League 2010/11 proposals without prejudice

I do think we should have 2 divisions, if it gets boring in the bottom one then we try harder eh? If not then it was a good decision.

This league has been too long

fuck yeah!!

My suggestion would be to only play one game per fixture, rather than three. A 'team night' could then be several fixtures. You'd get through the league quicker and everyone in one big league could play each other.

I think 3 game fixtures are too long and impact massively on throw-ins, no matter how we try to avoid it. There's a limited number of courts available to us each week; this way would maximise the number of competitive games each team gets and keep the league short.

By that system we wouldn't have got to play Apples which was one of Sparkles favourite games…

I understand why the better teams want to play among themselves but it seems to me that an ability based split to the league would foster a 'them and us, noobs and big boys' scenario

Sparkle have tried to play hard and to the best of our ability in all our league games but there is doubtless an extra edge and excitement when we played the big boys - be a shame to take that experience away from the less established teams for a whole year…

Agreed, but there are tourneys and a team night for a mix of divs. There are opportunities to play other teams.

I think 3 game fixtures are too long and impact massively on throw-ins, no matter how we try to avoid it. There's a limited number of courts available to us each week; this way would maximise the number of competitive games each team gets and keep the league short.

Exactly. One of the rules we used to have for league1.0 was " no league during throwins". Turning up for throwins during the week to find 2 league fixtures scheduled is wank when theres one court and the lights go off at 10.

The main argument for 3 games was that travelling across london for one game was a waste of effort. If that became travelling across london to play at wests/souths/downham, with a single league game thrown in, thats a) more productive and b) better for polo as we all get to play with people we dont see as much and learn from each other.

Failing that, I think we need to agree which nights are throwin nights and not have the league interfere with that. Play league at newington on thursday, for example, instead of expecting the rest of polo to step aside for your league game.

, instead of expecting the rest of polo to step aside for your league game.

not giving you shit but how many throw ins have you turned up to on a weds to justify this stance?

The main argument for 3 games was that travelling across london for one game was a waste of effort.

In general teams could continue to play polo, throw-ins, or celebrate at the pub... you don't have to head straight home after your fixture?

Exactly. One of the rules we used to have for league1.0 was " no league during throwins". Turning up for throwins during the week to find 2 league fixtures scheduled is wank when theres one court and the lights go off at 10.

The main argument for 3 games was that travelling across london for one game was a waste of effort. If that became travelling across london to play at wests/souths/downham, with a single league game thrown in, thats a) more productive and b) better for polo as we all get to play with people we dont see as much and learn from each other.

Failing that, I think we need to agree which nights are throwin nights and not have the league interfere with that. Play league at newington on thursday, for example, instead of expecting the rest of polo to step aside for your league game.

I agree that we need to make space for throw-ins, but there has to be a balance.

If most of the London players want to play league games, ie are in a majority, then surely league should take priority? I totally accept that we (ie league players) aren't the be-all & end all of London bike polo, but neither are throw-ins, so it's not so much that one should make way for the other, more that they (league & throw-ins) need to fit in around each other in mutually beneficial way.

The problem is that the league has gone on too long (please everyone accept apologies on behalf of the Beards, who have been amongst the worst offenders), and the matches themselves take too long. Having said that, I do like the 3 game format. The average tournament game is 10 or less minutes, so maybe we should we be looking at 3 X 8 minute games?

As to the throw-in vs league match thing, I think we need to think about how many league matches should be happening per week, and schedule 2, or however many it needs to be to fit in the scheduled games, days and fix them in the calendar.

3 x 8min games would be a welcome change.

Also, regarding scheduling 2 per week or even multi-fixture nights for individual teams, could this be resolved by not having a specific schedule or weekly order of teams to be played? As not all teams scheduled for such-and-such week may be available on such-and-such night (this has also been demonstrated by the schedule having now almost completely collapsed). So it would just end up being a list of names to tick off with a number of fixtures allowed per week (as you suggested).

I think we should scrap golden goals. 3 for a win, 1 for a draw. Results would be better distributed this way.

9 points for taking 3
7 for winning 2, drawing 1
etc etc

yep, shorter games and scrap golden goals.

Maybe we should have a 'league night' - ie. basically just a continuation of the team night which we should (hopefully) get going over the summer. Alternate it between north and south (and even west is they get a decent court with lights).

I think we should scrap golden goals. 3 for a win, 1 for a draw. Results would be better distributed this way.

9 points for taking 3
7 for winning 2, drawing 1
etc etc

+1

Maybe we should have a 'league night' - ie. basically just a continuation of the team night which we should (hopefully) get going over the summer. Alternate it between north and south (and even west is they get a decent court with lights).

Say we had 20 teams next year, 3 X 8 mins, say 30 mins a game, that would mean 300 mins to complete a set of fixtures. That could easily be fitted into a fortnight, without taking too much time away from throw-ins.

If the game times are shorted then I think we will see more surprising results/upsets.

I think 8 min is too short. What about two half of 10 each?
and I agree scarp GG. 3 for a win, 1 for a draw sounds good

+1

2 x 10 minutes, rather than 3 x 8 minutes.
(There is no real difference in having a deciding game if we scrap golden goal, as the two teams could win one each and then draw the third, etc.)

not giving you shit but how many throw ins have you turned up to on a weds to justify this stance?

I dont plays weds due to other commitments but completly agree with John on this point.
Just as dt pointed out, we should have one night a week and one day over the weekend ie: sat which are dedicated to league games. This way everone can organise thier weeks/ games/ lives far more easily.

I think 8 min is too short.

The only reason I proposed 8 mins, is because that seems to be the favourite number for tourney pre-lims. I am cool with 2 X 10, but whatever we go for, it has be under 30 mins, including turn-arounds.

Surely we could stop throwins being inflicted by banning Malice from haveing team talks inbetween fixtures.

On a serious not I like the 2x10.

Say we had 20 teams next year, 3 X 8 mins, say 30 mins a game, that would mean 300 mins to complete a set of fixtures. That could easily be fitted into a fortnight, without taking too much time away from throw-ins.

Such a league would also take 38 weeks to complete.

not if we go with the current one fixture release per week, with two week window of play. It would take 20 weeks.

saying that, this year is already 10+ weeks overdue

Absolutely Gabes, but Bill's calculations were based on 1 fixture per fortnight.

I feel strongly that next year, if you don't play your fixture within the window (2 weeks or whatever) then you never play it. The team that fumbles about and doens't turn up, forfeits, and the games should be forfeited full points, full goals.

I'm not convinced that forfeits will help anything (inaccurate league standings plus winging polo players).

I'd prefer trying out a new way of playing fixtures... such as playing a team whenever you can (more opportunities to get in lots of games when your team mates are available), or the opportunity to use subs more easily (subs can be league players, contentious), or giving out more fixtures in each window, etc?

If we aggregate the league standings against games played then you'll still see the progression of the teams as time goes on without the use of fixture windows?

The other option, is to release all the fixtures either at once, or in big batches, and then play within a set amount of time, maybe a month, maybe two months, maybe 6 months.