|
|
All this will be discussed at the captains meeting so keep the comments coming. There is no system that will make everyone happy but trying new things is is sometimes worth it just to see how things go. As for this year I think the divisions worked well.
Quick Summary
A division only had 6 teams but the games were competitive and we had a new winner.
B1 had 8 teams and each team was fairly strong. There were a couple dominant teams but even they lost two games each.
B2 - was too small and had one dominant team that should have been in B1. Last year we had 6 teams in B2 and it was good but unfortunately two teams (or part of teams) moved down to C this year. Perhaps B2 should really be in D.
C - had 14 teams and despite each team not playing all the other teams was a successful division. Unless there are exactly 12 teams and exactly 11 weeks of play then people will either complain that they did not play everyone or that they played someone else twice.
D - winners had a 7- 3 record which tells me that the teams were fairly well matched and that this division has no problems.
Perhaps we should go with a red division and a blue division for next year. Assuming we get 20 teams per division. Rank all the teams and put 8 in Upper Red and 12 in lower red and do the same for blue. After next year we move the bottom 2 upper red teams down and move up the 2 lower red teams. Did you follow that?
Or perhaps we could run the division as a ladder/mini round robin with movement within the year. Can of worms open.
There are many options but non of them will solve all the problems. Some problems will be fixed and others created. In the end we have to look at how many teams were happy this year and how many were unhappy and see if it needs fixing.
Hopefully we get lots of captains at the meeting so we can have a nice polite discussion. |
|
|
|
I agree with what Kevin and LP are suggesting here.
We essentially have 2 time slots on Sundays and calling them A,B,C,D isn't a very good representation of what is taking place. Within each time slot what we really have is a competitive division and a recreational division. There should be 20 teams that can sign up for each time slot and they can be divided into competitive/recreational as numbers permit. By changing the name from D to something else may encourage more players to try and form a competitive team. Also, if we treat these as different time slots, teams will sign up for the time slot and not the division. This would allow the league to move teams within the time slot if teams are either dominating or being dominated.
I would be concerned about the idea of restricting the number of players of a certain level that are allowed to play together as I think this could end up having a negative effect on the league. Most people I know who play 2 games on Sundays do so because they want to play Ultimate. Many of those players want to play 2 competitive games. If the number of higher level players allowed to play together is restricted, I feel many of those people would not end up playing a 2nd game. While it is all good and well to think that restricted the number of players would force smaller groups of players to start their own team and mentor the less experienced members - I just don't think that is going to happen. A perfect example of this is the hat leagues. Many of us love playing in hat leagues as we can play with totally different people but there are many players in the league who don't enjoy them. I think the net effect would be fewer overall teams.
That being said, I can undertand why we don't have more than 4 people from another team playing togehter as the same team could essentailly be entered in both time slots.
I think there will be some interesting discussion at the captains meeting.
Cheers,
Randy |
|
|
|
| Mark Lyon wrote: | | You don't mention why you feel there should be caps on players? Is it an issue that affects multiple teams or just 1 or maybe 2? |
More and more, lower division teams are becoming re-hashes of high-level players. A completely synthetic example: If a C team roster of 16 players has 12 players from B, can it really be called a C-level team?
Caps on upper-level players will mean that:
- Teams within divisions will become more evenly matched. In B, B2, and D this year there were teams with only one win out of 10 games (.100 winning %). In C there was one team with one win and one team with no wins. In all divisions there is a huge spread in winning % between the top and bottom teams... in C this year it was from 1.000 to 0.000!
- Evenly matched games are more fun and exciting. Teams who win every game by huge margins will get tired of it. Teams who get slaughtered 80+% of the time also get tired of it.
- People who want to play on two teams can still do so. I am in the same category. But...
