Fibsleague rule change.

[dorbel]

Would it be a good idea if league divisions that are nominally equal were shuffled at the start of each session? This is particularly important for the master divisions, where 9 of the 12 players remain from the last session each time. If the 24 players qualifying for the two master divisions were put into a hat and drawn at random, or sorted by rating, or by results last turn perhaps, then there would be more variety. It would be nice to play some new faces, not that I have anything against any of my current league mates of course! Just a thought.

[tryout]

Have been thinking about the same a few times. I had the idea of promoting or demoting not always from A to A and B to B, but in either the up or down direction swapping divisions. It wouldn't have much of an immediate effect since this only applies to 3 people per division. But over time this should help distribute players better.
Let's hear what tomawaky thinks of it.

[EddieVedd]

I Agree Dorbel.

Because there is no 'Up' out of Master's i would favour a significant mix up each session for A & B. Great idea     "results last turn/(session)" has greatest merit i feel. Say Master A = top 6 from each A & B last session and Master B = bottom 3 from each (places 7 8 9)+ those promoted from Gold ? This would add incentive to place 3 4 5 or 6 as well as 1 or 2. And another tier !

Gold / Silver / Bronze would gain a significant mix from your suggestion tryout as there is up and down from those divisions.

Of course any change , especially to the more complex, would require more work. More thoughts

Where is Toma ' ?

[lewscannon]

The problem with Eddie's suggestion is that the championship is derived by the Masters A & B leaders playing each other. If you always put the highest players in one division, the Masters A will get much stronger than the Masters B.

Signed,

the once (and future) king

[EddieVedd]

Kaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa  ,  Fergen BOOM !!

Hi Lews

Sorry , i don't see "the problem" . Let me explain in more detail.

lewscannon Posted on Jul 14 2004, 05:05 PM

The problem with Eddie's suggestion is that the championship is derived by the Masters A & B leaders playing each other.

This wouldn't change. 1st & 2nd from both A & B would still play off for League Champ. Positions 10 11 & 12 from A & B would still drop to Gold.

What would change is every session 50% of Masters A would come from Masters B. It would be an achievement to stay in A as you had to finish top 6 each session. BUT you still got an influx of new players (thus meeting dorbels request which i agree with). It would be an achievement to finish top 6 in B because you got promoted to A.  

This leaves finishing 7 8 or 9 in Masters A which would mean 'demotion' to B !  7 8 9 in B remain there and are joined by those promoted from Gold.

lewscannon Posted on Jul 14 2004, 05:05 PM

If you always put the highest players in one division, the Masters A will get much stronger than the Masters B

Masters A may become marginally stronger but .....it is the top of the pile !  I can't see this as a bad thing. That's the beauty of another tier that doesn't completely change the great structure we have now.  In addition,  you still have the chance to be League Champ from Masters B !! Having just qualified from Gold, potentially.  If you're good enough

[tryout]

Hi Eddie,

This suggestion would change the nature of the league quite a bit, since it removes the equality of the A and B divisions. This would just come down to adding another league level. Personally, I don't see the point for it.

[EddieVedd]

Thanks tryout

Fair enough

The only point was to offer a suggestion to allow the dorbel's "play some new faces" request, which i also believe to be a good idea . He also suggested "sorting by rating" which i'm not keen on and "out of a hat" which i could live with I liked your suggestion but went for something that would accelerate the process  I dont really see the harm in making another level (especially given it is only shuffling the players, the same odds of making top 2 or bottom 3 would remain) and can see merit in adding interest to more placings (3,4,5,6,7,8,9) throughout the session. I guess they are my points , new faces and added incentive for the middle ranked (plus reward for finishing top 6). But it is only a suggestion As i said it would take work and I love what we have now anyway Just commenting on a topic that interests me

Cheers ,

Eddie.

Time for a song  

[alef]

A very important principle is keep it simple, if the criteria for changing across mostly equivalent league levels isn't immediately obvious then you will cause some confusion. Thinking back, the lack of new faces in the Masters was a factor in my retiring from it. A bit of random remixing drawing names from a hat makes sense to me.

[tryout]

The only point was to offer a suggestion to allow the dorbel's "play some new faces" request, which i also believe to be a good idea . He also suggested "sorting by rating" which i'm not keen on and "out of a hat" which i could live with I liked your suggestion but went for something that would accelerate the process   I dont really see the harm in making another level (especially given it is only shuffling the players, the same odds of making top 2 or bottom 3 would remain) and can see merit in adding interest to more placings (3,4,5,6,7,8,9) throughout the session. I guess they are my points , new faces and added incentive for the middle ranked (plus reward for finishing top 6). But it is only a suggestion As i said it would take work and I love what we have now anyway Just commenting on a topic that interests me

I hope you don't get me wrong. I think it's clear that I fully agree with the wish to get more variety. And your suggestion is certainly feasable. But I think the impact would be too high.

Besides, we all can't decide anything. We'll have to wait for tomawaky.

[lewscannon]

I would agree with just a random shuffle of the Masters division,s in order to get away from playing the same people all the time. I think also that the championship should be known as the 'lewscannon award'.

[EddieVedd]

The Lews League ?

[Tomawaky]

Have been thinking about the same a few times. I had the idea of promoting or demoting not always from A to A and B to B, but in either the up or down direction swapping divisions. It wouldn't have much of an immediate effect since this only applies to 3 people per division. But over time this should help distribute players better.
Let's hear what tomawaky thinks of it.

It's exactly what I do.

Players go up from Gold A to Master A and Gold B to Master B
But players go down from Master A to Gold B and Master B to Gold A.

Then I have thinked about mixing player each session but I need to define some rules.

Why not putting the 3 first players of the division in the other ?

[tryout]

It's exactly what I do.

Players go up from Gold A to Master A and Gold B to Master B
But players go down from Master A to Gold B and Master B to Gold A.

Ah, wasn't aware of this. Only noticed the up direction so far.

Then I have thinked about mixing player each session but I need to define some rules.

Why not putting the 3 first players of the division in the other ?

Yes, could work well.