SFFS #3 - Who's Playing With Who List (5/16-17/2008)

by **Mark** on Sun May 11, 2008 4:51 pm

Here is the list so far from what I can find, I'll update as people let me know any additional info. Also, if you are looking for partners please feel free to post here...

Pro/Am Doubles
Gary G. / Jennifer
Jimmy D. / Tony M.
John H. / Mark W.
Ron K. / Kyle P.
Moose / Craig E.
Paul S. / David L.
Brian C. / Grant W.
Cheryl M. / Bernard N.
Jeff K. / Henry T.
G.B. E. / Quincy J.

Rookie Doubles
Jennifer / Moose
David L. / John H.
Tony M. / Shane W. ???
Craig E. / Ron K.

Mark

by **mr.october** on Sun May 11, 2008 6:32 pm

Pro-am doubles
Ron K. and Kyle P.

by **Craig** on Mon May 12, 2008 11:19 am

Pro Am = Moose/Craig

by **trader1199** on Mon May 12, 2008 8:08 pm

Nigiea is looking for partners for Rookie Doubles and the BYP.

John

by **foosguru** on Tue May 13, 2008 1:25 am

the original Paul S and Dave Lee in Pro Am

by **genotrex** on Tue May 13, 2008 8:37 am

Nigea I need a partner for Rookies Doubles.

Geno T.

by **Craig** on Tue May 13, 2008 12:16 pm

The Pro/Am doubles is going to be some evenly matched competition.
This should be interesting!

by **redheadrealtor** on Tue May 13, 2008 3:23 pm

GB is looking for partners for Pro/AM and Rookies...

And I think Liz was looking for Pro/AM partner as well.

by **moose1** on Tue May 13, 2008 3:25 pm

Brian Utipeo is loking for partners as well.

by **liz7041** on Wed May 14, 2008 12:07 am

Yep, still need a partner for the Pro/Am. :cry:

What's wrong with these Pro players that don't want to play foosball anymore or are to busy killing the same monster over and over again in WOW. Cut the cord!!! :shock:

You know who you are.

Mike Y, everyone gets a trophy anyway, whether you win or lose. Any parent can coach 6 yr olds, they don't listen anyway. You're not really making a difference, you are just making the wife happy. :roll:

Kenny B, Use that stimulius check to put a down payment on a car and stop making excuses not to come out and visit us at the tournaments.

Josh M, walk to Abercrombie and Fitch and buy some larger underwear with enough room to grow a sac, and tell your boss your playing in Ft. Lauderdale this weekend.

Liz

by **redheadrealtor** on Wed May 14, 2008 12:15 am

Classic.

by **foosguru** on Wed May 14, 2008 12:37 am

WoW Liz!

Classic is right!

by **genotrex** on Wed May 14, 2008 9:08 am

Geno T. needs a PRO for my AM.

by **genotrex** on Wed May 14, 2008 9:09 am

Sorry that was Sweet Jarrin' "G" needs a Pro for his AM. :lol:

by **Cheryl** on Wed May 14, 2008 10:55 am

OMG...Liz...that was the...

Best...
Post...
EVER!

Your new nickname is now officially:

Tell-it-like-it-is-LIZ :lol:

by **foosguru** on Thu May 15, 2008 8:22 am

I'm sorry, but have to say, this isn't a Pro-Am tourney anyway!!!! Since when can two amateurs not play in a pro-am? The rules are killing the game guys!!! I'm sorry to point it out, but come on. You guys have Quincy rated as a beginner. Obviously something's wrong! You are doing great work with the tourneys, but the point system needs some oxygen. G.B. is a beginner too, and he was playin back when I used to. Common sense has to take over some time, sry! Please don't shoot the messenger!

by **foosguru** on Thu May 15, 2008 8:41 am

Furthermore....the whole thing about losing the ball off the 2bar goalie in doubles, and you get it gifted back is just plain stupid! How anyone could agree to that is beyond me! I'm really not trying to be difficult, but you have to admit is pretty dumb. Can someone please explain to me why they changed it? It used to go to the servers 5 bar of course.

by **Cheryl** on Thu May 15, 2008 9:57 am

Hey Paul...

I'll try my best to shed some light on my understanding of why that rule changed.

The general sentiment seems to be that if a goalie blocks a shot either from the opposing goalie or from the opposing forward, that the goalie should be rewarded with possession of the ball for having successfully blocked the attempted shot on goal.

Another sentiment commonly discussed is how the old rule could be manipulated. For example, let's say you have someone like Grant who can crush shots out of the back. Grant executes a shot on goal...the shot is blocked by the opposing goalie, and the ball goes flying off the table...then the ball returns to the table on Grant's partner's 5-bar so that he/she gets an opportunity to pass it to the three and then put another shot on goal? That scenario can be exploited by a powerful goalie to advance the ball to his partner's 5-bar, creating a situation where a defending goalie has to potentially block two successive shots. That penalizes the defending goalie and gives the opposing team who purposefully exploited that rule a potentially unfair competitive advantage.

