Proposals for future D1/2 formats
- IM Jack Rudd
- Posts: 4818
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
- Location: Bideford
- Contact:
Proposals for future D1/2 formats
Because it will help the discussion at the captains' meeting if there are some firm proposals to discuss. So, to kick off with...
Mostly reverting to the old system...
Division 1 - 12 team APA. 8 player teams, eligibility rules as now.
Division 2 - 12 team APA. 8 player teams, eligibility rules as now, with possible alteration as per Mike Yeo's proposal.
Division 3 - 12 team APA. 6 player teams, eligibility rules as per current division 3.
Division 4 South / North - as current division 3.
Players in Division 1 venue: 264 (as opposed to current 256).
Mostly reverting to the old system...
Division 1 - 12 team APA. 8 player teams, eligibility rules as now.
Division 2 - 12 team APA. 8 player teams, eligibility rules as now, with possible alteration as per Mike Yeo's proposal.
Division 3 - 12 team APA. 6 player teams, eligibility rules as per current division 3.
Division 4 South / North - as current division 3.
Players in Division 1 venue: 264 (as opposed to current 256).
Re: Proposals for future D1/2 formats
Michael's proposal isIM Jack Rudd wrote:Division 2 - 12 team APA. 8 player teams, eligibility rules as now, with possible alteration as per Mike Yeo's proposal.
Micahel Yeo wrote:Rule 7.2 states:
In Division 2 each match shall be played over eight boards and each team must include at least one
representative from two of the following three groups: (a) male players (b) female players (c) junior
players who are under sixteen years on 1 January 201x.
The proposal is to amend this to:
In Division 2 each match shall be played over eight boards and each team must include at least one
representative from two of the following four groups: (a) male players (b) female players (c) junior
players who are under sixteen years on 1 January 201x (d)senior players who are over sixty years on
1 January 201x.
(x was 1 for this season and will be 2 for next season.)
Concern has been raised at the possibility of a number of teams declining promotion from Division 3
to Division 2.  Rather than dilute the strength of Division 2 by promoting weaker teams, this proposal
attempts to remove one of the deterrents to opting for promotion.
Separately, I have had a suggestion that in the definition of a junior, sixteen might be changed to
eighteen.
-
- Posts: 1394
- Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 pm
- Location: Oldham
Re: Proposals for future D1/2 formats
I would have to agree with Jack, but with the slight editIM Jack Rudd wrote:Because it will help the discussion at the captains' meeting if there are some firm proposals to discuss. So, to kick off with...
Mostly reverting to the old system...
Division 1 - 12 team APA. 8 player teams, eligibility rules as now.
Division 2 - 12 team APA. 8 player teams, eligibility rules as now, with possible alteration as per Mike Yeo's proposal.
Division 3 - 12 team APA. 6 player teams, eligibility rules as per current division 3.
Division 4 South / North - as current division 3.
Players in Division 1 venue: 264 (as opposed to current 256).
Division 3 - 12 team APA. 7 player teams, eligibility rules as per current division 3.
Division 4 South / North - as current division 3.
Also split weekends I think are required, there have been too many problems with hotels this season, and this needs to be rectified as well
This would give a gradual step up to the 8 board format for teams coming up from the 6 board format, and thus only having to find one extra player each season rather than suddenly having to find two
-
- Posts: 9085
- Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
- Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
- Contact:
Re: Proposals for future D1/2 formats
If we reverted to this, would it be from 2011/12 or 2012/13? The implication being that teams would be getting relegated who hitherto thought they were safe.IM Jack Rudd wrote:Because it will help the discussion at the captains' meeting if there are some firm proposals to discuss. So, to kick off with...
Mostly reverting to the old system...
Division 1 - 12 team APA. 8 player teams, eligibility rules as now.
Division 2 - 12 team APA. 8 player teams, eligibility rules as now, with possible alteration as per Mike Yeo's proposal.
Division 3 - 12 team APA. 6 player teams, eligibility rules as per current division 3.
Division 4 South / North - as current division 3.
Players in Division 1 venue: 264 (as opposed to current 256).
I assume the promotion/relegation would be 3-up, 3-down thereafter?
I guess you could have in 2011/12:
Division 1 - 1st - 12th in current D1
Division 2 - 13th - 16th in current D1, 1st - 8th in current D2
Division 3 - 9th - 16th in current D2, 1st - 4th in current D3
So you still only have 4 promoted from venue 2 to venue 1, so I think that's reasonable. It also helps reduce the requirement for females/juniors from 32 teams to 24, which would surely be useful.
In summary: I like this proposal.
-
- Posts: 9085
- Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
- Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
- Contact:
Re: Proposals for future D1/2 formats
I don't like 7 board teams on account of having more blacks than whites in a game. I wouldn't much mind whether it's teams of 6 or teams of 8 in the new proposed Division 3, but I don't like the idea of teams of 7.Alan Walton wrote:Division 3 - 12 team APA. 7 player teams, eligibility rules as per current division 3.
-
- Posts: 1394
- Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 pm
- Location: Oldham
Re: Proposals for future D1/2 formats
Valid pointAlex Holowczak wrote:I don't like 7 board teams on account of having more blacks than whites in a game. I wouldn't much mind whether it's teams of 6 or teams of 8 in the new proposed Division 3, but I don't like the idea of teams of 7.Alan Walton wrote:Division 3 - 12 team APA. 7 player teams, eligibility rules as per current division 3.
