reo19uk
Joined: Dec 01, 2005
|
 Posted:
Feb 13, 2007 - 23:33 |
 
|
Hey
Just thought I'd keep people in the loop regarding changes for next season.
1) After asking the question about scheduling it seems quite obvious that the majority of people most people want a fixed schedule so this will be kept to. The change in scheduling is likely to be a different deadline scheduling, I am unsure of what this will exactly be yet so any suggestions would be grateful.
2) To avoid mixing new team with experienced teams I will be running 4 divisions. The first 3 will only include experienced teams this will of course mean that there may be more than 10 in some divisions or less than 10 in some divisions. The 4th division will only include new teams.
3) The playoffs will not take place this season or in any future seasons, due to having teams dropping out etc. The new system will mean the bottom 2 teams will be relegated and atleast the top 2 teams will be promoted from each division with it being possible that more will be promoted depending on if any teams have dropped out. |
|
|
kemimutt
Joined: Apr 21, 2004
|
| Posted:
Feb 14, 2007 - 00:00 |
|
It sounds great.
Here are my thoughts:
I think that the divisions should try to stay at 10, except for the two bottom divisions. The bottom, with rookie teams can be as big as it wants to and it could be open if it gets to many team, as it should end at the same time as the other divisions. The next division (secons lowerst) should have around 5-15 teams, all rookie teams would be transfered here after a season, if more than 15 teams are transfered this way (and including up to 2 relegated teams), a new division are opened with the top 10 teams. The leagy system would look like this:
Div1 - 10 teams
Div2 - 10 teams
Div3 - 5-15 teams
Rookieleague - Unlimited amount of teams |
|
|
kemimutt
Joined: Apr 21, 2004
|
| Posted:
Feb 14, 2007 - 00:06 |
|
I came up with another suggestion too, brainstorming by myself!
If the two teams that ended in 3rd and 4th place play a single qualification game vs the 5th and 6th of the division above, the system would be more fluid. This would mean that the best team could climb quicker and it would be more even divisions but with the best team in division 1. Unlike now when the top team in division 3 (mine at the moment) are just as good as the top team in div1.
All this above requieres that no more than 2 teams drop out each season, otherwise they should auto qualify for promotion. |
|
|
Smeat
Joined: Nov 19, 2006
|
| Posted:
Feb 14, 2007 - 01:08 |
|
| reo19uk wrote: | | 2) To avoid mixing new team with experienced teams I will be running 4 divisions. The first 3 will only include experienced teams this will of course mean that there may be more than 10 in some divisions or less than 10 in some divisions. The 4th division will only include new teams. |
As a rookie team flailing in Division 2, anything that can even out the TR's is a good thing. There's only so much that 3 handicaps can do.
As such, I'd strongly suggest not locking the division population at any pre-determined numbers, but viewing the TR's, and seeing where a good break point would be. All things equal (a nice smooth curve), you want all the divisions about the same size, but even one overly large or sadly small team can skew things just too much. And since we're playing Round-Robin, there's no need for an "even" number- 7 or 9 or 11 work just as well as 8 or 10* (see below re pace of games for div's w/ diff numbers).
(*Should be as close as possible to avoid Teams playing waaaay more tourneys and bloating up.)
That said, one or two beat up Div 2 team could be relegated down (or given the opportunity?) if their TR was tragically low vs their peers (, and/or Rookie teams given maybe a small buffer of a single warm up game?).
| reo19uk wrote: | | ...a fixed schedule so this will be kept to. The change in scheduling is likely to be a different deadline scheduling, I am unsure of what this will exactly be yet so any suggestions would be grateful. |
While a steady "one game a week" schedule feels nice, there's no real reason to feel constrained by that. Nor, by the same logic, does every league need the same schedule. It's "cleaner", it feels "better", but it's just as arbitrary.
A 7's game doesn't take as long as a normal one, maybe less than an hour, 1 1/2 at most. Some rare coaches can only get online 1 day/week, but they should be able to schedule two games during that period. If not, then maybe they'll have to forfeit that one match (just like someone who has other RL problems), or find another league- (harsh, admittedly, yes, but it's the needs of one vs the needs of the league.)
For the vast majority of coaches, 1 game/5 days, or 1/6 days, means that it's almost 1/week, but every now and then 2/week- and that shouldn't be a huge problem. For the smallest division, 1/7 might allow them to keep up with the fastest.
For those who lag behind, maybe a small grace period, maybe 1 "cycle", or forfeit. And with many of these teams, there's no reason not to get ahead of schedule a little, by a game.
Also, I'd strongly suggest that Apo's be allowed for all Rookie teams. While chance can play a big part in any single game during the season, it tends to balance out- but losing a player on the first game, and then having to choose between an Apo vs. a 7th player, or choose between a freebooter now vs. an Apo next game, can make/break the entire season (esp if lightning strikes twice! And with ~10 teams, it will for one!). And some coaches have no desire to struggle in that vicious circle of losing games and losing players, and falling further and further behind - they'll quit. That Apo can make all the diff in keeping rookie teams playable their first couple games, and fun for the rest of the season. (Let them struggle for that first RR, not their Apo.)
Oh- and, respectfully, I'd suggest we discontinue allowing the Wizard. It's pretty random, and while it could have helped me win against much stronger teams (didn't), it just doesn't feel right, to me, with a "realistic" human-only pub league. If it had, it would have left an odd taste in my mouth, and quite possibly a bad one in my opponents. Just my opinion. |
_________________
Let's go A.P.E.!
(...and what exactly do you think they do with all those dead players?...) |
|
kemimutt
Joined: Apr 21, 2004
|
| Posted:
Feb 14, 2007 - 01:44 |
|
Continuing brainstorming:
What about allowing stuff depending on division? For exampel:
div1: Stars, Wizards, apo
div2: Wizards, apo
div3: apo
Other divisions: No stars - No wizards - no apo
About not locking it at 10 teams/div: You can't look at tr/str for breakingpoints between divisions. A team can have had a hard time with good players and still not be in the top, maybe even get moved down. How could someone judge if a team should get forved to play in a lower division just because he just have had 2 players retiered for example? Or play in a higher league just because he happends to have 2 players mng and have replaced them with freebooters? |
|
|
Smeat
Joined: Nov 19, 2006
|
| Posted:
Feb 14, 2007 - 02:33 |
|
well, ok, then factor in how they finished as well. But the reverse is worse- to leave a monster or dwarf in the wrong division "just because". |
_________________
Let's go A.P.E.!
(...and what exactly do you think they do with all those dead players?...) |
|
kemimutt
Joined: Apr 21, 2004
|
| Posted:
Feb 14, 2007 - 09:14 |
|
The only real problem here is when dropouts are replaced. I dont know how you came to play with a rookie team in division 2, but it seams a bit unfair as there are some very good teams in division 3 that would be glad to play in div2.
Maybe a team could choose to be taken down one division if they feel that they are not good enough, but then one of the teams in the lower division could get an opportunity to move up instead. All this should only be allowed between seasons. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Why did GW nerf guar...
Search
