|
|
I am Trumping this conversation which had previously only been between captains.
The decision has now been made to run a three tier system (no further debate necessary on this it seems). It has been proposed either a 6-4-6 or a 6-6-4. I believe the 6-4-6 is the only option, as it most closely resembles the comp/rec split (9-7), and minimizes the number of teams that have to play cross division.
As for how we run the 5-week blocks for the 4 division, it would be 3 weeks of round robin and 2 weeks of playoffs. The result should be 2 teams going up and 1 team going down. In theory that would mean only the top 2 rec teams would ever play against comp teams, and they would only do so for half the season and only against the lower half of the division. From a comp perspective it allows for most teams to play each other regularly throughout the year, with only one rec team entering the cycle. (This would help reduce the probability of Kyle's comp team playing his rec team!)
I speak only for myself now, but it doesn't seem reasonable that we didn't solve the problem of 9 and 7 by moving one rec team to comp, but instead now ask 3 comp teams to essentially move half their season to rec (if we play the 6-6-4).
Please let your opinion be heard.
|
|
|
|
| How long until the teams would be split into the proposed 6-4-6? What would the schedule/matchups look like in the mean time? |
|
|
|
I would like to play a more competitive schedule - 6 4 6. This format is closer to the English premier soccer setup. So it does work and even in a larger league then DUC! Every game counts. 5 week mini seasons: COMP - 2 bottom teams drop; MIDDLE - 2 top teams rise, bottom 1 or 2 drop; BOTTOM - top 1 or 2 rise. Appears simple.
My biggest concern is how often our league scheduling seems to be created/corrected during the season and not prior (as Kyle noted). Looking forward, can this be made a priority! I don't really understand this statement: "The Turf Warriors agreed to move up so long as they did not have to play the top teams...". This statement does not suggest they ever wanted to move up, but rather were willing to play competitive teams that might not sit at the top of the COMP league most of the season.
I appreciate the work put into running the league, but I don't understand why we have this scheduling discussion DURING the season so often. It's like buying a plane ticket at said $ only to find out there are hidden costs just before you push "Purchase". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| I'm in agreeance with the 6-4-6, as everyone else above. As someone who loves this sport for the competitive nature (as a team and individual) and continually wants to improve my skill set and overall ability, I want the opportunity to play against the top teams. This way I can learn from them (the challenges they bring and the way I have to adapt my game as a result of it). That is why I paid money to play competitive and not rec. |
|
|
|
Half a post dedicated to me, I like it!
I'm much happier seeing the Sunday league run as a 6-4-6. The chances of both my teams meeting like you said is very slim.
I do have to agree with Bryan though that this should've been sorted out before the season started. How do we determine what comp teams get placed in the top 6 and middle 4? Are the turf warriors going to automatically start in the middle 4 as the top rec team because that would be ideal for them since it wont have any top comp teams? |
|
|
|
| I would also prefer a 6-4-6 structure over 6-6-4. |
|
|
|
I would love to add my two cents in for what it's worth. I would prefer to play the season running
under a 6-4-6 format as I think it matches up best to the two tiers people signed up for.
|
|
|
|
Bryan, with regards to your comment about why these things are decided upon during the season, it is because we are very accommodating. The easiest solution would have been to just tell the 9th team in the competitive division and the 7th team in the recreational league that they were the last teams to sign up and so they cannot play. But that would not allow the league to grow and would make 30 or so people very unhappy. And so, in the name of growth, we allow these teams to play and then have to come up with creative ways to make as many people happy as possible. We also never know how many teams are signing up until we get the cheques so sometimes it is hard to plan ahead. Once the cheques are in, it takes time to see if any of the teams wish to switch their divisions to even things out. Field space is another factor that influences decisions.
