The Pool Sucks

[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?

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

I've pointed out the reasons for which I believe it is fair. To reiterate, I think having Pool C and D are fair if all opponents played one another again, even if they've already played. I don't think anyone would dispute this. To save three rounds, you just bring forward the results of matches already played in the competition between teams in each of Pool C and D. So I really don't think there's a problem. And if it is, I have far bigger problems to worry about.

[Peter Shaw]

Michael Yeo's real example illustrates the problem far better than my hypothetical one. Based on overall performance they should have finished top of the 4 teams (the other was White Rose 2) from the same original pool who went into the relegation pool, instead they finished bottom. They lost 4 points, the rest of us didn't lose anyany.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

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?

Ooh, an example involving the team I play for (Cambridge University 2)!

Actually, as this is an example from the current season, I don't think it is the best one to use.

The current division 2 demotion pool is here:

http://www.4ncl.co.uk/tb_div2_dempool.htm

As you can see, White Rose 2 are just ahead of Cambridge University 2. Probably best to wait and see how things work out, and use examples from past years to illustrate the points being made in this thread.

One of the reasons that some of the logic in this thread doesn't always work out is that some of the teams facing relegation (or challenging for a title or promotion) can strengthen their teams with this in mind. Similarly, some teams already facing certain relegation (or with not much to play for) may ended up fielding weakened teams. i.e. the playing strength of some teams varies a lot from weekend to weekend, so you have to plan things over an entire season.

Another point being missed in the "they played the same opponents and got different results, but the team with more points may end up relegated" argument is that White Rose 2 played Cambridge University 2 in round 4 and lost 3.5-4.5:

http://www.4ncl.co.uk/resdiv2_r4a.htm

If White Rose 2 had won that match, then this situation wouldn't have arisen. Indeed, White Rose 2 would be in the promotion pool instead, as can be seen from the pools tables for 2a and 2b after round 7:

http://www.4ncl.co.uk/tb_div2_poolsa&b.htm

[Jonathan Rogers]

I'll throw another consideration into the mix. You may think it doesn't matter, but let's see.

White Rose 2 beat Barbican Youth, and Cambridge lost to them. This is one reason why White Rose 2 are supposedly losing out vis a vis Cambridge 2 by the split pool system: they "lose" that win. But then, at the time of the White Rose 2 match, Barbican Youth had won their pool and knew that any loss v White Rose 2 would very likely not carry through to the final pool. And we always expected to be somewhat under-strength for that match, partly for that reason. (Admittedly we never intended to default! That was due to unforeseen events shortly beforehand, as per usual. But even our originally intended team was less strong than usual, weaker even than the team we had the following day).

Had White Rose 2 had a much better chance of joining us in the final pool, we would have planned a stronger side and frankly we would probably have won. Just sayin' .... I mean, even with our weakened team and an unplanned default we still made a 4-4 draw! (Though it counted as a loss because of the half-point deduction which applies even for known defaults)

[Joey Stewart]

We were discussing it in the evening, and noticed that there were even situations where a strongly placed team could deliberately lose in order to remove one of their rivals from the pool. For example, if side a had an 8-0 loss to side b which would be carried forward, but then playing side c they could engineer a 4.5-3.5 loss which boosted side c to the promotion pool ahead of side b (who would subsequently lose their 8-0 victory as it would not be against their relegation rivals)

[Sean Hewitt]

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.

A bold statement considering Brown Jack currently sit 3rd with two teams just a point behind!

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I'll throw another consideration into the mix. You may think it doesn't matter, but let's see.

<snip>

That is exactly the point I was making about team strengthening and weakening. There is also the point that any squad running 2 or more teams has the potential for an advantage if they can mix things up between the two or three teams enough to strengthen or weaken the team that needs it, though this does require enough players within the 80-point rule (I can't remember precisely how that works). Also, squads with a lot of depth can call on more reserves than smaller teams, and so on. All-play-all works well for individual events (though even there you need double-rounds to even out the colours), but for team events, APA doesn't really even things out because team strength can fluctuate so much, either by choice/design, or by force (if players are unavailable for some reason).

[Christopher Kreuzer]

We were discussing it in the evening, and noticed that there were even situations where a strongly placed team could deliberately lose in order to remove one of their rivals from the pool. For example, if side a had an 8-0 loss to side b which would be carried forward, but then playing side c they could engineer a 4.5-3.5 loss which boosted side c to the promotion pool ahead of side b (who would subsequently lose their 8-0 victory as it would not be against their relegation rivals)

That would be... devious, I agree. But it sounds risky. What if things go wrong and a 4-4 draw results? That could lead to a worse situation overall. Imagine the calculations needed! Oh, one question: was this theoretical, or based on an actual possibility?

[Jonathan Rogers]

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.

