|
|
I think i've mentioned it before somewhere but the league needs to stop catering to people that want to play on 2 teams!
If they are the problem then they should be the ones that suffer. They should know going in that if they play on 2 teams, they may be late to the 2nd game based on field locations for their 2 teams. If they cause a team to forfit or be short handed for a while, its on them. Not the league.
In a ladder system is shouldn't matter who plays on what team and how many from the same team. They will move up and down to play teams of equal skill.
An idea that me and a friend thought up today was if we had 2 seperate ladders then we could have 2 seperate ladder champs who could play for a league champ in the last week of the season.
If this is a conflict for people playing on 2 teams, have them choose a team to be their primary when they sign up and that is the team they have to play for in the last game. The team they left short handed can then grab a replacement player from their own ladder.
As far as where to put current teams on ladder A or ladder B, randomize it. Or put half of each returning ABCD team in one division and half in the other. If the bothers people on 2 teams, lets vote as a league.
I bet of the 400-500+ people that play in this league, the majority only play on 1 team and wont care if someone that plays on 2 teams is inconvenienced and has to find a different 2nd team.
Basically my rant sums up as as soon as you stop catering to the people that play on 2 teams, you can do what is best for league without much drama. |
|
|
|
Wow, quite a few posts. I think all these posts reflect how passionate people are about DUC and how much we enjoy our Sunday Summer Ultimate.
Just a couple of things I noticed reading through the posts:
1. I was looking over the minutes from the Dec.1st meeting and saw that there were only 13 people (out of 40 teams) present at the Captains meeting. Being on a Thursday night, in Bomanville (correct me if I’m wrong) it appears it was hard for people to make this meeting. So the vote doesn’t reflect all captains, just the ones who were fortunate enough, (maybe dedicated enough) to make it out to Bomanville on a Thursday night. Could we do another vote for all captains?
2. I get the feeling that a ladder system is a lot of (at least more) work (correct me if I’m wrong). I’m really appreciative of all the work that Kevin and others do to run this league. Can we really push a format on them that’s way more work? Would the people who are pushing for this system be willing to put the hours into changing systems? I know I don’t have that kind of time.
3. It appears that the ladder system solves a lot of problems. I think Dawn and a few others have done a pretty amazing job of summing this up for us all quite clearly. I know our team would be in favour of a ladder system to help make our games more competitive. Playing competitive games is ultimately the most important thing, above all others, in my option.
|
|
|
|
Just a quick note about the whole not-catering-to-people-who-play-on-two-teams issue.
#1) Those people pay the same league fees as everyone else. Shouldn't they have the same opportunities to play/not play as everyone else?
#2) I have no idea what the actual number is, but I know there are a LOT of people who play on two teams...especially in the A & B divisions. Brad said "as soon as you stop catering to the people that play on 2 teams, you can do what is best for league..." but I would think that disallowing the ability to play on two teams (or paying them no mind) would not be in the best interest of the league in any sense. I play in the A division, and I know there is a huge number of A players who also play in B. If forced to pick between their two teams, I would suspect that the majority would probably choose their A teams. This would undoubtedly cause problems for B division teams, and could even cause some teams to fold. I can't attest to the reasons that other people play, but a big part of the reason I play is because of the people I play with. The TEAM is a big part of my motivation for showing up at 4:00 in 30 degree heat in the middle of the summer. Losing team members because they had to choose one team or another also changes the remaining team dynamic, and even the dynamic of the games being played. All of this, in my opinion, does absolutely nothing for the league.
After looking over the Summer 2011 A division rosters, I can count at least 33 players who play on B division teams as well (and that's only the names I recognize). That's a pretty big number to essentially ignore. |
|
|
|
| Gill wrote: | Just a quick note about the whole not-catering-to-people-who-play-on-two-teams issue.
#1) Those people pay the same league fees as everyone else. Shouldn't they have the same opportunities to play/not play as everyone else?
