Dropping teams?
Choosing sixteen (or eight) teams was arbitrary (and for ease of scheduling.) As long as there are an even number of teams at the start of the season, it should work fine.
The way I imagine this...every team plays another team every race (so, teams would have two "games" per week, at the current schedule of races.) So, it isn't a bracket system (although, it could be...I like the idea of creating win/loss records for teams...and having every team in play throughout the season. (Other than my imagined "Super Bowl" idea.))
EXAMPLE: Say there were only FOUR teams. For the first race of the season, you'd have Team 1 vs Team 2, Team 3 vs Team 4. Second race...Team 1 vs Team 3, Team 2 vs Team 4. Third race...Team 1 vs Team 4, Team 2 vs Team 3. (And that would be it for variations...thus the benefit of more than four teams.)
The number of players per "team" is just as arbitrary. In theory, this would work with teams of one player each--as you're just comparing one number directly with another number to create a result. However, making it teams of multiple players increases the social aspect of it. (Not to mention it creates a significant difference between the "team" game and the core individual game.) I really wouldn't suggest this with teams of only one player each.
Certainly, you could do averages to allow for unbalanced team sizes...but fixing it at either two or three has certain advantages (not the least of which is improving the chances that all participants WILL participate...and the risk of a team member not submitting a bracket on time would be part of the team game, I'd think.)
I agree--start with an opt-in on teams...maybe only do a few teams as part of a trial season as "proof of concept"...see what's involved in doing so--does it create a ton of extra, unnecessary work? Is it enough "fun" to justify expanding? Etc.
I would be happy to set up schedules, etc....if the burden of extra work would be a deterrent. (Honestly, we could even do it off the main page--just as a Forum Thread...)
This idea would totally change the current understanding of "Teams" here...but it could be a fun bonus way to enjoy all that Brian does.
Nitpicky question--would achievement point bonuses count in the team game?
Hmmm...I understand what you're saying @seattle...I think. Basically you creating a schedule of team showdowns on top of the regular season schedule. There aren't any additional points to worry about, the team gets the sum of player points (like it is now). You just have to wait for your team's turn in the schedule...interesting...thanks for the insight on this, it sounds like a concept that might work with minimal effort on the programming side.The real trick in all of this is how to form teams. I don't really want to expand a series beyond the 16 (+1) tournaments, so we'd have to figure out the math to get 16 teams. I think an opt-in for teams would be a place to start, so we see how many people would be interested in being on a team, then maybe random teams for the first trial run.
And then, do the teams play in a bracket then too? So every team plays at least once but only the winners each week move on, then the "Super Bowl" lines up with the regular championship tournament bracket...? Ties would still be a lingering problem, but I don't think there's anyway around that, I would just need to account for it somehow.
Good ideas here, let me think on it. I like it, just gotta think how it fits in.
Okay...I understand it a little better now. I see where you're going with it...I'll PM you because I think we should do a trial.
Thought of a simple idea that can normalize teams...averages! Since I foresee players per team to be a troubling issue, taking the average of points earned for each team member might be a solution...?
I think there would still need to be a max number of players per team, like 10 or so, and this might then open it up for any number of teams. We wouldn't need to have a team-vs-team schedule, which I think is a wonderful idea, but I sense that could be a chore to manage.
Or, if we want to keep things to a 16-team count, the membership of each team would go down the rankings until it hit the 16th ranked person, then loop around with 17th player being back on Team #1 and so on that way. The highest ranked person on the team at the beginning of each series/season would be captain and thus they would earn the right to name the team or get an unlock or something.
Teams might be back on the table with all this...I dunno why we didn't think of average score before, so simple.