Relegation proposal

[Lefty]

I don't recall any top 2 team dropping out and personally i see little reason why they would. Its very unlikely that an unstable team would get so high in a division becasue ogf the 1 frame format meaning its not easy to win with only 4/5 players.

As for the Girton issue, i maybe mistaken but fairly confident they did. It maybe just before the stats site came into play or possibly around the start of it, was that area.

1 other point i'd like to throw out there is how many of the teams that do withdraw do you think could manage to get 3 players each week? Under current rules they can play with 3 players, and they did agree to fulfil fixtures when signing up to the league. Personally i'd say it was quite likely they could manage 3 players and therefore would not really justify a withdrawal, if that is the case then why shouldn't teams then get punished for that?

[dmiley]

Just thought the relegation clause seems to causing most trouble with this. Soulman pointed out a number of difficult 'Devil's Advocate' inconsistencies it brings up. Also, given it was meant to please both sides, it turns out nobody really likes it. It also makes it a lot messier as a rule, and significantly more complex- given it requires official date of withdrawal to be defined. Lefty, thanks for helping to persuade me of this.

With that in mind, I have decided to adjust my proposal to:

'If, after playing in one or more matches, a team withdraws from CAPL with games outstanding, they shall be deemed to have filled one of the two relegation spots for that division'

I will also email Monkey about this now.

[Soulman]

Jan 27, 2014 0:02:54 GMT dmiley said:

Just thought the relegation clause seems to causing most trouble with this. Soulman pointed out a number of difficult 'Devil's Advocate' inconsistencies it brings up. Also, given it was meant to please both sides, it turns out nobody really likes it. It also makes it a lot messier as a rule, and significantly more complex- given it requires official date of withdrawal to be defined. Lefty, thanks for helping to persuade me of this.

With that in mind, I have decided to adjust my proposal to:

'If, after playing in one or more matches, a team withdraws from CAPL with games outstanding, they shall be deemed to have filled one of the two relegation spots for that division'

I will also email Monkey about this now.

I think you and Lefty are right, that to leave out the position and date of withdrawal makes it more consistent.

However, although I have a lot of sympathy with the thinking, I am still not totally convinced that it is a good idea.

My reservation is that there is no telling where the folded team would have finished, so a team that deservedly finished second from bottom could escape relegation unjustly.

It also would not guarantee not going down, due to the re-organisation that has to happen every season, so it could be a bit academic on occasions.

If all of a teams results are removed and discounted due to it folding, then shouldn't its position also be discounted? Shouldn't it be as if the team had never entered?

I think the main injustice that is possible, but unlikely, under the current rules is that of a team folding then re-starting in the same division the following season.

It is unlikely, both because folded teams rarely enter the following season, and because if they did they would be treated as a new team.

However, it is possible, because if a team did re-enter, the committee could decide that the quality of their players merits joining their previous division.

I would support a rule proposal that where a team withdraws from the CAPL without completing its fixtures, then that team or any team with four or more players from that team, will only be permitted to rejoin the CAPL at least one division below the one that they failed to complete their fixtures in.

This would be a disincentive to withdrawing, which Lefty pointed out is absent at the moment, but would still leave the two worst teams in relegation spots, although with less teams in their division, they have a chance of staying in, depending on the re-org.

I do think that it would be much better if the folded team is removed entirely from the league tables, as the sight of them at the bottom does give rise to the feeling that they are in a relegation spot.

[dmiley]

I suppose, to stay up in a division of 9, should it be enough to finish in the top 7 or not in the bottom two?

I think the rule proposal is a good one, but I fear one for me is enough. Can't be too greedy...

[Lefty]

I am happy to second the amended proposal of Drew as i feel it is a fair proposal to all teams.

I do understand what Soulman is saying, but i feel that the biggest reason a team withdraws from a season is down to lack of players. As i've already said with the format we use its very hard to win matches consistantly with less than 6 players as you'd be looking to have the remaining 5 players all average around 60-63% to consistantly win matches, even higher if the number of players was only 4.

Because of this its pretty unlikely that a team above the bottom 2 will pull out, and i can't personally remember this happening off the top of my head, although it may have.

[welshyboyo]

Jan 27, 2014 0:02:54 GMT dmiley said:

Just thought the relegation clause seems to causing most trouble with this. Soulman pointed out a number of difficult 'Devil's Advocate' inconsistencies it brings up. Also, given it was meant to please both sides, it turns out nobody really likes it. It also makes it a lot messier as a rule, and significantly more complex- given it requires official date of withdrawal to be defined. Lefty, thanks for helping to persuade me of this.

With that in mind, I have decided to adjust my proposal to:

'If, after playing in one or more matches, a team withdraws from CAPL with games outstanding, they shall be deemed to have filled one of the two relegation spots for that division'

I will also email Monkey about this now.

I think with the change you've got it about right now and would be happy enough if this got passed. I think the committee have got reorganisation and other decisions roughly correct in the past, so leave them the leeway to do so in cases where teams re-enter and don't overcomplicate things.

[monkey]

Am I right in saying that the Jenny were not in the bottom two when they pulled out?

[Newbie]

No.