|
Post by lastdamnation on Apr 3, 2013 16:06:00 GMT
Have you considered putting a basic structure in place which is easily adaptable to the number of teams, rather than just winging it each season? It's like you assumed you would have <=80 teams, and now you've completely changed things and so been "forced" to relegate so many teams.
Also, I thought you only put new teams in above the bottom division "if there was a space".
|
|
|
Post by schmack on Apr 3, 2013 16:35:26 GMT
Have you considered putting a basic structure in place which is easily adaptable to the number of teams, rather than just winging it each season? It's like you assumed you would have <=80 teams, and now you've completely changed things and so been "forced" to relegate so many teams. Also, I thought you only put new teams in above the bottom division "if there was a space". thank you for joining in luke, and being as patronising as ever we never thought of this i suppose you are correct ;D and we should have an "easily adaptable structure" that will account for every single permutation of number of teams entering and exactly who will be playing for each and every one of those teams, taking into account: number of teams folding and every permutation of who those teams will be, in advance. and the players who played for those teams number of new teams entering and every permutation of who those teams will be, in advance, including the individuals that will be playing for those teams every permutation of who those new individuals will be, and who they will be playing with, in every circumstance, in the future, from all the players in the CAPL plus those who will join in the future that we have not yet been made aware of i can only apologise for our short sightedness on this matter thank you for pointing it out suggestion - the only "easily adaptable" way to achieve this is put all new teams in the bottom division.........sigh discuss...........
|
|
|
Post by Craig Benstock on Apr 3, 2013 18:06:29 GMT
Have you considered putting a basic structure in place which is easily adaptable to the number of teams, rather than just winging it each season? It's like you assumed you would have <=80 teams, and now you've completely changed things and so been "forced" to relegate so many teams. Also, I thought you only put new teams in above the bottom division "if there was a space". Do you know of such a system and could you please describe it?
|
|
|
Post by lastdamnation on Apr 3, 2013 19:40:00 GMT
Ok, so a reasonably simple example would have your top 5 divisions of 10, but with div 4/5 being equal (i.e. 4a/4b). Then below that tier you could place the remainder of the teams, and simply adjust the number of division 5s according to the no. of entries. So for example we currently have 82 teams and would be left with 4 divisions of 8, if we drop below 80 we have 3 divisions etc. With 82 teams, promotion and relegation could work like this: 1: 2down 2: 2up/2down 3: 2up/3down 4a/b: 1up/seconds playoff/2down 5a/b/c/d: 1up With 80 teams, you could have: 1: 2down 2: 2up/2down 3: 2up/3down 4a/b: 1up/seconds playoff/3down 5a/b/c: 2up But obviously you can easily tweak these slightly depending on what is deemed appropriate. In terms of assigning teams to equivalent divisions, initally can be done by taking equal numbers from the original divisions: e.g. 5xdiv4 in div 4a etc., and from each season onwards placing the pool randomly in the divisions (or by location etc.), thus giving lower division sides different opponents each season. It will easier to put new teams at the bottom if there's no space, since then they won't need to gain many promotions to get into a "competitive" league. If there's a space available, it's easy to promote teams accordingly. No need to relegate teams outside the relegation spaces.
|
|
|
Post by Steve McCann on Apr 3, 2013 19:48:42 GMT
That appears to be a pretty sound system. From your post at the top of this page I must admit I was sceptical, however that is why I'm not the chairman of the pool league. Steve Mac immediately congratulated you on your view and I echo his sentiments that we are apologetic for our short-sightedness.
Good work!
|
|
|
Post by monkey on Apr 4, 2013 5:48:45 GMT
Yo
Interesting idea Luke. However, we vowed to try to avoid divisions of 8 if at all possible. We did it about 4 years ago and two teams dropped out leaving a division of 6. It was not good. Can you tweak it to include a premier division of 10 and the rest with 9? My other concern is that you would have current div 4 teams playing in the same division as current div 7 teams. This may be too wide a gap in abilities?
|
|
|
Post by schmack on Apr 4, 2013 9:11:03 GMT
ok at last a useful and constructive post from someone.
thanks luke that is a helpful start
as ever there are little things that throw a spanner in the works but with a few more helpful suggestions maybe we can have something that is better (or at least less bad!)
the difference in strength of teams that monkey pointed out would also be a concern for me for example
keep the ideas coming!
|
|
smackmyballs
County Player
“When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.”