- It will encourage recruitment of new players to the game - and therefore help our league to grow - because, if you want to play on two teams, there can only be six players from the higher level. The rest of the roster will have to be filled out with other players.
| Mark Lyon wrote: |
If any team, regardless of division, feels that they can't compete with that division then they should drop a division. For the most part it is up to the team to decide what division they should be in, not the league. Only in very unusual circumstances should a league step in and dictate what teams play where and statistically speaking there aren't any teams in that boat this year (i.e. teams that severely overwhelm others in that division). The league is responsible for the layout of divisions and number of teams, which may have to be addressed in C due to the number of teams.
|
Every year teams who win their division are supposed to move up, however this has not always happened (eg. in 2010 DSO won B but did not move up to A in 2011)
Also, for the last few years teams have been asked to volunteer to move up or down divisions in order to balance the number of teams. That hasn't happened so we've had too many or uneven numbers in C and the B/B2 split.
| Mark Lyon wrote: |
You also mention C and D having stacked teams, in my opinion they are the closest matched divisions. D has the closest records amongst all the teams compared to any other division, if there is a "stacked" team, it sure doesn't show in the standings.
|
The winning percentage spread in C was from 0.000 to 1.000, and in D was from 0.100 to 0.700.
In 2012, the winning percentage spread in C was 0.000 to 1.000, and in D was from 0.000 to 0.700.
In 2011, C's spread was from 0.111 to 1.000, and in D the spread was from 0.125 to 0.875.
It was very similar for B division in the last three years as well.
(I am calculating this as wins/games played, which ignores ties).
IMHO, if these were closely matched divisions, then the winning percentage spread would be tighter. If there are other ideas about how to measure this I'm open to them.
| Mark Lyon wrote: |
The ONLY problem with C (outside of the stupid playoff scheduling mistake, which is another discussion) is that there are so many teams so you don't play everyone, it can lead to misleading records. The more this division grows, the more it will become an issue.
|
I agree with you there. There are constrictions with the length of the league (Victoria day - Labour day) and the fact that we only play one day a week.
| Mark Lyon wrote: |
I play in a couple other sports and leagues and usually the division will say something like "If you have 8 advanced players, a few new players, a few average players than play in this division. If you have mostly new players then play in this division. " but they are guidelines and are not enforced. If you get destroyed in a division then you decide if you want to move down to a lower division and be competitive, or suck it up and get destroyed each game which unless you are a sucker for punishment is usually only because you want to say you play in a higher division and feel it matters.
|
That's more guidance and freedom than we've had so far, I think. |
|
|
|
I too have thought that it could turn into competitive and recreational instead of A/B/C/D.
Remember that right now the two-teamers (pun #1) can play on A and B or D, B and A or C, or C and B or D (because A&C play at the same time, as do B&D). If A & B became "competitive" and C & D became "recreational" then people who play in both divisions now wouldn't be able to continue on their teams. You can't make everyone happy.
Ultimately (pun #2), we want to encourage growth in the sport in our area (right?), and that has to happen by bringing in and making room for new players. It will be difficult to achieve this if all the experienced people play together on the same teams.
| Kevin McLeod wrote: | | Hopefully we get lots of captains at the meeting so we can have a nice polite discussion. |
And I was all ready to bring my torch and pitchfork!  |
|
|
|
Just cause...
I would like to add my thoughts on a few reasons to switch to an upper level cap as Sandy is proposing.
1) Balances skill level within a division as teams can't pull in 11 A's vs a team with 4 A's when playing in B. It's a B division. And yes, there are differences in players at any level...who cares. You play in A, you are an A player. I don't know how that can be difficult to understand. The B captains (C, D, etc) will then decide if they want to use up one of their 6 spots to have you play on their team if you incorrectly seeded yourself in an upper level team (filling a team...see point #4).
2) 4-player cross over eliminated, because clearly we had issues this year. Imposing a 6 upper level limit could then allow a removal of the 4-player cross over limit. My opinion is that would aid captains in managing players...my opinion based on personal experience with no hard data to back that up.
