Approach to a Grudge Match and Team scoring

[Alan Adamson]

We have been looking for ways to generate continued interest in Practical shooting, offer some competition, and create a team approach to the above with a self financing cash payback mechanism. We didn't want to go to a points system as they are simply too complicated. What we've come up with is as follows. Potentially, you could do this at any match as an overlay to the division/class scores and the USPSA software already supports the basic model of scoring and teams.

Here are the basic rules.

a) teams are made up of one shooter in each of the following divisions (there are simply too few of Revo shooters to be included, but could be if you have lots of REVO shooters)

- OPEN

- LIMITED

- LIMITED 10

- PRODUCTION

- SINGLE STACK

a given team can only have one A or higher classified shooter on it (in whatever division they are shooting for in the team)

c) as a way to promote less experienced shooters, we've also added a classification point total to be used in building a team. To do so, you have a given set of team classification points that you have to fit your total team within. 14 classification points are allowed per team and they are factored accordingly. This has nothing to do with scoring, only in how teams can be built along with the above rules.

- GM = 6 points

- M = 5 points

- A = 4 points

- B = 3 points

- C = 2 points

- D = 1 points

You add up the 5 team members classification points and it has to be 14 or less... e.g. team A with 1GM, 1B, 1C, 2D, 1U would be 6+3+2+(2*1) = 13 classification points or team B with 1M, 2B, 1C, 1D would be 5+(2*3)+2+1 = 14 classification points. This disallows super teams from being created and helps to level the playing field among the teams. Unfortunately, you have to disallow U shooters because you could have someone who shoots well in one division, be unclassified in another. You could override this if you know your shooters and allows U's... this would bump each point value up by one and you use 19 instead of 14 as the total classification points.

d) lastly, gun substitution can always be used to fill the 5 divisions. A production gun can be used in limited 10, limited, or open for example, but at minor PF. One exception to this rule and just for this team approach, is the Single Stack division. If you can't get a 1911 to shoot single stack, you could substitute a different gun (OPEN excluded) as your Single Stack entry, magazine capacity has to be maintained with SS rules and Major/Minor applies as well. For each stage shot as SS without a 1911, however, you incur one procedural penalty.

To make this interesting, I would suggest a cash payout scheme based upon team match point totals. The Ezwinscore software already supports this. There is a tweak you have to do to make it work because the software wants to have an alternate on each team. So you have to enter a fictitious REVO shooter and put them on each team and then just DNF that shooter each stage. This is because the software only uses the team size - 1 in totaling the scores and the low score for each team member gets thrown out - the fictitious REVO shooter becomes the one that gets thrown out.

As it relates to costs for the cash payout, I would recommend a $5 fee per team shooter ($25 per team) to be paid to participate, and then a payout similar to what you do in a specific division/class... Minimum 3 teams for Match Team winner, 7 teams for 2nd place and 11 teams for 3rd place. Just cash prizes. If 7 teams, pay out would be 60/40 1st/2nd. If 11 teams payout would be 50/30/20... Payout would be as follows.

That's the amount the team gets to split among its team members.

So there ya have it.... the only issue I see is that the funds would have be paid the match following unless you decided to live score an outdoor match, which I can tell you is a bunch of work... trying to build, shoot, score, is a RPITA and I wouldn't recommend it.

The mechanism is very simple however

If you see major flaws let me know... .we've only tried it one time and while it worked, we conceptualized the classification point afterwards and it's going to help us stratify the teams for next time. (thanks Gerard!)

Alan

Edited September 3, 2010 by Alan Adamson

[DyNo!]

Looks great - I'd go out of my way to shoot a match like this in Georgia!

[enutees]

Sounds like fun to have a team and support. Who needs a C class production shooter for their team?

[Rob D]

Sounds awesome. If the match got popular enough, I think it would be even better to have two Team classes. Instead of only letting a team be composed of shooters totaling up to 14, maybe have a lower division with a cap of 10 and an upper division with a cap of 18 or something. This way the new guy teams shoot against the new guy teams and there is a more competitive level for the teams made up of masters and GM's.

[IL-SIG]

Sounds awesome. If the match got popular enough, I think it would be even better to have two Team classes. Instead of only letting a team be composed of shooters totaling up to 14, maybe have a lower division with a cap of 10 and an upper division with a cap of 18 or something. This way the new guy teams shoot against the new guy teams and there is a more competitive level for the teams made up of masters and GM's.

What if you set up a handicap system so that all players would be equalized, similar to golf? Just a thought...

[fayetteflash]

I'm all for trying it out and seeing how it works. We have been batting around a team construct for a while. I think there is a point system that would possibly work, too. What's nice with this is that ezwin can handle it.

Also, I'm working on a browser and mobile device real-time scoring system that should be up for beta test soon. That could help the delayed results issue.

[fayetteflash]

It would also be cool to layer a "season" concept on it where teams compete throughout the year and have a big team showdown at the end of the year.

[Alan Adamson]

I've been doing some more thinking on this idea and I came up with an even better *adder*...

If you have multiple uspsa chapters in your area or even close by, consider holding this type of scored match, but broaden the idea a little...

Instead of forcing teams, you could come up with a method to see which club is best... to do so, they must field at least one team (more the merrier for payment if you know what I mean)... And score as above.... BUT, and this would get a little more tricky to handle at the match... Consider the team scores counting for 60% of the total score and the individual members of a given organization counting for 40%... Then tally up both and figure out which club wins... Maybe you could consider a *club* entry fee/payment method...

I'll give it some more thought and maybe I can create a schedule of payment similar to what I did with the original concept.

Alan