Hi Markie, That train of thought is exactly why I suggested only the top four results should count towards the season. I completely understand that some teams did not field their strongest squad for Paris and that was why I suggested only four highest scores from the five events.
I'm sorry to play devil's advocate again but I believe all arguments should be heard early before challenging MS as it is how they could argue with you. I'm going to try to show that 4of5 feature does not give any advantage to teams who does not choose Paris score and have valid arguments against changing back to a scoring event. And what problems it can cause.
If unpaid refs are used in a division then best 4 of 5 feature brings 3 more ref teams into the scoring again as these will choose ref points for sure. As we can see these 3 additional ref teams alter scores significantly. You have 4 events, 15 ref teams, 4 1st places while it should be 4 events, 12 ref teams, 4 1st places... (even still with the bias for ref teams against the contracted scoring system). All non-ref teams will suffer by this again.
Fair to note, even ref teams suffer of this but less and if All Russians Moscow would be reffing and win the rest of the events there would be only 2 added ref teams into scoring.
The proposed solution is more fair for teams who would choose Paris result compared to the current situation.
Said the above, 4of5 feature does not help to teams who have valid arguments against changing back to a scoring event and they do not choose Paris event, they get nothing. And they get even worse situation than now. Their playing performance still would have to challenge the same scoring system like now and additionaly other teams who would received higher probability a better result. In other words the proposed system trades higher fairness for top placed Paris teams with an even lower fairness with teams who will scrap the Paris result. Right now it is unfair for 32 teams against 3 ref teams but 32 teams are on a fair basis between each other. What is more fair? The final fairness highly depends on a season outcome and how much teams will think they could not make a good result in Paris because they handled it as a non-scoring event.
Realisticaly, till you will get the proposed solution applied some teams will start to see worsening of their position and it will make more noice with arguments that they handled Paris as non-scoring event just to defend their previous better position. Additionaly even you would apply it imediately anybody can count the score after the season and see the impact on their position and place the strong argument that they handled the Paris as a non-scoring event and changing it back to a scoring event is not acceptable. Imagine a team who will find he is delegating or miss SPL promotion because of this. You would have to get agreement with all teams asap before the next event, later it could be harder and harder to convice some teams.
Anyway, changing a scoring event to a non-scoring and then back to a scoring event would make this season epic
All above, it is why I think that the only real solution to the situation is to pay Paris refs and remove their scores. This can be applied later and gives advantage to all 32 teams. Even it can be a breaking of contract with 3 ref teams it is less then breaking contract with 35 teams. There is a disadvantage, MS can add the expense to the next year licence to get the money back.
Does it make any sense to you? Or am I wrong somwhere?
AND ALL TEAMS SHOULD MAKE A NOICE IF THEY AT LEAST DO NOT WANT THIS MESS FOR THE NEXT SEASONS.