A bold statement considering Brown Jack currently sit 3rd with two teams just a point behind!

You're not going to believe this, but last season again, Barbican Youth lost to Brown Jack in round seven when it had already qualified for the promotion pool and knew that Brown Jack could not join them ...!

[LozCooper]

Other points which may have already been posted is that it is possible to be safe from relegation by round 7 by qualifying for the top pool which may encourage teams to concentrate their efforts on the first seven rounds and then field weakened teams for the rest of the season. Equally though if you want to qualify for the European Club Cup you have to be in the top pool of Division 1 so if that is your main target for the season there may also be little to play for in the last four rounds if you end up in the relegation pool but with too many points to have any relegation concerns.

[Simon Ansell]

I don't like the current system, but I can't suggest a better one other than a simple 12 team all-play-all for the top two divisions as it used to be.

My team, Betsson, has arguably had it tough in the last few years in that we've been in the stronger half for the first seven rounds each time (how is the seeding done?). This year we've finally made it to the 'Championship' pool and will have some interesting matches at the last weekend for a change. Previously the last weekend has been a complete waste of time for us as we've had nothing to play for (already safe from relegation, playing weak teams). This system can also mess up possible norm chances if a player plays for a team in the relegation pool, because of the weaker opposition they will face in the last four rounds - that's a minor point though.

[Alan Burke]

Alex.. you said I was thinking about it all the wrong way (28 March 12.38pm). Why should my suggestion be wrong and yours be right - or vice-versa ? We are both just giving suggestions on how the system could operate to its best and/or fairest.

To only difference in the way I am suggesting to that of the current scheme which you favour is that the points gained in the first phase be carried forward into phase two. Apart from that, the following criteria would still remain as it is at present:

1: Throughtout the season, teams would still play 11 out of the other 15 in their division and would actually face EXACTLY the same opponents as in the current set up.

2: By the end of the season, the top 8 sides from phase 1 would have still played APA against each other, as would the bottom 8 sides. (Therefore all Championship/promotion sides will have faced each other, with a similar situation for those threatened with relegation sides.)

3: Each team will also have played 4 matches against teams in the opposite half of the division whilst the other four they do NOT play will also be in that opposite half.

All these situations apply under the current system and would not be changed. The only difference in our suggestions is that I would allow points from phase 1 to be carried forward.

It just seems unfair to me that a situation could arise where a team gains 7 points in phase 1; is placed in the Demotion Pool and has 6 of them deducted, whilst teams who have gained 6, 4 and 2 points could retain all of them. Alternatively, another team could gain 7 points in phase 1; be placed in the Championship Pool with 6 points intact, whilst a team who achieved 12 points could be reduced to 4 points, as would those on 10 points (2) and 8 points (0). The 'dead match' situation would also be solved as every game would count towards a team's ultimate fate.

[Alan Burke]

Loz.. That is exactly the point I was making in my post (27 March 11.56pm) ...

"Another consideration is a possibility that "Team A" in the Championship Pool could then lose all their remaining games, safe in the knowledge that they would still be in the top division the following year, having throughout the season won 4, lost 7; whilst a team in the Demotion Pool could be relegated having achieved a better overall season record of 4 wins; 1 draw; 6 losses. Therefore, the current system also seems a bit unfair on those teams who 'come good' in the latter end of the season, but who then have no means of making better progress than those who started well and then maybe just 'sit on their laurels' "

[Jonathan Rogers]

I don't like the current system, but I can't suggest a better one other than a simple 12 team all-play-all for the top two divisions as it used to be.

My team, Betsson, has arguably had it tough in the last few years in that we've been in the stronger half for the first seven rounds each time (how is the seeding done?). This year we've finally made it to the 'Championship' pool and will have some interesting matches at the last weekend for a change. Previously the last weekend has been a complete waste of time for us as we've had nothing to play for (already safe from relegation, playing weak teams). This system can also mess up possible norm chances if a player plays for a team in the relegation pool, because of the weaker opposition they will face in the last four rounds - that's a minor point though.

I fully agree, and would only add that norm considerations are really rather important. I had real problems (as a captain) going into the last weekend last season because we had four norm seekers in the second team and yet the team was still in the relegation pool (! - an object lesson of the perils of winning some matches by 6-2 but losing more of them by 4.5-3.5). It was only possible to secure appropriate opposition for all of them because some could play in the youth team - obviously, not an option for most other teams.

[Alex Holowczak]

Alex.. you said I was thinking about it all the wrong way (28 March 12.38pm). Why should my suggestion be wrong and yours be right - or vice-versa ? We are both just giving suggestions on how the system could operate to its best and/or fairest.

Because you're thinking of it as a penalty for those teams playing against others who are losing out on points rightfully theirs. The intention is to avoid repeating three matches that have already been played.