Track Queens

What a great weekend for European derby.  So many teams showed the competence of derby on the other side of the pond.  Although it will be a few years before we see another Euro team in the WFTDA playoffs, this tournament showed that time to be drawing closer bit by bit.


How they did

Well, there's final standings, then there's how they really did.  Let's look first at a chart with final standings and initial seedings:

Seed	Finish	Team
1	1	London
2	2	Berlin
3	3	Stockholm
5	4	Auld Reekie
9	5	Helsinki
10	6	Gent
7	7	Leeds
8	8	Crime city
6	9	Glasgow
4	10	Central City

Helsinki and Gent really outperformed their expectations, with Glasgow and Central City making way for their ascendency.  All in all, not as good a day for UK derby as one may have hoped.

I was asked, though, to re-rank the teams according to my usual calculus.  A regular reader suggested that, although a knockout tournament is very good at selecting the best, it may not be so good at ranking the rest.  Thus, I plugged the scores from the tournament alone into my formula and arrived at the following:

Finish	Calc	Team	Rank Pts
1	1	London	126.1
5	2	Helsinki	99.7
6	3	Gent	96.4
2	4	Berlin	77.8
7	5	Leeds	68.8
8	6	Crime city	64.5
3	7	Stockholm	48.9
9	8	Glasgow	43.5
4	9	Auld Reekie	32.2
10	10	Central City	29.0

Not only did Gent and Helsinki out-perform expectations, they out-performed most of the field!

Take Helsinki, for example.  They lost 1 but won 3.  Only 2 teams held opponents to double-figures scores: Helsinki and London.  That's great company to keep!

This is the problem with using a knockout tournament like this to rank teams.  The team that won definitely is the best; however, the maximum rank for a 1-loss team is determined by when they lose, not actually who they lose to.  A team losing on the 1st day can get, at best, 5th place.  Losing on the 2nd day means you can get, at worst, 4th.  

Two 1-loss teams can have lost to the same team and yet be sorted based on timing, which boils down to seeding.  Consider Helsinki, for example.  Both Helsinki and Berlin lost to only London.  However, Helsinki outscored non-LRG opponents by almost 53 points per bout, whereas Berlin only outscored their opponents by 16 points per bout.

I, as well as my reader, had the feeling that a knockout tournament wasn't the best way of ranking all 10 teams in the field.  This really shows that Helsinki deserve to be considered in the top 3, and Gent have a claim as well.  Well done, you two!

"Running Up the Score"

I know my attitude about a blow-out bout is not commonly supported by skaters.  Skaters want to play against the best their opponent has to offer, and many are concerned that a winning opponent may "take pity" on them.  Ballistic Whistle himself said that he "would never want any team Brawling plays against to go easy on us at all, regardless of what level" and thus would expect his team to do the same against whomever they're playing.

Let me go on record saying I never advocate taking pity on an opponent in competition.  Ever.

I do feel, however, that a blow out bout in which the winning team does nothing different is a missed opportunity.  Trying new skaters, new tactics, new plays in training is only so good.  Try as you might, your own team can't quite be jedi-mind-tricked into not knowing what's coming and reacting naturally.

However, the other team already is.  Even if they've scouted your previous bouts, they don't know what you've got to try out.  Thus, once the game's already in the bag, it's the perfect time to experiment.

This LRG did.  Against Auld Reekie, they gave the star to more than a few skaters I've never seen jam for them before.  This is a huge show of sportsmanship toward your own skaters.  Giving them time to jam on the tournament track in the uniform of the best team in Europe is a massive vote of confidence in them, and shows that London Brawling are more than their top skaters.

As much as I dislike a blow-out bout, I think LRG actually deserve a round of applause for the way they conducted themselves in a tournament that they knew they were going to win by a very large margin.

Sportsmanship & derby

Seriously, for a sport with a strong DIY ethos, there are some surprising gaps in sportsmanship expectations in derby.  I enjoy watching a skater be a "hot dog" on the track; I'm not really talking about being a showoff here.  I'm talking about some deeper issues.


The High Five

This is one of my favourite derby traditions: the fans all line the track, and both teams each take a lap, slapping fives with the audience.  It's one of those wonderful things about derby that blur the participant/audience division line.

Thing is, both teams need to be given fives.  I have seen audiences only offer a hand to the home team, or to the team they travelled to support.  Sure, there might've been some bad blood in the bout, but it's over now.  If you're going to step up to the line for one team, be the bigger derby supporter and step up for both teams.  Both teams competed, both worked hard, thus both deserve support after the bout.