Posts: 428
|
Post by smackmyballs on Apr 4, 2013 12:43:51 GMT
Howabout awarding trophies for teams finishing in 3rd place? If teams are tied on points, head to heads, matches won and frame difference wouldn't a playoff be a better solution than placing them in alphabetical order? IMO the points and promotion / demotion system is good as it is. The idea proposed above could get confusing. As for the placing of new teams, the committee do a good job in a difficult situation. If a new team of uknown players enters they should be placed in bottom division, if their players are already affiliated with the CAPL I trust the committee to place them in a league that's competetive to them (including prem..eg CSC A/Qpower).
|
|
|
Post by Darren Edmonds on Apr 4, 2013 16:22:32 GMT
If teams are tied on points, head to heads, matches won and frame difference wouldn't a playoff be a better solution than placing them in alphabetical order? The CAPL don't award positions based on alphabetical order. However, the stats site needs some repeatable way to order teams at every point of the season (including before it's started), so alphabetical order is the fallback. I could hide this if players think it's confusing.
|
|
|
Post by Darren Edmonds on Apr 4, 2013 16:51:32 GMT
I'd be in favour of a system that contained a certain amount of fixed leagues, 5x10, 6x10 whatever the committee think is consistently easy to fill. Promotion/relegation would always be top 2, bottom 2, unless teams drop out which gives more promotions, never more relegations.
With the remaining teams, create a challenger/feeder league which promotes 2 teams each season into the main league. This would be far more flexible with the emphasis on getting teams/players playing pool. Therefore, a single division of 20 playing each team once works just as well as divisions of 9 or 10 with home/away fixtures. Friendly matches could even be worked into the fixtures to ensure teams/players are playing pool even if their division is slightly smaller than others.
Then the new teams. If there is space to put a new team into the main division that reflects their ability, put them in. If not, put them in the challenger division and make them work their way up. There is opportunity to jump multiple divisions in future seasons as teams drop out. It's not really pot luck either, players/committee have some idea which teams will be dropping out (and what spaces are available) before registration evening.
Would this cause lots of CSC (A) / CSC (QPower) scenarios? Maybe a few, but is that really an issue? Swapping 2 teams isn't something the committee could enforce, but it resulted in a satisfactory outcome (apart from looking underhand). It wouldn't be difficult to spot teams offering to drop to divisions that were clearly of a lower ability.
The suggestion above still has flaws, but I think players would be more willing to accept new teams having to work their way up (knowing that in advance of entering) than a team being relegated when they though they were safe.
|
|
smackmyballs
County Player
“When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.”
Posts: 428
|
Post by smackmyballs on Apr 5, 2013 9:58:29 GMT
If teams are tied on points, head to heads, matches won and frame difference wouldn't a playoff be a better solution than placing them in alphabetical order? The CAPL don't award positions based on alphabetical order. However, the stats site needs some repeatable way to order teams at every point of the season (including before it's started), so alphabetical order is the fallback. I could hide this if players think it's confusing. So how is position decided if all's equall? (quite unlikely I know). Quote from top of 2013 tables page: Teams ordered by >points, >head 2 head frames won, >matches won, >frames won, <frames lost, <name
|
|
|
Post by Darren Edmonds on Apr 5, 2013 10:25:31 GMT
Latest CAPL constitution, section 17.
3. League placing will be determined by awarded points, followed by head-to-head results, and then matches won, and then frames won. 4. If teams remain tied, the league placing will be decided by a play-off. 5. Play-offs will be held at a neutral venue, on a date to be decided by the committee.
The stats site can't account for a playoff, so if one is needed the table sorting would be switched to 'manual' and someone would have to move teams up/down as required.
The description of the ordering used on the stats site is never going to match what is written in the CAPL constitution while playoffs are involved.
|
|
|
Post by fbi on Apr 5, 2013 20:16:47 GMT
Any chance of getting fixtures put up please?? Ditto!
|
|
|
Post by Darren Edmonds on Apr 5, 2013 21:45:46 GMT
Any chance of getting fixtures put up please?? Fixtures should be restored to the site over the weekend. Captains were also emailed them a few days ago. Rethink .... division ordering shouldn't be confusing, so I've completely hidden what the stats site is doing internally. It's been replaced with customisable text in which the CAPL committee can write whatever they choose. For now I've populated it with points breakdown and ordering definition from the constitution.
|
|
|
Post by monkey on Apr 5, 2013 21:48:08 GMT
Yo
The fixtures will be online once the stats site has been updated. In the meantime, if anyone wishes to supply me with an email address then i will send them to you.
|
|
|
Post by MalteseMauler on Apr 6, 2013 11:24:26 GMT
Any chance of getting fixtures put up please?? Fixtures should be restored to the site over the weekend. Captains were also emailed them a few days ago. Rethink .... division ordering shouldn't be confusing, so I've completely hidden what the stats site is doing internally. It's been replaced with customisable text in which the CAPL committee can write whatever they choose. For now I've populated it with points breakdown and ordering definition from the constitution. dont forget to add the division 8 thread
|
|