|
|
Because it has been awhile since Kevin has heard from me, I thought I may as well start this season off early.
"Modified ladder" does not fill me with confidence. I would have initially thought that means Tuesday replication, but with 10 teams that won't be the case. I know when this discussion was initially proposed it was going to be a ladder for the entire Sunday league (16 teams). Are we able to get more details?
I know as a member of Drop the Hammer, we have a much greater interest in playing a variety of teams then we do in always having a close game. We learn against the better teams, we practice against those that aren't as strong as us (wherever they are), and we apply against those that are at our level.
Going 22 weeks (or whatever that number is) playing the same 4-5 teams isn't very interesting. |
|
|
|
Michael, nothing is ever easy is it? There were 7 teams in Rec and 9 teams in Competitive. In order to even out the divisions and avoid byes something had to be done. Since the Rec teams had signed up for Rec and wanted to play for their own championship it didn't seem very fair to just suck them into the bottom of the competitive division. The Turf Warriors agreed to move up so long as they did not have to play the top teams and so that meant that the schedule would have to run on a modified ladder of some sort. If you wish to take charge of the scheduling to ensure that your team gets a variety of teams to play I would love for you to do that. But be aware that the Tuesday league set up would not work for the Sunday league as the Tuesday league has byes.
If anyone else has ideas on the easiest or fairest way to schedule a modified ladder to ensure variety and good competitive games for 10 teams please feel free to send me an email.
Cheers. |
|
|
|
Doing some quick math, I think the answer would have been (assuming you permit from the get go uneven number of teams and want no byes), to have a double header each week. Don't think there would be a huge number of players complaining about that.
But I will give some thought to the current situation. What do Turf Warriors deem to be the top teams?
As for competitive games, I feel last year we had competitive games top to bottom of the league...on any given week. |
|
|
|
| A double header would mean more time slots and more money paid by teams. And I'm pretty sure there would be several teams that would not want to play two games on a Sunday. And to be clear, we have 16 teams which is an even number, the problem was we had 7 wanting rec and 9 wanting comp. Since your team will likely be in the middle of the pack you will likely see more variety then the top teams. Last year we had 8 teams in comp and this year we have 10 so things should be better. |
|
|
|
Rather than send you and email - I'll post here, so Mike can have some more fun with it.
The ladder with 10 teams is easy: rather than schedule 4 weeks round robin (which was done in the past) and then rebalance, you (Mike  ) can schedule any number of weeks into the future, round robin. The amount of variance that you'd like vs the balance is controlled by the number of weeks out you go.
So for maximum variance, go 10 weeks out (effectively a full round robin, all winter long).
A good balance might be 6, or 8.
The subset of teams that don't play each other in the same period are scheduled to play each other at the same time. For example, with 10 teams, and 6 week rebalance:
- 1-4 all play each other at the same time that 10-7 play each other
|
|
|
|
| *correction: on a 6 week rotation 1-2 are scheduled at the same time as 9-10, and that's the only constraint. |
|
|
|
Oh how I have missed a good rant from Sigs. I lay awake most nights bored out of my skull just wishing I would see him post again. It seems like forever ago that his words captivated me on here. And now I see that dreams really do come true! Thank you Mr. Sigs (I see this is your avatar now)
I wonder.. since comp is trying a ladder (much to 's chagrin), I wonder if it might benefit all teams to try one complete ladder as mentioned above, rather than rec round robin/comp ladder. This would integrate upper rec teams with lower comp and give them a taste for the competition. Speaking for Team Awesome, we had a rough start in comp when we dipped our toes in but it turned out to be the best move for us as playing the upper teams has helped us to step up and we have competed well. I am extremely proud of our team and I'm talking about a team with multiple 35+ 40+ and *ahem* maybe possibly a 50+ player. My point being if we can compete so can some younger teams. I realize the drawback of playing fewer teams, but like anything else, we don't know until we try.
In any case props to the league for trying something new once again (and once again, much to Mr. Sig's chagrin.. Sorry Sigs.. yunno Manny luvs ya  )
And for the record, like Mr. I too like playing a variety of teams/players, but as Kevin said, it's never easy (to keep everyone happy)
Manny out! |
|
|
|
As long as my competitive team doesn't have to play my rec team i'm all for the full Sunday ladder. I realize I run the risk of both teams playing at the same time....like today already....but I don't want them playing each other. I know there's quite a few others who would be in the same situation as me.
If that's not going to happen then i'd rather all comp teams play everyone equal amounts. |
|
|
|
| Winter indoor has only been rec/comp the past 2 years and I believe this is the 3rd season. Previously All teams played everyone else. For this reason the majority of players only play on one team per day winter indoors. I could be wrong but I'd put it in the 90-95% + range. I understand the frustration if someone plays on 2 teams and they meet but don't think that should be a factor in deciding the structure due to the numbers. I don't mean to sound unsympathetic.. just feel it's fair due to the numbers in my opinion. |
|
|
|
No I agree it should be for the majority of what people want, I just would've liked it if this was decided upon before the season started. The chances of both my teams meeting more than once isn't likely, or at least it shouldn't be.
I still don't see why we can't just run a full 10 team ladder with all the comp teams equally playing everyone. That's really what everyone wants other than the turf warriors who were the last to send in their cheque for the rec league by the way. |
|
|
|
| Kyle, we only have 9 competitive teams and 7 recreational and there are no teams willing to move up or down to balance them. As for playing on two teams, no matter which way we run it you run the chance of your teams playing at the same time. Playing against your other team, however, could be a problem. Perhaps you just fake an injury that week and let it be decided without you, or you play one half with one team and the other with the second team. Hopefully it doesn't happen but if it does good luck with your decision. |
|
|
|
| Yeah I knew about the risk of both teams playing at the same time which is going to happen no matter what. Even if my teams play each other once I doubt it'll happen twice so I'm okay with this. So is a full 16 team ladder what we're going with? Is there any way you can elaborate more as to who each team is likely to face each week or how the ladder will play out? |
|