3) Help players improve and move up divisions, by distributing upper level players across more teams in the lower levels would facilitate that by making the steps in average play level between divisions more distinguished. Let's face it...the difference between A and B is minimal...but between B and C is quite large. That might play a part in the large C division and small A division.
4) To expand on my point 3, I would think we could also open up the substitution rule a little. I am sure the league could quite easily add a feature to the website that would allow players to be added to rosters as subs only...and the games they play tracked. Subs can play up to 3 games in an upper level (never down). Again, this facilities improvement of the league, but also has the added benefit of filling teams on poor attendance days (which there were way too many of this year). The argument against this is tracking efforts by captains. You don't have to use subs...just an option.
Having said all of this, we have to remember that it is a league policy not to cater to people who wish to play on two teams (I am one just for the record). Decisions should not be made for people just to play with their other friends on a second team. Rather the league and it's players need to determine the goals for the league as a whole, and build policies to achieve those. I hope the goals include developing an environment upon which to learn and grow. I believe some of the steps above would create that environment. |
|
|
|
I would like to put out there that player rankings need to change from a,b,c,d to a number system based on skill, speed, player experience and touring experience.
This number can be tampered with. I think John Hassell was a 5 out of 10 for a number of years. It gives you a better indicator of the talent pool. It should be updated once a season if it changes. Should be editable by administration, and able to lock people out of their setting if they wish to be extremely dishonest about it.
Personally I think capping player experience on a team is a bad idea, as I believe it stops friends from playing together and over all stunts personal, team and league growth.
The league has started to expand into week nights which is a nice thing. It would be nice to learn if it helps other people join the sport.
I am a HUGE fan of Red and Blue leagues. Has anyone done a poll to see what framework other leagues our size are using?
|
|
|
|
| LP wrote: |
You cannot ask the league to limit the number of upper division player just so your team can win. Perhaps is more a question of being in the right division.
|
LP, it almost sounds like you are saying that we want to change things because we are sore losers, and I hope I am mistaken.
This is not about our team's record. It is about levelling things out across the divisions (admittedly, the B, C, and D divisions mainly) so that newer teams and players aren't crushed like ants under the shoes of which are composed largely of competitive-level players, and about making room for players who are improving and moving up into more competitive divisions.
|
|
|
|
I would get behind Kevin's Red/Blue completely. But I would like to make some suggestions, if it is actually going to be proposed:
1) Times are set - a 5pm league and a 7pm league. This helps families, cottage goers, shift workers, etc.
2) Crossover is irrelevant - you want the same 14 players in both leagues...so be it. Who cares! It would be boring...but that is the teams decision.
3) Ladder it - no two divisions (competitive/rec) in each color. That just creates the same problem we are debating. Set 3 experience levels for new teams so we can decide where to slot them in the beginning of a year. Otherwise, just pick any ladder system that provides a good variety of games (not 3 teams rotating all year). Do not put this up for league vote (the style of ladder). You will get a thousand options and nobody will be happy.
I think this would simplify things for captains as well. Great suggestion! |
|
|
|
I play on an A team and a B1 team, one team was last in its division, and one was first in their division. I feel that there is no team that we played against this season in either division that we could never beat or never lose to. I though both divisions were the most competitive they have ever been. That is my 2 cents anyway on A and B1.
After scanning the standings, 75% - 80% of both C and D teams went at least 4 wins-6 losses which means they were very competitive with a chance to win each week. That seems very even to me.
