Interesting WFC Question

Jorden · Post by **Jorden** » 19 Dec 2007 10:07

What if the World Footbag Championships happened every 2 years instead of annually? Would this hurt or help our sport? What are the pros and cons of a bi-annual Championships?

I'll post my thoughts soon.

Discuss.

Christopholes · Post by **Christopholes** » 19 Dec 2007 10:27

I think the WFC should be annually. Footbag is a sport where you can get better really quickly and, and if it was every 2 years you couldn't be able to showcase your talent on the largest stage in footbag. Also people who play alone and look forward to playing with a ton of people would probobly lose intirest in the sport if it was bi-annual.

The only plus side I can see is that it would be so shocking seeing a player that u hadent seen in 2 years and he or she is soo much better than the last worlds. Another pro could b the anticipation waiting for it.

But overall I'm down with the annual thing.

Rieferman · Post by **Rieferman** » 19 Dec 2007 10:30

Not that I go, or will ever go again, but I think every year is good enough. If for no other reason than to "strike while the iron is hot" for those players that are pumped to go to their first worlds.

professor · Post by **professor** » 19 Dec 2007 10:56

Pros:
1. More people could go because more time to save money.
2. Bigger/Better event because of more time to prepare.
3. Champion is considered best in the world for 2 years.

Cons:
1. We have to wait 2 years.

I don't think it would hurt the sport because we'd still have the national comps to go to on an annual basis.

I don't know if it would help the sport. Only time would tell really.

This set up would be ideal if footbag ever got into the Olympics.

dblthnk84 · Post by **dblthnk84** » 19 Dec 2007 11:32

This seemed a bit odd at first, but I'm beginning to like the idea of the world championships being every two years. From what I think I remember, footbag has had some difficulties in the past finding host clubs for the world championships. By moving this to a two year schedule it could make it easier for the clubs to get ready for such an event and 'recover' from the last time they hosted it. For a yearly basis there are still many awesome tournaments that people could travel to (Nationals, ect.), and travel to Worlds is only going to get more difficult as the footbag scenes in Australia and Asia (maybe South America at some point down the road? Does Africa have a shred scene?) grow and want to host. As others have already mentioned, it would make it easier to save up for for us poor kids

, and I don't see how it would hurt to encourage people to go to other tournaments every other year. I'm not so sure I like the World Champion's term being extended to two year intervals though. As for the Olympics, yes it would be better for that- but I think that footbag in the Olympics isn't going to happen any time soon and shouldn't be a motivating force at this time. Just some thoughts. /shrug
________
marijuana hemp

Bringerofpie · Post by **Bringerofpie** » 19 Dec 2007 14:38

I disagree with Brandon on the money issue. If Worlds are every two years and it's say, in Asia after the Czech Republic, then Australia, that's four more years someone without the money for international footbag travel in the states would go without going to Worlds.

That was a long sentence, I hope it's intelligible.

james · Post by **james** » 19 Dec 2007 14:39

Every year. It's fucking Worlds for Christssake!

Benzilla · Post by **Benzilla** » 19 Dec 2007 16:14

Every year is what i'd like because some people, such as my self, won't be able to attend worlds if its out of the country, and if its every 2 years thats twice the amount of time until a grounded person can attend worlds.

Bringerofpie · Post by **Bringerofpie** » 19 Dec 2007 16:21

Benzilla wrote:Every year is what i'd like because some people, such as my self, won't be able to attend worlds if its out of the country, and if its every 2 years thats twice the amount of time until a grounded person can attend worlds.

That sounds familiar, Ben.

dyalander · Post by **dyalander** » 19 Dec 2007 16:31

Another pro for every 2 years would be that there would be greater potential for freestylers to also play net at the top level.

Whether it would hurt or help our sport depends entirely on your perspective on how and towards what our sport should best progress - that is, there are important sub questions - would it hurt or help recruitment? would it hurt or help participation of current players in worlds? would it hurt or help the sport gaining broader recognition amongst the non-participating public? would it hurt or help the ability of organisers to put together the event? etc etc

Not only is the answer to each of these questions greatly arguable, but the relative importance of each answer to the progression of the sport is also arguable. Seems to me all this discussion will lead to is arguing

.

Benzilla · Post by **Benzilla** » 19 Dec 2007 16:48

Bringerofpie wrote:
Benzilla wrote:Every year is what i'd like because some people, such as my self, won't be able to attend worlds if its out of the country, and if its every 2 years thats twice the amount of time until a grounded person can attend worlds.
That sounds familiar, Ben.

