championships, regionals/qualifiers): 12, 10, 10, 16, 10. And most of those are from Europe. Doesn't seem quite high does it? So with just a quick look you can gauge for yourself. Our local regional fetched 14 players! A bit to be desired out of a qualifier.

I'm not saying that "we" get larger tournaments although generally we get around 18-23 players for the vast majority of tournaments around here. I'm just saying that, IMO, anything below 15 stinks for a tournament.

Izaak wrote:

I'm not saying that "we" get larger tournaments although generally we get around 18-23 players for the vast majority of tournaments around here. I'm just saying that, IMO, anything below 15 stinks for a tournament.

I fully agree. The 14 we had for the regional/qualifier included two people who only played one round during preliminaries and one out of state person. Very sad indeed.

i think lucking into a game win with stealthbleed and players not playing intelligently (i've seen people not treat g23 kindered spirits as a threat just because they didn't want to upset the person playing it) is in fact more common than making finals twice by getting enough vp's but not quite a game win twice.

tournament size... thats a sore point for me. in 2008-2009 we had better turn out than this year by leaps and bounds. we had roughly 28 for one mini q in 09, 19 for another, on average for many tournaments we were pulling 20 ish. we were averaging about 15, i believe, but our turnout locally (these numbers are ONLY talking about Newark, OH, not even the whole region of the us, mind you, travel was more frequent at those times as well) has seriously diminished as of late.

i believe qualifying without having to beat 3-4 hall of famers at the final table, and just making it to a position to try your luck against them twice would at least encourage more players into tournaments and vtes in general.

ReverendRevolver wrote:

i think lucking into a game win with stealthbleed and players not playing intelligently (i've seen people not treat g23 kindered spirits as a threat just because they didn't want to upset the person playing it) is in fact more common than making finals twice by getting enough vp's but not quite a game win twice.

tournament size... thats a sore point for me. in 2008-2009 we had better turn out than this year by leaps and bounds. we had roughly 28 for one mini q in 09, 19 for another, on average for many tournaments we were pulling 20 ish. we were averaging about 15, i believe, but our turnout locally (these numbers are ONLY talking about Newark, OH, not even the whole region of the us, mind you, travel was more frequent at those times as well) has seriously diminished as of late.

i believe qualifying without having to beat 3-4 hall of famers at the final table, and just making it to a position to try your luck against them twice would at least encourage more players into tournaments and vtes in general.

I am simply saying I believe a GW would add more credibility to someone's resume for a championship event at this point and time. Besides, we have to consider the variety of regions out there and how often or not often they host a tournament. And that you would have a hard time convincing the mainstay of people who currently qualify for a championship to agree to a two time appearance at a final table with the tournament sizes we are currently fetching. If it were the numbers we had as you pointed out in 2008-2009 then it would provide a nice amount of validity.