|
Post by monkey on Nov 18, 2012 8:14:10 GMT
Apologies for bypassing the swear filter. I hope you all understand it is just a giggle and it is "Mr" Norris
|
|
|
Post by Craig Benstock on Nov 18, 2012 9:06:28 GMT
IMO any rise in competition entry fees should reflect an increase in trophy costs and no more & it should be as cheap as possible to enter. Despite Mr.Ian's contradiction of wanting the pool league to be a place that can lead him to visit a variety of beer selling venues (as per comments in a previous thread) and remain as non-elitist as possible for the benefit of the enslaved citizens of the CAPL, whilst simultaneously being places that exist on his own personal list of places he wants to visit and that have 7 foot match quality supreme tables with a perfect weighted set of standard Aramith pool balls (including a non-spotted white ball) and traditional green cloth, I basically agree with his premise that the locations for the men's singles should probably be limited to central locations. The bottom line is to deal with the reality of the situation. Whilst it may in principle be right to offer all venues an equal opportunity to host competition, if in doing so it directly detriments the competition to a high enough degree, then it may make more sense to forego fairness and equality. Otherwise the competition may die a death and everybody will lose out. I do think that whatever decision is made, ensuring that the second round breaks down to 4, 8, 16, 32, etc... is still paramount.
|
|
|
Post by lastdamnation on Nov 18, 2012 12:39:12 GMT
Since you really need 8 or 16 going through then there are 3 options:
1. 8 venues of 12 - obviously impractical if a lot of people turn up. Would probably have to shorten most of the matches to best of 3 so then most people would get less value for their money instead of more.
2. Since we seem to get close to 100 entries every year, one option would be to have 4 people seeded through (you could make this the last two year's winner/RU, or last season's top 4), and then have 12 venues of ~8 players. However this would probably be too much of an unfair advantage for those players (although it doesn't really disadvantage anyone else too much). Another issue is that this would be unsustainable if numbers changed noticeably.
3. Use the current system.
|
|
|
Post by The Halifax Ringer on Nov 18, 2012 14:13:45 GMT
I've been drawn at Mickeys, however, that's 176 miles from my house. How is that fair??
Just not good enough Monkey, more needs to accommodate those of us who live outside Cambridge town centre.
|
|
|
Post by controller on Nov 18, 2012 14:27:07 GMT
I basically agree with his premise nuf said
|
|
|
Post by AndyG on Nov 18, 2012 14:29:18 GMT
Nothing wrong with our table ( Caldecote ) ... Are KSR A going to turn up on Thursday ? Bet they do We'll be there!
|
|
|
Post by controller on Nov 18, 2012 14:47:30 GMT
7 venues of 8 = 56. selected from Prem players going down the divisions. the remaining play at CSC. This is kind of seeded but guarantees a lower league player in the last 16 proper. Cambridge University My Arse!
|
|
rusty
County Player
Meanmachine. CSC M
Posts: 429
|
Post by rusty on Nov 18, 2012 16:38:27 GMT
Nothing wrong with our table ( Caldecote ) ... Are KSR A going to turn up on Thursday ? Bet they do We'll be there! GOOD. As long as its not to far to travel for you ;D
|
|
rusty
County Player
Meanmachine. CSC M
Posts: 429
|
Post by rusty on Nov 18, 2012 16:50:01 GMT
What could be done is have the singles at cambridge venues . But then you would have players and pubs / clubs outside cambridge saying that this is unfair on them there is really no easy answer. You could hold doubles and scotch trebles out of town but then you will still get some one moaning, no mater what is done there will be some one having a moan
|
|
|
Post by Steve McCann on Nov 18, 2012 17:05:56 GMT
I do pipe up but get ignored. Lefty is correct but will again be ignored. People will turn up to venues twiddle thier thumbs for 5 minutes, whine about wasting petrol, whine about the structure then forget about it the next day. The AGM being the place to change stuff is always a lovely get out for the committee. The committee are there to collectively make these decisions not the AGM crowd. Look at the problem and fix it. It's not rocket science. Or maybe it's not a difficult enough problem for John Nash and non decision making cronies ;-) Perhaps I should have written it down originally ;D To think one of 'em is a bloody scientist I agree in principle Ian. I don't see a problem though so don't see the need to fix it. The people who want to enter pay £2 to enter; the people who want to play on the day turn up to play... and the people who play the best pool in the competition get to the latter stages more often than not... No problem.
|
|
Lefty
International Player
Posts: 538
|
Post by Lefty on Nov 18, 2012 17:06:31 GMT
Russel, that idea makes more sense.