I vote for 6-4-6 to start. But will change it if it doesn't seem to be working for the teams that are on the bubble of divisions. For example with 6-4-6 system the teams most likely to not like it are the rec team that is being forced up into the division of 4 and then the team that gets bumped up into that division after the first 5 weeks of play. Decisions will be made to maximize happiness.
p.s. The topic of which format to use for this indoor season was discussed by Captains in a separate email discussion which allowed each teams opinions and concerns to be shared.
|
|
|
|
In all fairness..
If this is in fact being decided by majority/votes/opinions, then all teams should be asked with one vote per team and not on feedback here for the following reasons..
1. Not everyone reads the posts and/or this particular post (let's face it.. some people STILL don't know how entertaining Mr. Sigs can be)
2. At quick count it appears that at least 8 of the 11 votes here so far are FROM THE SAME TEAM!!
Manny out! |
|
|
|
It seems my comment came moments too late 
Although the 646 format won't be ideal for Team Awesome as a 'lower' comp team (and I don't presume to speak for the team), I'm good with the decision to start this way and adjust accordingly. We'll never please everyone.. and some much less than others. I just want to play and appreciate the league doing it's best to accommodate all players in the BEST SPORT EVER KNOWN TO MAN (and his more mature counterpart)
See y'all out there!
*hugs* &  Manny |
|
|
|
Too bad there hadn't been enough interest to populate an individuals squad; we could have ended up with two 8s, which would have simplified matters considerably.
What about four groups of 4, on 3-week rotations, with 2 teams moving up and 2 moving down? Sounds fluid, I know, but it would tick a number of boxes and satisfy most parties:
1) the scheduler(s) - super-easy to organize with all teams on the same three-week rotation;
2) those who don't want to get blown off the field (or be the blowers) - competitive games between teams at similar levels;
3) those who relish the chance to play as many different teams as possible - even if the same pairs of teams keep moving up and down, each one would face five unique opponents in every six-week block, which is pretty much how the rec division is already set up;
4) Kyle - I haven't quite worked out how he would benefit, but leave it with me for a bit and I'll get back to you.
That's just my 2 cents. Unfortunate that pennies are no longer in circulation.
|
|
|
|
I don't think an individuals team would help us right now, we currently have 16 teams which is essentially 2 groups of 8. Another team would give us 8 and a 9 group which would mean byes....and we don't want that.
Either the 4 groups of 4 or 6-4-6 would work in my favour. Less chances of my teams playing each other and I could go back to praying that they just don't play at the same time. The only thing I didn't want was for Sunday to be run similar to how Tuesday is run, because that guarantees my teams playing each other at least once in the initial round robin seeding.
In a 6-4-6 it still wouldn't surprise me to see my rec team in the middle 4 at some point in the season, which I now look forward to as I have the opportunity to beat a comp team with a rec team  |
|
|
|
I am so misunderstood. Woe is me.
out
PS:
League growth will not be hindered by a predetermined league format or team limits. Year one people may not be happy, but then they learn to adapt. Otherwise it's like Lord of the Flies DUC style!
"Shut up," said Ralph absently. He lifted the conch. "Seems to me we ought to have a chief to decide things."
"A chief! A chief!"
"I ought to be chief," said Jack with simple arrogance, "because I'm chapter chorister and head boy. I can sing C sharp."
PPS:
Who knew Manny could count? (He knows I love him) As an aside...what Manny forgot to count is how many teams can actually get that many people on the forums and unified? We know what we signed up for and stand together asking for it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7uvttu8ct0
|
|
|
|
I believe league growth could be hindered by restricting teams but do agree the format should be in place as soon as possible prior to season start . I think accomplishing that involves finding out number of teams much earlier to the league starting. Years ago for the summer leagues we would have a registration day on a particular day in March where we went to drop off cheques and the number of teams were decided months before the start of the season. ( I'm sure this had issues as well, team captains on vacations etc)
Just a suggestion for debate...
Perhaps in the future something could be set up on the DUC site similar to the membership/individual membership through paypal, so team captains leave a deposit for their intent to start a winter team and send a check at a later date ( could work for both Sunday/Tuesday) Leave the registration open for a week and have the individual register at a later date if needed for an additional team.
