Y'all been busy
Gotta say I'm heartened to see everyone participating is taking such and egalitarian view--it's bloody well about time. However, and it's a big however, the sticking point is those who may be reading but not getting involved.
Name changes--an idea that's time has come.
Nobody (that I noticed anyway) mentioned entry fees in relation to new structuring ideas and I'm harping on it as I think it is a critically necessary ingredient--they need to be the same across the board.
There have been a whole host of good ideas offered up and, conceptually, I'm generally in agreement but there are also a number of practical and economic issues that have to been addressed with a reasonable compromise hopefully available somewhere in the mix.
Problem--radical changes vs. the status quo. I think it can be fairly said that you'll need a Series year to sort out the current arrangement of teams and a highly flexible seeding arrangement is probably the most efficient way to include everyone, but--I'm afraid it wouldn't be accepted by a significant number of teams for a variety of reasons and a whole season of such play must terrify the organizers. So, that's probably not in the cards. However, it might be possible to start the new season with a "seeding" event using the results of the prior season as a baseline and predicating divisions on a percentile basis, say, 15%, 25%, 30% and 30% (I personally like four divisions rather than 3 with a huge third simply because it provides more attainable goals for more teams.) The results of this seeding event then become the basic division assignments for the rest of the Series year with promotions and relegations at year's end. This maintains a "feel" of the routine and puts less pressure on a team for a given event's performance and more on a consistent level of play.
It would also be necessary to "educate" the competing teams in the process well in advance so they know there will be renamed divisions, best make plans to be sure and attend the seeding event, end of year promo/relegation, etc. So even if a decision were made tomorrow to go ahead with something like has been discussed it can't happen the day after--which means the sooner it gets started the better.
Problem--vertical play. playing against teams in either higher or lower divisions is currently a hallmark of the Series and the NPPL but I have concerns that it would tend to skew results for the simple reason that given this new order the competition will be that much keener generally and whereas a win or a loss now for Nov playing a Pro probably won't make or break their event it could very easily do so, in either direction, in the future.
Problem--what about teams only competing in a select few of the Series events? I'm not saying they can't be incorporated in the appropriate division, I am saying they will have a harder time being promoted and will that be viewed as a reason not to attend in the first place? Certainly this is a question the organizers would jump on as they will any significant changes because they're gonna say, rightly or wrongly, things work pretty well and we have lots of generally happy teams and we're not in the business of driving customers away. Personally, I'm inclined to think that the vast majority of teams that compete at the Series level do so to test their mettle and prove themselves and the only way to really get a fair measure is with changes like those proposed.
Gotta say I'm heartened to see everyone participating is taking such and egalitarian view--it's bloody well about time. However, and it's a big however, the sticking point is those who may be reading but not getting involved.
Name changes--an idea that's time has come.
Nobody (that I noticed anyway) mentioned entry fees in relation to new structuring ideas and I'm harping on it as I think it is a critically necessary ingredient--they need to be the same across the board.
There have been a whole host of good ideas offered up and, conceptually, I'm generally in agreement but there are also a number of practical and economic issues that have to been addressed with a reasonable compromise hopefully available somewhere in the mix.
Problem--radical changes vs. the status quo. I think it can be fairly said that you'll need a Series year to sort out the current arrangement of teams and a highly flexible seeding arrangement is probably the most efficient way to include everyone, but--I'm afraid it wouldn't be accepted by a significant number of teams for a variety of reasons and a whole season of such play must terrify the organizers. So, that's probably not in the cards. However, it might be possible to start the new season with a "seeding" event using the results of the prior season as a baseline and predicating divisions on a percentile basis, say, 15%, 25%, 30% and 30% (I personally like four divisions rather than 3 with a huge third simply because it provides more attainable goals for more teams.) The results of this seeding event then become the basic division assignments for the rest of the Series year with promotions and relegations at year's end. This maintains a "feel" of the routine and puts less pressure on a team for a given event's performance and more on a consistent level of play.
It would also be necessary to "educate" the competing teams in the process well in advance so they know there will be renamed divisions, best make plans to be sure and attend the seeding event, end of year promo/relegation, etc. So even if a decision were made tomorrow to go ahead with something like has been discussed it can't happen the day after--which means the sooner it gets started the better.
Problem--vertical play. playing against teams in either higher or lower divisions is currently a hallmark of the Series and the NPPL but I have concerns that it would tend to skew results for the simple reason that given this new order the competition will be that much keener generally and whereas a win or a loss now for Nov playing a Pro probably won't make or break their event it could very easily do so, in either direction, in the future.
Problem--what about teams only competing in a select few of the Series events? I'm not saying they can't be incorporated in the appropriate division, I am saying they will have a harder time being promoted and will that be viewed as a reason not to attend in the first place? Certainly this is a question the organizers would jump on as they will any significant changes because they're gonna say, rightly or wrongly, things work pretty well and we have lots of generally happy teams and we're not in the business of driving customers away. Personally, I'm inclined to think that the vast majority of teams that compete at the Series level do so to test their mettle and prove themselves and the only way to really get a fair measure is with changes like those proposed.