I do not play in C and D but Sandy and Victor seem to think its higher level players playing in lower leagues that is causing the problem. I do not agree with this at all. First of all there is no way an A player can play in C due to timing. I scanned all D team rosters and only noticed Kevin Macleod as the only A player in D and I know he is just helping a team get organized, probably an individual team, though I am not sure. So A players are not the problem. B players cannot play in D so maybe the big problem is B players playing in C. However when I looked at the rosters of the top 3 teams in C I did not see a ton of B players. Gotta Dump which went undefeated in C(10-0) seems to my quick scan of rosters, to only have 2 B players). Kudos to them for a strong season but this is not a team that is stacked with tons of higher level players, they just appear to be a great team that works well together. 2nd place Huckin Hustlers(8-2) had 4 players that play in B, and the other team that tied for 2nd, Huckamaniacs(8-2) appear to have 1 lady that played in B1, and 2 players in B2.(I am sure there are B players I missed, if so I apologize). All these teams have had very successful seasons but are not stacked with amazing players, trying to crush new players.
I think that the cap on players will not solve these problems at all, especially if the top teams in C are not even over the limit you want to impose. How is that going to help things at all?
The only problem that seems to exist to me is B2. Personally I am not sure why it exists. Clearly from playing eachother several times, 1 team is ready to move up to B1 and one team needs to move down to C. The other two teams are then left with a tough choice but there really isn’t enough teams for that division to exist, let alone have parity. Is the last place team in B2 really so good that it would dominate C and couldn’t move down? That seems pretty unlikely to me.
Anyways, I think that A and B1 are the best they have been, and I see no evidence that this plan will help the C or D division(which look pretty even to me anyway). B2 teams will need to decide what is best for them going forward.
This seems to me to be a solution that will actually help very few teams, maybe the bottom team in B2, C and D and will cost the league many teams having to fold, or players not being able to play with friends or being able to find a second team at all.
I also think its important to remember that we play a competitive sport and there will be winners and losers. I have never seen a sports league where everyone went 5 wins and 5 losses and it was perfect. I also think it is unrealistic to expect it too. Teams always have the option to move down a division if they are not competitive so that they can get more balanced games. I think this is more a case of a few teams being in the wrong division. They can always move down for a year and then move back up if they wish.
|
|
|
|
| Mark Lyon wrote: | | This depends, what makes a "B" player in your mind, is it purely someone that has played in B, even if it is above their true skill level? |
If you are playing in B, you are a B player. It took me years to develop and improve before I felt comfortable playing at that level.
For example, take a group of players that play on a B team and a C team. Now, their B team loses every game year in year out, yet their C team is competitive in C year in year out, what division should they be in?
|
What division they play in is up to them. Personally, I wouldn't consider playing in A for the sole reason that I don't feel that I'm good or fast enough. If those players feel that they are up to the level of B league play, then they are B players.
Also, the group can be no more than four players under the current house rules. I think that those four players would have to be wicked awesome and play virtually every shift of every game in order to skew things like that. Wouldn't really be team or spirited IMHO.
The win percentage statistics don't provide adequate info to make decisions or changes really and just seems bias. When statistics/test scores/quotes etc are compared on a curve like that, often the top and bottom ones are removed to get a better idea of where the majority of the population actually is (in this case teams). In C division using that formula you only compare 2 teams (1st and last) and it ignores the other 12 in between, I don't think it gives an accurate view of the whole division. Add onto that the fact that the division results have been different over the last several years (the top and bottom teams were different), its pointless. If it was the same results year after year, that's different.
|
You're right, the outliers are usually discarded. Time for me to go back to stats 101... |
|
|
|
Come on Dave and LP. While I know Hammer enjoys the challenge of playing teams that we shouldn't be competing with, because we like the challenge, most teams don't like losing all year. And if we look at your roster, we can hardly call your team a B team:
Randy Aitken Past A
Tianna Argiro
Kieran Bliss A
Lauren Bliss A
LP Blouin A Yarr
Natalie Bradley A
Gill Crosbie
Ryan Crosbie
Dave Draper A Yarr
Kristy Kotarba
Justine MacIsaac A
Ken Magill A
Lyndsey McPhillips A Yarr
Andrew Niven
Lee Patterson A
Cailin Peever
Alex Sisson A Yarr
Junko Sisson A Yarr
Brent Walker
(I know not all Yarr now...but you get the point)
Going back to my earlier point, the league has to decide what it is trying to achieve. If it doesn't care about divisions with a discernable difference in average skill level, than keep it the way things are and let's move on. If it wants to foster an opportunity for teams to move up, and develop, than it needs to provide steps stones to lead the way.