Hope this helps...

by **Craig** on Thu May 15, 2008 12:03 pm

This is only a follow up to Liz's masterfully written post. <No need trumping that>
Are there any players from Tampa, Orlando coming to this thing?
Anyone...? Anyone...? Beuler...? Beuler...?

by **JeffK** on Thu May 15, 2008 12:07 pm

Cheryl,

I don't think Paul is talking about a deflected shot. Consider this scenario: Goalie has possession of the ball, but loses control of it and it floats into the "dead zone" between his 2-rod and the opponent's 3. By the old rules, the dead ball would then be reserved by whomever originally served that ball... but with the new rules, that flubbing goalie would get the ball back.

Now, if it was that goalie's team's serve, the "old rule" would have constituted an advancement of the ball from the goalie to the 5-bar... so the new rule is actually BETTER in that case. However, if it was the opponent's serve, then the old rule would have been a change of possession... whereas the new rule rewards the goalie for the mistake.

Now, as far as Paul's question of "why they changed it"... I don't really know for sure; however, my theory is that they wanted to shift the balance of control of the match away from the forwards and get the goalies more involved. You get more gameplay and more action by putting a dead ball back in play in the pits, rather than serving it back up in the middle of the table for the forwards to pass up and shoot again.

Jeff

by **rickD** on Thu May 15, 2008 12:53 pm

Rick Delgado needs a partner for the BYP. I don't know if I will be able to check the blog again before the tournament. So if you can, please call me at 305-491-9345.

Thanks

RICK

by **Mark** on Thu May 15, 2008 12:58 pm

foosguru wrote:Quote from Paul: I'm sorry, but have to say, this isn't a Pro-Am tourney anyway!!!! Since when can two amateurs not play in a pro-am? The rules are killing the game guys!!! I'm sorry to point it out, but come on.

The simple answer is that the "scale" of who can play with who needed to be adjusted to fit our local group. Since we use the IFP points as our primary rating system we needed to adjust the scale (as seen on the flyer) so that our highest players (IFP Experts) can only play with our lowest players (IFP Beginners) and then the next mid-high players (IFP Amateurs) can only play with our mid-low players (IFP Rookies or Beginners). If we allowed two "amateurs" to play together in our Pro/Am (aka High/Low) tournament we could potentially have two teams with two of our top 5 players partnering up which would defeat the purpose of a "Pro/Am" style tournament -- maybe I should have called it "Local Pro/Local Am" tournament which would help it make more sense with all technicalities =).

foosguru wrote:Quote from Paul: You guys have Quincy rated as a beginner. Obviously something's wrong! You are doing great work with the tourneys, but the point system needs some oxygen. G.B. is a beginner too, and he was playin back when I used to. Common sense has to take over some time, sry! Please don't shoot the messenger!

As for rating players my thought is to simply leave this to the national tours to determine a player's rating (primarily the IFP tour). As for local ratings players can move up based on how they do at the South Florida Foosball Series tournaments or IFP tournaments: "Players finishing 1st in any two non-DYP SFFS events, or finishing 1st in their division or higher at any IFP tournament, will move up one ranking for future SFFS Tournaments."

The basic rule we are going by is that you need to win your way out of your division locally. We are having several SFFS tournaments (this weekend being #3) and each tournament makes progress to moving the winning players up in their local rating.

Below is the list of players who have moved up or are nearly ready to move up based on past performance at SFFS and IFP tournaments. NOTE: If a player below is listed with "1 current" win that mean that one more qualifying SFFS win and they move up one ranking locally.

Players Who Have Already Moved Up (since start of SFFS/IFP local ratings)

Players About To Move Up

All these ranking changes are based on finishes at our SFFS tournaments and IFP tournaments since the new SFFS ranking system was put in place late last year. I'm sure we will be revising things in the years ahead, but so far things seem to be making sense.

Mark

by **JeffK** on Thu May 15, 2008 1:38 pm

Mark,

Maybe you should call it a "High/Low BYP"... to correlate with the "High/Low DYP" nomenclature.

Jeff

by **Mark** on Thu May 15, 2008 1:48 pm

I guess I was just following the name Mary uses on her IFP tournaments with "Pro/Am" as well as what we are using at Florida State. At least now everyone can see the general theory behind the event even if the name doesn't 100% accurately describe it =).

Mark

by **moose1** on Thu May 15, 2008 3:40 pm

I should also be able to play as a beginner :shock:

	Please Support Our Sponsors
Tournament Directors! Request Your 2008 Sponsorship T-Shirts by Clicking Here!