The Pool Sucks

[Alan Walton]

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.

Alex, your point is true to the rules and structure of the current system, but is it actually fair

Cambridge got 4 points in phase 1 (in total), then 3 points in phase 2
White Rose got 5 points in phase 1, then 3 points in phase 2

So in both phases White Rose have out performed Cambridge (maybe only of GD in phase 2), and still get relegated

I think this shows one of the problems with the split decision quite clearly

[Peter Shaw]

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.

That's not exactly the point though. We finish below Cambridge despite performing better over 11 games against identical opposition. Discarding results only makes it more random.

[Alex Holowczak]

What I mean is, if you're going to have a split pool, it's as fair as it's ever going to be.

I don't mind either this system, or a 12-team APA. I think they got rid of the 12-team divisions because having a situation where teams could either be promoted or relegated going into the final weekend was a problem for some reason.

[Roger de Coverly]

I think they got rid of the 12-team divisions because having a situation where teams could either be promoted or relegated going into the final weekend was a problem for some reason.

I don't think that was ever the case except where six teams ( half the division) were due to be relegated as part of the downsizing from 36 to 32 8 board teams.

If you go to the atticus forum, some of the debate prior to its introduction is here
http://www.atticuschess.org.uk/forum/ph ... .php?t=235

[Sean Hewitt]

I think they got rid of the 12-team divisions because having a situation where teams could either be promoted or relegated going into the final weekend was a problem for some reason.

I don't think that was ever the case except where six teams ( half the division) were due to be relegated as part of the downsizing from 36 to 32 8 board teams.

If you go to the atticus forum, some of the debate prior to its introduction is here
http://www.atticuschess.org.uk/forum/ph ... .php?t=235

Gosh. Turns out it was me who suggested that only results against teams going into the same pool be carried forward. I'd forgotten that. Joey will really hate me now!!

[Alan Walton]

If you did want to re-distribute the league structure it would have to be announced before the start of the 2011-12 season so teams understand the aims for the year

Therefore if the desired structure is 3 Divisions of 12 and 1 Swiss 4th Div, you may have to do the following

Div 1 --> 10 teams stay in Div 1, with 2 promotion places from Div 2
Div 2 --> 6 teams drop from Div 1, 1 teams promoted from Div 3, 5 remaining from Div 2
Div 3 --> 8 teams drop from Div 2, 4 teams from Div 3
Div 4 --> all remaining teams and new entrants

Preferably I would have Div 3 as 7 board teams and Div 4 as 6 boards, with a junior and female rule for the top 3 divisions

[Adam Ashton]

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.

The 4NCL takes place over 11 rounds it isn't two completely seperate competitions(and if they are completely seperate how do you justify carrying forward some results and not others?). Over those 11 rounds White Rose could gather more points than Cambridge against the same opponents and still be relegated. If you want to argue that the current system makes things more exciting/interesting then fine but it's certainly not fair.

It seems the focus has been on finding a system where teams play exactly the same opposition hence the convoluted pool system. In fact I think a swiss would be much fairer despite any minor difference in the strength of opponents faced.

[Alex Holowczak]

The 4NCL takes place over 11 rounds it isn't two completely seperate competitions(and if they are completely seperate how do you justify carrying forward some results and not others?).

Division One and Two of the 4NCL is one competition over 11 rounds, with two phases, a qualifying phase (where you get into the Championship pool or Relegation Pool), and then the final phase, where you go up, down or win the Championship.

Taking forward results against the people you've already played so that you don't have to play them again in the final phase is entirely reasonable.

Over those 11 rounds White Rose could gather more points than Cambridge against the same opponents and still be relegated. If you want to argue that the current system makes things more exciting/interesting then fine but it's certainly not fair.

I'm not arguing for the current system over a 12-team APA. I'm saying that if you're carrying forward results, it should only be results against all opponents that everyone in your section of the final phase have played.

[Alan Walton]

Alex,

I don't think re-quoting the rules is necessary, everybody is aware of the current rules

People are finally realising the flaw of this structure after playing it for a couple of years, and I think this year in Div 2 it has shown the problems quite clearly

This discussion should be about the possibility of change, or sticking with the status quo

[Alex Holowczak]

Alex,

I don't think re-quoting the rules is necessary, everybody is aware of the current rules

People are finally realising the flaw of this structure after playing it for a couple of years, and I think this year in Div 2 it has shown the problems quite clearly

This discussion should be about the possibility of change, or sticking with the status quo

To be honest, I don't think there is a flaw at all with the 16-team pools, and the concept of carrying forward the points.

Do I care what structure the divisions have? No, not really. I'm quite happy with either this or the 12-team APA. Not that it effects me!

There are two team representatives on the five-man 4NCL Board. Perhaps get in touch with them if you don't like the structure.

[LozCooper]

Alex,

I don't think re-quoting the rules is necessary, everybody is aware of the current rules

People are finally realising the flaw of this structure after playing it for a couple of years, and I think this year in Div 2 it has shown the problems quite clearly

This discussion should be about the possibility of change, or sticking with the status quo

Excuse my ignorance as I'm no longer a 4ncl captain but do they still have captain's meetings every weekend and if so, has the matter been raised and debated? I wondered if there is a general consensus one way or the other. My preference would be for two divisions of 12 and division 3 in the form we currently have with one or more local leagues such as the northern league alongside.

[Alan Walton]

So for what I am gathering you believe it isn't a flaw that when a team out performs another when they have played exactly the same field over 11 rounds and still could be relegated instead of the other

For some reason I am not really seeing your logic around this one, all things being equal the under performing team in the "ideal world" should be relegated

[Michael Yeo]

People are finally realising the flaw of this structure after playing it for a couple of years, and I think this year in Div 2 it has shown the problems quite clearly

The last 2 seasons in Division 2 have already shown up a number of flaws. Brown Jack found themselves relegated last season despite having much better results against the same opposition as Anglian Avengers 1 and Wessex 1 who survived. Fortunately, it looks as though their period in Division 3 will be short! In the previous season, Cheddleton Pointon never got to play any of the promoted teams as they all came from the section they weren't in. Again, they were more fortunate with the lottery the following season.

[Alex Holowczak]

So for what I am gathering you believe it isn't a flaw that when a team out performs another when they have played exactly the same field over 11 rounds and still could be relegated instead of the other

For some reason I am not really seeing your logic around this one, all things being equal the under performing team in the "ideal world" should be relegated

The point is that the two stages are separate entities.

Would you object to Pool C and D if you played all 7 opponents within the 8-team APA? Would that be fair?

[Alan Walton]

So for what I am gathering you believe it isn't a flaw that when a team out performs another when they have played exactly the same field over 11 rounds and still could be relegated instead of the other

For some reason I am not really seeing your logic around this one, all things being equal the under performing team in the "ideal world" should be relegated

The point is that the two stages are separate entities.

Would you object to Pool C and D if you played all 7 opponents within the 8-team APA? Would that be fair?

I am not really interested in whether it is two separate entities

I am wondering do you feel personally it is correct that this should happen, as Michael Yeo has pointed out this occurance has happened before