The Pool Sucks

[David Shepherd]

Maybe the system is ok but there should be a prize for example refund of entry fees to the team that finishes top of each pool in stage 1. Stage 2 then being viewed as a seperate event.

[Richard Bates]

At the end of the season each team will have played EXACTLY the same 11 opponents in their division as if under the current system, but the final league table would then reflect the standings of teams thoughtout the entire season with EVERY game having counted towards the Championship/Promotion/Relegation (ie no 'dead' matches and no deleted points.)

The point is for all the teams in the promotion/relegation pools to have their final positions determined by playing the same opponents. Any attempt to factor in other results fails to do this and means the final results are more influenced by the relative strength of the initial pools. At the moment if the pools are skewed then the only consequence is that teams in the middle (7-10 strength out of 16) can find themselves in the "wrong" pool after round 7 when the split happens. However their final relegation/promotion status would not be affected. This is not the case with all points carrying forward -> an easy group means greater chance of promotion/a difficult group means greater chance of relegation (compared with your opponents in the final pool).

If you don't like the system you should IMO favour getting rid of the split division format completely. The points system is a consequence of split divisions, not an optional extra.

The real unfairness in the way the 4ncl works is the way that division 2 winners/runners up are handsomely rewarded for coming 17th and 18th in the league, whereas 3rd to 16th get nothing!

[Alan Walton]

I think the pool system is most probably the only model available if the league wants the 16 team divisions

This was brought in so there is more competitive matches going into the final weekend (I believe this was the case)

Personally I would prefer divisions one and two to be an APA as this obviously is a fairer representation for the overall winners/losers, maybe use the pool system for Divisions 3 and 4, with Div 3 played over 7 boards and Div 4 over 6 boards, to gradually condition teams to the 8 board format, with the addition of relaxing the "female" rule to "female" and "junior 15 and under" for all divisions

[Alex Holowczak]

Alex .. The concept of retaining points isn't being misunderstood; it is the seeming injustice of previously well-earned points being deleted. It is for that reason why I suggested retaining ALL previous points but within a system that is still completed in 11 rounds.

Suggesting that retaining all points is fairer is misunderstanding the point.

The idea is that you play the 7-round APA in 4 rounds, so you carry forward 3 results. You only ever want to carry those forward, since they will be mutual opponents within the APA. You would never suggest having an APA carrying forward the result of three at-random matches that were played against teams not in the APA, so I don't see why you would suddenly do this in the 4NCL.

Richard Bates sums this situation up nicely:

The points system is a consequence of split divisions, not an optional extra.

[Alan Burke]

Alex .. To be honest, no system is totally fair unless it is an APA. I was just trying to suggest a scheme which maintains the status quo of 16 teams in the division yet eliminates any 'dead' matches and the fact of penalising teams (ie deducting points) solely dependant upon who they happened to defeat during the first stage of the event.

Basically, my suggestion is a one division set-up, but with teams playing against 11 out of the 15 opponents in that division and at least having competed against all those who have shown similar ability throughout the season. Not playing against every club is also not an ideal situation, but many other sports do not adopt schemes which decide promotion/relegation on a totally equal APA scheme ...

The 12 teams in the Scottish Premier Division first of all play 33 matches (and that is not totally 'fair' as they play 11 teams twice at home and one away; and vice-versa), whilst the teams are then 'split' into 2 groups of 6 and again play those in their group. Therefore, a team could play away three times against an opponent, yet only once at home, whilst in Rugby League's 'Super League', the teams also play some opponents more than others, yet all points still count towards the one division.

Richard .. whilst I agree with your 'unfairness' of lower teams getting more rewards than those higher up the league structure; that is a consequence of the divisional system which most sports adopt. A good example is in the Football League, where the team finishing second in Division 1 gets promotion and nothing else, yet a team finishing 6th can still also gain promotion with the added bonus of a Wembley appearance and a trophy, along with the honour and financial rewards for the club that such a fixture brings to them.

The current 4NCL system may well be seen as the best solution, but that system obviously came about from someone's idea of how it should be organised - and unless suggestions are made, then possible improvements will never be forthcoming.

[Alex McFarlane]

Alan,
The difference between the Scottish Premier and the 4NCL is that in Scotland all the teams have met exactly the same opposition before the split. It is therefore more acceptable to carry forward the previous results.

The split is not too popular by the way for the reasons you mention and also that there may not be a great difference between teams 3-7 (sometimes only a few points) yet 7 cannot qualify for European competitions and loses out on a further meeting with the cash cows of Rangers and Celtic.

[LozCooper]

Alan,
The difference between the Scottish Premier and the 4NCL is that in Scotland all the teams have met exactly the same opposition before the split. It is therefore more acceptable to carry forward the previous results.

The split is not too popular by the way for the reasons you mention and also that there may not be a great difference between teams 3-7 (sometimes only a few points) yet 7 cannot qualify for European competitions and loses out on a further meeting with the cash cows of Rangers and Celtic.