Consider that with the doubles/trebles there are more ppl involved so they can travel together and share the cost. This may have an impact.
I think the biggest issue is the lack of ppl turning up. Of course, your always going to get some ppl that can't make it for genuine reasons such as work or family stuff that comes up. But for the number of entries we have and the number that actually turn up to be so far apart i think that is the main area that needs to be addressed somehow.
|
|
|
Post by Craig Benstock on Nov 18, 2012 17:09:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by controller on Nov 18, 2012 17:54:19 GMT
I don't see a problem though so don't see the need to fix it. ) Pay attention! 2 people at one venue might be luvvly juvvly for Billy no mates, I study in my 3 day old Y fronts boy, but not for the working family man Woods n trees spring to mind
|
|
rusty
County Player
Meanmachine. CSC M
Posts: 429
|
Post by rusty on Nov 18, 2012 17:56:51 GMT
What should be done is all stewards keep a score card showing the no show players and see the % of no shows at each venue this would give a accurate list. Then you can see where the best turn out is and the worst. Then this can be addressed at the agm .
|
|
|
Post by controller on Nov 18, 2012 17:58:24 GMT
Get away from venues being upset. They don't earn anything from 3 extra people playing Pool for free. Especially if they are driving drinking CSC Old boy drinks. Without the sharing bit admittedly
|
|
|
Post by controller on Nov 18, 2012 18:00:05 GMT
What should be done is all stewards keep a score card showing the no show players and see the % of no shows at each venue this would give a accurate list. Then you can see where the best turn out is and the worst. Then this can be addressed at the agm . You mean it can be addressed at their committee meetings. Thats what they are there for, to make decisions... oh wait
|
|
|
Post by James Griffiths on Nov 18, 2012 19:46:31 GMT
GOOD. As long as its not to far to travel for you ;D They have their own private taxi russell
|
|
|
Post by James Griffiths on Nov 18, 2012 19:52:23 GMT
Maybe if you got the people who enter to actually turn up then u would get more games, if you changed it to less venues who is to say you will still get people turn up for their matches? I don't think it always a case of venue or distance it's also a case of the people they are playing.
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Nov 18, 2012 20:11:54 GMT
Lefty,
In response to your last comment directed at me, please be advised of the following:
It's should have, not should of. Terrible English.
That's very typical of you. Firstly, the grammar used, and secondly, the reaction provided. Surely even with your own limited intelligence you can work out that within the CAMBRIDGE area pool league, most players are from CAMBRIDGE. Therefore players are more likely to turn up at venues in CAMBRIDGE especially when the events are on Sundays when there is limited public transport - so even people who drive that would like a drink frequently have that option taken away when the venue is not somewhere in Cambridge.
This of course applies to those who live outside of Cambridge and have to travel in on the reverse conditions. However, there are more people that play from Cambridge than outside, and therefore the effect is bigger when the venue is outside of Cambridge.
I made an off the cuff remark said in jest. You stated yourself that only 2 out of the 5 people showed up at your venue. That's a 40% turn out for your venue, which is actually not that bad for the reasons I previously mentioned, plus the fact it's only £2 a pop and not a big deal if you can't make it. It costs more these days to get to the venue than it does to enter the competition!!!
I would be interested to know what people think is an 'acceptable' attendance level, although I appreciate that this would be subjective to the individual.
To add something a little more constructive, I believe there was an idea bandied around some time ago that a premium could be paid to guarantee a venue. I would happily pay an additional £2 per each of my entries to be guaranteed a venue within Cambridge.
What do other people think about this? It would give the committee some additional money to play with and in my opinion improve attendance across the board.
|
|
rusty
County Player
Meanmachine. CSC M
Posts: 429
|
Post by rusty on Nov 18, 2012 20:31:15 GMT
If a player wants to pay an extra £2 to guarantee them a venue in cambridge thats fine but being an outside cambridge player i would not pay that as i would have to drive or get a lift
|
|