-
- Posts: 21301
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Re: Proposals for future D1/2 formats
I doubt if there would be much difficulty in running eight board teams, provided there were no special conditions attaching to any of the boards.Alan Walton wrote: This would give a gradual step up to the 8 board format for teams coming up from the 6 board format, and thus only having to find one extra player each season rather than suddenly having to find two
-
- Posts: 1394
- Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 pm
- Location: Oldham
Re: Proposals for future D1/2 formats
Maybe not but why not have a system which makes it a little more gradual, it just gives teams a little more focus on recruiting the extra players required when moving up divisions, rather just waiting to move straight from 6 to 8, as you have said it isn't much of a problem, they main worry as Alex pointed out with 7 board teams if the inequality of black & whites (which I didn't think of originally)Roger de Coverly wrote:I doubt if there would be much difficulty in running eight board teams, provided there were no special conditions attaching to any of the boards.Alan Walton wrote: This would give a gradual step up to the 8 board format for teams coming up from the 6 board format, and thus only having to find one extra player each season rather than suddenly having to find two
- Gareth Harley-Yeo
- Posts: 307
- Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:58 pm
- Location: Wales
- Contact:
Re: Proposals for future D1/2 formats
I really like the idea of a new division 3 without the constraints of a forced female/junior. If conditions put in then I'd welcome the addition of 'seniors'.
For me 8 boards would be the way forward. The fact that it's 2 boards up from div 4 will be the noticeable step up, whilst not needing a female/junior/senior will be the step down from div 2.
For me 8 boards would be the way forward. The fact that it's 2 boards up from div 4 will be the noticeable step up, whilst not needing a female/junior/senior will be the step down from div 2.
-
- Posts: 9085
- Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
- Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
- Contact:
Re: Proposals for future D1/2 formats
Would an 8-board division 3 (new) be preferable to a 6-board division 3, assuming no constraints? I don't know the implications in terms of hotel space, but I'm wondering whether people would prefer this from a sporting perspective. It makes sense to me, as it would be a way of stepping up out of the 6-board teams at the same time you leave the Swiss.
-
- Posts: 1394
- Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 pm
- Location: Oldham
Re: Proposals for future D1/2 formats
Would a problem be and 8 board Div 3 without constraints, if a team was promoted a settled team would then have to drop a player for the junior/female, unless they already had one within their team, that is why I suggested the 7 board format, so the only extra player you would have to find if promoted into Div 2 would be the junior/female, as you already have played a season with 7 players
- Gareth Harley-Yeo
- Posts: 307
- Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:58 pm
- Location: Wales
- Contact:
Re: Proposals for future D1/2 formats
I just considered the same. 7 boards do therefore seem preferable. As for the colour imbalance I don't think that's of any real concern as they will even out over the course of the weekend. Maybe toss for colours for the final round?Alan Walton wrote:Would a problem be and 8 board Div 3 without constraints, if a team was promoted a settled team would then have to drop a player for the junior/female, unless they already had one within their team, that is why I suggested the 7 board format, so the only extra player you would have to find if promoted into Div 2 would be the junior/female, as you already have played a season with 7 players
-
- Posts: 3551
- Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:31 pm
- Location: Awbridge, Hampshire
Re: Proposals for future D1/2 formats
I think the best solution is to drop the requirement for juniors and females completely. It might have had some merit years ago when there were far fewer teams in the 4NCL. Now there are numerous teams of all standards, so a junior or female should be able to play for a team in a division appropriate to their standard of play without needing preferential treatment.Alan Walton wrote:Would a problem be and 8 board Div 3 without constraints, if a team was promoted a settled team would then have to drop a player for the junior/female, unless they already had one within their team, that is why I suggested the 7 board format, so the only extra player you would have to find if promoted into Div 2 would be the junior/female, as you already have played a season with 7 players
-
- Posts: 9085
- Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
- Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
- Contact:
Re: Proposals for future D1/2 formats
I'm not sure that would necessarily be a problem. I find it hard to believe that a settled team would have 8 players only in it for an 8-board division. It's more likely that you have, say, 12-16. Since you'd have a rotation policy of sorts anyway to account for unavailability, I don't see how the junior/female/senior requirement would be a problem.Alan Walton wrote:Would a problem be and 8 board Div 3 without constraints, if a team was promoted a settled team would then have to drop a player for the junior/female, unless they already had one within their team, that is why I suggested the 7 board format, so the only extra player you would have to find if promoted into Div 2 would be the junior/female, as you already have played a season with 7 players
This too would be my preference. I've spoken to some others who thought the same, but they all seemed very scared of proposing it... They did a poll two years ago, I gather, and it resulted in them showing a preference for the junior/female rules. I wonder whether these results would be the same today.Ian Thompson wrote:I think the best solution is to drop the requirement for juniors and females completely. It might have had some merit years ago when there were far fewer teams in the 4NCL. Now there are numerous teams of all standards, so a junior or female should be able to play for a team in a division appropriate to their standard of play without needing preferential treatment.
Re: Proposals for future D1/2 formats
This would also continue to allow new teams to get to Division 1 in two years as opposed to three which I understand was one of the reasons for changing the four division structure.Bob Clark wrote:Is there a need for a division 3 and then a division 4 North/South
So
Division 1 - 12 team APA. 8 player teams, eligibility rules as now.
Division 2 - 12 team APA. 8 player teams, eligibility rules as now, with possible alteration as per Mike Yeo's proposal.
Division 3 - South / North - as current division 3.
This would probably improve the viability of the Northern league