And yes...I am talking about B exclusively at this point. A is A...so no issue (other than there aren't enough players moving through the system to increase it's size). And I don't play in C or D...so no comment. |
|
|
|
For sure Mike, we definitely have more A players than your team. But many B1 teams do. B1 teams are all over the board.
A.M.P. - 10 A players
B.C - 11
Drop The HAmmer - 4
DUC Dynasty - 5
Hardcore UFO's - 9
Highland Huckers - 9
Landsharks - 12
Slings - 6
Your team is a perfect example of a team that was in B2 and moved up because it wanted a challenge and in my opinion you guys have improved dramatically in the last year. I think you definitely belong in B1 but if your team was really upset you could totally make a decision to move back.
The new rule would actually prevent growth as well because if people choose to move up a level and are one of 6 people on a lower team they would have to quit the team they were currently playing on. Or captains would be forced to cut players they may have been playing with for years in order to get under the cap.I feel that this would actually make people hesitant to move up higher divisions. |
|
|
|
Not a comparison Dave. I am content having the fewest, and playing with something to prove...even if we never do.
My point was that when more than half your team (and the three others that you listed) have more than half a team of A players...is it really a B team. This again I think supports Kevin's red/blue idea (although I think we could have better names than that).
And you do bring up good points about players resisting the move up, and captains having to cut. Like any idea that has been presented over the years, there are pros and cons. I wish there was an idea that achieved all purposes...but that might be difficult to find. |
|
|
|
Wait, LP, you CAN'T throw the disc to yourself? Man, you just shattered all of my opinions of how great you really are.  |
|
|
|
| David Draper wrote: |
The new rule would actually prevent growth as well because if people choose to move up a level and are one of 6 people on a lower team they would have to quit the team they were currently playing on. Or captains would be forced to cut players they may have been playing with for years in order to get under the cap.I feel that this would actually make people hesitant to move up higher divisions. |
You're assuming that this Jane or John Doe wants to move up AND play on two teams - not everybody is a total Ultimate junkie (guilty as charged)
It was so difficult to find room on a B team two years ago that we had to create our own ("Form a team.... Or Die Trying!") And now it is fairly full of folks like us who were looking to move up but couldn't find a spot. |
|
|
|
So is that a new suggestion? No longer a, b1, b2, c, d? We are moving to b, c1, c2, d, e? This is getting too complicated.
Kevin, does the league have a mandate under which it has historically made these types of decisions? Something against which the decisions can be evaluated? I know at past captains meetings it has really just come down to the wants of the captains, without really collective big picture thinking (maybe that is a triage that is happening behind the scenes before we arrive). Without this... All of these discussions are really just personal wants.
Maybe that can focus this and other discussions bound to happen. |
|
|
|
| Sandy Rehorst wrote: | Okay kids, let's look at some data and people can make up their minds for themselves.
These numbers are from this year's rosters as they have been locked.
There are 149 double players in the league. 85 play in A/B, 39 play in B/C, 23 play C/D and 2 play A/D...... "
|
This isn't accurate. My team is Kaboom in the D division. I played in A division for about 7-8 years (back before I think we even had a D division) before I started a new team in C and eventually moved it to D. A bunch of the players on Kaboom have played in A but are not currently on 2 teams. I consider them A level players but are only registered on this team so will show up as D level in your stats.
My team is 1 example of having a bunch of A level players that wont show up in your data.
There are so many variables, for every game played, that will throw off statistics that it, IMO, isn't worth spending the time to look at them.