#2) I have no idea what the actual number is, but I know there are a LOT of people who play on two teams...especially in the A & B divisions. Brad said "as soon as you stop catering to the people that play on 2 teams, you can do what is best for league..." but I would think that disallowing the ability to play on two teams (or paying them no mind) would not be in the best interest of the league in any sense. I play in the A division, and I know there is a huge number of A players who also play in B. If forced to pick between their two teams, I would suspect that the majority would probably choose their A teams. This would undoubtedly cause problems for B division teams, and could even cause some teams to fold. I can't attest to the reasons that other people play, but a big part of the reason I play is because of the people I play with. The TEAM is a big part of my motivation for showing up at 4:00 in 30 degree heat in the middle of the summer. Losing team members because they had to choose one team or another also changes the remaining team dynamic, and even the dynamic of the games being played. All of this, in my opinion, does absolutely nothing for the league.
After looking over the Summer 2011 A division rosters, I can count at least 33 players who play on B division teams as well (and that's only the names I recognize). That's a pretty big number to essentially ignore. |
Are you saying that if i pay twice i should get twice the attention or twice the say? As far as i can tell, no one is suggesting that people shouldn't be allowed to play on 2 teams. Just that it is an 'at your own risk' type of investment. I certainly am not saying to pay them no mind. I am saying don't structure the league around them.
If a ladder system is setup with 2 divisions and 2 time slots, then there is fair opportunity for anyone to play on 2 teams without restriction. The only foreseeable problem is distance between fields to get from game A to game B during the short break between games. No difference from what most people have to deal with currently.
The only time someone would have to choose between playing on one of their two teams is if ladder A played against ladder B in a grand finals or something like that and they happen to be on both teams. Which can already happen in our current tournament structure i believe. Anything i said regarding format is just suggestions to build and discuss from.
|
|
|
|
| Brad McIntyre wrote: |
Are you saying that if i pay twice i should get twice the attention or twice the say? As far as i can tell, no one is suggesting that people shouldn't be allowed to play on 2 teams. Just that it is an 'at your own risk' type of investment. I certainly am not saying to pay them no mind. I am saying don't structure the league around them.
If a ladder system is setup with 2 divisions and 2 time slots, then there is fair opportunity for anyone to play on 2 teams without restriction. The only foreseeable problem is distance between fields to get from game A to game B during the short break between games. No difference from what most people have to deal with currently.
The only time someone would have to choose between playing on one of their two teams is if ladder A played against ladder B in a grand finals or something like that and they happen to be on both teams. Which can already happen in our current tournament structure i believe. Anything i said regarding format is just suggestions to build and discuss from.
|
I'm not saying that two-team people should have double the say or attention, just equal consideration. If the league ran two ladders I assume that the A division teams would go in one ladder an the B division teams would go in the other. But like someone mentioned before, this would mean that whatever teams filled out the ladder that contained the A division teams would be C and D division teams, and would likely get smoked by the A division teams. Maybe I'm underestimating the C/D teams, and if I am, I apologize. However, assuming I'm not, it sounds like even with the movement within the ladders, wouldn't this essentially mean that the A-level teams would end up playing eachother all the time, and the same with the C/D level teams within that same ladder?
To have the most competitive and evenly leveled ladders, A and B would probably need to be grouped together, and C and D would need to be grouped together. But in doing this, two-teamed-players in A/B and/or C/D would have to choose one team to play for as their 2nd team would be playing in the same ladder at the same time. At least, that's my understanding of this ladder system.
Sorry Brad, I didn't intent to misrepresent your points. |
|
|
|
| Gill wrote: | | ...whatever teams filled out the ladder that contained the A division teams would be C and D division teams, and would likely get smoked by the A division teams...[snip]...even with the movement within the ladders, wouldn't this essentially mean that the A-level teams would end up playing eachother all the time, and the same with the C/D level teams within that same ladder? |
Remember, “C”* and “D” teams would not be playing “A” teams assuming they are far enough apart on the ladder. I think the situation you’re referring to is if a ladder has a natural split in talent in it. In that case, yes, the team(s) on either side of the split would sometimes win or lose by a larger margin. But you would not regularly get smoked or do the smoking since you play teams both above and below you.
[*Note: I use quotes because if we use the ladder, we must stop thinking about teams in terms of division.]
