Tentative? Come off it. Jry for Japanese Ambassador to everything.
I said "tentatively" because my first, gut reaction was "yes," before I had taken the time to think it through. If it is ok with everyone, I now stand firmly on "yes."
I see that a lot of discussion has already taken place regarding scoring and player inclusion. I think, in general, Yolympics is easier to deal with because the way the teams are formed. By its nature, teams are equal size and balanced in terms of skill. No one can predict if certain players will participate after they're drafted, but that's an obvious risk with the system. I'll hold off on giving my thoughts about IGBY, but here are some preliminary thoughts on the next Yolympics:1) Expand scoring slots from 5 to 6-7
We tried using 8 slots with the last IGBY and pretty much all the teams struggled to fill those spots. Yes, there were more IGBY teams with players spread thinner than Yolympics, but IGBY 2016 had more overall participation than Yolympics 2016. Last year, there were 92 people signed up for Yolympics. 81 people submitted scores, and 70 people scored points for their teams (86.42%). Of the 11 people who submitted but didn't score points, 8 of them submitted on multiple games. Of those 8, one submitted on 12(!) games and one of them was Allen.
If we expanded to 6 scoring slots, then that 70 would jump to 75 (92.6%). If we expanded to 7, the 70 would jump to 79 (97.53%). All teams filled their 5 scoring slots in Yolympics. One team failed to submit 6 scores on all games (27 of 28), and two teams failed to submit 7 scores on all games (21 of 28 and 25 of 28). Those numbers might have been different if teams were required to submit 6 or 7 scores per game, but it gives you an idea of general participation.
So, I see this as good reason to try and balance the scoring between 5 and 8 slots. 5 is not enough, and 8 is too many (for now). 6 or 7 would give essentially everyone a chance to score points, without putting too much pressure on teams to fill slots.2) Fewer games
28 games is just too many. I'm thinking 18-20.3) Time-based scoring bonuses for teams and players
One thing I've seen in MARP tourneys that I really like is giving players a bonus for submitting scores early. I think RU has done in this in their yearlong tourneys as well. For a 5-week Yolympics we could do something like: Teams with a full set of scores after Week 1 get 10 points added to their overall score for EACH game that has a full set of scores. After Week 2, 5 points. After Week 3, 2 points, After Week 4, 1 point. I favor this kind of scoring bonus over the previous "1st and 2nd place players get a bonus" method. I think it encourages and rewards participation by all players. We could also use this as bonus, maybe with different values, in the individual rankings (while still keeping the 1st/2nd place bonus). So, the entire team benefits from getting a full set of scores early on, and then the individual players who actually submitted those scores get a bonus as well.