Blue/red ladder is my vote! |
|
|
|
| LP wrote: | | I remember hearing you saying you wanted a trophy or something for B2 as well... |
... that was because the winner of B2 didn't get any prize in 2012, but all other division winners did. That was an oversight I believe, which is why it was raised at last year's captain's meeting. Only fair, no?
|
|
|
|
In my experience, which pales in comparison to many here, most teams don't form thinking "we have to win this year, what A players can we find?" but rather "Steve is my buddy, I am going to ask if he wants to be on our team".
I think this is why you see large numbers of "double agents" around some of Durham's best players and coaches (LP, Bill, Dave, Alex, Kristy & Millar, Megs & Bob, Kevin, Beatty, Kelly... the list goes on). It's not that players like these are hoarding top level talent on their teams, but more likely that players develop their games by playing with these people, and then want to continue playing with them after they become "A level" players. They're also probably more inclined to "catch the bug" and want to play on two teams.
I feel like a bit of this thread has a tone that's criticizing the people who captain these strong teams, when they often are in fact some of the key "builders" of ultimate in Durham.
3 to 5 years from now Sandy may well have a dozen A players wanting to be on her B team because she brought them through the junior program (a little long-term for my tastes, but a brilliant plan).
Anyways, about the proposal - there are some administrative headaches that could come from imposing a limit like this.
With 85 A players wanting to play 2 games, this limit would likely either be:
1) Forcing A players to drop down to D. I doubt many players would elect this option, but it could help foster development - or it could lead to some kind of Evil-Empire-of-the-D-division (EE-of-the-DD 2014 Team Name Reserved).
2) Creating a B division with more teams, but the same number of players. This is the most likely result. It would require more fields, but have fewer players per team - thereby increasing the likelihood that teams default or don't have enough women. A league admin could maybe offer more insight, but I imagine this would create a bigger problem then the issue it's trying to resolve.
|
|
|
|
| Michael Sigsworth wrote: | I would get behind Kevin's Red/Blue completely. But I would like to make some suggestions, if it is actually going to be proposed:
1) Times are set - a 5pm league and a 7pm league. This helps families, cottage goers, shift workers, etc.
2) Crossover is irrelevant - you want the same 14 players in both leagues...so be it. Who cares! It would be boring...but that is the teams decision.
3) Ladder it - no two divisions (competitive/rec) in each color. That just creates the same problem we are debating. Set 3 experience levels for new teams so we can decide where to slot them in the beginning of a year. Otherwise, just pick any ladder system that provides a good variety of games (not 3 teams rotating all year). Do not put this up for league vote (the style of ladder). You will get a thousand options and nobody will be happy.
I think this would simplify things for captains as well. Great suggestion! |
I'd dig this. I actually suggested an almost identical format back in the Great Ladder Debate of 2012, and still think it would work. (http://durhamultimateclub.com/league/forum.aspx?Topic=39050&Action=6)
A little more off-the-board, another option could be to run the A division, and then rather than the B division, run a "competitive scrimmage" field or two. I don't know if Durham's touring teams would be interested in getting involved or not, but it could be good for development and socializing, and the fields could occasionally be used to run practices or clinics. 3 or 4 fields would be good enough for the 85 or so players looking to get in two games. |
|
|
|
| Victor Rehorst wrote: |
... that was because the winner of B2 didn't get any prize in 2012, but all other division winners did. That was an oversight I believe, which is why it was raised at last year's captain's meeting. Only fair, no?
|
Hardcore UFOs got $50 for winning B2 season. B1 + B2 were combined for playoff tournament, and gave us the confidence to play in B1. |
|
|
|
| Mark Lyon wrote: | But it seems that any of you familiar with the Red/Blue league format think it is a good idea.
Since I am not familiar with how that works I have some questions..
With 20 teams in a division, why is the split 8 teams in the upper end and 12 in the lower (as opposed to 10/10 for example)? (is it a pre-seed for the playoffs?)