The Score

A win is a win, right?  Why do we need more 237-45 scorelines?  They're not fun to watch, they're not often considered fun to play in, and they're a massively missed opportunity.  There's nothing to be gained by confirming the win with a score ratio like 4:1 or worse.

If the win's in the bag, it's time to experiment.  New formations, new plays, even new positions are worth trying.  Take a blocker, and give her a go at jamming.  See what happens when you play 2-offence.  Run power jams the old way.  So much of derby is done with the scrum start now.  Why not switch up once the win's already settled?  You may need to when you're behind later, this is a good time to practice.

You've already proven your system works better than theirs.  No need to keep rubbing it in.


Preferred Leagues

This one really gets my goat.  Picture this: mixed scrimmage, head ref in that role for the first time ever. Captain of the blue team is part of a top-10 league.  Captain of the red team is part of a team ranked in the mid 40's.  Upon being introduced and hearing this, the head ref directs the entire pre-bout chat to the member of the higher ranked league.

Or picture this: boot camp, a skater comes over to chat to three others who were not in their team's tops.  Two were from a league in the 40's, one was from a league in the top 15.  Once she learned this, she basically stopped talking to the two from lower ranked leagues.

Do I even need to say why this is unacceptable?  A skater becomes less worth talking to, less worthy of respect because of who she practices with?  Wow.  Just, wow.


Flatfoots

That's my term for those who are involved in derby, but don't skate.  They seem to be the most marginalised in derby.  This includes the NSOs, of course, who are frequently mentioned and thanked, and shown respect by the skaters.  It also includes announcers, DJs, seating ushers, ticket takers, programme handers-out, cameramen and -women, merch-stand operators, and derby journalists.

This group is not shown much respect by the skaters.  The "for the skaters by the skaters" ethos is expanded in the mind of some to mean that the flatfoots are working for them.  When flatfoots offer an opinion on derby, it's discounted with "oh, but you're not a skater."

The derby community is far more than skaters.  That's why I usually call it that!  Years ago, the only people who would be called "derby people" were skaters.  Now, with the growth of the above positions, there are loads of derby people who don't skate.

Derby wouldn't be derby without them, and they're a part of the community too.  Thus, they deserve respect as well.


Victory Songs

Congrats, you just beat a team who travelled to your place to play their first ever open bout.  "We are the champions"?  "Na Na, Hey Hey, Goodbye"?  The "Hey, you suck" song?  Really?  That just seems a bit cocky.

Nothing against your taste in music, but the timing's off.  That sort of thing goes against the culture of the high five, the hugs & handshakes, and the group photo after the bout.  Keep it in check, please.


Referees

This one's been done to death, but I'll say it too: respect the refs!  That doesn't mean you have to call them "sir" or "ma'am" but it does mean that you have to accept a decision with dignity.

I'd like to see an end to the "tradition" of jammers signalling their tally of points to the ref after a jam.  This is called demonstrating in baseball, and is one of the most common reasons for an ejection.  The referee said 2 points, you can either go in and challenge it officially or accept it.  Attempting to undermine the referee's authority by signalling 3 shouldn't be an option.

As well, when chatting to the derby public in general, do not blame the refereeing for a loss.  This includes the statement "well, the refereeing was a bit spotty" and "I'm not sure some of the calls were exactly correct."  Those are just attempts to make "we would've done better if the refereeing had been the way I wanted it to be" sound better.

A great coach once told me "if you blame the refs, it means you don't want to learn to win."  The referees aren't crooked.  They're just not, so stop.  They're working hard to keep the game you play within the rules.  Show them respect.


I think I've covered enough here.  Derby's a young sport, these are growing pains.  But we should show more respect for everyone in the derby community.  After all, it's all of us together who make derby such a great thing.  Roll on!

WFTDA's new playoff structure

Let me open by saying like like like like like.  I really like the idea of 4 1st round playoff tournaments, rather than regions.  Some of the regions are weaker than others, and it makes sense to take the top 40 worldwide, rather than the top 10 from some geographical and uneven regions.


What did they mean by S-Curve seeding?

Well, simple seeding's easy to conceive of, but a 40 team tournament makes things complex.  The theory is that the total rank of each "branch" of the tournament be equal, and to do this one fills in the chart below in an S-curve type manner.  Each team is represented by its rank, which becomes its "seed."  Follow the counting numbers in order, and you'll see.