At the very least we would be able to have this debate prior to the indoor season starting instead of during.
Just for the record I could care less about the system I am just happy to play, four groups of four or 6-4-6 works for me. |
|
|
|
To simplify things, can I humbly suggest that instead of 6-4-6, we call our ladder A-B-C?
 |
|
|
|
Some feedback and questions on the 6-4-6 format we're using:
When the current 5 week rotation ends, will we have all 3 comp teams in the middle bracket move up, or will 1 team stay in the middle bracket?
Right now we (Fast Count) are in the middle bracket with Huck U, Team Awesome, and the Chillies. The rough thing about being in the middle bracket is that there's a lot of repetition. Over 5 weeks you only play 3 different teams, and there's more likely to be disparty in the scores.
However, if all 3 comp teams move up, that would leave us, Huck U and Team Awesome all encountering each other in the next 5-week-round robin as well (while not getting to play the 3 teams who drop from the upper bracket into the middle bracket). That would mean that 6-weeks-out-of-10, we'd be playing Huck U or Team Awesome.
Because of this I think it would make sense to have 1 of the comp teams remain in the middle bracket, but I am curious what the plan is and what people think. For the one team remaining in the middle bracket this would mean they have extra games that cross the initial rec/comp divide. |
|
|
|
Definitely interested to see what the answer to your question is Jamie.
Also interesting the number of points some teams get for a win. For example, Fast count gets +17 for beating The Chillies, and we get +4 for beating Bonk, and +2 for beating the "at-the-time" undefeated Telefrancais. I know it has to do with the point differential, but still a bit weird to me. |
|
|
|
Not sure about the scheduling or team movement, but a couple of things to note:
1. We adjusted the K Factor from 32 to 64. This means a larger spread of points assigned.
2. Points assigned are based on score. In most cases if you run up the score, you get more points.
3. A win doesn't always guarantee an increase in points. Take a look at Drop & 175 this week. Since 175 didn't score as many points as it should have (relative to what drop scored), 175's points were adjusted down accordingly which resulted in a reduced rank. The formula doesn't take into consideration the number of wins/losses, just the points scored for the game.
|
|
|
|
| We have also grouped the Sunday teams into 3 divisions, A, B and C. So that teams can see how they are doing relative to the other teams in their group. |
|
|
|
| Hilderbogie wrote: | | We have also grouped the Sunday teams into 3 divisions, A, B and C. So that teams can see how they are doing relative to the other teams in their group. |
Any word on whether just 2, or all 3 comp teams will move up from the B division at the end of the 5 week segment? See my comment above for the potential pitfalls. (For Kyle, of course...). |
|
|
|
| Regardless of how it affects my two teams I'd much rather see at least 2 comp teams move up from that middle 4 group. By the time this 5 game set it over we will have played 13 games so far and Bonk still won't have faced team awesome or Huck U yet. There's something wrong with that. |
|
|
|
| The plan is to just move 1 team up and 1 team down. |
|
|
|
| Hilderbogie wrote: | | The plan is to just move 1 team up and 1 team down. |
Will the team that moves up be decided based on the ELO rankings, or wins and losses within the bracket?
Having 1 team move up is a great situation for that 1 team, as they get to play 5 new teams in the next round robin. But it's pretty rough for the two teams that stay down in the middle bracket. They'll likely be playing each other 4 times over a 10 week span, and/or will have up to 4 cross-over games against the rec division, and more repeat opponents.
If we assume that the team that drops down from the upper-bracket is likely to be the strongest team in the middle-bracket, then those two teams who remain there are also the most likely to stay down there for the next 5 week rotation (and really, the remainder of the season).
|
|
|
|
| I agree with your assessment but since we have 9 competitive teams this was decided to be the fairest way to do it. Luckily a new team will be moving down that has not been in the middle group and also a new team will be moving up from the bottom group so the middle teams will see a little variety. |
|