Do you move up or down between upper red/lower red through the season or is it based on the previous years ranking or something?
Are they completely separate or do teams advance from one into the other?
Is one of them a competitive and one a more casual group?
Right now with A and C playing together and B and D together time wise and only playing teams in the same division, it has the natural separation of skill levels so that an "A" team isn't playing a "D" team. How are the different level teams grouped so that they play each other and not teams that are way above/below them? |
My suggestion on how this would work is that we would have RED and BLUE only, no sub-divisions because you are right that just gets us back to a form of A, B, C and D. Every X number of weeks you would block teams (suggest this so league admin isn't writing a new schedule every week, but rather in blocks...think a little easier for them), and run a round robin. Based on ranking and win/loss point differential teams would be reseeded after the X weeks so that the following block of weeks teams would face some new teams and some similar teams, but still all reasonably competitive games. This would be the regular season.
Now what we lose is regular season division winners, but that could easily be replaced with some other award categories (over all winner, most improved, best top from the bottom team (last place), etc. Add some fun categories in here that recognize winning isn't everything. We then take the final seeding into a SINGLE (I said it) playoff weekend and you can have sub-divisions there if you wish (only so much time if you have 20 teams in RED/BLUE each).
This means no locking teams into upper or lower RED...which from experience I can say is horrible for those who get on the wrong side of that equation.
I would think the make up of RED vs BLUE (competitive vs rec) doesn't matter because of the ladder concept. Just pick the time that best works for you...or both!
I didn't like the ladder concept for indoor because we just don't have enough teams. But this approach above was implemented on Tuesdays and seemed to work very well. I don't think I heard any significant complaints. Expanding it with more teams I think would only improve it.
The more I think about this the more excited I get. I think all teams get the chance to improve at the pace they can, "stacking" teams is irrelevant since only they suffer from a boring play schedule (until the league grows to 40 teams in each division). I would also think that we could create a good substitution rule that would help address lower summer attendance and still keep things relatively stable within the rankings.
Still saying GREAT IDEA Kevin! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
To my knowledge, most other clubs wind up hosting different divisions on different nights of the week. I have not heard of another club that had run exclusively on Sundays for multiple divisions, so I think this is unique to DUC. Caveat: I have not done a great deal of research into scheduling.
I think we are mostly unique in providing so many games on a single day. For me, there aren't any complaints about scheduling.
From my understanding, most clubs start with 1 night a week, then add another down the road. They try and say different nights have different competition levels, but I think they are all pretty close in reality.
|
|
|
|
I think the premise of increasing competitiveness by limiting A/B players on B,C,D teams is flawed and I think there is a good illustration of why from last season.
Based on the results of the 2012 Fall league, which limits groups of people signing up together to 4 players (note that it is highly likely that A/B players will group together when joining the league) with the remaining players being randomly distributed within the team (assuming there are no cynics out there), the results were as follows:
1 The Overzealous High Fivers 9 0 2
2 (7) Ron Burgundy? 8 1 2
3 9 Fall Navy 2012 8 1 2
4 The Incredible Hucks 8 0 3
5 Up in Smoke (12 Grey) 7 2 2
6 Get Juiced! (2 Fall Orange 2012) 7 0 4
7 Tonnes of Phun 5 0 6
8 Gold Diggers 4 1 6
9 RedRuM 3 1 7
10 Dark Matter 2 0 9
11 Lime-Cat Invasion Force 1 0 10
12 3 Fall White 2012 1 0 10
There is little to no difference in the breakdown of results from a 2012 Fall season which should be looked at as a strong representative sample of what is trying to be accomplished via the limiting of A/B players with the regular season results of either the 2013 Summer B1 or C in which the described "stacking of teams" occurred.
It seems to me that if your team has fewer A or B players on it you should simply recruit them, practice with your team to increase their ability to compete, relax about it and play anyway or position your team accordingly within the appropriate division.
Primus Sucks
|
|