I didn't read your post correctly.. Great minds think alike

calemccoy · Post by **calemccoy** » 19 Dec 2007 18:31

i definitely think that it should be everyyear, casue its so awesome and 2 years is too long to wait. i know there are other awesome evnts, but come on, its WORLDS.

and as far as footbag in olympics goes, coincidentally, check this out.

james_dean · Post by **james_dean** » 20 Dec 2007 02:05

I don't see how it makes it easier for people to save up. I can't afford to go to worlds next year, so I'm going the year after. The fact that worlds is on doesn't change the fact that I still have two years to save. If it was biannual and next year was its on year then I would have to wait another year before I could go. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

I also don't understand how being world champion for two years would be a good thing? Unless you're the champ yourself? (in which case you still only won that year soooo....)

Mirage · Post by **Mirage** » 20 Dec 2007 03:08

professor wrote:Pros:
1. More people could go because more time to save money.
2. Bigger/Better event because of more time to prepare.
3. Champion is considered best in the world for 2 years.

Cons:
1. We have to wait 2 years.

Even if there is championships every year that doesn't mean you have to go there. Point number 2 agreed though. Still, I think there are many more who like to have it like it already is, with worlds every year.

Jorden · Post by **Jorden** » 20 Dec 2007 08:55

Alright, some things to consider:

Pros:

If Worlds were every 2 years, clubs would be a lot more serious about bidding. There would be much more enthusiasm in this regard than in recent years. That's an extra year to get logistics and a better proposal together! Not to mention time to build a better budget. No club should ever win by default imo.

How many times has this happened? -- Sorry, we couldn't get [insert media coverage here. MTV, ESPN, CNN, etc.] due to insufficient notice/interest and/or planning. How many straight years have we just had local coverage?? Think what exposure we could generate if we had almost 2 years to contact networks and set things up!

The late summer would no longer be off limits for a smaller jam or tournament during off-years. More events could be hosted around this time and players could gain valuable advice/experience.

Worlds would become more representative of the WORLD. In 2006 it was like 80% Europeans competing, and 07 it was at least 70% North Americans. The Top 8 of both years were radically different, with only 2 of the 8 making it both years. With Worlds occurring less frequently and giving players ample amount of time to save, there would be less of "I went to Euros/US Open instead". These tournaments don't even compare!!

The level of play in competition would climb much faster. Not just because the elapsed time increases either. Players would realize there is less of a window for success and train much more seriously. I'm sure many of us get in the trap of saying "I was so unprepared this year, next year I'll be ready" year after year (:lol:).

I think new players would actually be driven more if Worlds is a bit further down the road. Like, would they actually think "it's been 12 months and no Worlds - I'm quitting??" That makes no sense. It would probably be more like "my goal is to compete in open level in Worlds 2010" or whatever.

As for the longer champion title, it only affects about 5 or so people (let's be honest here). There would be a much more epic battle for top spot if players had less of a chance to do it.

To sum up: bidders would take things seriously, more time to accumulate a larger budget, less likely TV stations would fall through last minute, more representative turnouts, smaller tournaments better attended on off-years, higher/fiercer level of play, more time to train effectively/gain experience, newbs encouraged to stay in the sport longer to attend a Worlds.

Cons:

But PpL rly like it !!!!!111

It's Worlds. WORLDS! WORLDS!!!!!!

JM

MatS21 · Post by **MatS21** » 20 Dec 2007 09:12

I really think that would be good for footbag, a championship every year is a lot of fun but it doesn't shows much integrity and professionalism, a championship every two years would really got the best in the worlds on top. And to those who are saying they wouldn't be able to afford the money if it's out the country just calculate it : close to 1000$ to go to worlds in your country or 2000$ to go elsewhere. If it happens every two years you'll have twice the time to prepare.

I really like the idea even if I know a lot of people would be sad of it.

Frank_Sinatra · Post by **Frank_Sinatra** » 20 Dec 2007 09:16

Jorden wrote:If Worlds were every 2 years, clubs would be a lot more serious about bidding. There would be much more enthusiasm in this regard than in recent years. That's an extra year to get logistics and a better proposal together! Not to mention time to build a better budget. No club should ever win by default imo.

How many times has this happened? -- Sorry, we couldn't get [insert media coverage here. MTV, ESPN, CNN, etc.] due to insufficient notice/interest and/or planning. How many straight years have we just had local coverage?? Think what exposure we could generate if we had almost 2 years to contact networks and set things up!