Yes, you play the teams that are close to you in ladder standing, so yes, “A” teams would play each other more often, as would the “C” and “D” teams. Keep in mind the summer season isn’t that long – 12ish weeks? – so if you play within your ladder area of 5-6ish teams, you’d only play each team twice or so.
***********
Edited my previous post to include points brought up by Brad, Brett and Gill. Summary:
- Cons – ladder may require more work for Kevin (maybe not as bad as we think! – the Zuluru software package provides hosting and administration support for a cost – http://zuluru.net/services (cost seems reasonable IMHO))
- Growing Pains – there will be growing pains in the first year in terms of which team is on which ladder (many options how this can be done – randomize / split divisions then tweak / etc – this would need its own separate discussion)
***********
Bill Boyer - we started a good conversation yesterday about why you are against ladder, but we were interrupted by my game (haha). Would you be so kind as to reiterate your points so I can include them in the summary? |
|
|
|
Some useful stats .....
Total players across 42 teams: 754
# people playing on 2 teams: 113
Number of members: 641
Percentage of people playing on 2 teams: 17.6%
edit: Had to remove some duplicate members and correct spelling of some names ... plus I am unable to use a calculator properly.
|
|
|
|
| Bryce Zimny wrote: |
His first point is likely the reason that DUC has grown from its infancy to what it is now (which is arguably still infancy). The monotony of playing the same teams is happening now on our Tuesday night league. Sure, it's still fun -- but it gets pretty dry too.
|
Tuesdays is a much smaller league than summer would be by combining A & C and B & D. That being said, I prefer to play similar level teams than get caught with the alternative, a nasty blowout. Blowouts aren't fun for anyone, and you learn less when you are crushed by a team. At least you learn what you are doing right when you play a team at or just above your level. You can spend extra time developing less experienced players when you are playing a team just slightly lower in level.
| Bryce Zimny wrote: | | To relate this issue to summer, I can think of at least one team in last year's A division who started weak but came out very strong towards the end of the season. These such teams deserve a shot at the "big guys" in playoffs even if they've sunk to the bottom of a ladder. Conversely, maybe a strong team falls apart towards the end and won't really put up a good fight in playoffs despite being at the top of the ladder. The current setup caters well to this: build up your skill all season and then bring your best to the playoffs. |
Playing teams at your level the whole season doesn't let you slack off. If you slack off you go down. Hard work is rewarded better in a ladder than regular season. For instance my Sunday team started out really poorly because there was no chemistry. If you start off playing weak teams in pool play, and lose, get better throughout the season but have to play the tougher teams at the end, and lose by a little, it doesn't reflect your increase in skill and possibility of winning over other teams.
| Bryce Zimny wrote: |
Comparing DUC to TUC is getting cliche. The numbers themselves (fields, members, tournaments, clinics, etc.) spell a huge difference in logistics of running the league.
|
We aren't comparing TUC and DUC, we are comparing pool play and ladder system.
If you know another club that uses it, we will reference that instead.
| Bryce Zimny wrote: |
There's a common complaint about catering to the A and B divisions and I can understand both sides of the coin. But in my limited experience, I see mostly A and B players commenting on this discussion, coming to captains' meetings, or discussing the league issues on the sidelines. If I'm not going to put the time into discussions, I'd personally rather give up my vote to those who are 'in the know'. Our current B-division poll is testament to typical participation in DUC, and it's depressing. |
It's the A & B players that are typically the players that are evangelizing and mentoring in order to grow the sport.
So what is the over all goal of the league?
Player satisfaction? Create better players? Grow the league?
Where are you getting the numbers from Mark? I see 113/164 above. |
|
|
|
The Wager Ladder system takes into account teams playing competitive games and teams playing a variety of teams.
This should provide a bit more clarification for those people not familiar with the wager ladder system. I'm seeing some questions arise in this thread, and I think this knowledge will help solve some problems people are having with their perception of a ladder system:
Goal of wager ladder system is to:
- Prevent blowout wins/losses by matching teams of roughly equivalent ability.
- Ensuring that teams see a variety of opponents throughout the season.