The current 4ncl system has a similar drawback as it means that 8 teams can no longer qualify for the European Club Cup as you have to finish in the top half of your league (top 8 out of 16)

[Kevin Thurlow]

The cricket world cup used to have a similar system. The top 4 in each of the two groups went forward to the "Super 8s", carrying forward their group results against other qualifiers and then played the qualifiers from the other group, the top four of that going to semifinals. This time the top 4 went to a quarterfinal stage, where England, Australia, South Africa and West Indies all lost fairly comfortably. If they had used the old system, the starting Super 8 table would be:-
England 5
Pakistan and South Africa 4
Australia, India and Sri Lanka 3
New Zealand 2
West Indies 0

So England and South Africa would have had good chances of reaching the semifinals, and New Zealand would have really struggled.
This proves that if you use different systems you might get different results...

[Roger de Coverly]

The current 4NCL system may well be seen as the best solution, but that system obviously came about from someone's idea of how it should be organised - and unless suggestions are made, then possible improvements will never be forthcoming.

With 11 rounds and 32 teams, you could run it as a Swiss.

Immediate drawbacks would be that you might have squads with up to three teams. You would also find clashes between the leading teams in the middle instead of, as is now preferred, in the final three rounds. You would also have early rounds with 1 v 17 etc. , but that's not greatly different from the 1 v 16 clashes you get with the pool structure.

[Alan Burke]

Alex.. yes, I totally agree with your comment. I was just using that as an example where promotion/relegation issues are not always merely decided on a totally equal APA system. (ie, It doesn't seem totally fair that one team can play more matches at home than away.)

As I said previously, without ideas, the perfect solution may never be found.

[Alex Holowczak]

Alex .. To be honest, no system is totally fair unless it is an APA. I was just trying to suggest a scheme which maintains the status quo of 16 teams in the division yet eliminates any 'dead' matches and the fact of penalising teams (ie deducting points) solely dependant upon who they happened to defeat during the first stage of the event.

You're thinking about it the wrong way.

You think that all points are being carried forward, then deducting points from non-qualified teams.

In fact, you're adding points from 0 for the three APA games that you've already played.

[Roger de Coverly]

With 11 rounds and 32 teams, you could run it as a Swiss.

Another idea - you cut down to ten rounds.

Pool A and Pool B as at present. The final three rounds are an extended Knock out. So in the quarter final you pair top of pool A against bottom of pool B. The semi final pits winners against winners and losers against losers presumably with seeding inherited from the Pool A/B finishing positions. The final day is a play off for 1/2, 3/4 , 5/6, 7/8 etc. I'm not sure that the play off concept works very well as a means of determining relegation places. Perhaps you say that all 8 teams in the demotion pool are relegated but you have a play off to let four or perhaps five of them back in.

[Peter Shaw]

I’m not a great fan of the split divisions either (the fact my team has had two of our wins discarded might have something to do with that!). I think a 12 team all play all would be better.

If you are going to have split divisions then I guess the current system is the only fair way you can do it. But how about this plausible scenario: Say at the end of the current season in the Division 2 relegation pool Cambridge University 2 finish 4th on 7 points and my team White Rose 2 finish 5th on 6 points (and so get relegated). However over the full season White Rose would have 10 points from 11 games and Cambridge would have 9 as we have had 4 points discarded and Cambridge have had 2 points discarded. As we both came from the same original pool we’ve played exactly the same opponents, is it fair to discard 4 results just because they were against teams in the promotion pool?

[Roger de Coverly]

I’m not a great fan of the split divisions either (the fact my team has had two of our wins discarded might have something to do with that!). I think a 12 team all play all would be better.

Notwithstanding some of the extreme results in this season's division 2, the teams are on paper fairly close in strength. Therefore the argument that a pool structure cuts out matches where one team is expected to be crushed has little weight. You could justify its retention in division 1 though.

This leads to possible structures of 28 teams ( 16+12), 32 teams (16 +16 as at present), 36 teams (the old 12+12+12) or 40 teams (16 + 12 +12).

[Alex Holowczak]

If you are going to have split divisions then I guess the current system is the only fair way you can do it. But how about this plausible scenario: Say at the end of the current season in the Division 2 relegation pool Cambridge University 2 finish 4th on 7 points and my team White Rose 2 finish 5th on 6 points (and so get relegated). However over the full season White Rose would have 10 points from 11 games and Cambridge would have 9 as we have had 4 points discarded and Cambridge have had 2 points discarded. As we both came from the same original pool we’ve played exactly the same opponents, is it fair to discard 4 results just because they were against teams in the promotion pool?

Yes, that's still fair.

In phase 1 of the competition, you were in the bottom 4, and thus entered the relegation pool.
In phase 2 of the competition, you were in the bottom 4, and thus were relegated.