A year is probably enough time to do these sorts of things, if people make use of that year.

Giving people more time to plan things doesn't necessarily mean they will make use of it. Certain benchmarks and timelines could be built in to encourage planning along a two year rather than a one year timeline, but that could already be done with worlds happening every year.

I'm guessing that the lack of bids for host cities (and the considerably few people in the footbag world willing/able to undertake so much planning) is the real reason this idea came up.

Worlds every two years would allow more time for host cities to put in a bid, or for people to be persuaded to put in a bid, and any repeat Worlds hostings would be spaced out a bit more.

I've never been to a Worlds (though I'm thinking of going in 08 ) so I can't comment on how I would feel about it as a player.

ville · Post by **ville** » 20 Dec 2007 10:16

Frank_Sinatra wrote:
Jorden wrote:If Worlds were every 2 years, clubs would be a lot more serious about bidding. There would be much more enthusiasm in this regard than in recent years. That's an extra year to get logistics and a better proposal together! Not to mention time to build a better budget. No club should ever win by default imo.

How many times has this happened? -- Sorry, we couldn't get [insert media coverage here. MTV, ESPN, CNN, etc.] due to insufficient notice/interest and/or planning. How many straight years have we just had local coverage?? Think what exposure we could generate if we had almost 2 years to contact networks and set things up!
A year is probably enough time to do these sorts of things, if people make use of that year.

Giving people more time to plan things doesn't necessarily mean they will make use of it.

And also, even though Worlds are every year, it doesn't mean that the clubs have to organise it in a year. We could have the bidding for Worlds end two years before the actual event for example.

But as said before having two years to organise doesn't necessarily mean it would be better. It depends alot on the people doing it. Worlds should have somekind of an fixed organisation where there would always be some of the same people doing things, so they could actually learn from their mistakes and develop the concepts. Some kind of exchange of information from year to year, documentation of things were done and what was good and what wasn't. It's more work for the people doing it, but it would help in the long run.

At the moment each Worlds is kind of like that clubs view of how it should be done, and that isn't necessarily a bad thing. In my opinion Worlds should be a concept with standards and minimum requirements that keep evolving.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 20 Dec 2007 15:43

If getting sponsors and savings is a problem. Then start planning 2 years in advance. No reason to halt production every other year.

dyalander · Post by **dyalander** » 20 Dec 2007 16:41

If Worlds were every 2 years, clubs would be a lot more serious about bidding. There would be much more enthusiasm in this regard than in recent years. That's an extra year to get logistics and a better proposal together! Not to mention time to build a better budget.

Yeah like with individuals saving up to go - just because its on every year doesn't mean you can't think beyond the next one - so if you don't have enough money you save for the one after - if you can't make a bid for the next one you prepare for the one after. So I don't think this is a legitimate pro.

How many times has this happened? -- Sorry, we couldn't get [insert media coverage here. MTV, ESPN, CNN, etc.] due to insufficient notice/interest and/or planning.

And how many times do you think it was just a blow off! Those networks send crews out to things on short notice all the time. They also sit on things for ages before showing it if at all - the time is just an excuse - if one of those networks really wanted to pick us up a couple of months would be enough notice. Again I don't think this is alegitimate pro.

Worlds would become more representative of the WORLD. In 2006 it was like 80% Europeans competing, and 07 it was at least 70% North Americans. The Top 8 of both years were radically different, with only 2 of the 8 making it both years. With Worlds occurring less frequently and giving players ample amount of time to save, there would be less of "I went to Euros/US Open instead". These tournaments don't even compare!!

I don't think this is a legitimate pro - if you can't make it every year save up for every second. Those who can go every year should suffer because others can't.

The level of play in competition would climb much faster. Not just because the elapsed time increases either. Players would realize there is less of a window for success and train much more seriously. I'm sure many of us get in the trap of saying "I was so unprepared this year, next year I'll be ready" year after year ().

I think new players would actually be driven more if Worlds is a bit further down the road. Like, would they actually think "it's been 12 months and no Worlds - I'm quitting??" That makes no sense. It would probably be more like "my goal is to compete in open level in Worlds 2010" or whatever.

As for the longer champion title, it only affects about 5 or so people (let's be honest here). There would be a much more epic battle for top spot if players had less of a chance to do it.

These are all arguable and I think the reality is the effect in these terms will vary greatly from player to player.

I think that perhaps when there are more regular tournaments, more players, and a solid ranking system -having worlds every year might not be the best way to do it. But until then I'm still unconvinced.