- Ensuring that the "best" teams rise to the top of the division so that an overall winner can be determined
To do this, teams in a division are first given a rating value (higher == better), based on past performance, coordinator knowledge, and feedback from captains. Then, a schedule is generated, and as games are reported, the game results affect a team's position in the division. Teams move up for wins, and down for losses based on a formula that takes into account the relative strength of teams and the score differential.
The current formula is called the "Wager Ladder". In this system, games are worth a variable total of points, based on the final score. Each team contributes some number of points from their ratings value towards this total, but the amount they contribute is not fixed -- it depends on their relative ratings. This contribution is that team's wager contributed to the pot. The losing team wins back the number of points they scored, and the winning team takes the remainder of the pot.
Here's how it works in detail:
- A team's percentage chance to win is computed based on the pre-game ratings values. This will determine what percentage of the game's value the team must contribute. For example, if both teams are evenly matched, they will each contribute 50% of the total. If instead, Team A has a 60% chance of winning, they contribute 60% of the total value.
- After the game is complete, the pot value is computed. The pot value is double the winning score plus 10. For a normal game to 15, this would make the pot worth 40 points. For a game that ends in a timecapped win at 12, the pot would be 34 points. A game ending 17-16 after an overtime universe point would be worth 44 points.
- Each team's contribution is calculated by multiplying the pot value by the team's percentage chance to win. This represents the maximum number of ratings points that team could lose.
- The losing team then gains back the number of ratings points equal to their score. In an evenly-matched game ending 15-10, the losing team would gain back 10 points for a total loss of 10.
- The winning team then gains the remainder of the pot. So, for example, if their contribution was 20 points, and they won 15-10, they would get a pot of 30, for a net gain of 10. |
So to summarize, the wager ladder allows teams to play competitive games against similarly ranked teams, and allows for your team to play a variety of other teams, closely ranked to you in the ladder[ie. not top of ladder team playing bottom of ladder team]. You get a specific amount of points based on the game's score, and that determines if you move up or down the ladder. Theoretically, you can win your game and still get moved down the ladder.
|
|
|
|
| Mike Millar wrote: |
So to summarize, the wager ladder allows teams to play competitive games against similarly ranked teams, and allows for your team to play a variety of other teams, closely ranked to you in the ladder [ie. not top of ladder team playing bottom of ladder team]. You get a specific amount of points based on the game's score, and that determines if you move up or down the ladder. Theoretically, you can win your game and still get moved down the ladder.
|
OK, so let's assume that, in order to allow for double-team players to remain on both of their teams, the A and C level teams are combined into one ladder, and the B and D level teams are combined into a separate ladder. Wouldn't this system still mean that teams at the top of the ladder continually play against one another and the teams at the bottom of the ladder would do the same? And what about the middle of the ladder where the higher leveled teams end, and the lower leveled teams begin? Couldn't there still be quite the disparity there?
Let's say there are 12 teams in each ladder, and we will name them teams 1 - 12 (team 1 is the highest ranked, 12 is the lowest). You said that this system allows for teams to play a variety of other teams in that are closely ranked. If I was on team #4, would that mean I would potentially play teams within 3 or 4 places above or below me?
Not trying to be difficult by any means...just wanting to make sure I understand how this works. |
|
|
|
Wow, some more great ideas. Way too many to comment on individually. But finally some of the issues are being brought up. The more people think about the situation the more people realize how complicated things are. In my last post I was not trying to sound biased one way or the other but up until that point no negative points were brought up against the ladder and so it was seeming like the ladder was the best idea in the world. In fact in my post I even said that the ladder would work amazingly for the C and D divisions so I don't see how it can be said that I am definitely against the idea.
As for the amount of work involved, I am not sure how much more work there would be, but the work would be moved from the front end of the season to each week.
Which reminds me of something else that people should be made aware of. There are two basic ways (maybe more) to run a ladder. 1. the first is the wager system where teams are given an initial rating and then depending on whether they win or lose and by how much and to whom their rating then changes. In this system the more you beat a team by the more your score changes. This could lead to even larger blowouts as teams crave more and more points. In our league we do not look at plus minus for standings as we do not like to encourage blowouts. For the wager system schedules are done weekly. 2.In the other system teams are broken down into small packets of 4 or 6 and then they each play each other. At the end of the 3 week or 5 week period teams move up or down. This allows schedule to be put out in small chunks. This essentially works out to the idea that I threw out there about dividing the B division into 2 divisions of six with a mid season switching of the bottom two teams from B1 with the top two teams of B2. Hopefully that makes sense. People should be specific as to which ladder system they are talking about when they post.