A	B	C	D
1	2	3	4
8	7	6	5
9	10	11	12
16	15	14	13
17	18	19	20
24	23	22	21
25	26	27	28
32	31	30	29
33	34	35	36
40	39	38	37
Total
205	205	205	205

So this way, each of the four 1st round tornaments have a total seeding strength of 205.  Thus, the four tournaments have been seeded equally and there is no bonus to being in any one in terms of ease of reaching the final.

So it's more fair in theory, but what are the risks?

--First off, rankings are a bit questionable.  Glasgow have a 40% chance of beating LRG, and Montreal are one of several teams in the East Regional who were not as highly favoured.

European teams are undervalued, as teams vote for rankings.  With the exception of LRG, only Euro teams watch other Euro teams play, and thus they are less likely to be highly voted by North American voters.

This effect is not so great when considering only one region at a time.  Voters outside the East region need not concern themselves with Europe.  However, when all leagues are grouped together in one ranking, this effect will manifest itself much more strongly.  

This, to me, suggests either the computer poll or the DNN power rankings.  The first, like the one I run, has no problem ranking large numbers of teams who play unbalanced schedules.  The second is totally done by human intuition, but by the intuition of "professional pickers," those who are focussed solely on determining which teams are ranked where.  These pickers see every result publicly listed, which are the only ones that should ever count, and thus should have no bias towards one continent or another.  Either one eliminates the bias of having open voting.

--Second off, there is a likelihood bordering on a guarantee that some teams will have to travel much further to their 1st round tournament.  Right now, a similar structure is used by the NCAA basketball tournament in the USA, where the top ranked teams are assigned to the location nearest them, and teams seeded further down must play where their rankings assign them.

This system would work in derby, but so would an adjustment to what's been discussed above.  If a human poll were used to determine the rankings, everyone would acknowledge that there is some uncertainty between who's picked at 8 versus 9, etc.  Thus, a selection committee could "fudge" the seeding a little bit to ensure that LRG don't play in California, for example, or Rat City in London.

Another answer would be to choose the four locations spread throughout the USA.  Let's say the tournaments are in four cities: Charlotte, NC; Little Rock, AR; Indianapolis, IN; and Portland, OR.  The four tournaments are then seeded according to A, B, C, and D in the chart above.  After the four tournaments are seeded, they're connected with the four locations, using an algorithm to minimise total mileage travelled.  Thus, LRG would likely play in Charlotte, unless they were in the same tournament with Victoria.

And those that weren't selected?

This is one of my favourite parts of the announcement!  Instead of simply calling their season over, they'll be introducing a Division II tournament so there'll be more silverware.  I'm not the only person who's been suggesting that the WFTDA institute tiered structure like the football league, and now that seems like a more distinct possibility.  I'd like to see it expand to 40 if successful, but it's a great move for the WFTDA.

Final verdict?

Very yes.  There are still questions which require answering, but this (and the impending rule change) is an opportunity for the WFTDA to make a massive step forward towards making the whole system run more smoothly, evenly, and fairly.  I hope, hope, hope that they take the bull by the horns here and help organised derby live up to its expectations.

Read more?

Windyman explains a possible structure in more detail

DNN's power rankings explained

Women's UK derby chart, 17-Sept-2012

In the weekly chart that follows:

• Only bouts with public scores between rankable teams within the last 12 months are counted for this chart.  As mentioned before, every other sport's ranking scheme has an expiry date for results, and it's time for derby to have the same.
• Only teams from regular bouting UK and Ireland leagues are eligible for ranking.  Due to the sheer number of leagues, I had to exclude continental Europe from the chart.
• A team with fewer than 2 rankable bouts is excluded from the chart.  As well, a team that has only played bouts against unrankable teams is excluded from the chart.  Both are due to the need for viable data.
• Arrows represent change from the previous week's ranking.  ⇏ indicates a previously unrankable team's début on the chart.  For the sake of this, I ran the rankings for the 10th of September as well.

The Nature of Rankings

I was doing some research last night, and read a number of academic papers on the ranking of sports teams where there is no balanced schedule.  (Balanced schedule meaning that each team plays each other team, like in the Premiership.)

The thing that the articles made me realize is that there is no such thing as a "perfect" ranking scheme.  What would "perfect" mean?  No upsets, maybe?  Well, there will always be upsets in sport, so that really won't work.