Also, if we go with the ladder system there may be another issue that we should think about. At the moment I play on two teams and the teams are very much different. If there are two ladders there will be nothing to stop me from entering the same team on both ladders. Now if my team is a middle of the road team then noone cares but if my team is the top team, and we win both ladders, then people are going to complain. Instead of having 4 division winners we now have 1 team winning everything. By running divisions and having our little rules like "no more than 3 players from one team playing on another team" the league is actually more social as players are forced to meet and play with other people. In the ladder system people could still do this but will it be as likely? What happens if a bunch of the top teams enter the same team in both divisions? Do the top teams just end up playing the same top teams twice per night? In TUC teams proably do this but because they are playing on different nights nobody cares. Plus they have 100s of teams so noone notices.
Then what do we do about playoffs? Do we break the ladders into divisions so that the bottom teams in the ladder can play each other and the top can play each other or do we just run two playoffs ladders with the bottom teams having no chance to win?
Once again I have run out of time.
|
|
|
|
Oops, I actually started my last post prior to the last 3 people's posts but due to interruptions never got it done very quickly. Thanks to Mike for explaining the wager system in more detail then i did.
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the explanation Mark, I came to the conversation at different points and missed the edit.
My question about the same team winning both ladders is so what? It basically happens now anyway. There are some A level players that play on B teams and mentor / captain C teams, and nothing is stopping them from doing so. You have a group of fanatics that want to play more, and that is a good thing.
Personally I feel that if the level of play went up in Durham, it would be a good thing. I honestly believe that a competitive ladder system is the best way to elevate the level of play. As people get older they are more likely to mentor and bring in other players, thus growing the league. We remind them about spirit of the game, and focus on the relationship aspect of cultimate instead of the winning and competition.
Still would be nice to know what the overarching goal of the league is. |
|
|
|
| Platinum wrote: |
My question about the same team winning both ladders is so what? It basically happens now anyway. There are some A level players that play on B teams and mentor / captain C teams, and nothing is stopping them from doing so. You have a group of fanatics that want to play more, and that is a good thing.
Still would be nice to know what the overarching goal of the league is. |
Rick(Platinum), the people that care would be the teams that have no chance of beating A teams and yet still want to have a goal of winning something. In the D division and C divisions the teams that win each year are always quite excited and proud of their accomplishments. In each divisions there are usually several teams that are competing for these divisions championships. The team that won the D this year hadn't won any games in years and then they finally won the division and were super excited.
Also, the goals/objectives of the league are in the DUC Constitution which can be found under "About Us" on the side menu. |
|
|
|
| I am putting together a ppt presentation to summarize everything. Stay tuned! |
|
|
|
| Dawn Ma wrote: | | I am putting together a ppt presentation to summarize everything. Stay tuned! |
I am loving the dedication Dawn! |
|
|
|
Here's the presentation with a summary of the issues that have been raised thus far.
Looks like ladder's already being tried out in the Sunday indoor league -- let's see how it goes!  |
|
|
|
Dawn,
Thank you for the work you put into that.. Regardless of anyone's position on the ladder system I'm sure your effort to present the option is appreciated by many.
Re your last point.. I personally hope it becomes a league-wide vote.
But my favorite part.. your resolution "tough patooties" of course!
Cheers!
Manny  |
|
|
|
Nice presentation Dawn.
I would like to see some ROI charts in there to complete it and maybe some pivot tables showing skill level indexes over time. (just kidding)
I think the most important thing in there was how you tied it all back to the values. Well done. |
|
|
|
| Dawn Ma wrote: | Here's the presentation with a summary of the issues that have been raised thus far.
Looks like ladder's already being tried out in the Sunday indoor league -- let's see how it goes! :) |
Well done! Seems to sum up everything discussed here. Look forward to seeing what happens next.
I would also like to see this be presented to the whole league. |
|